Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I want to read a few of the 69 from this document: Sickle cell anemia, aplastic anemia, chronic Epstein-Barr infection, lupus, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile arthritis, multiple sclerosis, brain tumors, different cancers, lymphoma, non- Hodgkins lymphoma, a number of solid tumors, cardiovascular. This is an exciting area that is taking place where we now have people with acute heart damage, chronic coronary artery disease being treated with adult stem cells. Primarily, this has been an adult stem cell treatment where they harvest stem cells out of their own body and inject them right back into the damaged heart tissue. Now we are seeing people who couldn't walk up a flight of steps going up eight flights, having hard tissue being regenerated with the use of their own adult stem cells. There is no rejection problem. This is their own cells. They take these adult stem cells from your body, which are repair cells, grow them outside of the body, put them back into the damaged heart tissue area, and now instead of congestive heart failure, without any ability to get enough blood throughout the body, the heart is pumping harder and better. It is actually working. They are regenerating the heart in these people. This is actually taking place in human clinical trials today. It is a beautiful issue. The list goes on: chronic liver failure, Parkinson's disease. I had a gentleman in to testify who had taken stem cells out of a part of his body, grew them, put them in the left part of the brain. The right side of the body started functioning without Parkinson's disease. Later it came back, after several years, but he had several years free and was starting to learn how better this can work with Parkinson's disease. Again, continuing from the list: spinal cord injury, stroke damage, limb gangrene, skull bone repair. We have recently had advances. For example, they took the stem cells out of a person's body. They had a form around which the bladder could be grown, outside a new bladder could be grown. They took the stem cells, put them around this form, and actually grew a bladder out of a person's own stem cells. These are marvelous, miraculous things that are taking place in 69 different areas of human clinical trials, adult and cord blood. I ask my colleagues from the other side, the ones who promised all of the cures from embryonic stem cells, as this debate moves forward, we will bring out statements that people made 5, 6 years ago about the cures that would come from embryonic stem cells. The cures have come from these noncontroversial areas. This is where we ought to be funding. This is what we ought to be doing. This is where we are getting treatments. I ask my colleagues from the other side, where are the treatments with embryonic stem cells? Colleagues on the other side, for whom I have great respect and I know in their hearts are doing what they believe is the right thing to do, asked about reputable scientists opposed to embryonic stem cells. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this letter at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006. Joining me as original cosponsors are Senators Kyl and Hutchison. I would like to extend my thanks to both of my colleagues and their staff for their assistance and guidance on many of the provisions in the bill. The original Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 saw the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia--specifically, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan--as a distinct region bound by history and common interests with a shared potential that was of critical importance to the United States. The goals of that legislation were as follows: to promote independent, democratic government; to promote the protection of human rights, tolerance, and pluralism; to aid in the resolution of conflicts and support political, economic, and security cooperation in order to foster regional stability and economic interdependence; to promote financial and economic development based on market principles; to aid in the development of communications, transportation, health and human services infrastructure; to promote and protect the interests of U.S. businesses and investments. These basic policy goals have not changed; however, historic events since 1999 have had a significant impact on the region's political systems, economic conditions, and security situation which affect U.S. perceptions of and interests in the region. These changes include: the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, which clarified the nature and source of the key threats facing this country; the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban regime; the series of ``colored revolutions'' in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan; Deteriorating relations between the U.S. and certain regional leaders, especially Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov, and the closure of the U.S. base in that country; the growing influence of regional powers, namely Russia and China; greater U.S. oil and gas interests in the Caspian region; and the threat posed by Iran, which is seeking to develop a nuclear potential. In light of these changes, the Silk Road Act needs to be updated and revised to better address some of the new challenges the U.S. faces in its relations with Central Asia and the Caucasus. The U.S.'s vital interests in the Caspian region include: ensuring the independence and security of Azerbaijan and Georgia, through which critical oil and gas pipelines transit; containing Iran; ensuring access to oil and gas reserves; maintaining good relations with Kazakhstan; promoting peaceful resolution of conflicts; and keeping Russian geopolitical ambitions in check. Further East, U.S. interests include: helping Kyrgyzstan to make its Tulip Revolution a success; the political stabilization of Afghanistan and enhancement of its security by defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda and its satellite organizations; political reform and liberalization in the countries of Central Asia to neutralize radical Islamic movements, such as Hizb-ut- Tahrir al-Islami, HUT--Islamic Army of Liberation; reduction of drug production and exports; creation and/or support of the U.S. military base network; and social and economic development in the states of Central Asia. To these ends, among other priorities, this bill emphasizes the importance of East-West gas and oil pipelines, such as the Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, BTC. BTC ensures Azerbaijan's security and economic future, and binds the country with neighboring Georgia and Turkey, anchoring Azerbaijan in the network of Western states and institutions. The bill also includes Afghanistan as a Silk Road country and promotes the integration of Afghanistan with neighboring Central Asian states in terms of security, trade, infrastructure and energy grids. In all the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus, it is critical to promote democratic development. Among this bill's initiatives are calls for supporting independent media outlets, especially electronic media, and also for satellite TV programming, to provide authoritative news and more diverse opinions than are otherwise available. Specifically, it supports satellite TV broadcasting into Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Iran and the activities of their diasporas in the United States. Furthermore, the bill offers assistance for the establishment of civil service institutes to train civil servants at all levels in the rule of law, conduct of elections, respect for citizens' rights, and the needs of a market economy. No less important is the need to accelerate and broaden economic reform and modernization in the Silk Road countries. Accordingly, this bill provides assistance in the privatization of state enterprises and deregulation of the economy. The bill also calls for assistance with the establishment of the Caspian Bank of Reconstruction and Development, CBRD, to help Silk Road states address problems caused by increased revenues from energy exports, and dangers to macroeconomic stability and overheating of the economy infrastructure, as well as promote development in the region. In light of Trans-Caspian Oil and Gas Pipelines, this bill encourages the governments