Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues, Senators Sanders and DeMint, for putting forward, bringing this amendment to the floor. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, along with several of my other colleagues. I would say as well to my colleague from Vermont, my colleague from South Carolina, and others who are sponsors, this is an issue I hear a lot about when I am traveling around my State, which is often. When I am traveling around and listening to people, this is something people are concerned about. They are concerned about the monetary policy. They are concerned about the money system. They are concerned. I would note to people, and to my colleagues in particular, that the Congress created the Fed, the Fed didn't create the Congress. So the Congress does have control over this issue, and I think we need to look at it and say: Let's look at what is appropriate and what is proper. And this is clearly one piece of it. I think the Fed has done a number of things quite well and quite right. Yet I don't see any problem whatsoever with having a simple audit; that that is going to somehow reveal the genie in the bottle and let out all of these secrets that are going to be harmful to the development of monetary policy. There seems to me to be a fair amount of overstatement on the other side of the terrible damage this audit would do. That does not seem right to me. It does not seem right to my constituents. My constituents look at this and say: Well, I do not want to harm the development of monetary policy. I want it to be wise and good and sound. But I do not see how it is harmed by an audit of an entity that is created by the government, that is created by the Congress. So why shouldn't we do something like this? That is why I think this is a prudent amendment. It is a good commonsense amendment, and I think it will be well received by the constituents of this great country who I think are pretty wise on these and other decisions; that as we go around, if we will listen to what people are saying, I think there is a lot of wisdom in that. They are saying we ought to know more about what is taking place in the Fed. I know we would all like to move forward on financial regulatory reform legislation. I have some serious problems in this bill. I think the consumer financial product piece shouldn't penalize auto dealers and orthodontists and others who did not cause any of these problems. So I have an amendment. I have other amendments I am a part of as well, along with this one, that I think we need to consider before we move on forward, even though I have some problem with the basis of the bill. I think it hits more Main Street than it does Wall Street. The difficulty is that we just have different ideas and beliefs about the best way to move forward, and that is normal. This amendment is not just about the choices, though, that we have on reforming the financial sector. I believe it gets to the heart of a more fundamental issue: what the American people have a right to expect and know from their governmental institutions. The fact that this amendment is brought forward by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, and the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, two Members who could not be further apart on the ideological spectrum, should be a sufficient warning and measure to make everyone sit up and take notice of what it is that is here that is so troubling. This amendment isn't about whether the legislation will put an end to taxpayer-backed bailouts. It isn't about whether the legislation will end too big to fail. It isn't even about how to best protect the American people and taxpayer dollars. It is about something I believe is even more fundamental: the accountability of governmental institutions to the people of the United States and to the Congress. I think it is important, as I stated, to remember--I want to state this again--one single fundamental reality in this debate: Congress created the Federal Reserve, not the other way around. We created the Federal Reserve System to serve the interests of the citizens of this Nation, not to serve the interests of large financial institutions. In establishing the Federal Reserve, Congress recognized the importance of a central bank that could operate with independence to ensure the orderly functioning of the banking systems and to maintain price stability. That is the core function of the Fed. More recently, the Federal Reserve mandate was expanded to charge them with maintaining price stability and maximum employment. That was an expansion piece that was added. The Government Accountability Office is also a creation of Congress. GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. What is GAO's mission? GAO's mission is to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the Federal Government for the benefit of the American people. In my view, the real issue here is whether you believe the Congress has the right to ask GAO--in many respects, our auditor--to review actions and activities of an institution that we, the Congress, created. I certainly understand the importance of the Federal Reserve's independence in the execution of monetary policy. I understand and I support that. I understand the importance of not interfering with the operation of the FOMC. That is not what this amendment is attempting to do. That is not my intention. I am confident, as well, it is not the intention of the main sponsors of this amendment. But I do believe it is relevant to know whether the Federal Reserve is operating in a manner that is consistent with its statutory authority. It is relevant to know whether the Federal Reserve is following its own established rules and procedures or whether it is just making it up as it goes along. I do think it is relevant for Congress to know who was involved in decisions to take extraordinary measures by exercising emergency powers, as well as who was and was not consulted before those actions were taken. Those are prudent and proper things for us to know. I think it is equally important to know whether the policy statements and subsequent minutes of FOMC meetings accurately reflect what went on in those meetings. Recent news reports surrounding the release of transcripts from 2004 meetings of the Fed contained some serious, distressing information. Those reports revealed that as far as back as 2004, there were significant concerns raised by regional Reserve Bank presidents about an emerging housing bubble that, indeed, did emerge and burst. Did we see any indication of that in the meeting minutes or the policy statements? We did not. And what that tells me is the minutes did not accurately--I will even say they did not directly portray what went on in the meetings. I do not believe that is right. Disturbingly, the transcripts reveal that the Federal Reserve Bank president from Atlanta warned that: A number of folks were expressing growing concern about potential overbuilding and worrisome speculation in the real estate markets, especially in Florida. Entire condo projects and upscale residential lots are being pre-sold before any construction, with buyers freely admitting that they have no intention of occupying the units or building on the land but rather are counting on ``flipping'' the properties--selling them quickly at higher prices. That is a direct quote. Disconcertingly, at the same meeting, the former Chairman of the Board of Governors, Alan Greenspan, made the following statement: We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand. Let me repeat that quote. This is from former Chairman Greenspan: We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we [the Federal Reserve Board] fully understand. Now, I serve as the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee. Senator DeMint is also a member of our committee. We believe in free markets and a free enterprise system. We recognize the importance of a strong financial system. Yet a fundamental requirement for the orderly operation of free markets is transparency and accurate reporting-- information. I think the suggestion that only the Federal Reserve was capable of fully understanding is evidence enough that this amendment is necessary. Congress needs to demand change and greater accountability so people can have more information. What if the people had known about this debate going on at the Federal Reserve as the housing bubble was developing? How would people have acted? My guess is, they would have acted quite prudently, saying: The Federal Reserve is concerned