Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue of clarifying Congress's intent regarding agricultural operations in respect to Superfund litigation. I, along with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, offered an amendment during the agriculture appropriations conference committee that would have done that very thing. The amendment passed the Senate, by a 9 to 8 vote, yet was stripped from the final conference report. Needless to say, I am disappointed with this result. So much so, in fact, I decided not to sign the conference report. When the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, was passed in 1980 and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, or EPCLA, was passed in 1986, agriculture was never part of the deal. These acts were intended to provide for clean up of toxic waste dumps and spills such as Love Canal and Times Beach. To this end, Congress created the Superfund to tax building blocks, such as petrochemicals, inorganic raw materials and petroleum oil, used to make all hazardous products and waste. Animal agriculture waste, or manure, is clearly not among these materials. In fact, if you would have tried to attach agriculture to either of these two acts, they would not have passed. It was not Congress's intent to apply Superfund rules to manure which contains naturally occurring organic compounds--such as orthophosphate, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide--which occur naturally in the environment in the same form as they appear in manure. Recently, municipal and State governments have filed suit against livestock and poultry operations claiming Superfund liability in Texas and Oklahoma. On April 24, 2004, the City of Waco, TX, filed suit in Federal court against eight dairies in the North Bosque River Watershed and later amended the suit to include six additional dairies, seeking $45 million in damages under Superfund. The suit alleges that orthophosphate is discharged from the dairies and has affected the water quality of Lake Waco which is located approximately 100 miles downstream from the dairies. On June 13, 2005, the attorney general of the State of Oklahoma filed suit in Federal court against 14 major integrated poultry production firms claiming joint and several liability for damaged water quality in the Illinois River Watershed caused by poultry litter runoff from agricultural lands to which it has been applied as fertilizer. The suit seeks to recover past, present, and future response costs under Superfund, as well as natural resource damages that is expected to add up to several hundreds of millions of dollars. If these two cases are successful, other municipalities and States could bring similar lawsuits and every animal feeding operation and farm could be held liable under Superfund. This is another example of our judicial system overstepping its boundaries. Our judicial system is usurping the will of Congress and creating laws Congress never meant to create. Animal agriculture operations have been appropriately regulated and required to have permits for years under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and various State laws to protect the environment, but never under Superfund. My amendment would have left these laws in place. My amendment would have only protected agricultural producers from another example of an activist judicial system. Agriculture is already an over regulated industry and adding the possibility of Superfund litigation will be too much to bear for farmers and ranchers. Further, Superfund was created with a specific goal and mission in mind. The EPA is burdened to meet these goals as it is. To now add the millions of acres of agriculture as possible Superfund sites would be too heavy a burden for the EPA to carry. Including agriculture within Superfund takes away from Superfund's initial, worthy mission. As I stated earlier, I am disappointed that the Superfund amendment was stripped from this report after having passed the Senate. I fully intend to bring this item up next year and I am currently looking for ways to move this legislation. This needs to happen for our farmers and ranchers.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am please to join with Chairman Specter and Senator Biden today as we introduce a bill that will have a dramatic and positive effect in the lives of individuals re-entering society after incarceration. The Second Chance Act: Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention is a bill that will not only protect our Nation's citizens but will more importantly help to reduce recidivism in our Nation. A hallmark of any just society lies in its ability to protect the interest of all its citizens and I am proud that the United States is a leader in this regard. Yet, while we continue to strive toward this lofty goal, we must realize that there are areas in which we, as a society and as government, must do more to improve. No where is that more apparent than in our Nation's pension system. Today, we have challenges within the prison system that range from high recidivism rates to budgetary and safety concerns. With this bill, we will be able to address this pressing problem within our society. Already we have seen innovative and model programs within the states and the faith community, and I am proud to say that Kansas is a leader in this regard, as well a such faith organizations as Prison Fellowship Ministries, Catholic Charities U.S.A., and the Salvation Army. However, we must stimulate innovation in this area on a national level and that is what this bill will accomplish. It is paramount that we ensure the safety of our communities and ensure that those incarcerated have the tools necessary to succeed after they rejoin society. With this bill, we wil1 be able to combat the extremely high recidivism rates plaguing the prison system, currently as high as 70 percent, as well as address the financial burdens that hinder many of our state penitentiaries. State prison operating expenditures totaled $28.4 billion in fiscal year 2001, or a nationwide average annual operating cost of $22,650 per inmate. Today, it is more likely than ever that a person released from prison will be rearrested--two-thirds of state prisoners are rearrested within 3 years of release. Depending of the expert consulted, between one-third and two-thirds of all prison re-admissions are related to probation or parole violations and at least half of those violations are technical. We must stop subsiding programs that do not work and that lead, in turn, to negative behavior. I am confident that the bill we are putting forward today will indeed take the much needed steps to reduce the recidivism rate in this Nation, which will in turn help those incarcerated make positive changes within their lives so that when they do rejoin society, they will be able to do so with the confidence of knowing that they can contribute to society in a positive manner. As an added incentive to recidivism reduction, each grant application submitted under this program must have as its strategic plan a goal to reduce recidivism by 50 percent in 5 years and in order to receive continued funding under this program, each granted must show a reduction in the recidivism rate of participants by 10 percent over 2 years. Specifically, this bill facilitates change within our current correctional system, and promotes coordination with the Federal Government to better assist those returning to our communities after incarceration their children. The bill reauthorizes the Re-Entry Demonstration Project with an enhanced focus on jobs, housing, substance abuse treatment, mental health, and the children and families of those incarcerated. The bill authorizes $200 million over a period of two years to fund these demonstration programs and creates performance outcome standards and deliverables. It will also encourage states to enhance their re-entry services and systems with grants to fund the creation or enhancement of state re-entry councils for strategic planning and review the state barriers and resources that exit. Additionally, the bill creates a Federal interagency taskforce to facilitate collaboration and identify innovative programs initiatives. The taskforce will review and report to Congress on the Federal barriers that exist to successful re-entry. Furthermore, the bill create a $50 million 2 year mentoring program geared toward reducing recidivism and the societal costs of recidivism. This mentoring program will help ex-offenders re-integrate into their communities. This initiative will specifically harness the resources and experience of community-based organizations in helping returning ex-offender. Finally, the bill amends the Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders Act by improving the existing grants to States under this program and provides $60 million for the administration of the program. This youth program calls for expanding the eligibility age from 25 to 35 years, increases accountability by requiring State correctional education agencies to track specific and quantified student outcomes referenced to non-program participants, and increases the allowable expenditure per youth offender up to the level of the maximum Federal Pell Grant award for tuition, books and essential materials; and related services, such as career development. We have an incredible opportunity to re-shape the way in which this nation's prison systems operate. Much like welfare reform in the mid 1990s, we have a chance to make real and effective change in an area where change is sorely needed. I look forward to pushing this legislation forward.