of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and especially Turkmenistan to improve their business climate and investor confidence by fully disclosing their internationally audited hydrocarbon reserve. The bill strongly supports activities that promote the participation of U.S. companies and investors in the planning, financing, and construction of infrastructure for communications, transportation, including air transportation, and energy and trade including highways, railroads, port facilities, shipping, banking, insurance, telecommunications networks, and gas and oil pipelines. Furthermore, the bill would assist in the removal of legal and institutional barriers to continental and regional trade and the harmonization of border and tariff regimes, including improved mechanisms for transit through Pakistan to Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia. With respect to the World Trade Organization, the bill offers support to Silk Road countries seeking WTO accession, providing assistance in reform as needed. Recognizing that PNTR status, through graduation from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974 Trade Act, and WTO membership have been extended to Armenia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, the bill calls for extending the same status to the other two most advanced economies of the region, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, by graduating them from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, extending PNTR status and aiding in WTO accession. But before that support is offered, it is important for the two countries to demonstrate that they are capable of dealing with the demands of a vibrant economy in a democratic setting. A detailed examination of this bill will reveal many more initiatives. But as you can see, Mr. President, the Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006 takes a comprehensive approach to the region, encompassing security, economic development, democratic governance and human rights. I believe it targets the key issues that U.S. policymakers must address in our ever more important effort to establish solid, long-lasting relationships with the countries of the Silk Road. I hope my colleagues will support this bill and I look forward to discussing it with them.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, noting for the record the actual spending in 2005 on embryonic stem cell research, the U.S. Federal Government spent nearly $40 million on human embryonic stem cell research. We spent $97 million on nonhuman embryonic stem cell research, for a total of $136 million the Federal Government spent on embryonic stem cell research. That is a fair investment. We also spent $472 million in nonembryonic. What did we get for $136 million in embryonic stem cell research? Here is the folder that contains the human clinical trials of embryonic stem cell research in humans, treating and healing humans. This is the list of research results we have from a nearly $40 million Federal investment last year of human clinical trials with embryonic stem cell research. This is research where a young, embryonic human life is destroyed and stem cells harvested and taken out and applied. I note that this folder is empty. This is the list of research results we have from embryonic stem cell research on humans. We also invested in adult and cord blood stem cell research. The cord between the mother and child is rich in stem cells that can be used in a lot of treatment areas, along with adult stem cells. You have stem cells in your body and I have them in my mine. They are akin to a repair kit. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the listing of 69 different human illnesses being treated by adult and cord blood stem cells.

Mr. BROWNBACK. What did we get for our research investment in adult and cord blood in human clinical trials? This is the folder--it is getting heavy--of what we have discovered in human clinical trials with adult and cord blood stem cell research; real people being treated for real diseases such as bladder disease, lupus, cancer, heart, strokes, immunodeficiency areas, liver disease, neuro degenerative diseases, ocular, wounds and injuries, autoimmune diseases, anemias and other blood conditions, metabolic disorders, 69 human diseases being treated with adult and cord blood stem cells. For my money on this, I would rather treat people--get real human treatments--than in this area of embryonic stem cell research where we are getting no cures. We are seeing a lot of cancer cells growing out of the embryonic stem cell areas and treatments. Let's go for what is real. And let's do what is real. I further note, as I close, there is no prohibition in this country on embryonic stem cell research. None. No prohibitions. Yet why do the private companies not go into funding more embryonic stem cell research? It is because they are getting no results with embryonic stem cells. Nothing is happening results wise. Let's invest our money in adult stem cell research where we can actually treat people. That is important. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, another topic I will discuss is embryonic stem cell and adult stem cell research. I will show two books because we have a lot going on regarding stem cells and in stem cell research. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart on Federal funding of stem cell research.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006. Joining me as original cosponsors are Senators Kyl and Hutchison. I would like to extend my thanks to both of my colleagues and their staff for their assistance and guidance on many of the provisions in the bill. The original Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 saw the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia--specifically, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan--as a distinct region bound by history and common interests with a shared potential that was of critical importance to the United States. The goals of that legislation were as follows: to promote independent, democratic government; to promote the protection of human rights, tolerance, and pluralism; to aid in the resolution of conflicts and support political, economic, and security cooperation in order to foster regional stability and economic interdependence; to promote financial and economic development based on market principles; to aid in the development of communications, transportation, health and human services infrastructure; to promote and protect the interests of U.S. businesses and investments. These basic policy goals have not changed; however, historic events since 1999 have had a significant impact on the region's political systems, economic conditions, and security situation which affect U.S. perceptions of and interests in the region. These changes include: the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, which clarified the nature and source of the key threats facing this country; the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban regime; the series of ``colored revolutions'' in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan; Deteriorating relations between the U.S. and certain regional leaders, especially Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov, and the closure of the U.S. base in that country; the growing influence of regional powers, namely Russia and China; greater U.S. oil and gas interests in the Caspian region; and the threat posed by Iran, which is seeking to develop a nuclear potential. In light of these changes, the Silk Road Act needs to be updated and revised to better address some of the new challenges the U.S. faces in its relations with Central Asia and the Caucasus. The U.S.'s vital interests in the Caspian region include: ensuring the independence and security of Azerbaijan and Georgia, through which critical oil and gas pipelines transit; containing Iran; ensuring access to oil and gas reserves; maintaining good relations with Kazakhstan; promoting peaceful resolution of conflicts; and keeping Russian geopolitical ambitions in check. Further East, U.S. interests include: helping Kyrgyzstan to make its Tulip Revolution a success; the political stabilization of Afghanistan and enhancement of its security by defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda and its satellite organizations; political reform and liberalization in the countries of Central Asia to