Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I know there are a number of people who wish to speak on Judge Alito. I want to add a few comments of my own on this nomination. If I may inquire of the Chair, is there time that needs to be yielded?

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.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, on January 11 of this year, at the Moscow Headquarters and Synagogue of Agudas Chasidei Chabad of the Former Soviet Union, a so-called ``skinhead'' attacked worshippers with a knife and wounded eight persons. I know that all Members of this body deplore this terrible crime and send our prayers and best wishes to all those injured during the assault. The victims of this senseless violence include Rabbi Isaac Kogan, who testified before an April 6 Helsinki Commission hearing I convened last year concerning Chabad's ongoing efforts to retrieve the Schneerson Collection of sacred Jewish texts from Moscow. The Rabbi is a noted refusenik who was appointed by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, to be part of Agudas Chasidei Chabad of the Former Soviet Union. In addition to nurturing Judaism throughout the former USSR, that organization has fought tirelessly to win the return of the Schneerson Collection to its rightful owners in the United States. The entire U.S. Senate has twice petitioned the Russian leadership to release those holy texts. As chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have followed closely the issue of anti-Semitism and extremism around the world. Unfortunately, the brutal attack at the Agudas Chasidei Chabad synagogue fits what appears to be a rising trend of attacks on ethic and religious minorities in Russia. Let me present one disturbing statistic. According to an article in the Moscow News last year, the Moscow Human Rights Center reports that Russia has up to 50,000 skinheads with active groups in 85 cities. This, as opposed to an estimated 70,000 skinhead activists throughout the rest of the world. To make matters worse, there are indications that the police themselves are sometimes involved in racist attacks. Earlier this month, a Russian newspaper carried a story about the Moscow police assault of a passerby who happened to be from the North Caucasus. According to persons from the North Caucasus, such beatings are a common occurance. What was uncommon was the fact that the gentleman in question is a colonel in the Russian Army and an internationally known cosmonaut. Let me be clear. Anti-Semitism, bigotry, extremist attacks and police brutality are not found only in Russia. Our own country has not been immune to these challenges to rule of law and human dignity. Nevertheless, as Russia accedes to the chairmanship of the G-8 and the Council of Europe, there will be increased scrutiny of its commitment to internationally recognized standards of human rights practices. I urge the authorities in Russia to do everything in their power to combat ethnic and religious intolerance and safeguard the religious freedom and physical safety of all it citizens.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak to speak on a free- standing provision in title IV of the pending DOD appropriations bill, subtitle A, the Hurricane Education Recovery Act, which prohibits discrimination ``on the basis of . . . sex.'' (Section 107(m)(1)(A)). I want to ensure that this provision will be applied in an abortion- neutral manner--such as parallel provisions that have long governed all educational institutions receiving Federal funds--even though it contains no explicit clarifying language. Over two decades ago, Federal regulators and others misused statutory language against ``discrimination on the basis of sex'' to argue that procedures, such as abortion, which apply only to women must be treated like any routine health procedure. To end this misinterpretation, abortion-neutral language amending title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Restoration Act in 1988, 20 U.S.C Sec. 1688. When Congress passed the D.C. School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 in January, it incorporated this clarification by reference, Sec. 308(b)(3) of Pub. L. 108-199. It is therefore important to be clear that nothing in this bill is designed to change this legal status quo in any way. At a time when schoolchildren in so many States are in desperate need of temporary assistance to continue their educations, no one should be seizing upon this emergency legislation as a vehicle for changing current law on abortion. Nor should the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina and other disasters be used to justify filing sex discrimination suits against private and public schools that do not facilitate abortions for minor children in their charge. I am confident that Congress had no such intent in crafting this bill and that the U.S. Department of Education will not construe the bill's provision on discrimination ``on the basis of sex'' to require any new policy or practice on abortion in schools.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to reaffirm the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's requirement to ensure ``strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.'' CPB receives roughly $400 million from Congress as part of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations bill. CPB's requirement to see that recipients like the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio uphold the objectivity and balance standard does not stem from congressional micro-management or partisan interference. Rather, it is a matter of complying with the law under which CPB dispenses taxpayers' money. That law mandates CPB to see to both ``maximum freedom of the public telecommunications entities'' and their ``strict adherence to objectivity and balance.'' These mandates are not in conflict. Instead, they complement each other, and to maintain Americans' confidence in public broadcasting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting must see that both mandates are fulfilled. Congress and the taxpayers expect nothing less.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, when our Nation recently celebrated the life of Rosa Parks, we were reminded that the walk to justice is a long one. Her life reminded us that justice starts with individuals standing up for what is right; but also that the struggle does not quickly end until we faithfully finish the task. Likewise, while we have made a good start in our efforts to address the global crime of human trafficking, the millions of victims who still suffer in slavery today are urgently looking to see if we will finish as well as we have started. I am pleased to say that the passage of the Trafficking Victims' Protection Reauthorization Act is one more step in that direction. Each year, it is estimated that at least 800,000 human beings are trafficked across national borders. They are bought and sold in the sex industry as prostitutes, or forced into domestic servitude. Recent estimates on the number of victims trafficked into the United States range from 20,000 to 40,000 per year. Most of these victims are women and young children who languish in brothels, being raped and abused by the traffickers and their clients. An estimated 27 