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am please to join with Chairman Specter and Senator Biden today as we introduce a bill that will have a dramatic and positive effect in the lives of individuals re-entering society after incarceration. The Second Chance Act: Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention is a bill that will not only protect our Nation's citizens but will more importantly help to reduce recidivism in our Nation. A hallmark of any just society lies in its ability to protect the interest of all its citizens and I am proud that the United States is a leader in this regard. Yet, while we continue to strive toward this lofty goal, we must realize that there are areas in which we, as a society and as government, must do more to improve. No where is that more apparent than in our Nation's pension system. Today, we have challenges within the prison system that range from high recidivism rates to budgetary and safety concerns. With this bill, we will be able to address this pressing problem within our society. Already we have seen innovative and model programs within the states and the faith community, and I am proud to say that Kansas is a leader in this regard, as well a such faith organizations as Prison Fellowship Ministries, Catholic Charities U.S.A., and the Salvation Army. However, we must stimulate innovation in this area on a national level and that is what this bill will accomplish. It is paramount that we ensure the safety of our communities and ensure that those incarcerated have the tools necessary to succeed after they rejoin society. With this bill, we wil1 be able to combat the extremely high recidivism rates plaguing the prison system, currently as high as 70 percent, as well as address the financial burdens that hinder many of our state penitentiaries. State prison operating expenditures totaled $28.4 billion in fiscal year 2001, or a nationwide average annual operating cost of $22,650 per inmate. Today, it is more likely than ever that a person released from prison will be rearrested--two-thirds of state prisoners are rearrested within 3 years of release. Depending of the expert consulted, between one-third and two-thirds of all prison re-admissions are related to probation or parole violations and at least half of those violations are technical. We must stop subsiding programs that do not work and that lead, in turn, to negative behavior. I am confident that the bill we are putting forward today will indeed take the much needed steps to reduce the recidivism rate in this Nation, which will in turn help those incarcerated make positive changes within their lives so that when they do rejoin society, they will be able to do so with the confidence of knowing that they can contribute to society in a positive manner. As an added incentive to recidivism reduction, each grant application submitted under this program must have as its strategic plan a goal to reduce recidivism by 50 percent in 5 years and in order to receive continued funding under this program, each granted must show a reduction in the recidivism rate of participants by 10 percent over 2 years. Specifically, this bill facilitates change within our current correctional system, and promotes coordination with the Federal Government to better assist those returning to our communities after incarceration their children. The bill reauthorizes the Re-Entry Demonstration Project with an enhanced focus on jobs, housing, substance abuse treatment, mental health, and the children and families of those incarcerated. The bill authorizes $200 million over a period of two years to fund these demonstration programs and creates performance outcome standards and deliverables. It will also encourage states to enhance their re-entry services and systems with grants to fund the creation or enhancement of state re-entry councils for strategic planning and review the state barriers and resources that exit. Additionally, the bill creates a Federal interagency taskforce to facilitate collaboration and identify innovative programs initiatives. The taskforce will review and report to Congress on the Federal barriers that exist to successful re-entry. Furthermore, the bill create a $50 million 2 year mentoring program geared toward reducing recidivism and the societal costs of recidivism. This mentoring program will help ex-offenders re-integrate into their communities. This initiative will specifically harness the resources and experience of community-based organizations in helping returning ex-offender. Finally, the bill amends the Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Youth Offenders Act by improving the existing grants to States under this program and provides $60 million for the administration of the program. This youth program calls for expanding the eligibility age from 25 to 35 years, increases accountability by requiring State correctional education agencies to track specific and quantified student outcomes referenced to non-program participants, and increases the allowable expenditure per youth offender up to the level of the maximum Federal Pell Grant award for tuition, books and essential materials; and related services, such as career development. We have an incredible opportunity to re-shape the way in which this nation's prison systems operate. Much like welfare reform in the mid 1990s, we have a chance to make real and effective change in an area where change is sorely needed. I look forward to pushing this legislation forward.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to make a statement about the situation taking place in Darfur and to update my colleagues. But I wish to speak briefly to my colleagues and to others about the amazing trial of Saddam Hussein that has started. This is a trial that is going to reveal a great deal about what took place, the carnage that happened under his rule, and what he did to the people of Iraq. I worked with a number of Iraqi dissidents over a period of time. The things they reported--the mass graves, the persecutions, the intimidation by this Government of Saddam Hussein--is something that has not been well revealed. Hopefully, that is going to come out in this trial. We will see change as it progresses.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to update my colleagues on what is taking place in Sudan in the Darfur region. This is something about which I spoke several times in this Chamber. It is a genocide as the Senate, the House, and the President declared it a genocide. Others at the U.N. call it crimes against humanity. Under either definition, it is a horrific set of circumstances that has occurred in that region. Yet the response to date has still not been effective. People are continuing to be killed and slaughtered and run out of their villages, and the African Union troops have not succeeded in securing peace in that region. I want to update my colleagues about what is taking place. The mandate of the African Union troops--and this is the African countries that have formed the African Union force--is simply to monitor and report on the current cease-fire. That is insufficient. I am going to detail why it is insufficient and what has happened because of their insufficient mandate and rules of engagement not being appropriate for the circumstances. To date, they have largely written and filed away reports. Without a mandate robust enough to protect the civilians or prevent violence or assistance robust enough to provide a well-sized and equipped force, there is not much hope for the people seeking safety in Darfur. A few weeks ago, the African Union came out with their strongest statement regarding the violence. This was a clear call for the international community to shine the spotlight on this crisis and to realize the implications it will have on the entire region. While the parties are engaged in the sixth round of peace talks--and that is progress; we do have peace talks engaged in by the people in Darfur, the Government in Sudan, the jingaweit militia that has been given equipment by the Government in Sudan--violence continues to take place even as these peace talks move forward. In the last few weeks, attacks have been carried out by the jingaweit militia, the Government forces, and the rebel movement--all three. The African Union announced: You would recall that in the past one month, we witnessed a series of violations in Darfur, with widespread violence against villages, commercial and humanitarian conveys, and even IDP camps. These are camps where individual citizens are going to get away from the raids and carnage. This rendered the work of the humanitarian agencies and NGOs in the area difficult and, in some cases, they were forced to suspend their activities. There was an unprecedented move against IDP camps and the first reports of the Government of Sudan's use of helicopters since January. A number of coordinated attacks has been reported since mid-September involving hundreds of jingaweit militia--this is the militia armed by the Government of Sudan--and Government forces working together killing and injuring many and displacing thousands more. Just this week, a number of civilians were killed in fighting that took place in the town of Kutum after a rebel and Government force clashed. The African Union articulates: A clearly premeditated and well rehearsed combined operation was carried out by the Government of Sudan military and police at approximately 11 a.m. in the town of Tawilla and its IDP camps in North Darfur. The Government of Sudan forces used approximately 41 trucks, 7 land cruisers in the operation which resulted in a number of deaths, massive displacement of civilians and the destruction of several houses in the surrounding areas, as well as some tents in the IDP camp. In addition to these violations, there are reports that the Government of Sudan has painted their military trucks in the African Union colors, making it extremely difficult for civilians to distinguish between monitors or attackers. All parties have violated the cease-fire agreement on several occasions since it was established in 2004. Conditions for humanitarian organizations remain extremely difficult. This week, the United Nations announced its plan to withdraw all nonessential staff from Darfur. In addition to an upsurge in violence by the Government and the government-backed jingaweit militia, I am very troubled by the recent violence aimed at the African Union by rebel groups. In particular, the recent kidnappings and killings of African Union troops should be strongly condemned and swift justice should be brought to the perpetrators of these crimes. The African Union has called for these events to