neutralize radical Islamic movements, such as Hizb-ut- Tahrir al-Islami, HUT--Islamic Army of Liberation; reduction of drug production and exports; creation and/or support of the U.S. military base network; and social and economic development in the states of Central Asia. To these ends, among other priorities, this bill emphasizes the importance of East-West gas and oil pipelines, such as the Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, BTC. BTC ensures Azerbaijan's security and economic future, and binds the country with neighboring Georgia and Turkey, anchoring Azerbaijan in the network of Western states and institutions. The bill also includes Afghanistan as a Silk Road country and promotes the integration of Afghanistan with neighboring Central Asian states in terms of security, trade, infrastructure and energy grids. In all the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus, it is critical to promote democratic development. Among this bill's initiatives are calls for supporting independent media outlets, especially electronic media, and also for satellite TV programming, to provide authoritative news and more diverse opinions than are otherwise available. Specifically, it supports satellite TV broadcasting into Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Iran and the activities of their diasporas in the United States. Furthermore, the bill offers assistance for the establishment of civil service institutes to train civil servants at all levels in the rule of law, conduct of elections, respect for citizens' rights, and the needs of a market economy. No less important is the need to accelerate and broaden economic reform and modernization in the Silk Road countries. Accordingly, this bill provides assistance in the privatization of state enterprises and deregulation of the economy. The bill also calls for assistance with the establishment of the Caspian Bank of Reconstruction and Development, CBRD, to help Silk Road states address problems caused by increased revenues from energy exports, and dangers to macroeconomic stability and overheating of the economy infrastructure, as well as promote development in the region. In light of Trans-Caspian Oil and Gas Pipelines, this bill encourages the governments of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and especially Turkmenistan to improve their business climate and investor confidence by fully disclosing their internationally audited hydrocarbon reserve. The bill strongly supports activities that promote the participation of U.S. companies and investors in the planning, financing, and construction of infrastructure for communications, transportation, including air transportation, and energy and trade including highways, railroads, port facilities, shipping, banking, insurance, telecommunications networks, and gas and oil pipelines. Furthermore, the bill would assist in the removal of legal and institutional barriers to continental and regional trade and the harmonization of border and tariff regimes, including improved mechanisms for transit through Pakistan to Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia. With respect to the World Trade Organization, the bill offers support to Silk Road countries seeking WTO accession, providing assistance in reform as needed. Recognizing that PNTR status, through graduation from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974 Trade Act, and WTO membership have been extended to Armenia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, the bill calls for extending the same status to the other two most advanced economies of the region, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, by graduating them from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, extending PNTR status and aiding in WTO accession. But before that support is offered, it is important for the two countries to demonstrate that they are capable of dealing with the demands of a vibrant economy in a democratic setting. A detailed examination of this bill will reveal many more initiatives. But as you can see, Mr. President, the Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006 takes a comprehensive approach to the region, encompassing security, economic development, democratic governance and human rights. I believe it targets the key issues that U.S. policymakers must address in our ever more important effort to establish solid, long-lasting relationships with the countries of the Silk Road. I hope my colleagues will support this bill and I look forward to discussing it with them.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Last July, the President also met with Kang Chol Hwan, whose book the Aquariams of Pyongyang, chronicled Mr. Kang's life as a 9-year-old gulag inmate to his eventual freedom. Just as Natan Scharansky was Reagan's symbol of what freedom from the Soviet communist system meant to free people everywhere, Kang is Bush's symbol of what freedom means to North Koreans. History will record these acts by President Bush to unilaterally broaden the narrow agenda of the Six-Party Talks as among the wisest and humane--acts that trump and negate the false perception that the President is indifferent to concerns about human rights in North Korea. These bold and compassionate acts will figuratively place on the bargaining table--if the Six Party Talks are to ever resume--the faces and names of North Koreans who have suffered and continue to do so. By so publicly raising human rights issues to the highest level, the Oval Office of the President no less, President Bush is merely following the examples set by President Reagan and Pope John Paul during their struggles with a much larger and more threatening nuclear power. We may now have an opportunity--if the press reports are accurate--to take an additional but necessary step to demonstrate not just by words but by action what human rights mean. We need to accept North Korean refugees into the United States as provided by the North Korean Human Rights Act. That it appears to have taken more than a year and half for the possibility of officially accepting North Korea refugees has been troubling to Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. In a bipartisan letter to Secretary Rice, Congressman Frank Wolf and others called on the administration to do more. And last year, both Congressman Wolf and I wrote to Secretary General Kofi Annan to pressure China into allowing UNHCR, the U.N. agency for refugees, into Yanji Province near the North Korean border and other affected areas to assess the situation with respect to the North Korean refugees. I was disappointed to learn that the first report required under the North Korean Human Rights Act was issued with the statement that no progress had been made on accepting refugees. As the act makes clear, admission would be conditioned upon a thorough vetting process by DHS and other appropriate agencies. But without any action by us, it is difficult for us to demand that the Chinese should also change its policies, and it presents a problem for us in asking other countries to do the right thing if we have not been able to do the same. If the U.S. cannot admit what may be less than 10 refugees in total if the press reports are correct, then the whole premise of the act itself is unsustainable. I am hopeful that this may be changing and I hope it is changing. The hopes and prayers of thousands in the faith community and among Korean American communities are vested in this possibility of the first admission of North Korean refugees into the United States. If and when these people come, it will offer hope to millions and put American on the right side of history. Such an act is consistent with the bold steps that Ronald Reagan took and Pope John Paul urged during the years of the cold war, and in the process made the world a better place. If ever there were huddled masses yearning to be free, it's the North Koreans, whether hiding out in the forests of China or working as trafficked victims in brothels or as orphans prowling marketplaces for crumbs. If these refugees are granted refuge in the United States, it would constitute one of the great acts of compassion by this nation. And I hope we take this opportunity to lift our lamps and show a way out of the darkness for the North Korean refugees.