million human beings worldwide suffer from some form of slavery and forced labor. The late Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila were passionately devoted to the issue of trafficking and to assisting countless victims. I will always remember their courageous fight in addressing modern-day slavery. Senator Wellstone and I teamed up in the Senate and were able to see the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 signed into law. Some called us strange bedfellows, but the wide political and religious spectrum that supported our efforts were a clear reminder that this is not a partisan issue. While Paul Wellstone is no longer here to carry the torch, I am pleased that other colleagues from across party lines have worked to make a difference by uniting under the common principle of freedom. ``The Victims of Trafficking Protection Act,'' Public Law 106-386, established a monitoring system and sanctions for countries that fail to take minimal efforts to combat trafficking. ``The PROTECT Act,'' Public Law 108-21, made it a crime for any person traveling abroad or entering into the United States to do so for sex tourism involving children. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, Public Law 108-193, established a Senior Policy Operating Group within the executive branch to coordinate sound policies between interagency departments. These measures have brought about both deep understanding and awareness and much needed laws to protect and combat against trafficking. I congratulate Congressman Chris Smith and my colleagues in the House for their tireless devotion to this issue and the passage of the 2005 reauthorization legislation. The bill reauthorizes ongoing programs of the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Labor to combat trafficking in persons for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Additionally, it authorizes new funds to the FBI for domestic and international investigations of acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons, as well as grants to State and local law enforcement for the investigation and prosecution of acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons involving domestic victims of trafficking. For the first time, we have authorized new programs to reduce the demand for commercial sex in the United States and prevent trafficking of U.S. citizens through the creation of grant programs for States and local law enforcement. As a result of last year's tsunami, the legislation incorporates child protection and trafficking prevention activities into USAID, State, and DOD post-conflict and post-natural disaster relief programs. In addition, given recent sex scandals within peacekeeping missions, this bill aims to strengthen efforts to combat sexual exploitation and trafficking in persons by peacekeepers. Finally, the bill authorizes studies on the linkage between trafficking and terrorism and trafficking and HIV/AIDS, as well as requires a worldwide report on steps taken to prevent and eliminate the abduction and enslavement of children for use as soldiers. I would also like to applaud the work of the Trafficking in Persons Office at the State Department. Through their sustained diplomatic efforts, countries around the world are signing into law provisions that prevent and punish human trafficking. Even in the United States, we have places like the Kansas Legislature working on legislation to combat human trafficking. It is a true testament to the strides that we have made in ending modern-day slavery and I hope other states and nations around the world will also consider taking action against this type of organized crime. I am driven by the conviction that every individual counts. This principle comprises the heart of the democratic form of government. It is based on a belief in the universal nature of human rights and a commitment to the dignity of every human life. Addressing modern-day slavery is driven by that very conviction. Rosa Parks' remarkable story tells us that the walk to freedom has to begin somewhere--but also that such a walk is a long one. And for the journey we take encouragement from the assurances of a Baptist pastor who went to jail with Rosa Parks. ``The moral arc of the universe is long,'' said Dr. King, ``but it bends toward justice.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I might interrupt, I would like to add that I share the understanding of my colleagues from Arizona and South Carolina. I supported the McCain amendments--I think that it is important to ensure that detainees are treated humanely. But I would not support allowing those detainees to file lawsuits against our armed forces, and I wasn't aware that anyone had even suggested that the McCain amendments allow detainees to file Bivens-type actions.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. On the bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I was requesting unanimous consent to be able to speak at this point in time on the discussion. As I understood, it was locked in for Senator Stevens to speak at this point. I was asking for that.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues for allowing me this opportunity to speak as if in morning business on the bill. I think it is important in morning business to be able to talk about the bill. This is an important bill, and it is a key piece of legislation. I think it is an important thing for us to move forward. On the basic facts on the federal budget, which have been covered a lot, we are hearing a lot about this across the country. We are spending too much money, and we are driving the deficit up too big. It is just the basic facts. We have a $319 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2005. It is time--past time--that we start addressing this issue. I came to the House of Representatives with the class of 1994. The lead issue we were talking about at that point in time was balancing the budget. We had not had a balanced budget since Dwight Eisenhower was President of the United States in the 1950s. It was past time. We were in trillions of dollars of debt. Now we are at over $8 trillion of debt. So we pushed and we pushed and we pushed, and we, in that class, with many others working with us, got together to balance the budget. We did it with a simple formula. You have to get the economy growing rapidly. It has to be moving forward, churning out for the economy and churning out a number of tax receipts. Then you have to restrain your growth of Federal spending so your growth in the country and its economy exceeds the growth rate of your Federal spending. That is how we got to a balanced budget for 3 years, for the first time since Eisenhower. It was a big push by that class, by many people at that point in time, to get us to a balanced budget. And we did it. And while the President--at that time President Clinton--may have taken a lot of credit for it, the credit belongs to the Congress. The Congress is the one that spends the money, the one that authorizes the spending of money. We are the ones who restrained that growth of Federal spending, where it was slower than the overall growth rate of the economy. That got us to a balance. We have to do the same now. The economy is growing. Last quarter, it grew at about a 4.4-percent annual growth rate. It