be brought to the attention of the Security Council in their communique of October 10 of this year. The New York Times reported yesterday that some of the once- government-backed militia groups are fracturing and targeting government-run entities, such as police stations. Infighting amongst the rebels is another common hurdle to achieving peace. This is the chaos that has plagued Darfur. Ambassador John Bolton's recent decision to block the UN Envoy on Genocide from testifying before the Security Council has undoubtedly raised some eyebrows. However, if he means what he says--that actions speak louder than words--then I urge the Congress, the administration, the United Nations, and the international community to do something. I applaud Ambassador Bolton's recognition of the fact that the current arms embargo is not adequate, it must be expanded, and there must be compliance. I urge my colleagues to consider these recent events and to redouble our efforts to bring an end to the genocide that is happening as I speak. I urge my colleagues and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to quickly report out the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. I have not spoken directly to it, but I will speak about getting this act passed. We need to get it put into law. This legislation increases pressure on Khartoum, provides greater support for the African Union mission in Darfur to help protect civilians and impose sanctions on individuals who are responsible for the atrocities, and encourages the appointment of a U.S. special envoy to help advance a comprehensive peace process for Darfur and all of Sudan. It also calls for the United States to push for a strong Security Council resolution, amongst other things, that expands the arms embargo. We can no longer remain indifferent to the suffering Africans of Darfur. We must move beyond the politics and agree on the fundamentals that will help save lives immediately. It is quite simple. When the ``never'' is removed from ``never again,'' it will happen--again and again and again. We cannot be silent and inactive on Darfur as people die. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Let me make sure I understand this.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, will be here shortly to use the other 20 minutes of this presentation. This is the District of Columbia appropriations bill. It has been passed and reported by the full Appropriations Committee unanimously and contains some modifications within it. But we have strong agreement within the Appropriations Committee. We have gone through a number of hearings. I want to highlight several particular issues within it, what we are trying to do to encourage family formation, encourage marriage in the District of Columbia. I want to talk about the school issues. We have had a voucher program for a short period of time. I want to report on how that is going and the problems and needs within that area. I also want to talk a little bit about the problems we are having with the schools overall in the District of Columbia, which remains an ongoing, desperate problem. Kids that get into the District of Columbia Public School System get into a system that moves them more, unfortunately, in too many cases, toward failure rather than success. A system that does that is a system that needs changing. I also want to talk about some needs in the future. We are putting this forward as a part of the Transportation and HUD bill to mirror what is taking place in the House so that this will be amended into the Transportation-HUD bill and then conferenced together with the House of Representatives. I thank the members of the Appropriations Committee, particularly my colleague, Senator Landrieu, the ranking member, for her work on this area. She has been the ranking member under both myself and Senator DeWine. She does an outstanding job. This bill provides $593 million in Federal funds for the District of Columbia and includes the city's own local budget of $6.2 billion. The funds in the bill focus on three key Federal priorities for the District of Columbia. First, improving educational opportunities for inner-city children; second, reducing and preventing crime; and, third, promoting and sustaining healthy marriages. To address the first priority, the bill provides funds to improve traditional public schools, increase capacity at public charter schools, improve bilingual education for Latino students, and allow low-income students in failing public schools to attend private schools. This is the second year of the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program. I want to recognize my colleague, Senator DeWine, for getting this started last year when he chaired this committee, and also my colleague, Senator Judd Gregg from New Hampshire, for his strong input and push into this program. It was difficult to get started, but it has been quite a success thus far. This is the first ever Federal program to provide scholarships to low-income, inner-city children so they can attend private schools. I might note for my colleagues that several years ago, when I was the authorizing chairman of the District of Columbia authorization committee, we polled Members of Congress and then the President and the Vice President to see how many Members of Congress send their kids to DC public schools--either in the House or the Senate or the President or Vice President. I was actually shocked to find out that there were no Members--zero Members of Congress--who sent their children to the District of Columbia public schools--not one in all of the House, all of the Senate, the President and Vice President. I thought that said a lot by the action that people were taking. They were not sending their kids to DC public schools, even though if you were a poor parent, you had no other choice. Now there is a bit of a different choice. The demand for scholarships in this program, as far as allowing low- income, inner-city children to go to private school, has been overwhelming, with nearly two applications from eligible public school students for each scholarship available. The federally mandated evaluation of the program is up and running, with a robust number of scholarships and nonscholarship students participating. We are doing evaluations. Most importantly, the program is succeeding and serving the low-income children who truly need this educational opportunity the most. Most of these scholarship students came from failing DC schools, and now they are flourishing in the District's private schools that are participating in the program. We have heard the story of a first grader who couldn't read at all when he received his scholarship. Yet within 2 months at his new school, he was already reading close to his grade level. One scholarship mother tells us that her child used to complain about going to school every morning. Yet he is so excited about going to school now that he grumbles about having to stay home from school on a snow day. Then there is the private school principal who marveled when she called a new scholarship student by his name, and the child said he didn't believe she was the principal because there is no way the principal would actually know a student's name. These kind of stories are commonplace and indicate that the program is successful. However, I am concerned about the current and growing mismatch between the number of private high school spaces available in the District and the number of scholarship students seeking a space in a District of Columbia private high school. Because of this mismatch, many students who already have a scholarship will be forced to leave the program. Specifically, for the current school year, there are about 50 high school students with scholarships who could not attend the private school in the District because of a lack of capacity. Unfortunately, the problem will only worsen in each subsequent year as current middle school students graduate to high school. If the trend continues--and even if no new scholarships are offered beyond the fifth grade--nearly 75 percent of the students holding scholarships to attend high school will be unable to use them because of a lack of slots in private high schools in the District. This is a shame. A number of Senators expressed objections to correcting this program at this early stage, so we have left the program unchanged. But I want to note for my colleagues the problems that we have. The second priority funded by this bill is reducing and preventing crime in the District. The Federal Government entirely funds the District of Columbia courts and the DC Court Services and Supervision Agency. The committee is providing a total of $420 million for these agencies, which is $52 million more than the fiscal year enacted level. Most of these additional resources are for renovation and repairs to the city's fourth oldest building, the historic old courthouse. We need to continue this effort. The third priority in this bill is promoting and sustaining healthy marriages. This is a new initiative, and I want to spend a little bit of time talking about this. I am hopeful this can be a model, particularly across the country in inner cities where we are having particular difficulty in forming, in many cases, healthy family units. Every year, almost 57 percent of the babies born to residents of the District of Columbia--that is right, 57 percent--are born to single mothers. This is 40 percent higher than the national average. It is not to say you can't raise healthy children in a single-parent household. I want to go through some of the numbers to indicate the difficulty of raising a child in a single-parent household. Statistics show that children born to single mothers are seven times more likely to be poor than those born to married parents and that over 80 percent of long-term child poverty occurs in broken or never-married families. Marriage has an enormous potential to reduce poverty amongst couples who are unmarried at the time of their child's birth. I want to point out this chart which shows that child poverty dramatically increases outside of intact marriages: Marriage impact within wedlock, 