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I certainly hope and pray the reports are true. I hope that the six to eight refugees being referred to in the articles will soon have a chance to be welcomed by thousands of Americans who have worked hard for their freedom, especially those of Korean heritage in this country. I particularly recognize the Korean Church Coalition and a number of people who risked their own lives to form an underground railroad of sorts--reminiscent of what happened in my State and many other places across this country years ago--along the Korean-Chinese border. We have a fairly open border between Korea and China. You can get from North Korea into China, but you cannot get out of China. The Chinese have, to date, not been very cooperative in allowing North Korean refugees to pass. They have even captured North Korean refugees and sent them back to North Korea to an uncertain future and possible death, and in many cases, as well as a lot of persecution and mistreatment in a North Korean gulag, of which we have satellite photographs. I have held hearings on gulags containing, we believe, around 200,000 North Koreans. We also believe, over the last 15 years, approximately 10 percent of the North Korean population has died, primarily of starvation, although also from the gulags and at political prisoner camps. The people are walking out of North Korea. They are walking into China. We do not know how many, but the estimates have been as many as 100,000 to 300,000. They are now living off the land there in an illegal status, in great difficulty, and in harm's way in China. If we get these refugees coming into the United States, they will be the first refugees coming into the United States. It is built on the North Korean Human Rights Act, which this Senate and this Nation passed a year and a half ago, allowing these refugees from North Korea to enter into the United States. The act basically builds on what took place toward the Soviet Union before it had collapsed where we were in negotiations on nuclear talks, we were not getting anywhere, and we raised human rights issues of what took place regarding two Soviet dissidents in the Soviet Union. We said it was not fair how they are treating their own people. The same thing is happening in North Korea in how North Korea is treating their own people, to the point this oppressive regime of Kim John is trying to build weapons of mass destruction; they are a weapon of mass destruction on their own people, killing, as I noted, we believe around 2 million North Koreans through starvation. This is abhorrent. If the refugees do come to the United States, this is a moment of celebration, even though it is only a few. It is a statement by this country that we will not tolerate the mistreatment of people taking place in North Korea. I applaud this effort. I applaud the administration for working on this particular topic, and particularly Jay Lefkowitz, the special envoy from the administration on human rights in North Korea. If reports this morning from Reuters and the Associated Press as well as various other news outlets prove to be accurate, we may shortly have a group of North Korean refugees formally accepted by the United States for the first time since the Korean peninsula was divided by war over half a century ago. I hope and pray that these reports are true, and I hope that the six to eight refugees referred to in the articles will soon have a chance to be welcomed by the thousands of Americans who have worked so hard for their freedom, especially by those of Korean heritage. A year and a half ago, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the North Korean Human Rights Act. It was the first significant piece of legislation dealing with that nation's dictatorial regime since the cessation of hostilities in July 1953. The act called for a U.S. policy on North Korea based on a commitment and respect for human rights and human dignity, and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience religion or belief. By referring in the act to core Helsinki principles adopted in 1975 that informed and animated our dealings with then Soviet Union and its eventual dissolution and the resulting freedom for millions without a single shot being fired, the act similarly commits the United States to pursue in North Korea the same devotion to human dignity and human rights. Yet since the passage of the North Korean Human Rights Act, the negotiating approach has been to subordinate the human rights and human dignity of the North Korean people. Instead, what we have done is to pin our hopes on the possibility of another framework agreement in which the parties would be coerced yet again into tossing more lifelines to a fragile but oppressive regime in Pyongyang in exchange for the possible exchange of yet another promise not to use weapons of mass destruction. In none of these negotiations have we been able to engage in talks-- either in the multiparty context or even unofficial bilateral discussions--on issues that promote and do justice to both American and universal ideals. Rather than focusing the debate on the regime's policies of persecution and starvation and to the massive failure of its economic policies that in the mid-90s directly resulted in the deaths of millions of North Koreans, the parties have done little to strengthen democracy and promote human rights in North Korea. I appreciate that there are strong political pressures especially from our allies to negotiate over the North Korean regime's so-called ``peace for security'' demand. And in the interest of searching for a diplomatic solution, the President and Secretary Rice have done precisely that. In fact, the recent rounds of six party talks were the most sustained effort by the United States. But the President himself has also done much more, in both word and deed. In the past 2 months, the President released two of the most remarkable statements of his presidency. Last month, the President called to attention China's treatment of a North Korean refugee named Kim Chun Hee. Missing since December, when Miss Kim was arrested in China and deported back to North Korea, it isn't known whether she is dead or alive. As the President's envoy for North Korean Human Rights Jay Lefkowitz said of Miss Chun in a Wall Street Journal editorial, ``Every movement needs heroes. . . . Either she will be a living figure in a jail somewhere or, God forbid, she'll be a martyr.'' As far as I know, we have no word from the Chinese Government and certainly not from the North Koreans on the fate of Miss Chun. The President also issued a statement after a meeting that he himself called one of the most moving of his presidency. He spoke of a grieving mother and brother who yearned to be united with her daughter and his sister, Megumi, who was only 13 when she was abducted by the North Korean regime more than 30 years ago; he met with a young child of 6 named Han Mee Lee who with her family were at the center of an international controversy created by vivid video footage of their valiant struggle for freedom at the gates of an embassy in China; and he met with a former North Korean soldier who defected to South Korea in pursuit of what his conscience and his heart told him were his inalienable and God-given right to liberty and freedom. I ask unanimous consent at this time that this statement by the President be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will draw attention to two topics today. I will address the comments made about stem cell research because we have exciting things happening in that field that I will report to my colleagues. First though, there is breaking news, with Reuters, the Associated Press, and several other outlets reporting that shortly we may have a group of North Korean refugees formally accepted by the United States for the first time since the Korean peninsula was divided by war over half a century ago. This is being reported by a couple of news outlets. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the news report and a related article.