was good, solid growth taking place. Now we have to restrain the growth of Federal spending so we can get to a balance. This effort, this reconciliation package, starts us down that road. We need to get to balance, I think, in 5 years. We need to have a balance in the budget in a 5-year time frame. This starts with us. It certainly does not get us there, but it does start us in the process of restraining that growth of Federal spending. It is absolutely essential that we do this. We have to reach across the board at all places of Federal spending to be able to get that sort of reduction to take place. I want to put forward, too, in front of my colleagues, a chart. I don't know if people follow these charts very well. The Government actually scores the effectiveness of Government spending. We look to see whether a program is meeting its targeted goals. These are scored by the Office of Management and Budget. It is a set review. It is an objective set of standards. Then the Department, the agency, the entity, or the particular program is actually given a letter grade score on its effectiveness for doing what it was targeted to do. I want to show my colleagues some of these program reviews that have taken place. Under the heading ``Department/Agency,'' Transportation gets the highest score for effectiveness in hitting the target of the program. I don't think anyone wants wasteful spending. They want the spending to be something that is going to real programs and helping real people. The Department of Transportation had 10 programs reviewed, had a median score of 78.1, and got a C+ grade average. Now, if my kids came home from school with a C+, I would say: Well, OK, you tried hard, but we need to get that up. We need to work harder to have a higher level of effectiveness score for you. The problem is, the Department of Transportation had the high score. That was the high score in the class. It was at a C+ level. You can look down here: The State Department had a C; a C- for Energy, Treasury; D+ for NASA, Commerce, Defense, USAID; D for the Small Business Administration. Then you go on down to a number of programs that actually received a failing score for effectiveness in hitting this objective set target. The reason I point this out is to say that we have to do more to review our agencies to make sure hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being well spent. One of the things we put forward that I think is needed is a systems change on how we spend money. We are making a cut here, a reduction in the growth rate, that is taking place overall. We are making that cut here. But what we need to do is go through the full set of Federal programs and ask: Which ones are effective and which ones are not? Which ones maybe have been effective in the past, but the programs have actually accomplished their mission? Which ones duplicate other programs that already exist in the Federal Government? Frankly, there are many. But we have not found ways or systems to change this, so we keep on spending. The spending continues to grow. So we put forward a bill called the Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA, on the process of a system-wide review of effectiveness and eliminating those programs that are not effective. We have 25 Senate cosponsors. The program roughly works similar to the BRAC commission, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. It works along the lines of saying: OK, let's look at all of Government, every bit of Government. If a program is duplicative, if a program has accomplished its purpose, if a program is scoring very low on its effectiveness, then it is put into a group of programs by the Commission. There could be 50--it might be 500--submitted to the President. He or she then either approves, disapproves, and sends it to the Congress. Then the Congress has to vote on whether to keep the whole package of programs or to eliminate the whole package of programs. It is a systems review, a process of pulling out programs, which we have not been able to find a way to do. This model is along what we do with base closings because we, prior to the base-closing commission process, did not have an effective base closing process and were not able to close a military base. Any time one would get challenged, Senators, Congressmen, Congresswomen in that particular State would defend that base, no matter how irrelevant it may have grown to the current mission of the military. They were defending it for their home team and home turf, and we could not eliminate a single program. Through BRAC we closed or realigned nearly 100 military bases. The rest of Government needs a ``BRAC.'' We need it desperately. I think we need it not only to control the spending but also to be able to put spending in higher priority areas: to reduce the deficit and to regain the credibility of the American people, showing that we are actually monitoring and working to make sure Federal spending is in priority areas and is not wasted. It drives people crazy that money is wasted in Federal programs. It drives me crazy. People tell me time and again: I am willing to spend the money, but don't waste it. Don't shoot it somewhere. That irritates people and it irritates me. Yet, we have not found an effective way to get at Government spending. Here is the process. It has been approved by Congress, used by Congress, and it has been effective in eliminating the marginal military bases. It needs to be employed for the rest of Government now. I put this forward here because we are talking now about trying to get Federal spending under control, to get back to a balanced budget, which we need to do. Let's change the system. At the end of the process here or next year, let's start changing the system so we can effectively get at this. We have to do this. It is inappropriate for us to leave these kinds of deficits for our children. It is wrong. I campaigned on this when I first came into the Congress, and I have consistently said we need to balance the budget. It is wrong to leave a bigger mortgage on the farm for your children than the one you had. That is philosophically wrong. That is putting your burden on future generations when you should have taken care of it yourself. We can do better, but the system has to change in the process. I am pleased we are moving forward on this particular bill. I strongly support it. I think it is important for the country, and I think it is an important statement. Having said that, I think this is a step in a process that we have got to use to get this spending under control. We can do better and we can have more effective Federal spending, and that will build support among people, not diminish it. When people see us actually prioritizing spending and eliminating wasteful spending taking place, it will build more confidence in the governmental system and the way things should be and the way things need to move on forward. I think that is important. On a separate issue that will come up shortly, I think it is very important for us to get our energy security needs addressed. We are not in an energy-secure position now. We are very dependent upon a number of places overseas that are volatile. We are dependent, as we have seen ourselves in places in our country where severe weather patterns could be