about this. This is legitimate information. Maybe we should pull back on housing investments. Maybe we should be watching this as well. I think people can get it; they need the information, though. While this amendment does not address the issue of the time delay in releasing transcripts, I do believe the current 5 years, which amounts to almost 6 in many cases, is indefensible, between the actual minutes and them being released--5 years between the actual minutes and their being released to the public. In my judgment, that time limit should be reduced to no more than 2 years. Members of this body should have had access to these and other transcripts before we were asked to reconfirm the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. I would suggest it would have been helpful to have had access to this information before the housing market collapsed and before it turned into a financial crisis. The American people are mad at Washington. They are mad at the governmental institutions that they view as increasingly unresponsive and unaccountable. Let's take this step in the direction of transparency, accountability, and disclosure of information. The American people have a right to know whether their interests were protected or simply placed on the back shelf. They have a right to know the information. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I urge the Federal Reserve to work with us to address real concerns about this amendment, rather than trying to defeat it or amend it with the purpose of making it a symbolic and meaningless gesture. Let's remind the Federal Reserve Board of Governors that they are not the only people capable of fully understanding issues on which all of our economic future depends. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, whom I think the world of. He is a wonderful family man, whom I saw out walking this morning. He is a great human being, a great Senator, and of great lineage. I am sorry to see Senator Dodd leaving. I have one particular area of this bill about which I wish to raise a point. Auto dealers are in town today. We have a series of auto dealers from across the country who are here and they are deeply concerned about the consumer financial products piece of this particular legislation. They are concerned because it is going to hit them. I would point out to my colleagues about this that I have purchased a car--I presume everyone in this body has purchased a car--and probably a number of us on credit, although maybe not everybody. But nearly everyone has gone into a dealership and bought a new or used car and asked for financing on that new or used car and have gotten it from the local dealership. Ninety-four percent of those cars that are financed that way, that paper is actually from some relationship the dealership has upstream. It is from a bank, a major consumer auto lending entity or from somebody else who does the financing. The local dealership just has the paper there, and they are the ones that originate it. They sell the car and arrange for somebody else to do the financing. They don't do it--or 94 percent don't do that. Six percent of car dealerships do their own local financing. I have an amendment that I will put forward, if we get a chance--or I would prefer this actually be built into the base bill--where the local auto dealership that doesn't loan their own money isn't required to comply with the consumer financial products requirement of this bill. It will add another level of regulation onto auto dealers that are already struggling to try to get cars to market so people can purchase and they can provide financing for individuals. If we add another level of regulation, it will just mean more cost, and they are already regulated. This product would be regulated upstream already. The financial institutions that are writing the note and the paper are already regulated under this bill. Why would we do the double regulation in the bill on top of the local regulation they already have? That is why the auto dealers are here in town today, saying they didn't cause the financial crisis, they are not banks, and they do not think they ought to be a part of this. They are quintessential Main Street auto dealers. They are part of the Main Street fabric. We have lost a lot of auto dealers across the country during this financial downturn. We spent $3 billion trying to support the auto industry and now we have this heavy-handed regulation that will cost auto sales. It doesn't seem to make sense that we would penalize Main Street for Wall Street's problems. They are small businesses, the auto dealers are, in cities and towns throughout the country. We should be talking about how we can support them and extend credit in the marketplace rather than regulate and tamping down on their business. My amendment is simple. It keeps these new banking regulations from touching auto dealers that do not loan their own money. That is all it does. If they loan their own money, they are subject to it. If they do not loan their own money, if some other major bank, financial house or institution does it, that financial house or bank or institution is subject to the regulation. But the auto dealer that is simply there trying to get a car sold and providing this instrument that comes from somebody else, they are not regulated, so they do not have the extra cost. So it is not double regulation from the same bill. If an auto dealer does lend that money, as I mentioned, they will be regulated. This amendment applies only to auto dealers that facilitate loans from larger financial companies. Why should we have to amend this? If I am hearing anything across my State--and I am traveling a lot across Kansas--people are fed up with heavy-handed, big government. They have had it up to their necks and beyond with heavy-handed, big government. Why would we do this on top of everything else? These auto dealers are the retail outlets. They are the storefronts that process the paperwork for various well-known brands with large finance arms. Under my amendment, these finance arms would still be regulated, but the dealers that process the paperwork wouldn't. But it is still regulated upstream. The auto dealerships themselves have been crippled from sales this last year, crippled from the financial crisis we hit. We have been trying to help and support them. This is a break in the cardinal rule that if you want less of something, tax and regulate it. That is what this bill will do. We will have less auto dealerships if you are going to tax and regulate them. It doesn't make any sense. Under my amendment, auto dealers would still be regulated by the FTC and various State laws, so consumers would still have protection to ensure that truth in lending still applies. So if you are concerned about auto dealers and what they are doing, the writing and the paper retailwise, they remain regulated by the FTC and various State laws and consumer protection laws that are currently in place. I think those are things that should remain in place, and they do remain in place. We don't need another level on top of that. Why do we need to create a duplicative regulation for auto dealers, where we regulate each dollar of each auto loan twice? This is what frustrates people so much. I have people raise the concern about what happens outside military bases and auto loans outside military bases. We have several major military bases in the State of Kansas. We are very proud of our military bases and our military. They are saying: OK. We want to get at auto loans and dealers there. Well, they are regulated. They are currently regulated. They are currently regulated under the FTC and various State laws. If somebody is concerned about a small auto dealer that sits right outside a military base and tries to get financing for military members and they do not like what the financing is, that is currently regulated. It is already in many States, where a State's attorney general can go at these right now. They know where they are located. It is not as if they are hiding and moving around. They are located right outside military bases. If you want to hit them and regulate them, go to the State attorney general, go to the State consumer products agency, go to the State consumer finance agencies and have them address it. Why on Earth, with the big financial problem we have had that was created by Wall Street and international traders, would you want to hammer the local auto dealers? As I put this amendment forward, it was interesting to me that we had a number of groups say