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, indeed, there is growing concern that wild birds can carry the avian flu virus, which has now spread from Southeast Asia to China, Europe, Africa, and to the Middle East. Wild birds are one of the key vectors for spreading the virus to domestic animal populations or carry it to wild bird markets, where the virus is further propagated. At this time, the virus does not spread easily from birds to humans and there are limited reports of human to human transfer. Importantly, the virus has not yet entered the United States to our knowledge. We must understand how this virus moves to prepare communities in its path. At the same time we work to develop a vaccine and procure antivirals, we can also track the movement of the virus in wild birds. GAINS can track wild birds in the same way the National Hurricane Center tracks hurricanes. By analyzing, storing, and reporting using a real time computerized data mapping system and interface, we can see the viral strains wild birds carry, where they are carrying the virus along migratory routes, and how the virus is genetically evolving. This will make it possible for us to develop vaccines more quickly using the most recent strain available and will help us warn vulnerable populations in wild bird flight paths should the avian flu strain turn deadly.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am glad we agree that we should all work together. We cannot have efforts that are not collaborative and coordinated domestically and internationally. We will build on the GAINS infrastructure by boosting our domestic capacity through the Smithsonian Institute and ensuring all partners work together and share data in a compatible manner using the GAINS system.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I introduced with my colleague, Senator Lieberman, the Elimination of Neglected Diseases Act of 2006. This legislation is designed to confront and combat a group of dangerous parasitic diseases that together claim more than 500,000 lives each year and adversely affect millions more. These 13-15 neglected tropical diseases, NTD, as they are called, are the most common infections in the developing world, and include such debilitating diseases as leprosy, guinea worm, and trachoma. Many are described in the Bible, exposing the sad fact that humans have been suffering from these diseases for millennia. Moreover, research has shown alarming rates of comorbidity of NTD's with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, resulting in severe complications with these already devastating diseases. The biggest challenge to finding cures for these diseases is the lack of a market. Pharmaceuticals are expensive to develop, and since neglected diseases disproportionately affect poor and marginalized populations in the developing world, there are fewer incentives for conducting research and development for new treatments. The purpose of this act is to encourage drug development by creating market incentives for investment in new research. Specifically, the bill awards a limited patent-term extension or patent-term restoration for certain lifestyle and tropical disease drugs provided the company successfully develops a new FDA-approved drug for an NTD. In this way, a drug company can recoup costs for the large investment in NTD research and development. With the exception of market incentives, we have all the right ingredients to develop new drugs that would dramatically reduce the number of NTD cases and improve the quality of human life worldwide. I strongly believe that this legislation will add the last remaining step to jumpstart competitive research and development for combating NTD's. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort by supporting this bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I introduced with my colleague, Senator Lieberman, the Elimination of Neglected Diseases Act of 2006. This legislation is designed to confront and combat a group of dangerous parasitic diseases that together claim more than 500,000 lives each year and adversely affect millions more. These 13-15 neglected tropical diseases, NTD, as they are called, are the most common infections in the developing world, and include such debilitating diseases as leprosy, guinea worm, and trachoma. Many are described in the Bible, exposing the sad fact that humans have been suffering from these diseases for millennia. Moreover, research has shown alarming rates of comorbidity of NTD's with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, resulting in severe complications with these already devastating diseases. The biggest challenge to finding cures for these diseases is the lack of a market. Pharmaceuticals are expensive to develop, and since neglected diseases disproportionately affect poor and marginalized populations in the developing world, there are fewer incentives for conducting research and development for new treatments. The purpose of this act is to encourage drug development by creating market incentives for investment in new research. Specifically, the bill awards a limited patent-term extension or patent-term restoration for certain lifestyle and tropical disease drugs provided the company successfully develops a new FDA-approved drug for an NTD. In this way, a drug company can recoup costs for the large investment in NTD research and development. With the exception of market incentives, we have all the right ingredients to develop new drugs that would dramatically reduce the number of NTD cases and improve the quality of human life worldwide. I strongly believe that this legislation will add the last remaining step to jumpstart competitive research and development for combating NTD's. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort by supporting this bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Senate recognizes Azerbaijan as a key ally in a region of significant importance and a valued partner to the United States. Under President Ilham Aliyev's leadership, Azerbaijan has made important contributions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo. He supports efforts to combat terrorism, speed integration of Azerbaijan into Western institutions, and is committed to working with the United States in developing democracy and civil institutions in Azerbaijan. President Aliyev is in Washington this week to meet with President Bush, senior Administration officials, and key congressional leaders to discuss the promotion of democracy, regional cooperation, energy security and diversification, and our Nations' commitment to working closely together to advance freedom, security, and economic independence. Specifically, the Senate welcomes the fact that Azerbaijan is rapidly developing its national economy, growing at a rate of about 26 percent annually since 2004, which contributes to the alleviation of poverty and reaching the millennium development goals; is completing the one mbpd Baku-Ceyhan, BTC, oil pipeline and Baku-Erzerum, SCP, natural gas pipeline, set to increase energy exports and availability for the United States and its allies; and welcomes encouragement by the United States to assist the people of Azerbaijan in establishing a fully free and open democratic system, a prosperous free market economy, and its rightful place in European and Euro-Atlantic institutions, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, and World Trade Organization, WTO. The Senate welcomes President Ilham Aliyev upon his first official visit to Washington and thanks him for coming.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this week the North Korean Freedom Coalition, a bipartisan coalition of NGOs and individuals, will be organizing a rally on Capitol Hill at noon on Friday, April 28, 2006, in recognition of North Korea Freedom Day. Largely through the persistent efforts of the coalition and many others across the country, there has been an upsurge of interest in North Korea with Americans and particularly the faith communities. Members of Congress, North Korean defectors, NGO leaders from the USA, South Korea, and Japan have been holding rallies, testifying before Congress, and personally sharing their stories with others and the press to help support the plight of North Koreans and, in particular, the refugees in China and elsewhere. Thousands will gather to stand up for the freedom, human rights, and dignity of the North Korean people. Since the Stalinist country disclosed several years ago that it had renewed efforts to develop nuclear weapons, not a single day goes by without Pyongyang carrying out more reckless deeds to escalate the crisis or exchanging hostile threats with Washington, DC. With the six- party talks dissolving without any progress, the current nuclear standoff seems poised to continue, if not deteriorate. Many people point out, and