harmful, such as the oil production shutdown during Katrina. A number of us are working on a bipartisan bill to get more and more of our fleet of cars off of gasoline, by using hybrids and plug-in technology to move our car fleet into electric. A fact a lot of people don't know about is that half of Americans actually drive about 20 miles a day. If we can get those 20 miles from electric instead of gasoline, our demand and dependency on foreign oil plummets. This is a bipartisan bill. Senator Lieberman and I are leading on this. I hope we can move forward on this next year. In the meantime, we have to get more oil domestically, and the place for us to do that is ANWR. We can do it effectively and in an environmentally sound way. It is important that we do it for our own people and our own security. We cannot afford to continue this energy vulnerability that we have. I think our conscience and soul were shaken when we saw the prices get to where they did, at $3 a gallon and above--saying this situation is not sustainable. We need to address this. I know it is a difficult topic for a number of people, but we need to do this for our own energy security and for the security of this Nation. It is an important thing for us to do. That is why I strongly support the ANWR provision. Doing this in an environmentally sound fashion, yet reducing our dependency level and increasing our energy security in a minor way, but doing it and moving forward with that. I think it is important to do that. We are here late in the year and I think everybody would much rather be at home with family or doing things in other places than here. But these are important pieces of legislation. Balancing the budget is very important for our future and our children, and a good Christmas present. Energy security is important for our Nation and for our children, an important Christmas present we can give them as well--to build a more secure future for this Nation. I thank the Chair. With that, I yield the remainder of my time and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that it be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I anticipate under 15 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could ask the Senator from Massachusetts a question, as I understand, under the previous agreement, Senator Stevens was to go next and is not ready. I ask if I could get the floor to ask unanimous consent to proceed ahead of Senator Stevens.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which would establish a national cord blood stem cell bank. This legislation was agreed to last night during wrap-up under unanimous consent. I would like to congratulate the majority leader and all parties involved in yesterday's achievement, which resulted in passage of the cord blood bill. As you will recall, it was just 2 days ago that the other side, through the junior Senator from Iowa, reaffirmed their objections to consideration of this important legislation. Their objections, it seems, were not substantive as this legislation has been championed by Members from both sides of the aisle and as further evidenced by the lifting of objections and the cord blood bill passing without any opposition. Passage without any opposition in the Senate is truly rare. Rather, the other side's objections were tied to their support for additional funding of highly controversial destructive human embryonic stem cell research, which despite sufficient funding and years of research has yet to cure--or even treat--one human patient yet. Clearly, the other side wants a vote on their embryonic stem cell legislation, which requires the destruction of young human lives. On the other hand, I and many of my colleagues would also like for us to have an up-or-down vote on the Human Cloning Prohibition Act or the Human Chimera Prohibition Act, but we have been denied this by the other side. There will be a time for a vigorous debate on all of these issues next year, and I look forward to engaging in that debate. However, ethical, noncontroversial cord blood stem cell research should not have been made the political football that it was for the intervening months between House passage of the bill in May and yesterday's action in the Senate. Once again, I would like to commend all of my colleagues for depoliticizing the issue of cord blood. Patients will be benefited almost immediately, and, yes, more kids' lives will be saved because we passed this bill yesterday, rather than sometime next year. I applaud the other side for recognizing this fact. Yesterday, the junior Senator from Iowa took to the floor and challenged my statement from Thursday evening that ``more kids will die if we don't take up the cord blood bill.'' I would merely like to spend a few minutes highlighting the truth of my statement. Cord blood stem cell research involves the blood from human umbilical cords. Cord blood contains a high number of pluripotent stem cells; and it is currently treating real people and saving many lives. Contemplation of cord blood stem cell's therapeutic power is something that many in my office are currently contemplating, as at least five staff members or their spouses are expecting babies right now. We even thought that one of them was coming a few nights ago, but it was a false alarm. Unlike human embryonic stem cells, which require the destruction of young human beings, umbilical cord blood stem cells are completely ethical as their derivation and use results in no harm to any human beings. Cord blood has incredible therapeutic power. To better harness the power of cord blood, thereby saving more lives, the cord blood bill that passed last night was essential. While I had worked closely with Senator Specter in channeling appropriation funds to establish a national cord blood stem cell bank, without the authorizing legislation, which we passed last night, these funds did not have the necessary structure to be effective. However, should the House send the bill to the President tonight--as we expect--a structure will go into effect that will immediately begin collecting cord blood units and making them available to Americans suffering from a variety of diseases from blood cancers to neurological diseases. Without the structure that cord blood bill provides, many fewer patients will benefit and some waiting on cord blood will die. To highlight this, I will share a few stories of real people who have been successfully treated with cord blood stem cells. The first story is of Keone Penn, a young man cured of sickle cell anemia a disease that afflicts more than 70,000 Americans, particularly African Americans. Keone, of course, tells his story the best; so listen to his testimony before a Senate Science Subcommittee hearing that I chaired on June 12, 2003: My name is Keone Penn. Two days ago, I turned 17 years old. Five years ago, they said I wouldn't live to be 17. They said I'd be dead within 5 years. I was born with sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell is a very bad disease. I had a stroke when I was 5 years old. Things got even worse after that. My life has been full of pain crises, blood transfusions every two weeks, and more times in the hospital than I can count. The year before I had my stem cell transplant, I was in the hospital 13 times. I never was able to have a normal