7 percent child poverty; never-married mother, 51 percent child poverty rate. Children born and raised in households where their mother and father married tend to be more financially stable and more emotionally stable. Statistics tell a compelling story of the many positive benefits that accrue to children if they are raised by their married parents. For example, children raised in married families are 3 times less likely to repeat a grade in school, 5 times less likely to have behavioral problems, half as likely to be depressed, 3 times less likely to use illicit drugs, half as likely to become sexually active as teenagers, and 14 times less likely to suffer abuse from their parents. We had a hearing on this 2 weeks ago, where a couple talked about their interest in getting married after living together for 20 years and having four children. We have a proposal, which I will be putting forward in a minute. I want to note, before we get to that, that this couple said almost all of their friends came up to them and said: Are you crazy, getting married? The couple said: No. We want to get married. We want to provide a model for our children. Aren't you crazy doing this with all of the payments that you are going to lose under the public assistance system if you get married? I said at that point in time that we need to look at the disincentives we put in Federal programs for people getting married, particularly low-income households because we shouldn't be sending this kind of signal, given the benefit overall to children of having intact, married families. Currently, there are many single mothers who are heroically and successfully raising children on their own. They deserve our respect and support. But it is an indisputable fact that the best environment in which to raise a child is in a healthy, two-parent family. In addition, the growth of single-parent families has had an enormous financial impact on our society at large. The welfare system for children is overwhelmingly a subsidy system for single-parent families. Some three-quarters of the aid to children--given through programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, public housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and the Earned Income Tax Credit--goes to single-parent households. The Federal Government annually spends over $150 billion in means- tested welfare aid for single parents. I believe that improving a couple's financial stability can help sustain a healthy marriage. As a way to assist low-income, married couples to gain appreciable assets, the subcommittee has introduced legislation which has broad bipartisan support. It is supported by Eleanor Holmes Norton. It will establish Marriage Development Accounts in the District of Columbia. The MDAs will be available to low-income, married couples who are citizens or legal residents of the District and who have very low net worth. Couples may save money to buy a home, pay for job training or education or start their own businesses. Couples will have a high incentive to save because their contributions will be matched at a ratio of 3 to 1 by the Federal Government and partnering private institutions. In other words, the Federal Government will put in $1, there will be $2 of private money raised, and low-income couples who receive marriage counseling, or as they get married, will be matched 3 to 1 for every dollar of savings they put in--$3 from the Federal Government and private sector. It is to encourage marriage and also to encourage savings for this couple. As a requirement of participation, couples will receive training that helps them repair their credit, set a budget, set savings schedules, and manage their money. Couples will also receive bonuses in the MDA accounts for receiving marriage counseling. Recognizing the importance of grassroots support to ensure the success of these efforts, this subcommittee is directing grantees to expand their network of service providers by partnering with local churches, faith-based organizations, and nonprofit organizations, providing mentoring, couple's counseling, and community outreach. It has been an interesting coming together of people from all parts of the political spectrum, left and right, to support this creation--we believe the first ever in the country--of marriage development accounts to encourage savings and marriage of low-income couples. A senior fellow with the Brookings Institute testified at a recent hearing I held on MDAs that many researchers and practitioners who work with poor couples believe that a major barrier to healthy marriages is economic uncertainty. For example, Kathy Edin of the University of Pennsylvania has concluded from her interviews with young, unmarried mothers that there are plenty of issues such as empathy and trust that interfere with continuing the couple's relationships, but Edin and other researchers have come to regard poverty, unemployment, and income as serious barriers to healthy marriage. Young, low-income couples often tell interviewers they are thinking about marriage, but they want to save enough money to make a downpayment on a house before they actually get married. Thus, MDAs are responsive to what the couples say they need before they become serious about marriage. Beyond what the researchers are saying, we hear from real couples in the District who have been living together, who have children, now plan to marry and open an MDA. We must act quickly to stop the erosion of marriage in our Nation and particularly in our Nation's Capital. We cannot just watch and wring our hands. We must act aggressively in employing as many innovative approaches as possible, test the results, and do a heavy monitoring. That is what we have in the bill itself--a monitoring to see if this is working. Our future and our children's future truly are at stake. I believe MDAs can be an important tool in helping to stabilize, strengthen, and foster healthy marriages. I again thank my colleague, Senator Landrieu, as the ranking member. She and I share the same concerns for the children and residents who live in the District of Columbia. She is a strong supporter, particularly of the school system needs in this district. We both have concerns regarding the public and the charter school system that are not reflected in this bill. If changes are not made in DC public and charter schools, we will be back next year with a bill that has more aggressive statements and a more aggressive position from this Senate on the public and charter school system. It is not serving the children's needs. We did not take that on this year. We met multiple times with the superintendent of the DC Public Schools and others and noted the problems, but they said: Give us a little more time. The problem is, time dooms our children if no successful changes are made. So next year, we could be back with substantial changes. I thank the staff for working with us. I know her staff, including Kate Eltrich, has worked hard. Mary Dietrich went so far as to break her arm to get this bill to the Senate in a timely fashion--she actually was bike riding--but that did not stop her. She is here to get this done. I hope we can pass this bill. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. I speak about this at an exciting time for this country. This will be the 17th person to occupy this position. It is a rarity for this position to become available. I love this Nation. I love the institutions of this Nation. More, I love the people of this Nation. I know, as well, that John Roberts does too. I know from the time I have spent talking with him and hearing his comments, that he too loves this Nation. He loves the people of this Nation and he looks forward to its greater greatness into the future. I am looking forward to his service. When the Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, whom many of us quote often, visited the United States in the 1830s, he wondered how Americans could maintain a genuine representative government when the liberty they enjoyed would suggest that the average citizen would be a purely self-interested individual. If we were to give them pure liberty, they would, he believed, just pursue self-interests. So how could you have a government that would govern when everybody is focused on their self-interest? He was amazed to find what kept Americans joined together and with their government was what he called ``habits of the heart.'' By this, he meant that citizens often were concerned about the greater public good, along with their own narrow self-interests. So, while they had their own self-interests, their hearts pulled them to a greater public good and these ``habits of the heart.'' That led to their participation in political discourse, to be involved in their communities, and take care of their fellow citizens. Throughout our history, our ``habits of the heart'' have informed and driven America's conscience. The people knew the colonial system stifled freedom, so they rejected the British monarchy and ultimately ratified the U.S. Constitution. The people knew in their hearts that slavery was wrong, and that terrible institution was rightly brought to an end. It was difficult, and it was at a terrible cost. And the people knew that the legal promise of equal protection was empty without racial justice. Throughout the consideration of Judge Roberts' nomination, many of my colleagues have spoken about a particular issue that I want to discuss, and its impact and relationship to that habit of the heart. This particular issue, which is at the center of the debate for Judge Roberts, is the right to privacy. They also have demanded that Judge Roberts adhere in a few cherished cases to stare decisis, that is, the practice of letting a precedent stand for the sake of stability in the law, regardless of whether the precedent reflects the correct interpretation of the law. What is striking about this discussion is that it has not been illuminated by what Tocqueville saw in us long ago--those ``habits of the heart'' that make Americans aware of the greater good and of the justice due their fellows citizens. To explain what I mean, consider Judge Roberts' confirmation