correctly so, the need for more scholarship on the nuclear threat that North Korea poses not only to East Asia but also to the world. The sad truth, however, is that amid the discussion of regional security and nuclear nonproliferation for South Korea, Japan, and China, as well as the war against terrorism for the United States, a central part of this issue has been neglected: the human rights of North Koreans. It is hard to imagine a country whose citizens endure a worse or more pervasive abuse of every human right. The Government prohibits freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, movement, and more. The draconian penal code stipulates capital punishment and confiscation of assets for a wide variety of ``crimes against revolution,'' including defection, attempted defection, slander of the policies of the state, listening to foreign broadcasts, and possessing ``reactionary'' printed matter. Those who escaped political concentration camps tell stories of horror beyond imagination. Prison guards kill newborn babies in front of their mothers. A female prisoner dies after being beaten by prison guards like a soccer ball, with her wounds filled with maggots. Molten metal is poured on Christians who refuse to disavow their faith. The open goal of these camps, detaining political dissidents whose loyalty to the party is ``beyond recovery,'' is to eradicate three generations of their inmates. An estimated 1.5 million prisoners have been killed in the camps. Approximately 200,000 are currently imprisoned. Those who risk their lives and succeed in escaping to China to find food and freedom are not better off. The Chinese Government continues to violate refugees' rights and repatriates them to North Korea, where they will most likely face persecution; North Korean refugees are exploited by those around them who threaten to report them to the authorities. The sexual slavery of North Korean refugee women in China is an urgent human rights issue that has yet to attract the attention of the international community. In 2004, Congress passed and the President signed into law the North Korean Human Rights Act. Since passage, much has been done and various provisions of the bill have been implemented. However, much more remains to be done, especially in fully funding the authorization contained in the bill. I ask that reports from State Department required by the Act be submitted to Congress. More importantly, it is absolutely critical that we allow North Korean refugees seeking refuge in the United States to be allowed to do so as per the provisions of the act and appropriate vetting processes. Nothing we do--not even funding--will produce more tangible results of improving the human rights of North Koreans than this gesture that is a long and hallowed part of our history and tradition. We are a nation that welcomes those facing persecution because we not only believe but practice the principal that ``to whom much is given, much is required.'' As the security concerns dominate headlines of all United States and international news media, the sufferings of 22 million North Koreans are missing from public awareness. It is in recognizing this desperate need for more awareness of the North Korean human rights that the coalition is organizing this timely and important event this week. North Korean Human Rights Week will provide an opportunity for us to learn more about this tragedy that is occurring right this minute. I commend the organizers of the week, especially the members of the North Korean Freedom Coalition and its many volunteers who have given so much of their time in preparing for this important event. It is time to shake ourselves off of shocked disbelief. And it is time to break out of apathy and ignorance and stand up for human rights in North Korea.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Medicare Payment Rate Disclosure Act of 2006. This legislation tackles a key problem facing Americans today--that of rising health-related costs. It does so by empowering citizens to act as informed consumers when purchasing their health care. Countless examples in our Nation's history demonstrate that the American consumer possesses the ability to drive prices down and quality up by making informed decisions in the marketplace. Yet the cost of health care is not easily accessible to the American consumer, given the nature of our present system. The Medicare Payment Rate Disclosure Act would create price transparency at a consumer level, allowing Americans to choose for themselves health care services that are affordable within their region. This bill ensures that there is one location on the Internet where either consumers with health savings accounts or who are uninsured can go to view the Medicare reimbursement rates for all common medical procedures and physician visits, region by region. This information will provide a critical baseline for these individuals to assess health care costs. I believe that by removing barriers for health care consumers to ``own their health care'' and make the best personal choices, we empower Americans with the knowledge to take charge of their health spending and to negotiate health care prices. I should note that my home State of Kansas is also considering price-transparency initiatives. This legislation is a good first step towards improving the quality of health care and lowering costs to consumers. I thank the original cosponsor, Senator Tom Coburn, for his support of this measure. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Medicare Payment Rate Disclosure Act of 2006.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Medicare Payment Rate Disclosure Act of 2006. This legislation tackles a key problem facing Americans today--that of rising health-related costs. It does so by empowering citizens to act as informed consumers when purchasing their health care. Countless examples in our Nation's history demonstrate that the American consumer possesses the ability to drive prices down and quality up by making informed decisions in the marketplace. Yet the cost of health care is not easily accessible to the American consumer, given the nature of our present system. The Medicare Payment Rate Disclosure Act would create price transparency at a consumer level, allowing Americans to choose for themselves health care services that are affordable within their region. This bill ensures that there is one location on the Internet where either consumers with health savings accounts or who are uninsured can go to view the Medicare reimbursement rates for all common medical procedures and physician visits, region by region. This information will provide a critical baseline for these individuals to assess health care costs. I believe that by removing barriers for health care consumers to ``own their health care'' and make the best personal choices, we empower Americans with the knowledge to take charge of their health spending and to negotiate health care prices. I should note that my home State of Kansas is also considering price-transparency initiatives. This legislation is a good first step towards improving the quality of health care and lowering costs to consumers. I thank the original cosponsor, Senator Tom Coburn, for his support of this measure. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Medicare Payment Rate Disclosure Act of 2006.