life. My stem cell transplant was not easy, but I thank God that I'm still here. I will graduate from high school this year. I want to become a chef because I love to cook. I think I'm pretty good at it. Sickle cell is now a part of my past. One year after my transplant, I was pronounced cured. Stem cells saved my life. It is important to realize though that cord blood treats many other diseases. Consider the story of Erik Haines, who received a successful cord blood stem cell transplant to treat Krabbe disease. Krabbe disease is an often fatal neurological disease. This helps to illustrate how broadly effective cord blood stem cells really are. Erik Haines made medical history at age 2 when he became one of the first cord blood transplant patients at the University of Minnesota on July 24, 1994. Erik had suffered from the genetic blood disorder Krabbe disease, from which his younger brother Adam died. Since his umbilical cord blood transplant, annual exams at the University of Minnesota are not full of foreboding or anxiety; and check-ups with Erik's pediatrician likewise seem routine. Also, like many boys, Erik enjoys baseball, soccer, and swimming. Erik's father Paul Haines says: The only real lasting effects are complications from the radiation he received--small cataracts. He wears glasses and has a little trouble seeing the board from the back of the room. Both Keone and Erik's treatments took place in the 1990s, and cord blood stem cell research has made even greater progress since then. We learn of new, exciting developments every month. Just 2 weeks ago, we heard about this on local DC television stations. On November 30, 2005, two local DC TV stations reported on separate life saving cures emerging from umbilical cord blood stem cells. Channel 7 focused on the Korean cord blood stem cell treatment for spinal cord injury and the procedure's first U.S. patient, a Virginia woman. Channel 4 highlighted two children in a local family--Riverdale, MD-- cured of SCIDS--severe combined immune deficiency syndrome--also known as ``bubble boy disease'' by cord blood from unrelated donors. And on October 23, 2005, the Chicago Tribune reported: Cord blood is surprising researchers with previously unrecognized healing powers that go far beyond its known effectiveness against childhood leukemia and some other disorders. Early research in animals suggests that cord blood may provide a new bounty of cures and treatments for many other medical conditions, including heart attack, Parkinson's disease, stroke, Alzheimer's disease, muscular dystrophy, diabetes, spinal cord injury and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis . . . In May, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study showing that a cord blood transplant performed as soon as possible after birth can, for the first time, stop the deadly course of Krabbe disease. There are thousands of testimonies of the efficaciousness of cord blood stem cells. There are also innumerable new stories and medical journal articles on amazing advances in disease treatments in real human patients with cord blood stem cells. There are more than ample, documented medical articles, on which I base my claim that because the Senate acted and passed the cord blood bill this week, more kids' lives will be saved. As for speculative, destructive, human embryonic stem cell research, there is not yet even one patient trial with embryonic stem cells for any disease; and it is not for lack of years of research, prohibitions--there are none--or lack of funding. It is because embryonic stem cells form cancers and tumors due to their immature state. Regarding destructive human embryonic stem cell research, even the prestigious journal Science acknowledged on June 17, 2005, that: It is nearly certain that the clinical benefits of the research are years or decades away. This is a message that desperate families and patients will not want to hear. With last night's passage of the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act, the Senate formally recognized the lifesaving value of cord blood stem cell research. I have worked closely with Senator Specter over the past few years to appropriate nearly $20 million for the purpose of establishing a national cord blood bank. And I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation that passed out of this chamber last night. I am also proud that we were able to move in a bipartisan manner on this legislation. Working alongside Senators Hatch, Dodd, Specter, Harkin, Enzi, and Frist on this issue was a pleasure and helps to demonstrate that the two parties can work together effectively. Everybody wins with cord blood stem cell research. Patients win because they receive successful treatments and cures. Human dignity wins because cord blood stem cell research respects all human life and does not kill the young human embryo, as is the case with human- destructive embryonic stem cell research. Cord blood doesn't just hold promise. Cord blood is producing real treatments and even real cures for a variety of maladies afflicting real people right now. Passage of this bill should be celebrated, and I commend my colleagues for this wonderful achievement. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as Senator Corzine spends his final days representing the people of New Jersey in the Senate, I wish to spend a few moments speaking about his commitment to human rights and the pressing crisis of genocide in Darfur, Sudan. I have worked on the issue of war and humanitarian disaster in Sudan for several years. But nearly 2 years ago, as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan was in its final negotiations, we became aware of the unfolding crisis in Sudan's western region of Darfur. It was Senator Corzine who came to me to work together and champion this issue. We joined each other on the Senate floor in countless speeches showing photos of the anguish in Darfur. We joined each other in seeing the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act through the Senate. We joined each other to secure funding for the security and humanitarian needs of the people. I have had the opportunity to work with many Members across party lines on human rights and humanitarian issues. I remember partnering with Paul Wellstone on the Trafficking Victims' Protection Act. Some called us strange bedfellows since we were at opposite ends of the political spectrum. But I have learned an important lesson: these issues are sufficiently urgent that ideological and partisan differences should not be allowed to impede cooperation, especially where lives and basic freedoms are at stake. And such has been true in the case of Darfur. I have no doubt that Senator Corzine's commitment and perseverance to raise this issue to the highest levels has made a difference to the people of Darfur. I also saw firsthand his sincere compassion and commitment to the suffering of the world when we traveled to tsunami-ravaged South Asia together earlier this year. I will always consider Senator Corzine an ally and a friend on one of the greatest moral issues in foreign policy today. In his absence, I will look to my other colleagues to ensure that this crisis is not easily forgotten. As we close out 2005, I urge my colleagues to secure additional funding for the African Union in the Defense Appropriations conference and I urge my colleagues in the House to pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. Without continued action by the United States and the international community, more lives will be lost. I would like to take this opportunity to formally and publicly thank Senator Corzine for his partnership and his commitment to the people of Darfur. I express my very best wishes as he leaves this body to become the next Governor of New Jersey.