people who sell recreational vehicles are also interested in being brought into this amendment and being excluded or motorcycle financers or any number of groups because they are seeing the same problem. They are small businesspeople. They are going to be regulated by this enormous Federal entity that was targeted at Wall Street and, instead, as small businesses in their local communities, they are going to get hit. They are going to take the hammer, and they are not set up to handle it. They do not have huge staffs in these areas. They have small staffs to take care of this, and now we are going to put a big regulatory entity on top of them when it is already regulated upstream. This makes no sense, and it will do no good. It will cost a lot more, it will make financing less available to individuals, and it will hurt these businesses. It will hurt car sales, it will hurt motorcycle sales, and it will hurt the economy for no good reason. I ask my colleagues to focus in on what is happening in this area of the consumer products and their financing. Do we want to hit auto dealers? I don't think so. I don't think that was the target of this bill. It certainly wasn't the cause of the financial crisis we had. Why would we have to hit them? We don't. Listen to your local auto dealers. They are here in town today. Hear their story about what is taking place. Let's help the auto dealers, as we have been trying to do, and let's not hurt them with a heavyhanded regulation. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, may I inquire how much time remains on our side on the debate?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish today to join with the American Red Cross and elebrate March as American Red Cross Month. Throughout the history of this organization, the American Red Cross has demonstrated not only their fierce and patriotic loyalty to this country and our needs but to those abroad as well. This year, many of our brothers and sisters worldwide have experienced extreme devastation. The earthquakes in Haiti and Chile showed us not only how fragile life can be but the importance of humanitarian response to those in need. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian novelist, historian, and Nobel Laureate for literature knew the power of our interconnectedness as it relates to our own humanity. He said, ``The salvation of mankind lies only in making everything the concern of all.'' No other organization embodies this philosophy more than the American Red Cross and of the vision articulated by Clara Barton, founder of this wonderful organization that has helped countless individuals--both domestic and abroad--in times of crisis. Whether comforting a wounded soldier during battle, assisting those who are recovering from a natural disaster, or administering life- saving blood to a sick patient, the American Red Cross is there, never wavering but standing steadfast in the service to humanity. This year especially, they have been ever vigilant in remaining true to the humanitarian nature of their organization. In Haiti, the Red Cross distributions of food and relief supplies continue throughout urban settlements and are reaching approximately 12,500 people each day. To date, nearly 27,000 people have been vaccinated in the coordinated immunization campaign, in which the Red Cross health care units and the Haitian National Red Cross Society are participating. The American Red Cross has provided approximately $375,000 in operational funding for this campaign. In Chile, the American Red Cross has increased the funds committed from its International Response Fund to $250,000 in support of Red Cross response operations. It will be contributing these funds toward the International Federation's emergency appeal. Additionally, the International Federation has announced a disaster plan of action and funding in the amount of $6.4 million to support Chilean Red Cross relief operations to assist 75,000 people for 6 months in the areas of shelter, water and sanitation, health and telecommunications. This is in addition to $280,000 released from its Disaster Response Emergency Fund. Like the national headquarters of the American Red Cross, I am extremely proud of our Kansas chapters of the American Red Cross organizations and volunteers. From respnding to our own State's natural disasters, to providing programs to our troops such as the Holiday Mail for Heroes Program to providing much needed health and wellness courses--these individuals are the bedrock upon our local Kansas communities. Since 1943, every President of the United States has proclaimed March as American Red Cross Month and in turn, the organization uses this month to promote the services provided to the public each and every day. Communities depend on the Red Cross in times of need, the Red Cross depends on the support of the public to achieve its mission. I am pleased to join with the Red Cross and highlight the courageous work that this organization has accomplished for more than 128 years and continues to accomplish this day. I would also like to take this opportunity to salute all of the tireless volunteers of this organization known as ``Red Crossers'' who for many, have been involved in their communities for 10, 20, even 80 years. It is very fitting that we celebrate March as American Red Cross Month and continue to advance the principles of this very essential organization.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, this is a very simple but very important amendment in the sense that the new surtaxes on Medicare, on wages, and on unearned income are not indexed for inflation. All of my colleagues are familiar with the problem we have had with the alternative minimum tax being not indexed for inflation, and with that being a problem, it is now built into this bill. This new surtax is not indexed for inflation. If I can show my colleagues for a moment, on this chart, we can see how quickly, with a 4-percent rate of inflation, the people who are getting the subsidy today will be taxed as high income in a few years. This is a problem we are very familiar with. We fight with it regularly. It is part of the funding base of this bill. It needs to be taken out. The bill should not be paid for with inflation, and we are all too likely to have significant inflation. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I call up, on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski, amendment No. 3697 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the FAA reauthorization bill that has been put forward by Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison. Both have worked hard on this legislation. I have worked on this legislation for a number of years as well. My general aviation industry is centered in Wichita KS. It has had a lot of difficulty lately with markets and the recession and problems overall, and it needs a bit of good news. This would be a bit of good news, having FAA reauthorization. This is an industry that is roughly $150 billion in size. It is located primarily in the United States. It has created over 1.3 million jobs. It is key. It goes across a broad array of disciplines. It is a high- tech manufacturing business that we are very good at. This is something we need to have. Implementation of the NextGen technology for navigation and travel across the United States is in the bill. Also in the bill is maintaining inspection procedures that are important for the safety of aircraft, increased funding for essential air service for a State such as mine that has a need for essential air service in places where it is tough to get in and out of and the population pool is not large. It needs that to move forward. It expands passenger rights and provides increased Federal support for small airports. I think it also important that this legislation does not include language imposing disproportionate and onerous user fees on the general aviation industry. This is something Senator Roberts and I have been concerned about for some period of time, that the general aviation industry would get stuck with a disproportionate share of the funding for the overall FAA infrastructure. That is not in the bill. If it comes back to this body from the House with that in the bill, it is going to be something I am going to fight strongly against. The bill is a good bipartisan bill. It has been worked out. It certainly is not perfect. No bill is. It is something that has been worked out over a period of time, over a series of years, over a lot of interests. It is the way we ought to legislate and move forward. I say as a cautionary tale again to my colleagues that if the bill comes back with provisions from the House that are problems for this body, it is going to stop the bill and it then is not going to happen. My urgings to my colleagues here and in the House would be, let's keep with the primary design of what this bill has and not try to load it with other things that might be special projects for individuals who are going to kill the bill. I have concerns on any side, whether it is on my side or the other side, of provisions being added that would kill this bill that has been a hard fought, long legislative process for us to move forward. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It will create jobs. It will spur further development in our Nation's aviation sector, a sector that needs some help and support now. This bill does that. I can see a lot of ways this bill could get damaged and hurt along the way. I am not opposed to putting amendments in that make sense and that can continue to move the bill on through the legislative process. I am opposed to those amendments that would kill it and that would substantially harm it when this is something that has been worked on a long time through several committees to get it moving forward. For those reasons, I support it. I support it as it is. I think we ought to move forward with it and move forward with it with some speed to help this critical industry in our country, to support safety in flying in this country, to support this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I join my colleague from Mississippi. I would note that is the case, and why is it the Speaker is saying we have to pass the bill to see what is in it? They are going to hold it back until they break enough arms to get a majority vote and then pop it out and then there will be an hour's debate on one-sixth of the economy being changed. We saw that same procedure when Majority Leader Reid was crafting this bill behind closed doors and nobody knew what was in the bill and then popped it out when you have the deal, when you made enough deals, broken enough arms, then we can pass this. That is no way to have a process like this. That is no way to effect this big a piece of the economy that touches every American's life in the process. I urge the Speaker not to do something like this. Listen to the American public and follow normal order. They could send this back to committee, to the Finance and the HELP Committees, work a bipartisan agreement on this, say we have to hit this number or that, let's do an incremental approach and come out with a bill that would have 75 votes. That is doable. We put forward a whole bunch of ideas at the Blair House. Here are different things we would support. Put out a long day of discussion. That is the normal order that produces good legislation that will stand the test of time. This will not stand the test of time, and it is going to bankrupt the country.

Mr. BROWNBACK. We were on the floor in December, the longest continuous session in the history of the Senate, 25 continuous days, and we were talking about this and my colleague from Nebraska and I were joined by our colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, who has been around a long time and part of a lot of health care reform legislation. His point is, if you follow the normal order and work it through a committee and bipartisan process, almost every health care bill he has been a part of--and there have been a number of substantial ones--gets 75 votes in this body. People want to support health care reform on a good bill. They will support it. It will be bipartisan. We are all for health care. But now you have a bill that is going to be completely partisan, on one side, not supported by the American public, and then you are having to jimmy rig a process to try to figure out how we set this up to do it. Even Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who is a Democrat, says: Reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform. It won't work. It won't work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. My experience is, if you try to do something that is not designed to do this, you are going to get a flawed product and flawed process that people are going to be mad about. It will hurt this body. I think it will be very harmful to this country to do this and it should not be done. After all the time we spent in December, 25 continuous days in session, I think the American people spoke when they had a Massachusetts election and elected Scott Brown. It was clearly about health care reform. I know my colleague from Wyoming has been all over speaking about this on television, getting a lot of feedback from people. He probably is getting the same sort of feedback that I have, about don't do this. It wasn't designed to be done, this sort of health care reform, in a reconciliation process.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate my colleagues allowing me to join in this colloquy because it is incredibly important and I believe the American public believes it is incredibly important because, if for no other reason, they are looking at it and saying: We don't want this bill. We don't think this bill is the right way to go. We don't think this procedure is the right way. So they oppose it on process and they oppose it on product. And you don't have to believe me. Listen to these poll numbers: 68 percent say the President and the congressional Democrats should keep trying to work with Republicans to craft legislation. By the way, that big, all-day-long meeting at Blair House to talk about this, where we put forward a series of ideas, virtually all of them were rejected--a bipartisan incremental compromise, which is much more the way the American public wants to go. A Rasmussen poll says that 57 percent of the voters say the health care reform plans we are discussing in Congress will hurt the U.S. economy. Only 25 percent think it will actually help. And 66 percent believe the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats is likely to increase the Federal deficit. Do you know the reason they think that? Because it will. This is going to increase the Federal deficit. On top of all that, there is a big intangible here. If this bill passes, the rest of the world is watching to see if the United States passes this big increase--an entitlement program--when we are running $1.5 trillion in deficit and have a $12 trillion debt that is 90 percent of the size of our total economy. They are watching and they are saying: If the United States does this now, they are not serious about getting their budget under control. They are going to start pulling dollars out of the U.S. economy and putting them in other places. It will make it harder for us to raise capital, it will increase interest rates, and it is going to hurt the U.S. economy. And that is a near-term thing that is going to happen because people are watching this. I might note the ``Saturday Night Live'' routine where China's President, Hu Jintao, is lecturing President Obama about how he is going to get the budget under control by passing a big new entitlement program. I don't usually cite ``Saturday Night Live,'' but in this case it lands a little too close to home. And people are saying: Yes, this doesn't make any sense to me either. This is going to hurt. The front page of the Wall Street Journal has an article about what Ireland is having to do to get its budget under control, Greece is a mess, and our deficit and debt is skyrocketing. If we pass this, this is going to hurt us in the near term as far as the cost of raising the capital we need in this economy. It will hurt States that are really struggling as well. It is a bad idea at a bad time. I am glad my colleagues let me join them, and I note that the doctor is in--the Senator from Wyoming--to help us dissect this bill as well.