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to follow the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and make brief comments about the immigration bill that came out of our committee with a strong, bipartisan vote. It is a big issue. It is a tough issue. It is a tough issue that is confronting America. I believe that is what this body should be about-- dealing with big, tough issues confronting America. That is what the committee came through and did. The bill that came out of the committee today is not the final product. I think it needs substantial adjustment. Hopefully, during the 2-week period we are going to be discussing this bill on the floor, we will have a lot of discussion and we will get a final product that we can agree on that strengthens the immigration system. Currently, our system is not working. It has not worked for some period of time. It has not worked for the country. It has not worked for the people wanting to come into the country. It needs to be changed. There is no question about it. One specific item I wish to talk about is the need for comprehensive reform. The reason we need it is because of our past experience, when we have had just pieces of comprehensive reform. A quick bit of history: In 1986, we had 3 million undocumented individuals in the United States, and Ronald Reagan put forward an amnesty program. In 1996--we seem to do this in 10-year increments-- people were upset we had 7 million undocumented immigrants in the United States--3 million in 1986; 7 million in 1996--and we put forward an enforcement program and passed it into law and toughened up enforcement because that was seen as the need and the answer. So we had an amnesty program in 1986, without enforcement; we had an enforcement program in 1996, without some sort of legalized system for people to get into the country. We had 3 million undocumented; we had 7 million undocumented. We are at 2006, and we have 11 million undocumented, and people are saying what we need is tougher enforcement. We did do that in 1996, and we increased the number of those undocumented whom we have in the country. Now we have to increase enforcement. I think we have to do more than just border enforcement, though. We have to do interior enforcement and integrating our tax system and Social Security system along with the immigration system so we can catch people at the workplace, we can catch people in a place where they will be interior in the country and strengthen our enforcement that way. We have to get that done. So we have to strengthen enforcement. But, at the same time, you have to have some way to bring people into a legalized system. President Bush has talked about a guest worker program. Others have talked about a circular program where you can come in, work for a period of time, and leave. Others have talked about a system where you can earn your citizenship by working here. That is what was basically passed in the committee bill, with much tougher enforcement and a way of being able to get the 11 million into a system where they can get into a legalized status and out of the shadows. That is what we want to take place. We also have in the bill more interior enforcement. We have provisions that have yet to be worked out on Social Security and immigration enforcement that are being talked about with the chairman of the Finance Committee. My reason for outlining that is that this is a big step we have taken today out of the Judiciary Committee. I serve on that committee. But it is not the final step. The President needs to engage in these discussions and negotiations, hopefully, as well as the House leadership, as we debate on the Senate floor one of the biggest issues facing this country today and its future. And make no mistake about it, this will affect the future makeup of the United States. It is a major issue. I think it is one we can be proud of, that this is a nation of immigrants. We can be humbled by all of our humble beginnings that each of us came from and have grown in this country. Once given freedom and liberty, people can do amazing things. We have seen that time and again, the story of people who have come to the United States. The final point I want to make is a philosophical one. One of the key measures in any society is what you do for the so-called least of these. It is what you do for those who are not in the Chair presiding in the Senate, even with the humble roots that he came from, or other individuals, it is what you do for the least of these, what you do for the huddled masses. That really is a key hallmark and a key measure for society. Those huddled masses that we enshrined in the Statue of Liberty are a key indicator of what we have stood for so much in the past. Categories of people who are in the least of these status generally are referred to as widows and orphans and the foreigner amongst you. They are considered the least of these. People who have difficulty with status, difficulty having laws applied to them, have difficulty accessing the system are considered the least of these. And what do we do. Today we took a step in dealing with the 11 million population, we believe, of undocumenteds in this country, trying to deal with them as beautiful, unique individuals. And then we have to, as well, deal with these as a nation of laws. We have to be a nation of laws. We can't just say: Well, the winds are this way or that way, and we have decided we are going to do this. We have to be a nation of laws. We have to get to a system that we can have people believe in and say this is a system of laws that will work, and yet still deal with our aspiration as a society to deal with people in difficult circumstances, the so-called least of these. I think we have struck that balance today as a start. We have a long way to go to finish. We are heading toward the higher aspirations of what this country is about. It will be a very difficult and visceral debate, as people's passions are strong. It does amaze me that passions frequently change from the macro to the micro on an immigration debate. In a macro debate, people say: We need to be a nation of laws. On a micro basis, if it is their neighbor next door that is working and doing construction work, they say: Look, leave him alone. But on a macro basis, I want to deal with this on a tough situation. I have seen that so much, of individuals who will say on a macro basis: We need to have a tough set of laws, but don't pick on this individual I know personally and I really care for. They should have a chance to experience the American dream. We are off to a good start of having a wholesome, full debate that is dignified, that is important, that deals with the highest aspirations of this country and yet maintains and tries to get us back through the immigration system into a nation of laws and not situations where they are just thrown to the side. Our current system is such, with the complexity and the time waits in it that a person may come here legally but their spouse can't be here legally for 7 to 10 years. So frequently the spouses decide, let's get there any way we can. Or you will find an agricultural worker in a system saying that it is just so complicated that we are going to go around the system to the point that half to three-fourths of our agricultural workers, foreign-born agricultural workers, are undocumented illegals. Yet without them you don't run the agricultural system. You could say that is a bad place to be in, and it is. But I think it also tells us the path to change that we have to get to be able to make a legal system that does work and that can get most people into it. We need to do so to be compassionate and a nation of laws. It will be a tremendous debate. It is an important one for the country. It is an important one for the Republican Party, for us to have a good, full debate about this topic and how we move forward with it. I think we are going to have it, and it is going to be one of the most dignified and important moments in debates for this Senate during this term of Congress. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, today I rise to speak on the amendment offered by Senator Snowe to S. Con. Res. 83. This amendment addresses the question of whether the Federal Government should play a role in negotiating the prices of Medicare prescription drug plans. In the past, I have supported similar measures that would allow the Federal Government to negotiate prescription drug plan prices, based on the idea that there was a need to contain rising prescription drug costs and that negotiation would have the effect of driving down costs. However, we are now seeing dramatically lower costs than we had anticipated. Specifically, CMS recently announced that the average premium of a Medicare prescription drug plan is $25; this is thirty two-percent reduction from the premium estimates of 1 year ago. Also, CMS has reported almost doubling of discounts and rebates of drugs under the Medicare prescription drug program from original projections. These effects are a result of the fact that under the Medicare prescription drug program, similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, numerous plans are in competition to offer consumers the lowest possible prices. In view of this, today, I am voting not to support this amendment, and instead, am lending my support to offering America's seniors the lowest and most affordable prices on their prescription drugs. We now have evidence that the lowest prices are offered through what makes this nation's economy one of the most robust in the world--healthy competition.