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I applaud my colleague from Utah for helping lead the fight against child pornography. This is an issue upon which all Senators can unite, and it is a battle we must not lose. Pornography is no longer isolated to a small segment of society. It has pervaded our culture. As we learned in a recent hearing I chaired in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, pornography has infiltrated homes and families and is having devastating effects. According to recent reports, 1 in 5 children between the ages of 10 and 17 have received a sexual solicitation over the Internet, and 9 out of 10 children between the ages of 8 and 16 who have Internet access have viewed porn Web sites, usually in the course of looking up information for homework. Perhaps the ugliest aspect of the pornography epidemic is child pornography. Children as young as 5 years old are being used for profit in this fast-growing industry. We have a duty to protect the weakest members of our society from exploitation and abuse. I believe this bill is the first step in that fight. First, this bill will expand recordkeeping requirements to those who produce soft-core, or simulated, pornography. Current law only requires that records be kept by producers of hardcore, or actual, pornography. Under this language, producers will now be required to verify the ages of their actors and keep records of such information, regardless of whether the material they produce contains actual sexual activity or only a simulation of such activity. Further, this bill will require producers of such materials to disclose such records to the Attorney General for inspection. It will make refusal to permit inspection of such records a crime. This will be effective not only as a tool in prosecutions as a means of deterrence. Producers will be less likely to use child actors if they know they may be required to disclose the ages of their actors. Today, recordkeeping requirements apply only to ``actual'' sexual conduct, leaving a loophole for soft-core pornography. Such material is no less damaging to children than hardcore pornography and recordkeeping and disclosure requirements must apply to this material as well. This bill will close the current loophole. Again, I appreciate the leadership of Senator Hatch, and I hope my colleagues will join us passing this legislation to protect children from victimization and abuse.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I applaud my colleague from Utah for helping lead the fight against child pornography. This is an issue upon which all Senators can unite, and it is a battle we must not lose. Pornography is no longer isolated to a small segment of society. It has pervaded our culture. As we learned in a recent hearing I chaired in the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights, pornography has infiltrated homes and families and is having devastating effects. According to recent reports, 1 in 5 children between the ages of 10 and 17 have received a sexual solicitation over the Internet, and 9 out of 10 children between the ages of 8 and 16 who have Internet access have viewed porn Web sites, usually in the course of looking up information for homework. Perhaps the ugliest aspect of the pornography epidemic is child pornography. Children as young as 5 years old are being used for profit in this fast-growing industry. We have a duty to protect the weakest members of our society from exploitation and abuse. I believe this bill is the first step in that fight. First, this bill will expand recordkeeping requirements to those who produce soft-core, or simulated, pornography. Current law only requires that records be kept by producers of hardcore, or actual, pornography. Under this language, producers will now be required to verify the ages of their actors and keep records of such information, regardless of whether the material they produce contains actual sexual activity or only a simulation of such activity. Further, this bill will require producers of such materials to disclose such records to the Attorney General for inspection. It will make refusal to permit inspection of such records a crime. This will be effective not only as a tool in prosecutions as a means of deterrence. Producers will be less likely to use child actors if they know they may be required to disclose the ages of their actors. Today, recordkeeping requirements apply only to ``actual'' sexual conduct, leaving a loophole for soft-core pornography. Such material is no less damaging to children than hardcore pornography and recordkeeping and disclosure requirements must apply to this material as well. This bill will close the current loophole. Again, I appreciate the leadership of Senator Hatch, and I hope my colleagues will join us passing this legislation to protect children from victimization and abuse.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I applaud the sponsors of this bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act for their tireless leadership in the campaign to end the abuse of women. In particular, I thank them for their foresight in incorporating the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 ``IMBRA'' as one of its subtitles. This important piece of legislation, which I introduce with Senator Maria Cantwell in the Senate, is intended to address Congress' concerns about a significant and growing problem: the high incidence of violent abuse of foreign women brought to this country as fiancees or spouses by American men whom they meet through for-profit international marriage brokers ``IMBs,'' commonly known as ``mail-order bride'' agencies. After learning from the Tahirih Justice Center and other front-line experts about the terrible circumstances in which many of these women find themselves, I convened a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 2004 to call attention to the abuse and exploitation of women and their children through this industry. Since it comes as a great surprise to many people that such agencies actually exist in the modem day, that are legal in this country, and that they are on the rise, not the decline, I want to share some further background that will explain why it is so important that Congress has acted today to compel the industry and its clients to clean up their act. First, this is an increasing problem. The IMB industry has exploded in recent years, greatly facilitated by the Internet. According to statistics from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an estimated one-third to one-half of all foreign fiancees admitted to the U.S. each year--9,500 to 14,500 women in 2004 alone--and many thousand more admitted foreign wives, have met their American husbands through IMBs. The number of foreign fiancees admitted to the U.S. more