hearing. During the hearing, Judiciary Committee members spent a lot of time discussing section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It was often mentioned that it was critical for Congress to enact a so-called effects test in order to eradicate discrimination in voting practices. Under this test, a neutrally worded law was to be struck down if it diluted the political preferences of minority voters, even if that effect was intentional. If there was an effect where it had a negative impact on voting for minority groups, it was to be thrown out, it was to be declared unconstitutional, it was a bad effect. It seems to me there is a broader lesson to be learned by discussion of an effects test. And I agree with that effects test in the Voting Rights Act; it is absolutely right. It seems to me there is a broader lesson to be learned about the effects test. During the debate on Judge Roberts, some have argued about whether he will vote to affirm or reject abstract legal principles, without really considering what the real effects of these principles have been. And when it comes to the right to privacy and stare decisis, the discussion of effects has been obscured, if not ignored altogether. The standard argument we have heard is that cases such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have established the right to privacy, and that such cases should be maintained for the sake of ``stability'' and ``settled expectations.'' Yet both our heads and our hearts tell us that these decisions deserve much more searching scrutiny. This is in part because we rightly resist insulated courts short-circuiting political debates. But it is also because we rightly believe that these decisions and doctrines have all-too-real effects. And so it is with the right to privacy. Some of my colleagues have argued that this right, which has been interpreted to guarantee a right to abortion, has been beneficial to women. They argue the right to abortion has ``freed'' them to pursue such goals as full participation in the workforce. But there are certain other effects of this right which should be identified, if we are to have an honest appraisal of what this right has accomplished, and what it has wrought. I have pointed out repeatedly that in the wake of Roe, 40 million children have been aborted in America--40 million souls who could have brightened our existence and made their contribution to the habits of the American heart. But even this general result of abortion's cold reality masks the specific costs of the Supreme Court's constitutional misadventure in Roe. For it has become clear in recent years that it is the so-called least among us, the disabled, who have paid a disproportionate price as a result of the right established in Roe and other cases. Let me give you some examples. According to recent numbers released in November of 2004 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, over 80 percent of pregnancies involving a child with Down Syndrome were terminated ``by choice'' in the 1980s and 1990s--80 percent. Again, that is ``by choice.'' According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, out of over 55,000 pregnant women screened, 83 percent of unborn children are terminated after testing positive for cystic fibrosis. Finally, the CDC noted that for spina bifida and similar neural tube defects, at least 80 percent of pregnancies ``were electively terminated.'' These particular numbers are astonishing, and not just because they represent the wholesale destruction of generations of unborn disabled children. What makes them painfully ironic is that this trend persists even in a society that has extended significant protections to the disabled once they are born. A prime example, of course, is the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which was an historic achievement. I applaud my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Harkin, and my predecessor, Senator Bob Dole, for their important role in passing this milestone legislation. Deeming the protection of the disabled a ``human rights issue,'' the first President Bush called the ADA ``the world's first comprehensive declaration of equality for people with disabilities.'' His successor, President Clinton, stated on the ninth anniversary of the passage of the ADA that ``For too long, we have encumbered disabled Americans with paternalistic policies that prevent them from reaching their potential. But now, we endeavor to empower individuals with the tools they need to achieve their dreams.'' I would note that to dream, they have to be alive. In enacting the ADA, the Congress explicitly made the following finding, upon which one of the protections of the ADA was based: People with disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our society, and are severely disadvantaged socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally. In worthy fulfillment of the promise of the Declaration of Independence that ``all Men are created equal,'' the Congress issued in the ADA a ``clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.'' There were not qualifiers for it. They did not say at certain places or points of time in life. They said this is a ``clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities,'' period. To enforce this mandate, Congress explicitly ``invoke[d] the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.'' The ADA establishes extensive protections for persons with disabilities. It protects them when they seek employment; it protects them when they attempt to use government services; it protects them when they wish to use public transportation; it protects them even when they want to book a hotel room or seek access to a restaurant; it even protects the hearing-impaired and speech-impaired who want to share in the benefits of the revolution in telecommunications. Similarly, 30 years ago, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. In the act, Congress found, among other things, that ``[d]isability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society.'' These are worthy and grand statements of inclusion and support to people with disabilities. The ADA and the IDEA demonstrate that the disabled need and deserve the protection of the law in order to fulfill their potential. Yet ironically, it is when the disabled are most vulnerable--indeed, completely voiceless--that our society leaves them completely unprotected. The laws offer no shelter to them before they are born. In this dangerous legal vacuum has stepped the Supreme Court. In 1973, just 2 years before enactment of the IDEA, the Court invented a right to abortion--a right which has proven lethal to legions of disabled Americans. And in a cruel jurisprudential twist, it was none other than the 14th Amendment, which Congress invoked in enacting the ADA, upon which the Supreme Court based the right to abortion. What does it say about our society that we refuse to acknowledge the damaging effects of Roe on the disabled? Where does the path lead when we ignore the habits of our hearts, which demand that we extend our compassion to these Americans? What have we become when we have jettisoned the unalienable right to life Thomas Jefferson found self- evident in favor of the moral and legal quicksand of Roe? The sad experiences of other countries suggest a few unsettling answers to these questions. For example, China recently criminalized abortion for the purpose of sex selection. The reason for this is revealed by figures--an effects test, if you will--showing that 119 boys are born in China for every 100 girls--119 boys for every 100 girls. This gender gap can be attributed to the combination of the Communist government's one-child policy with a culture that often values sons more than daughters. So millions of parents have aborted baby girls hoping to have a boy next time. If current trends continue, some experts say that China could have as many as 40 million men who can't find spouses by the year 2020. India faces a similar problem. Sex determination has been a serious problem there since the 1970s, when amniocentesis began to be widely used to determine the sex of the unborn child. A 1985 survey revealed that 90 percent of amniocentesis centers were involved in sex determination, with nearly 96 percent of female fetuses aborted. In response, India outlawed fetal sex determination for sex selection 8 years ago, but prenatal sex determination through ultrasonography continues. Indeed, the situation has become so dire that the Indian Medical Association has appealed to the conscience of that country--the habit of the heart of that nation--and the world to save baby girls from abortion. The association says that up to 2 million baby girls still are killed by abortion every year. A former President of the Indian Medical Association told the BBC that the situation has led to a demographic imbalance of up to 50 million fewer women in the country than would be expected. This selective destruction of the unborn in other countries has a grim predecessor in American history: the eugenics movement. As Edwin Black has noted in a book called ``War on the Weak'': [T]he eugenics movement slowly constructed a national bureaucratic and juridical infrastructure to cleanse America of its ``unfit.'' Specious intelligence tests, colloquially known as IQ tests, were invented to justify incarceration of a group labeled ``feebleminded.'' Often the so-called feebleminded were just shy, too good-natured to be taken seriously, or simply spoke the wrong language or were the wrong color. Mandatory sterilization laws were enacted in some twenty-seven states to prevent targeted individuals from reproducing more of their kind. Marriage prohibition laws proliferated throughout the country to stop race mixing. Collusive litigation was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sanctified eugenics and its tactics. The goal was to immediately sterilize fourteen million people in the United States and millions more worldwide--the ``lower tenth''--and then continuously eradicate the remaining lowest tenth until only a pure Nordic super race remained. Ultimately, some 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized and the total is probably much higher. The source of the word ``eugenics'' is very interesting. The very word was coined by Francis Galton, the nephew of Charles Darwin. Galton believed that ``what nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly.'' In 1883, Galton created a new term for this manmade ordering of life. As Black describes it, Galton ``scrawled Greek letters on a hand-sized scrap of paper, and next to them put two English fragments he would join into one. The Greek word for `well' was abutted to the Greek word for `born' . . . and the word he wrote on that small piece of paper was `eugenics'.'' Well born. Among the strongest proponents of eugenics was Margaret Sanger. Sanger advocated for the mass sterilization of so-called ``defectives'' and the wholesale incarceration of the so-called ``unfit.'' She particularly supported the sterilization plan of those people she deemed unfit; she believed this plan would lead to the ``salvation of American civilization.'' She also argued for sterilization of those who were ``irresponsible and reckless,'' including those ``whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.'' For these people, she contended that ``there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.'' She repeatedly referred to the lower classes as human waste not worthy of assistance, proudly promoting the views that these ``weeds'' should be ``exterminated.'' Sanger went on to found a group that came to be known as Planned Parenthood, the very same organization which successfully prevailed upon the Supreme Court to reaffirm Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Sanger's legacy still resonates today. Dr. John Harris of Manchester University in England has offered a slightly milder formulation than that of Sanger. He has stated that: Eugenics is the attempt to create fine healthy children, and that's everyone's ambition. . . . We're not trying to do this through killing people or eliminating individuals, we're trying to do this by making choices about which people will exist in the future. Given the experience of other countries with abortion; given our own experience with abortion of the disabled; and given the natural repugnance most people have with the eugenics movement, I would suggest to my colleagues that Roe and other related cases simply flunk the ``effects test'' we have long applied in the context of voting and other rights. These cases have carved millions of voices out of our civic core and cannot withstand moral scrutiny, much less an honest legal examination. The right to privacy as it has been extended has not only weakened our legal culture; it has made us poorer as a people. It is impossible not to recognize the significant contributions made by those with disabilities who do survive; they help to bring out the humanity in each of us, and we are better for it. Every time I see one of these beautiful children, I am reminded of what joy they bring, and what joy their counterparts might have brought. How can we, as a nation, stand for the principle of equality, that we are all blessed to be alive, that we are all capable of great success regardless of disability, and that we are a compassionate society, when our laws blithely allow the elective termination of more than 80 percent of a vulnerable population. It is incomprehensible. Numerous men, women, and children with disabilities have overcome adversity and achieved great successes in their lives. I would like to take a few minutes to share a few of their stories. Here is a picture of Abby Loy. I met her last week when she visited my office. She is a beautiful young girl and she has Down Syndrome. She does modeling and was recently featured in a book called ``Common Threads,'' which illustrates the numerous accomplishments achieved by people with Down Syndrome. Abby and her mother came to Capitol Hill from Michigan last week to promote awareness of disability issues and to illustrate Abby's wonderful life journey. Look at this beautiful child. This note is from her parents: When Abby was born, physicians and social workers informed our family of all of her potential limitations, developmentally and physically. When we asked what Abby's education path might look like, we were told that she would attend special classrooms. Abby has been successfully educated with support in all regular education classes and continues to grow. We felt Abby would prove herself to be much more capable than others believed . . . It continues today. Again, that note is from her parents. It is a tough choice when a mother or a spouse gets a diagnosis in utero that a child has Down Syndrome; it is agonizing. I know from my own thoughts when we were having our children. Yet I ask people to look at the beauty of the child and embrace her. If they can't, there are other groups and individuals that will. It is a tough choice, but it is a child, a beautiful child, a child that can accomplish much. I want to show another example. This one is Samuel. I have had Samuel in to testify before a subcommittee I chaired last year. I am rather partial to the name Samuel myself. In this picture he is catching fish. It doesn't look like a very big fish and the fish doesn't look too happy, but Samuel is sure happy. He has spina bifida, which most medical professionals call a devastating birth defect. These are his parents' words: Though we were devastated by learning that our unborn son had spina bifida, we wanted to do all we could to improve the quality of his life. Ending it was never an option. Let's see what we can do to improve it. At 21 weeks gestation, Samuel had fetal repair of his spina bifida lesion. Today he is a 5- year old kindergartner. He is imaginative, funny, and compassionate. He can read, swim, and catch even the fastest lizard. He has touched many lives. We are so thankful for him and are eager to see what great things he will accomplish. Normally, about 80 percent of children diagnosed with spina bifida are terminated and killed in utero. I have a final example. This is a lady who looks at her Down Syndrome as an ``up syndrome'' and has started ``Up with Down Syndrome''. She has served on President Clinton's Committee on Mental Retardation. She served three terms from 1994 to 2000, one of the first two members with a disability to be appointed to this committee. Her name is Ann M. Forts. She goes around the country and talks with individuals about what she can do. The second paragraph of a letter she sent to me is particularly striking: As I think about my active and happy life on the upside of my Down Syndrome dis``ability'', I find it extremely frightening to think of how vastly different my life would have been if my parents had taken that ill-conceived professional advice when I was born. In other words, to put her in some form of an institution rather than bringing her home. These are inspirations to all of us. And if you need further inspiration, just go talk to Jimmy, the elevator operator right outside the door of the Senate Chamber, who brightens all of our lives. They will not be defeated by their disabilities, and we celebrate them for that. But think about the many more like them, think about the more than 80 percent of the beautiful capable children, similar to Abby, Ann, Jimmy, and Samuel, who are never given a chance because their lives are terminated before they are born. We should not use bland phrases such as ``right to privacy'' or ``stare decisis'' to disguise the issue at stake with Judge Roberts' nomination to be Chief Justice of the United States. We must be truthful with the American people, as well as ourselves, and admit that this confirmation is, at its root, about the most fundamental and basic right of all: the right to life. As Americans, it is our duty to protect and defend the weakest among us. The duty is not only mandated by our laws but nurtured by our conscience and our habits of the heart. With the recent enactment of the bipartisan partial-birth abortion ban and bills like the Pre-Natally Diagnosed Awareness Act, which I sponsored with Senator Kennedy, we have begun heading in the right direction. However there is still significant work to be done. There is still a glaring inconsistency between the life that we deem to be worthy of protection under the Constitution, and the life which we do not. The value placed on certain persons and stages of life seems to be arbitrarily assigned. The Constitution clearly states in the 5th and 14th Amendments that ``no person'' shall be deprived of ``life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'' ``No person.'' What does that mean? Does it extend to an unborn child? Is an unborn child a person or merely a piece of property? A person is entitled to inalienable rights established under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Property can be done with as its master chooses. I posed this question to Judge Roberts during his confirmation hearing. Because this issue may come before the Court at some point in the near future, he declined to answer directly. But the persistence of this issue simply underlines the importance of each Supreme Court vacancy. I will support the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. I will do so based in part on his stellar credentials for the position, but also on my hope and my prayer that he understands what is at stake when the Supreme Court interprets the people's Constitution--not a sterile debate over arcane legal principles and Latin doctrines but the very habits of our hearts. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Johanna Mihok, a legal intern on my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, every 2 years or so, an agricultural buying mission from Taiwan visits the United States, to sign letters of intent and contracts to buy billions of dollars worth of U.S. wheat, corn, soybeans and hides. As you can well imagine, this practice has helped to guaranty an income to farmers across the country, and helped to create jobs in communities throughout this Nation. Between 1978 and 1993, Taiwan dispatched 18 of these missions to this country. Taiwan has an active ``buy American'' program, which has helped to shrink our trade deficit over the years. Hopefully, this robust trading relationship between Taiwan and the United States will continue for years to come. I know for a fact that our farmers and exporters, especially from my home State of Kansas, deeply appreciate Taiwan's business. Our friends in Taiwan have helped this country in other ways as well. Whether it is full cooperation in the global war on terror, significant monetary contributions to the Twin Towers Fund, or their recent generous pledge of $2,000,000 in aid for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, we can always count on Taiwan to be there when we need them. Mr. President, I rise today to thank our friends in Taiwan as they once again demonstrate their good will towards the United States through the visit of this agricultural buying mission to my State, as well as those of many of my colleagues.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to William Rehnquist, 16th Chief Justice of the United States. That is the title, Chief Justice of the United States. While the ceremony honoring him goes forward I think it is appropriate that we in this body recognize his incredible service to the Nation. His biography, where he came from and what he did, has been spoken of a great deal. What I wanted to speak about is not only that, but also his personal impact on me, one that he wouldn't have known or known about. As a young law student in the early 1980s at the University of Kansas, I can remember studying constitutional law and other areas where his opinions came forth. Frequently, in those days he was in the minority opinion role. Many of my law school professors would say: Can you believe what this guy wrote? I remember reading his opinions and thinking his opinion seemed very logical. It seems to me, he believed in holding with the great traditions of being a nation of the rule of law, not the rule of man. The Constitution is a textural document. Chief Justice Rehnquist had a big impact on me in his writings and what he believed we stood for as a nation. He has had a big impact on this Nation, and he will be sorely missed. He was genteel in all of his dealings. Even when he presided in the Senate over the impeachment trial for President Clinton, he did so in a very stately, gentle fashion. Just his presence was one of a man at peace with himself, who knew what he was about, and knew his role and his duty. He fulfilled his duty to the best of his abilities as Chief Justice, Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, as presiding over an impeachment trial, and working with clerks. I think one of most telling things for an individual is what the people say that worked for you, and particularly those who worked for you perhaps in a lower capacity. It seems uniform that the clerks for Chief Justice Rehnquist admired the man while they worked for him. It is a tribute to him how well they worked together and how he helped form them. There is a great symmetry about this in John Roberts being nominated now, as a former clerk of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and now nominated to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court left by his former boss. John Roberts is an outstanding nomination to the Chief Justice position. I hope we can move forward with in an expeditious fashion, certainly thorough, but in an expeditious fashion. That is not what we are here today to talk about. Today it is to talk about and to reflect upon an amazing American in William Rehnquist. He grew up in the suburbs of Milwaukee, WI. His father was the son of Swedish immigrant parents, worked as a paper salesman. His mother was a multilingual professional translator. Shortly after graduation from high school, Chief Justice Rehnquist enlisted in the Air Force and during World War II served as a weather observer in North Africa. On completion of his service in the Air Force, the Chief Justice began his undergraduate work at Stanford University. Yes, he did it on the GI bill. In 1952, Rehnquist graduated first in his class from Stanford Law School, certainly a monumental accomplishment, an accomplishment of great discipline. Following law school, he clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. In 1953, he began work at a law firm in Phoenix, and his brilliance was noted by the Nixon Deputy Attorney General at that time, Richard Kleindienst. On October 22, 1971 President Richard Nixon, nominated him to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. He was confirmed less than 2 months later, which would be record speed for this body by today's standard. During his time on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist has defended the original text of the Constitution. To a number of people that may seem like a simple task. After all, it is the Constitution. It is the basic law of the land. What is there to defend? The law speaks for itself. It is a set of plain words on a clear document that has such a significant historical place in our hearts and minds. Yet he comes along on a Court at a point in time when a number of people are saying: It is a living document, it can move with the culture, and we can interpret the words more broadly. We can interpret it not by what it says, but by what we would like it to say. Chief Justice Rehnquist fought against that and fought for the original text of the Constitution and said it is as it is. This is a textural document. If we want to change it, that is fine, but it is changed by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate and three-fourths of the States, not by five people on the Court. Those are not his words, but they are the principles he stood for. The role of a Justice on the Supreme Court is to look at the plain meaning and the original text of the Constitution, not at your own cultural bias of the moment and what you believe America may need and therefore may be willing to move to. The problem with a living document is that you don't have the rule of law. You are more of a rule of man. So he defended this proposition of the original text of the Constitution, the intent of the Framers. Certainly, he was a promoter of life. It was in the 1973 dissent in Roe v. Wade that then-Associate Justice Rehnquist wrote, ``To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.'' These are the Associate Justice Rehnquist's words. In his early years of lonely dissents in cases like Roe, Rehnquist made his mark by standing for constitutional principle over the political preferences of an unelected judiciary. With the retirement of Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1986, President Reagan then elevated Associate Justice Rehnquist to the Court's top post, where he served with distinction until his death. The last 19 years have shown that Chief Justice Rehnquist was a terrific choice to lead the Supreme Court. He authored countless landmark decisions and thought-provoking dissents. In carefully reasoned opinions, he insisted that the principle of federalism is an integral part of our nation's constitutional structure. He recognized that our Government is one of enumerated rights and dual sovereignty, with certain functions and powers properly left to the States. One example of Chief Justice Rehnquist's commitment to the laws is his opinion in Dickerson v. United States. Although a long-time critic of Miranda v. Arizona, Rehnquist nevertheless placed his past position aside and wrote the opinion in Dickerson, effectively affirming the holding of Miranda. He served well. He served nobly, and he served with courage. I might note that even during his recent sickness, he found the strength to do his duty and to serve in office. He found the strength to administer the oath of office to President Bush, to consider the challenging cases that came before the Court. Peggy Noonan wrote of President Bush's inauguration, ``the most poignant moment was the manful William Rehnquist, unable to wear a tie and making his way down the long marble steps to swear in the president. The continuation of democracy is made possible by such gallantry.'' While some of his colleagues on the Court disagreed with him at times, there will there can be no doubt that they admired his strong leadership, his likable personality, and his ability to build consensus. That is the noteworthy quality of a gentleman. He served with distinction. He served us well. He carried his course out, and he is now at rest. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I commend the active interest the junior Senator from New York has taken in the Klebnikov case, and I look forward to our further collaboration on other vital OSCE issues before the Helsinki Commission.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Paul believed that the press was the last outpost of freedom of speech in Russia. The fear and self-censorship generated by killing journalists benefits corrupt government officials and businessmen, as well as organized crime figures. Solving the murder no matter where the investigation leads--will send the signal to other malefactors who seek to muzzle free speech that the days of impunity and lawlessness are over. As we wrote to President Putin, this case is not just about one person, but about what he represented to a new and democratic Russia. I would note also that at least two more journalists have been killed in Russia since Paul's death.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from New York and fellow member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, Senator Clinton.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I agree with my colleague from New York. And as Members of the Helsinki Commission, let us work to achieve the goal of freedom of the press, transparency and democracy in Russia.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Romans, said Tacitus, ``created a desert and called it peace.'' The Russian Government has created a wasteland of death and destruction in Chechnya and called it ``normalization.'' Over 10 years since the beginning of the Chechen war in post-Soviet Russia, the carnage in Chechnya continues, taking the lives of Chechens and Russians alike. Moreover, the echoes of the conflict are now stretching across the entire North Caucasus region. Given the information blockade that the Russian Government has thrown up around Chechnya, the world hears little of the violence and suffering taking place in those mountains far away. Nevertheless, some information does get out. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I would like to share some of this information with my distinguished colleagues. According to Agence France Press, on June 4, 2005, an estimated 200- 300 armed men, arriving in jeeps, trucks and armored personnel carriers, staged an attack on the village of Borozdinovskaya, near the border with neighboring Dagestan. These villagers are not Chechen, but Avars, Dagestan's most numerous ethnic group. The raiders beat dozens of men and torched at least three houses. Eleven men vanished and are feared dead. The villagers have no idea who the assailants were, but evidence points to a battalion of amnestied former Chechen rebels allegedly operating under the command of Russia's military intelligence. In fear of their lives, almost the entire village has fled to the Dagestan side of the border, camping out in tents in a field, fearing to return. There has been no official explanation for the raid. This is only one example of the violence that may engulf an unsuspecting village that comes into the crosshairs of the pro-Moscow Chechen militias that operate with impunity and unrestrained cruelty. A number of these militias are no more than marauding gangs only nominally under the authority of the pro-Moscow regime in the Chechen capital of Grozny. In its March 2005 publication, ``More of the Same: Extrajudicial Killings, Enforced `Disappearances', Illegal Arrests, Torture,'' the International Helsinki Federation reports: ``There are a few signs of peaceful life. Compensations for lost housing are slowly beginning to be paid (on rare occasions, even without kick-back to relevant officials), separate islands of reconstruction are appearing in Grozny, and many cars are visible on the streets. The central open- air market is ever so busy. But some other things have not changed at all: Abductions and illegal detentions of civilians by unknown armed persons dressed in camouflage are still pervasive. The only difference is that these people now do not arrive exclusively in military vehicles, but in regular cars as well. As a result, murders, torture, and beatings have remained unchanged. And the prosecutor's office is still unable or unwilling to provide effective investigation into these endless cases.'' Let me make it clear. I have no sympathy for Chechen partisans, or those purporting to sympathize with them, who have committed, and may yet commit, terrorist attacks against the innocent citizens of the Russian Federation, or against those Chechens who may not support the secessionist movement. When we speak of the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, Madrid, London, Bali, and other cities around the world, we must not forget Moscow, Budennovsk, and Beslan. There must be no double standard in judging terrorism, nor is there any justification for people resorting to terrorism against innocent civilians. But I refer to one of the most perceptive editorials written on the subject of Chechnya. In the November 11, 2002 issue of Newsweek, Fareed Zacharia wrote: ``[The Chechens] have been ruthless warriors for their cause, utterly unable to form a stable government, and have indeed resorted to terror. But Russia's actions have helped turn them into terrorists. Russia has destroyed Chechnya as a place, as a polity and as a society. Chechnya is now a wasteland, populated by marauding gangs Putin has spoken of Al Qaeda's presence in Chechnya, but none existed until recently when Chechens, devastated by the Russian onslaught, took help from wherever they could get it. Some residents of Chechnya, having despaired of finding justice in the Russian judicial system and rejecting terrorism, have applied to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. They are seeking redress for human rights violations committed under cover of Moscow's ``anti-terrorism campaign.'' Many of these applicants have been harassed and detained by the authorities. One applicant, Zura Bitieva, had filed an application with Strasbourg regarding the abuses at the notorious ``filtration'' prison at Chernokosovo. Subsequently, she was killed in May 2003 along with her husband and son during a raid on their home. The world recoiled in horror from the murderous attack on children in Beslan, North Ossetia. This is but one example of the spread of the cancer of violence emanating from Chechnya. A few days ago, President Putin made an unannounced visit to Dagestan to review the deteriorating security situation in that unquiet Russian republic. Unrest and violence have occurred also in Ingushetia and Kabardino-Balkaria. Russia is entitled to protect its territorial integrity and to preserve order within its borders, but Moscow's methods hark back to the practices of the Middle Ages. It is as if the principles of the Geneva Accords, the UN, the Council of Europe and the OSCE are completely unknown let alone apply--in Chechnya. To the best of my knowledge, no one in the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs has had to answer for the brutality that has taken place at the Chernokosovo prison. When horrific practices at Chernokosovo became known to the international community, Moscow merely shifted the facility's jurisdiction to the Ministry of Justice. According to human rights activists, ``filtration'' procedures simply moved to smaller, less visible places. Does no one in the Kremlin stop to consider that continued brutalization of the population and corrupt governance will likely increase the appeal of Islamic radicals in the region? Is Russia's policy in Chechnya the strategy of a serious partner in the war against international terrorism? Or is Russia fighting a fire with an extinguisher filled with gasoline? Next year Russia will chair the G8. Many informed observers doubt whether Russia should remain a member of the G8, given the downward trajectory of human rights and civil liberties in Russia today. The Russian Federation's policy in Chechnya reinforces those doubts.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, State Department and other administration officials have raised the issue frequently with their Russian counterparts. Furthermore, State and other relevant Government agencies have formed an interagency working group to follow the case and consult on strategy. Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice met with Klebnikov family members to keep them informed on progress. In addition, Secretary Rice's public remarks during her February 5 visit to Warsaw are heartening. She said it ``is important that Russia make clear to the world that it is intent on strengthening the rule of law, strengthening the role of an independent judiciary, permitting a free and independent press to flourish. These are all the basics of democracy.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, at the end of World War II, Poland, like other Central European countries, fell behind the Iron Curtain. As the country struggled to recover from the brutal ravages of war and occupation, Soviet-backed communist elements seized the reigns of power. For many decades, those who sought to be free fought what seemed to be a losing, even hopeless, battle. Many were sent to prison, others were murdered or executed. The light of freedom in Poland was never truly extinguished. Year after year, decade after decade, disparate individuals pursued separate paths towards the same goal: a free Poland, a free people. By 1980, these individuals had learned much. First, they had learned to build bridges, bridges that would unite disparate segments of society. By 1980, workers and intellectuals, who had separately fought for reform, and separately failed, came together: electricians and factory workers, writers and teachers. And they learned, following the historic visit of Pope John Paul II to his homeland, in 1979, to ``be not afraid.'' Together, Poles could carve out a space of independence from the regime that sought to control them. Together, in the shipyards of Gdansk, they gave birth to the Solidarity movement. 1980 was not, of course, the first time Polish workers had gone on strike, nor would it be the last. But it was the strike that, for Poland and beyond, demonstrated the capacity of a nonviolent movement to stare down a seemingly more powerful force. Of course, the imposition of martial law on December 13, 1981, was a dark and shadowy detour on the path to freedom. Introduced to stave off a Soviet invasion, it could not, ultimately, stave off the inevitable march of democracy: Solidarity had let the genie out of the bottle, and there was no getting it back. In 1983, Lech Walesa, the electrician who bravely scaled the shipyard wall in August 1980, to join his fellow striking workers, was awarded the Nobel peace prize. Elsewhere in Central Europe, dissident movements intensified their demands for human rights. Economic reform moved from an option to a necessity. Even in Moscow, a pro-reform apparatchik, Mikhail Gorbachev, rose to lead his country. By 1989, Solidarity leaders sat across the table from Wojtech Jaruzelski, the general who had imposed martial law. They negotiated what had seemed to most of the world impossible: the peaceful transition from communism to free and fair elections. In August of 1989, less than a decade after the Gdansk shipyard strikes that gave birth to Solidarity, Poland would elect its first non-communist prime minister since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Today, we remember and honor those events, not only because of what it meant for Poland, but for what it means for all of us, and for people round the globe who continue to struggle to live in freedom and dignity. The Solidarity movement represented the culmination of enormous, powerful, even irresistible ideals, ideals that we must seek to spread to the dark corners of the globe that have yet to see their light.