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Tony Bell of Harveyville, KS. Tony has been selected as a 2009 Great Comebacks Recipient for the Central Region. This very important program annually honors a group of individuals who are living with intestinal diseases or recovering from ostomy surgery. The Great Comeback Award celebrates the lives of people with painful and debilitating diseases like Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, colorectal cancer and other diseases that can lead to ostomy surgery. Tony is one of over 700,000 Americans, from young children to senior citizens, who have an ostomy, a surgical procedure that reconstructs bowel and bladder function through the use of a specially fitted medical prosthesis. Ostomy surgery is a life-altering and sometimes life-saving procedure which both addresses a medical issue and improves a patient's quality of life. Hundreds of thousands of those suffering from Crohn's or ulcerative colitis rely on a certain type of ostomy to function on a daily basis. Just like a prosthesis, ostomies help restore patients' ability to participate in the normal activity of daily life. Recipients are patients who live full and productive lives with their ostomies. Born with a defect of his colon, Tony Bell received an ostomy immediately after birth. A few years later, the ostomy was reversed, but after years of struggling with incontinence, 9-year-old Tony received a permanent colostomy. All of a sudden, this inactive, withdrawn boy who was scared to leave his home was ready to saddle up and grab life by the horns. In control of his body--and his life--at last, an empowered Tony embraced a bright future--one he hoped would include a career as a professional bull rider. He wasted no time, mounting his first bull at the age of 10. As Tony trained for rodeo events, he also pursued his love of music. In fact, as a high school senior, he was chosen to join the elite Kansas Ambassadors choir on a European tour. While attending college on a singing scholarship, Tony went pro on the rodeo circuit and competed professionally for 2 years, even riding in the Cheyenne Frontier Days Rodeo, known as ``The Daddy of Them All.'' Having achieved this childhood dream, Tony has set his sights on a new goal, following in his parents' footsteps to become a teacher. Through it all, Tony says he drew tremendous strength from his parents, who taught him to be resilient and to bounce back from whatever life threw his way. He also credits his ``second family,'' Youth Rally, a summer camp for adolescents with an ostomy, for helping him through some rough patches in his life. He now returns each summer as a counselor and enjoys ``paying it forward'' by providing support and encouragement to campers. Today, Tony, 28, lives in Harveyville, KS, with his wife Pam and 6- year-old stepdaughter Haiden. He works on the family farm and is only a few credits shy of his special education teaching degree. Although Tony didn't end up a country music star, he channels his passion and performs in a barbershop quartet with his dad. An outdoor enthusiast, he enjoys skydiving and noodling--fishing for catfish with your bare hands. ``I want to share with the world my story of success so that others with life-changing conditions know that they are not alone,'' said Tony. ``No matter what comes your way, always reach for the stars and grasp your dreams--they are only a bull ride away.'' I urge my colleagues to take the time to meet with Tony and some of the other Great Comebacks Regional Award Recipients. Their personal stories are inspirational and will raise your awareness about some of the Great Comebacks being made by people living with intestinal diseases or recovering from ostomy surgery.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today during Black History Month to honor the history and legacy of the First Kansas Colored Infantry, a regiment of former slaves, which was the first group of Black men to fight in the American Civil War. This regiment of escaped Black slaves was the first organized into service for the U.S. Government. They were commanded by COL James M. Williams. For the first time during the Civil War, Black troops were fighting alongside White troops in the name of freedom and equality. In June 1862, Kansas Senator James H. Lane started recruiting troops from among free Blacks, especially the increasing numbers of fugitive slaves in Kansas, men who had fled their masters in Missouri and Arkansas. The progressive nature of Kansas made it appealing to slaves fleeing Missouri and Arkansas as soon as the Civil War fighting began. By August 1862, Colonel Williams assembled 500 men in a camp outside Leavenworth. These men fought bravely in July of 1863, at Cabin Creek, when the First Kansas Colored Infantry along with other Union forces worked to drive the Confederates out of nearly all of Arkansas. President Lincoln also took note of the bravery of the First Kansas Colored Infantry when he noted to a group of visitors from South Carolina who came to complain about the arming of Blacks: ``You say you will not fight to free Negroes. Some of them seem to be willing enough to fight for you.'' These men of the First Kansas Colored Infantry continued to fight until the end of the Civil War, being credited with seeing action at Sherwood, MO; Honey Springs; Indian Territory; and Lawrence, KS; Poison Springs, AR. They saw more regular combat than any other black regiment of the war. In October 1865, the men of the First Kansas Colored Infantry were discharged at Fort Leavenworth. Frederick Douglass once stated, ``In a composite nation like ours, as before the law, there should be no rich, no poor, no high, no low, no white, no black, but common country, common citizenship, equal rights and a common destiny.'' These men were willing to give their lives in the hopes for a better future, an equal future, for their children. It is a struggle that continues today, and we look to our history as we continue to engage in it. Mr. President, the men of the First Kansas Colored Infantry helped shape this nation into a society of freedom and a beacon of hope around the world. I ask that we all thank them and honor their legacy of service.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, thank you very much. I think this is a healthy discussion we are having. We do not usually discuss much the Fed Chairman or the appointment or the nomination of a Fed Chairman. Yet monetary policy affects all of us in a huge way and dramatically affects the world. This is, to me, the sort of debate we ought to be having, and I am glad we have some differences of opinion. For a long period of time it seemed as if everybody just treated monetary policy as something that is in the theoretical world of economists and mathematicians and central bankers, and they are the only ones who understand the language; they are the only ones affected by it; therefore, they are the only ones who ought to discuss it. I am not at all suggesting that Congress or the legislative branch ought to be setting monetary policy; we shouldn't. But we ought to be discussing the people and the principles that are involved and the people we appoint to these government positions and this government position, which is so critical and so important to all of us in this country and around the world. So I am delighted we are having a discussion about the Fed Chairman, the appointment of the Fed Chairman in this particular case. I think Ben Bernanke is a bright gentleman. I have met with him. I have been the ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee. I have had him in to testify. I find him quite interesting, bright, and a gentleman. However, I believe now it is time for us to break this sort of Washington-New York corridor that establishes monetary policy and bring somebody in from outside that system to start at the Fed and in the Fed chairmanship and start looking more toward what Main Street needs in a monetary policy rather than what Wall Street needs in a monetary policy. I am not opposed to Wall Street, but they have dominated this position, people from this Washington-New York corridor, for too long a period of time. It too dramatically affects all the rest of us, to simply shut out the rest of the philosophy and thought from across the country. We need to get to Main Street. I also have another concern that is taking place beyond the issue of us breaking out of this New York-Washington corridor for the Fed Chairman and monetary policy. The second concern I have is I think we are headed for a huge government bubble. We have seen the dot-com bubble come, burst, and go. We have just gone through--and we are still going through--a housing bubble bigger than the dot-com bubble get big and blow up. Lots of fiscal and monetary policy to blame in both situations. I think we can look back on the housing one and see both actions here or lack of actions toward Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pump up this housing bubble. I think we can see the monetary policy pumping up this housing bubble that burst with huge impact; a number of people say a near depression type of impact. Now we are heading possibly toward the biggest bubble of all, a