than doubled between 1998 and 2002, and continues to climb. Second, the industry bears significant responsibility for women's vulnerability to abuse, and has done little if anything on its own initiative to safeguard them. Over a half-decade ago, the then- Immigration and Naturalization Service concluded in a report to Congress that, ``with the burgeoning number of unregulated international matchmaking organizations and clients using their services, the potential for abuse in mail-order marriages is considerable.'' The INS study further noted that American men who use IMBs tend to seek relationships with women whom they feel they can control. Moreover, the marketing and business practices of IMBs also heighten the risk of abuse by feeding this perception. Agencies often advertise the women they recruit as being submissive to male clients, who might pay up to several thousand dollars to gain access to those women. Other industry practices, from ``satisfaction guarantees'' or ``shopping cart'' features on agency web sites to so-called ``romance tours'' overseas that virtually line up several hundred women recruits for inspection by a dozen male clients during a single ``mixer,'' make perfectly clear that the woman is the commodity provided for the male client's consumption. An inevitable and dangerous sense of ownership by the men in their costly investments can develop. Several highly publicized murders of women by husbands whom they met through IMBs highlight a growing nationwide trend of abuse. A 2003 survey conducted by the Tahirih Justice Center found that over 50 percent of programs providing legal services to battered immigrant women nationwide had served women battered by men whom they had met through IMBs. Third, women who are recruited by IMBs are at a tremendous informational disadvantage that a brutal predator can exploit. These foreign fiancees and spouses often are unable to obtain reliable information about the criminal and marital histories of their American fiancees and spouses, and are unaware of the legal rights and resources available to victims of domestic violence in the U.S. An all-too-common result is that women from across the globe are exploited across this country, as a brief memorandum from the Tahirih Justice Center explains, and which I will have printed in the Congressional Record. The information requirements established by this subtitle are designed to require disclosure of the kinds of criminal convictions in the background of a petitioning American fiance or spouse that indicate he could be prone to domestic violence. This will enable a foreign woman to make an informed decision about coming to this country for marriage to an American man, in advance, with her safety and that of her children in mind. The provisions of this subtitle would also provide her with information about where she can turn for help, including vital safety nets and social services available to domestic violence and sexual assault victims, if she experiences abuse at the hands of her American fiance or spouse. A simple but incredibly powerful premise drives these provisions: that this information can help a woman help herself, help her save herself or her child from becoming the next victim of a predatory abuser. Through this information and other safeguards, this important legislation will help prevent those intent on doing women harm from perverting and subverting both the institution of marriage and the immigration process to find new victims overseas. So again, I thank my colleagues for their inclusion of these vital protections, and thank them, too, on behalf of the women and children whom they have spared today from tragedies tomorrow. I ask unaminous consent the memorandum be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object, I want to enter into this discussion. I deeply appreciate the majority leader bringing the issue up. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Iowa. He and I have been around this debate for some time. I personally want to bring up a human cloning ban. That is something I have had in the mill for 4 years. Each session we are getting close. I think it ought to be included right now and moved forward. Yet I recognize it has some contentiousness to it, as does my colleague from Iowa raising the embryonic stem cell issue. It has a contentious debate on it. I have objections, as a number of my colleagues do, to the use of young human life for research purposes. The reason that we should go forward with this type of proposal the leader is putting forward is there is nobody opposed to cord blood research in the entire 100 Members here. Everybody supports cord blood research. It is real cures today. I have two pictures of people who are being treated right now, have been treated. This is Keone, sickle cell anemia, cord blood cured. Another one, the next one, Krabbes disease, 3-year-old, cured, cord blood. The problem is, we don't have a big registry of it around the country. So it is a real hit and miss. Some people are lucky enough to find it; others don't and die today. With embryonic stem cell research, the researchers who are the most supportive of it are looking at decades before we have cures. We are researching on it today. We can cure more kids such as Erik Haines today or more will die if we don't take up what the majority leader is asking for us to do, a bill for which there is unanimous support. There is not a single person who does not support a cord blood registry and getting the banking of it up so more people can live today. So I hope my colleagues will look at this and say they don't object. The Senator from Iowa supports the bill; he is one of the sponsors. Let's let this one through, and next year I would love to have a debate on embryonic stem cell research. I would love to debate that and have a debate about cloning. Let's do that and let's have this robust discussion where we don't have agreement. But here we can save lives today. I am not going to object. I would, though, ask that the majority leader's proffer be accepted so we can save some lives today.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator Dorgan's windfall profits tax amendment. This amendment seeks to punish oil companies with a punitive tax on profits when oil prices go above $40 per barrel. This amendment is shortsighted and extremely bad fiscal policy. First, this bill already includes a $4.923 billion tax penalty on large integrated oil companies. The Dorgan amendment would simply add on to the penalty currently in this bill. The belief persists that the oil companies' profits are ``extreme'' or ``excessive.'' However, this belief is unfounded. Yes, most oil companies did have record-setting profits during the 3rd quarter. But history has clearly shown that the oil industry is ``boom or bust.'' One needs look no further than my home State of Kansas. During the 1970s and 1980s, the economy in Kansas was tied directly to the oil and natural gas industry. As their profits spiked or fell, our economy would do the same. I say this to prove that I have firsthand knowledge of how volatile the oil industry is. We need not tax a single industry simply because it had a good quarter. Even a record-setting quarter is not reason to add a windfall tax. This is bad policy and sets a negative precedent. This