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, on December 24, 2005, Dallas L. Hayden, a native son of Kansas retired from Federal service with 26 years with the Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General. Mr. Hayden retired as the Special Agent-in-Charge of the Great Plains Region of which Kansas is included. Mr. Hayden exemplified all that a Federal law enforcement agent should: integrity, loyalty, and above all, the belief that the laws of the land are paramount. Politics never played a part in any investigation under his control. Only the facts mattered. I want to publicly commend Mr. Hayden for his service and wish only the best for him and his family in the years to come.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I sat in on the hearings for Judge Alito. I personally interviewed Judge Alito. I talked with him in my office. I sat through the hearings and was able to question him in the Judiciary Committee. I am on the Judiciary Committee, so I sat through those hearings to hear his testimony. I feel as if we had a good chance to take the measure of the man, and he is outstanding. I believe he is going to be an outstanding jurist. He answered hundreds of questions, more than I believe any prior nominee has answered in the history of the Republic. He answered them deftly. He answered them with an encyclopedic knowledge of the law. It was amazing to me to see that he did not have a note in front of him the whole time, and if you asked him any constitutional question on any case at any time in the history of the Republic, he would say here are the facts of that case, here is how the law was decided, this case is still in question or it isn't. He is a brilliant jurist. He wasn't particularly good on international law, and I was particularly glad to hear he wasn't good on law, on what would happen in other countries. He has a long history on the bench which I think is important. For a series of years now, only so-called stealth candidates could be approved. Judge Alito is a man with years of experience on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He has written a number of opinions that we could dissect them and see. People were looking into his background, trying to determine does he lean this way or that way, but he has hundreds of published opinions, and through them we can see which way he leans. He is a known commodity--well known, well respected, and well regarded across the board. I do think where he is going to contribute to the country, the Republic, is in the areas of religious freedom and free expression. This has not gotten much play at all in the media or in much of the hearings, but it is one of the areas he has written the most extensively on and in which he is a legal scholar. He believes in a robust public square, a public square where we can celebrate faith, and where faith can be presented. He believes in this for all faiths and faith traditions. You see that in cases where he has ruled in favor of menorah candles being put forward, Christmas trees, and Muslim police officers being able to dress appropriately to their religion and still be able to be police officers. He believes in a separation of church and state, but he also believes this is a country full of people of faith and that they should, under the free expression clause, be allowed to express and to live that faith and to be able to show it. I think he is very clear and thoughtful. If there is an area of the law that needs clarity, it is this because we have rules and tests all over the country. I think he is going to contribute in this area. This is one of the areas that did not get much review, it did not get much comment, but I think he is going to make a clear impression, and I think he is going to make a very helpful impression for this Nation whose motto, as the Chair looks at it, is ``In God We Trust.'' There is a reason for that. This is a nation of faith. It is one we seek to celebrate, not have an imprimatur from the state saying this is the religion or that is the religion, but rather saying we want you all to be here, have your own faith, be able to celebrate it, and be able to bring it forward in this Nation. I think he is going to contribute greatly in this particular category. The area of abortion got the most review, and it is unknown how he would rule in the case of Roe v. Wade or anything along that line. He did not state an opinion one way or the other. It is an area of open case law. It is an area, in my opinion, that is not in the Constitution. There is no constitutional right for a woman to abort her child. I believe it to be a matter that should be decided by bodies such as this, or in States around the country. I remind my colleagues, as they all know, if Roe v. Wade or any portion of it were overturned, the issue goes back to the States. That is the group, that is the body that resolves this issue. It is not something where the ruling automatically shuts everything down. What happens is it goes back and California decides its rules and New York, Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, and other States decide theirs. I don't see what is so untrustworthy about States resolving this issue. They did prior to 1973, and we didn't have near the level of conflict or difficulty in this country on those laws when the States were resolving these issues. I strongly doubt all the States would resolve them the same. I doubt a State in a certain part of the country would be identical to another one. Yet I do think it would reflect the will of the people. But we do not know how Judge Alito he will rule on this issue. The Democrats don't know, the Republicans don't know, I don't know. This is an issue I care deeply about, and we don't know. That is probably as it should be because it is an area of active case law and one that is going to come in front of us. The other area he was challenged so much on was Executive rights and privileges. I believe this man will be very clear in standing up to the executive branch when the executive branch needs to be held in check. I have no doubt at all about that. One area we talked about that has not again gotten much review, but needs a lot, is the area of judicial restraint. We need a judiciary that will restrain itself. There are three separate branches of Government, each having a sphere and not to overlap the other. The judiciary has not restrained itself in the past. Judge Alito, along with John Roberts, previously coming before the committee and this body, both spoke significantly and clearly about the need for judicial restraint. I believe if we don't start seeing a judiciary that shows some restraint and says it is not an all-powerful judiciary in every area, it cannot appropriate money, that is left to the Congress, that we will start to see these bodies remove judicial review by the Congress, as is allowed in the Constitution. It is not an area that has been used much, but I think we are going to start seeing it used much more, if the judiciary does not show some level of restraint. This has been expressed by both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. I believe Judge Alito will be an outstanding jurist if we are able to get cloture in this body to end debate, to get the 60 votes necessary to end debate. He is one of the most qualified individuals we have had. His is a beautiful story of immigrant parents coming to the United States and working hard to get a good education. He is one of sterling character. Probably one of the saddest chapters that has taken place is the challenge to his character, which is nothing short of sterling. This is a gentleman who has worked all his life to uphold the traditions of his family, to make his family proud and see his dad pleased that his son stood for right against wrong. At the end of the day, I believe he will exercise justice and righteousness, doing both what is just and what is right. That is what we need in this country, a country that is both just and right. In the greatest traditions of this Nation, we need to do what is right, and we need to be just to the strong, to the weak, to those who cannot speak for themselves. We need to stand up and speak for their rights even if they cannot speak for their own. I support the nomination and yield the floor.