huge government bubble, blown up by the Fed; huge amounts of money being put out in the system now to try to prop up, to try to carry us on through this situation. If not handled correctly, it could burst in a more profound and difficult way than the housing bubble. To me, it is just one of those difficulties that is staring us right in the face. Now is the chance for us to talk about a different direction, and I think we should do that. Yesterday, they had a vote of the FOMC, the money supply committee, and there was one dissenting vote. That dissenting vote was from Tom Hoenig, who is the chairman of the Kansas City Fed. He believes--and he is hawkish on the money supply--that we have to start pulling the money supply back and out of the system before the inflationary bubble takes off. When you put this much money into the system, you are bound to get an inflationary bubble and you have to start pulling it back before you start feeling it. This is the time we have to start addressing those issues. I think we ought to look at somebody such as a Tom Hoenig, hawkish on the monetary supply, to get us into a stable, long-term position and get us ahead of a government bubble bursting on us; also, somebody from outside the system, somebody who is more focused on Main Street than Wall Street, on monetary policy and monetary supply. Now is the time to do it. This is a good chance to debate this. I don't suppose that is going to happen here. We are probably going to go ahead with Mr. Bernanke, who is a fine man, but now is the time to break out of this before this bubble gets bigger, bursts on us, and causes more of a problem than what we have even seen with the prior two bubbles. Let's get outside of that, and let's deal with that before it is on us. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, the CARFA bill that will be voted on shortly has passed this Senate every Congress since the 107th Congress. It has either passed by rollcall vote or unanimous consent. This is nothing new. It has passed this body multiple times. Now it counts. Now when people vote on it, this will count. The CARFA bill breaks the Federal Government into four pieces. A fourth of the Federal Government is looked at each year, and then recommendations are made in a privileged motion that must be voted on. It is a spending commission. It is targeted at reducing Federal spending, which is clearly where the American public wants us to go. They don't want to raise taxes; they want to focus on getting wasteful spending under control. This is a mechanism we have done before. It is a mechanism that has passed this Congress multiple times in the budget agreement. This time it counts. I ask my colleagues to look at this and say: If you voted for it in the past, do it now. We clearly need to do it. Last night, the President spoke about the need to track the deficit. He was clear that we need to get the deficit under control. The first step in getting the deficit under control is to reduce spending, get spending under control. Here is the latest chart on the gross Federal debt as a percentage of the GDP. This year, we passed the 90-percent threshold of debt to the economy. So of the total economy size, about $14 trillion, 90 percent of that is going to be gross debt. This is publicly and privately held debt combined. This is the level at which economists say this starts hurting the economy. It can drive down growth as much as 4 percent per year. We have had many years where we haven't even had 4 percent growth. We could put ourselves in negative growth by carrying this level of debt. And we blew through that number this year, headed toward 100 percent of debt to GDP. That is this year's number. That is the one that is just out. Here is a breakdown of that. Some will say we are at 60 percent debt to economic activity. That is of the publicly held debt. That is the piece the Chinese own, and others. But if we look at total debt--this is what we owe to ourselves, the Social Security trust fund, other trust funds that I think we ought to pay back--we ought to be responsible with that. That is way up here, up over the 90-percent level. It is in the danger zone. It is time to get it under control. CARFA is the way to do it. CARFA is a simple mechanism. It is eight people appointed, four by this body, four by the House. It makes recommendations on elimination of programs. Those must pass by six of the eight members who vote on that. That then is reported to the committee structure that is in the applicable areas of the recommendations for elimination. The committee has 30 days to review the recommendations. They can't amend it, but they can review the recommendations, say to the public: Here is what this is going to do if we make these cuts. Then it is subject to a privileged motion. The actual report comes before the body as a privileged motion. There is 10 hours of debate before we go to the bill. Then there is debate on the bill and a required vote with a 51-vote margin to pass it. That is all in the statute. This is the BRAC process, the Base Closure and Realignment Commission process used in the past to close military bases and to save us $60 billion annually in spending on military bases, closing down bases, putting them in more efficient alignment. This will do the same at the Federal level. It is not as if we don't have wasteful spending at the Federal level. This chart shows the scorecard the OMB does on Federal spending by agencies. We can see a bunch of agencies get Ds or Fs on program reviews. The Department of Labor, Department of Education get Fs on their spending as far as its utility and for what it was targeted to do. If we have entire agencies rated at F or D or D-minus, don't you think there are a few programs in there that ought to be eliminated and that probably we can do without, without hurting the overall government or people or the economy? Absolutely. That is what the American people are screaming for us to do. They don't want us to raise taxes; they want us to cut spending. That is what the public is doing in this process. This is very clearly the process we should follow. This is the time that this vote counts. My colleagues have been willing to support this concept in the budget resolution. Now is the time that it would have the force of law, if we are able to get it through. This is one the public is going to hear more and more about, as everybody gets focused on spending and what we need to do there. This will be the type of process that we need to do and that we need to use. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the CARFA amendment, and I would hope my colleagues would put that in the bill so we can get a process by which we could legitimately start cutting Federal spending in a responsible way. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I wish to show two other charts. This is not new information, but I think it is pretty dramatic in its presentation, the level of the massive addition of Federal debt at levels we have never seen before. We are looking at $1.4 trillion in deficits. That is the annual addition. We have not seen numbers this size before. We haven't seen these percentages since World War II, the massive war effort we went into in World War II. This is a critical situation at a critical time, and it must be addressed. The answer isn't to just extend the line of credit, which is what this bill--the base bill extends the line of credit by $1.9 trillion. It is nice that we have the ability to say: OK, we will have the line of credit extended by $1.9 trillion, but it doesn't address this, it just allows this to go on. The CARFA bill gets at this line and starts cutting that. It starts cutting irresponsible Federal programs. It starts cutting duplicative Federal programs and programs that have accomplished their purposes. We have things we are funding that were started 50, 100 years ago, and they have actually accomplished what they were supposed to do and ought to be terminated. Yet they don't get terminated because there is no culling process that goes on. The Federal Government hasn't cut its own funding system for 100 years. When I first came to Congress, we made a 1-year cut in Federal spending of 1 percent from one year to the next year. We eliminated some 200, 300 Federal programs. I used to give a speech asking people: Do you remember any of those programs we cut? Can you name two? I would pay people $10 if they could name two we eliminated. They heard about the ice being delivered to Members' offices, so they got that one. But they could never get a second one. Think of the number of programs that are rated as failing that we could eliminate and nobody would notice. They would applaud the fact that we were actually cutting Federal spending which has been very difficult for this body to get done. Here is a mechanism with which we can get it done. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I understand I have 2 minutes to speak on the amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I am happy to go back and forth if that would be the agreed-upon order of things. That would be certainly acceptable to me. I wanted to make sure what time we had on our side.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors to my amendment No. 3309: Senators Barrasso, Crapo, and Johanns.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I think under a previous agreement I was to call up an amendment. I ask that my amendment be callled up, No. 3309, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following members as cosponsors to the amendment: Senators Chambliss, Ensign, and Vitter.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as I understand, there are no further votes this evening, and there will not be votes tomorrow. We will have this up Thursday, and we will debate it then and vote on it. I will put in somewhat of a statement tonight and then talk about it further on Thursday. This is a commission that has been in front of this body several times. We voted on it. It passed this body twice before in the budget debates. It is CARFA, the Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies. It is modeled exactly after the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, the BRAC, that has been so successful on closing military bases and consolidating assets and put the military in a better position. This is the same thing. It is to all of government. It has been voted on by this body twice before. It has passed this body. It is done in the budget agreement. It is time it became the law of the land. That is the process whereby we can actually cut government spending. It is a simple process--eight members on the Commission, four appointed by this body, four appointed by the House. For any recommendation to move forward, it has to pass by six of eight members, so either party cannot dominate or determine it. It has to be six of eight. It will take one-fourth of the government each year for 4 years and review that fourth of the Federal Government and make recommendations for closure during that year's period of time. The report for that year then is submitted to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction for a period of 30 days. They can review the report. They can hold hearings on the CARFA commission recommendations for a period of 30 days. They can look it over and see which ones they like, which ones they do not like, but they cannot amend it. At the end of that 30 days, it is then subject to a privileged motion to come in front of this body so it has to be voted on by this body with a limit of 10 hours of debate prior to going to the motion, 10 hours of debate on the bill itself. It cannot be amended. Then it is an up-or-down vote, with a 50-vote threshold of passage. It is a privileged motion that comes in front of this body, with a majority vote for it to pass through this body. This is the way we will get spending under control and done. This is an agreeable way. It is a way that has proven itself in the past. Now is the time we have to do this. I wish to show one chart that is new out today. It is no new news, unfortunately. This one is new out today. This is the projection of our Federal debt as a percentage of GDP. That is the one to watch, the projection of the Federal debt as a percentage of GDP. We can see what the January 2008 estimate of the Federal debt as a percentage of our economy was supposed to be. Here is the percent of the economy. We are pushing up 38 percent or so at this point in time. In January 2008, this starts bending back down and moves to 20 percent by 2020. Then we had the January 2009 estimate come in. We see there we were getting up to mid-50 percent, and then it was going to bow back down to 41 percent. That was last year's 2009 estimate. This year, just out today--this is the estimate--2010 as a percent of the economy, we are looking at our Federal debt as being midsixties, 67 percent, and staying at that level for the debt as a percentage of the economy. These are terrible numbers. They are way too high. They are stifling the economy. It is a nonsustainable position, and it is something we have to fix. Earlier today, we considered a commission that had both spending and taxes in it. The American public is not for more taxes. They think they are taxed out, and I believe they are too taxed. They should not be taxed more. They do want us to cut spending. There is no question about that. They want us to cut it prudently. They want us to cut in wasteful, duplicative areas. That is what they want to get at. They want core programs clearly taken care of. That is why we put it to a bipartisan commission of individuals to look at. The recommendation has to clear six of eight members so no party can control--four appointed by Republicans, four appointed by Democrats--examined by the committees and then put forward for a vote. This can work. This is what the public wants us to do. It is time to do it. We have to start bending this down, the debt to GDP. This is dangerously high. It has not been this high since World War II. We cannot sustain it. We have to pull it back down. I would love us to start to cut spending and go through the committees and say we are going to cut here, we are going to cut there. We have not been able to do that under Republican or Democratic control of either branch of government. We have not been able to go at that on an individual basis. This is a system that has worked in the past. This is a system that this body has approved in the past. It has been in budget agreements. We have not made it all the way through in the budget agreement, but Members in this body have voted on this system for controlling spending. If people want to come back later and say: We want to look at other provisions or we want to add something back, they can do that in future conferences. But this gets that culling process going. I wish to point out one issue to my colleagues about the problem of running high debt and its impact on the economy. If the Federal Government runs a high debt level, it has a drag on the economy. There is a recent study just released at an American Economics Association meeting. The title of the study is ``Growth in a Time of Debt.'' It said, according to the study, that the sharp runup in public sector debt will likely prove one of the endearing legacies of the 2009 financial crisis in the United States and elsewhere. The study looked at debt levels of 44 countries and included data over the last 200 years in order to get the most comprehensive picture possible, the picture of debt on economic growth. What does this big lug do to the overall economy? Does it have an impact? They said, clearly, yes. The conclusion is clear: Very high government debt, classified as 90 percent or more of gross domestic product, results in average growth rates a full 4 percent below countries with lower debt levels. Since annual growth rate and GDP is averaged considerably less than 4 percent over the last 10 years in the United States, carrying high national debt can mean the difference between a growing economy and a contracting economy. After the recent binge of Federal spending, our Nation's gross debt could well surpass the 90 percent of GDP mark and go even above that, to the point that could be the lug on the economy that keeps us from growing and actually puts us in a contracting economy. I urge my colleagues or members of the Senate staff to look at these studies and look at the impact of debt on economic growth. This could end up being the real lug of what happens during this period of time. CARFA is a bipartisan mechanism that can work us out of this situation. It pushes at the places we actually can cut and need to cut. Everybody in this body believes, and I believe, there are clear places in the Federal Government we can cut. For one reason or another, they have become sacred cows and we have not been able to cut them. This is a process that has worked on military bases before. I will talk more about this amendment when we vote on it on Thursday. I ask my colleagues, in the interim day, when we have a chance to look at some of these