clearly puts a disincentive in the marketplace for American companies, in all sectors of our economy, to not perform their best. This is not the signal we want to be sending in a competitive, global economy. Building upon the fact that the oil industry has many fluctuations, a windfall tax on profits would reduce needed private investments in energy infrastructure. If the industry is not allowed to benefit during periods of high prices because of a tax on profits, there will be precious little incentive to invest in domestic production. These investments lead to more production, which in turn lead to lower prices. A windfall profit tax would disrupt the normal cyclical movement of the energy industry. Finally, a windfall profits tax would harm the numerous individuals who have invested in the energy industry through pension plans and mutual funds because this new tax would reduce capital gains and dividends payments. Mr. President, I believe it is clear this amendment would do much more harm than good. It is shortsighted, market distorting, and sets a bad precedent for every industry in our economy.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I understand that my colleague from Virginia and I, too, have major military bases in our States. Fort Riley is growing in size as an army unit. It is a place that has troops all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I see this on a personal basis in my State. But I also see on a personal basis, if you are deployed there and you have a minor child who is seeking an abortion, that you as the father or mother want to be notified about that, and we provide this to be done telephonically so a person does not have to be present. The court itself would have to establish witness or evidentiary standards if they want somebody to be present to be able to determine that this person is there, is the actual one who is seeking this. We also provide a system in here that a guardian is appointed if needed, and that can be done by the district court without the approval of the parents, but they have to go through that procedure to be able to get this done. We have worked to try to make this work with personnel. I think it is going to happen in a limited number of settings, but it will happen. It is a Federal issue because it is Federal property, Federal employees, and it is something I think we should do for military personnel so they are in charge of their child's upbringing, and particularly on something such as this of a significant medical procedure of an abortion. So we try to take into consideration the very legitimate concerns of the Senator in putting this forward.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could respond to my colleague----

Mr. BROWNBACK. This is a simple parental notification bill which we brought up last time on the Department of Defense authorization bill and agreed to take it on last year because of desires to move the bill forward. We have worked on it a great deal. What it is about is if a child, a dependent of military personnel, seeks an abortion, they have to get parental notification, which most Americans support. Most Americans believe if their child is seeking a medical procedure of any type, they should have parental notification take place.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Oklahoma and from Virginia for allowing me to speak on this important amendment. This morning, I started my day in the Senate as the Presiding Officer. I started it standing next to Chaplain Black, who is a Navy chaplain. He gave the opening prayer for the Senate. We have had an opening prayer for many years. I found it inspiring, encouraging. I found it uplifting and important that we open this body with a prayer. We do so on a daily basis. As I sat as Presiding Officer, I looked at the door opposite me. Right above it, on our mantlepiece, we have ``In God We Trust,'' as we have on our coinage and in our beliefs and hearts. To many Americans, we are one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It is with this in mind that I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma, No. 2440, that protects the ability of superintendents of military service academies to set appropriate policies for the offering of voluntary nondenominational prayers at authorized events. This is basic. It is important. It is the protection of the practice of religious liberties at our military institutions. Prayer in military environments, as well as in public settings generally, has come into question in recent years. This amendment has specific relation to the 2004 Supreme Court decision not to hear a case regarding the challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union to mealtime prayers at Virginia Military Institute. This follows on a series of cases for 40 years now of an attempt by the hard left in America to have a naked public square, to have no recognition of a divine authority, to have no recognition of seeking a divine authority or guidance, but a naked, sterile public square. That was not contemplated in our Constitution. It called for a separation of church and state, but not the removal of church from state which is what this seeks to perpetuate. The mealtime prayer at Virginia Military Institute was a respected and time-honored practice, a military institution that has played a critical role in training U.S. military leaders for over 160 years. Sadly, the majority decision of the Supreme Court not to hear the case allowed a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to stand which prohibited VMI from sponsoring a daily supper prayer. However, other circuit courts have rejected challenges to nondenominational prayer at the college level. And we should, too; we should allow this prayer to take place. We shouldn't have a naked public square. We should have a robust one that lifts up faith and lifts up the seeking of those to a higher moral authority. Freedom of religion as protected in the U.S. Constitution does not require the removal of all religion from public settings. Such secularity is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they established religious liberty as one of the basic tenets of the Republic. I support the Senator from Oklahoma in his effort to clarify to the judicial branch and the military Congress's understanding of this fundamental constitutional right with regard to military academies. This is important. It is one of those things, as we try to stop this onslaught of the removal of religious liberty, which is what the move is about and what the Senator from Oklahoma is trying to prevent, the removal of religious liberties, to allow the robust practice of religion, nondenominational, nonsectarian, yet seeking that God in whom we trust. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could respond to the last question. No, not Federal employees involved in Medicare and Medicaid, the other situation. We are talking about Federal employees on Federal military facilities. We are trying to protect the parents' rights in this, which the chairman did not dispute, but others may dispute, and we still need to provide another procedure for the child to go outside the parents' rights. I think this is important, and we have tried to make it workable within the military system. I thank the Senator.