things, to examine this process. It is one they have seen before. I have proposed this bill for 10 years. They voted on it before, as I stated earlier. I urge them to look at this and think: Now is the time to do this. Maybe they had reservations about it in the past or thought: I don't think we want to go into that sort of mechanism now. But there is not another mechanism that works. This changes the mechanism for spending in a way that has worked in the past and, clearly, with these sort of debt numbers, the time has come to do it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. I will miss his voice around here. He and I both are leaving this body at the end of this year, and I have appreciated the chance to serve with him and work on many different issues of significance and concern for the country. He has always had a strong voice, done an excellent job in representing his constituency and his point of view, and I will miss serving with him. Mr. President, right now, at this very minute, hundreds of thousands of people are amassing in this town for the 37th annual Right to Life March--hundreds of thousands. It will be a crowd where 80 percent will be under the age of 25. It is a young movement. It is a movement that believes in human dignity and that life begins at conception and goes to natural death. They are energized, motivated. They are here and they need to be heard. They stand to be a voice for the voiceless; to stand for a cause they believe in, that they believe is right, and I believe they are right. I believe they are winning this cause. In 1973, the Supreme Court banned most impediments to having an abortion in the United States. Since that tragic decision, many experts estimate that between 40 and 50 million--40 to 50 million--abortions have happened in the United States. It is a number that plagues our government and defies our constitution. This tragedy is why we continue to call for the end of abortion in the United States. Today, in memory of the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we want to talk about how the pro-life movement should be credited for changing America's attitude on the issue of abortion. The President's campaign theme in 2008 on change is also relevant to the pro-life movement, which has effectively changed millions of hearts and minds by challenging the central tenets of the flawed Roe decision. The Roe decision, which took State law and said State laws can no longer cover the issue of abortion and federalized the whole issue, has been the centerpiece issue of this whole debate, saying this should be an issue decided at the State level. These protestors are here en masse to again call for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The decision has been proven to be antithetical to individual liberties and to human dignity. There will be young people at the march who have learned they have lost siblings because of abortion. They will never know a younger brother, an older sister, and they are profoundly saddened by such a loss. There will be women at the march for life who have had abortions and now regret making that decision; they are still grieving for their lost children, and they will say that which is politically incorrect: Abortion hurts women. The number of women who have joined this ``Silent No More Campaign'' represents a fundamental change in attitudes regarding the controversy of the issue of abortion. I hope Congress will listen to those who mourn and advocate for their government to do something to right this wrong. If they do listen, they will notice that the country is changing in several significant ways. The pro-life movement has transcended beyond my generation into a new movement that is young, passionate, energetic, creative, and resilient. President Obama said during his campaign last year: A new generation inspires an old generation, and that is how change happens in America. It doesn't just happen in elections and campaigns. We know that young people everywhere are imagining something different than what is. I believe that this younger generation is inspiring an older generation. Today, there will be hundreds of thousands of Americans-- many of them young people, who believe in defending innocent human life--who will march across the National Mall for real change. We found out earlier this week, with the upset victory by Scott Brown in Massachusetts--one of the bluest of blue States--that politicians have to respect the voters on the issues they care about. The American people are dismayed at our government's radical approach to promoting abortion. The American people don't want government-run health care that includes abortion mandates and Federal subsidies for abortion. They don't want foreign aid going abroad to promote abortion. They don't want to relax commonsense regulations that are proven to reduce the incidence of abortion. Even for those who are pro-choice, the mantra around here for some period of time was to have abortion be safe, legal, and rare. The policies I just listed are all policies that would expand abortion. The last time the Federal Government paid for elective abortions, we paid for nearly 300,000 a year--a shocking number and certainly not a rarity. People are realizing that abortion had promised liberty but instead has brought death. Doubters have turned into believers and people are waking up to the reality and the truth about abortion. Our movement is truly changing hearts and minds. Although it is true the pro-life movement saw many setbacks this past year, we also have much to be thankful for and hopeful for in the future. A Gallup poll earlier this year--for the first time since Gallop started asking this question in 1995--showed our country to be a pro-life majority country. This year, 51 percent of Americans called themselves pro-life on the issue of abortion and 42 percent pro-choice. In 1995, 56 percent of Americans called themselves pro-choice, and in 2008 that number was 50 percent. I see our movement changing, striving to continue getting a little better each day. The movement continues to value people over ideology and political parties. Pro-lifers found a hero and strong ally in Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak this year for taking the tough stance in defense of life in the health care reform debate. It was a blow to the abortion advocates when Democratic Congressman Stupak led the charge and continues to lead the charge in that fight. The pro-life movement is changing because it has rallied new leaders from both major political parties, which is something for which we should be very grateful. Another way our movement is changing is through new outreach tools. Pro-lifers are sharing the truth about abortion with friends on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iPhone, and countless other new technologies. Young people are utilizing these new media tools to uncover and expose an abortion industry. I am excited about this because I know the pro-life movement's focus and energy has never been so devoted or determined. The movement's message is more expansive. We have changed and attracted a majority of the country to our cause with compassion for all human life--being pro-life and whole life. Our movement has become more consistent and attractive because the pro-life movement speaks to the respect for human life in all places and in all stages--for those who are in the womb, for those who are in prison, for those who are in Africa, for those who are in poverty, for those who have plenty, for those who have experienced natural disasters such as the recent earthquake in Haiti. The pro-life movement has been successful because it has changed people's views on the issue. We are now seeing more and more studies coming out about the impact on people who have had abortions. Even the evidence has been changing and we now know that 80 to 90 percent of children diagnosed with genetic defects such as Down syndrome are aborted. We are getting that evidence in. We also have evidence now that shows children in the womb feel pain when they are aborted. New science, ultrasound equipment, and other advances in technology are giving new-found hope in spreading the truth about abortion. Ultimately, the cause for human dignity cannot be silenced and will not stay still. Human liberty and freedom will prevail and I hope this year's March for Life will again inspire a country that longs for change and that many hope will embrace, fully embrace, the culture of life. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence a quorum.