Sam Brownback

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. 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, 1 year ago this month a tragic crime occurred on the streets of Moscow. On July 9, 2004, Paul Klebnikov, the 41-year-old American editor of Forbes Russia, was murdered in a gangland-style shooting near his Moscow office. His death was an enormous loss for investigative journalism and for efforts to establish the kind of transparent civil society that the Russian people so want and deserve.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Reading his reporting from Russia, one could tell that he was deeply troubled by the crime and corruption that plagued his ancestral homeland. His personal association with his subject, combined with an educational background in economics, his excellent command of the Russian language, and 15 years experience with the Forbes organization, made him uniquely qualified to report on the nexus of business, politics, and crime in today's Russia. Paul Klebnikov's killing epitomizes the brazen lawlessness that still plagues Russia even after the ascension to power of a putatively ``law and order'' ex-KGB official. For all the talk about stability in Russia today, it is sometimes a stability based on not asking the wrong questions about the wrong people.

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, 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

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.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise this morning to address some of the comments that have been made on the other side of the aisle regarding the Castle bill on embryonic stem cell research that passed in the House a few weeks ago: I have heard the proposal this morning from my colleagues from the other side that we should discuss and talk about embryonic stem cell research and the proposed umbilical cord blood bill that have been put on the calendar here in the Senate, but without any discussion about human cloning. I want to try to put this issue in context a little, and to propose some factual information. Mr. President, we need to have a broad discussion about bioethical issues in this body and all across the country, and it needs to involve the full range of issues that have come to light as we attempt to grasp the implications and come to understand the decisions that must be made in this challenging area. This discussion should involve cord blood stem cells. These types of cells are stem cells that come from the umbilical cord when a child is born; they are a rich source of pluripotent stem cells that have proven very helpful in providing a number of treatments for humans. We need to continue to talk honestly about embryonic stem cell research: the possible limitations of this research to cure diseases in humans, as well as the certain destruction of embryos that this type of research necessitates. We need to talk about human cloning, whether or not we want to continue to allow the practice of cloning to take place in the United States of America (it is currently a legal process in this country, to clone, create and kill an embryo, a young human). We need to talk about the cutting edge related research applications, we need to consider where the science is leading us on issues such as the creation and manipulation of chimeras--human-animal crosses that are created by, for instance, taking human brain cells and putting them in a mouse--we cannot bypass these critical issues in this discussion. And we need to talk about some exciting new application prospects of these broad-based pluripotent cells, cells that can do virtually anything--but I speak of cells where it is not necessary to extract them from a human embryos, destroying that embryo in the process, but cells yielded from other places in the body. With this background in mind, I want to point out a couple of quick facts. No. 1, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, from this morning's Washington Post, an article describing new revelations about pluripotent adult stem cells that can answer many of these questions. I ask that the article be included and printed at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BROWNBACK. The author of this editorial--this is the lead British medical journal--says: . . . what is unarguable is that the human embryo is alive and is human, and intentionally ending the life of one human being for the potential benefit of others is not territory to which mainstream clinical researchers have hitherto sought claim--or which ethically conscientious objectors could ever concede. These embryos are alive. They are alive. They are human. I want to conclude, because time is very limited--Mr. President: I want cures for people. I want cures for juvenile diabetes, for cancer, for spinal cord injuries, for Parkinson's disease. And, with research generated from pluripotent adult stem cells, we are getting these treatments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of human clinical trials going on now, using adult or cord blood stem cells, involving no ethical dilemmas, for 65 different human maladies.

Mr. BROWNBACK. The number of areas of treatment for human ailments or medical conditions in humans using human embryonic stem cells is zero. So the notion that delaying this Castle-Specter bill is going to hurt current patients is completely false. If we want to help current patients, the key--the key--is to put more research into adult and cord blood stem cell research. If you want to help current patients, you should be ever so careful not to promise impossibilities to these hurting individuals; you should state what the scientists are telling us, that the possibility of embryonic stem cells yielding cures, if ever--and I really doubt if it ever happens--is decades away. And we have had problems in the past with these types or cells forming dangerous and cancerous tissues--a problem which has not yet been worked out. If we want cures, let's go the route where we know we are going to reach our destination, and where we know treatment is true possibility. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, July 28, 2005] Scientists Claim To Find Cells That Restore Egg Production (By Rob Stein) A team of Harvard scientists is claiming the discovery of a reservoir of cells that appear capable of replenishing the ovaries of sterilized mice, possibly providing new ways to help infertile women have babies. While cautioning that more research is needed to confirm that similar cells exist in women and that they can safely restore fertility, the researchers said the findings could revolutionize the understanding of female reproduction and the power to manipulate it. ``This may launch a new era in how to think about female infertility and menopause,'' said Jonathan L. Tilly, a reproductive biologist at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston who led the research. It is being published in tomorrow's issue of the journal Cell. Other researchers agreed that the findings could have profound implications, but several expressed caution and skepticism, saying many key questions remain about whether the researchers have proved their claims. ``This is really exciting and a revolutionary idea. The implications are potentially huge,'' said Lawrence Nelson of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. ``But before this could have any type of application to humans, a whole lot of work has to be done. We have to be careful not to get ahead of ourselves.'' But Tilly said he was confident of his findings, which could, for example, enable women to bank egg-producing cells when they are young in case they have health problems that leave them infertile or they get too old. ``In theory, these cells could provide an insurance policy. We could harvest them and store them away for 20 years. Then you put them back in, and they are going to do exactly what they are supposed to--find the ovaries and generate new eggs'' to restore fertility, Tilly said. The discovery could also lead to ways to prevent, delay or reverse menopause, perhaps by stimulating dormant cells in the bone marrow or ``tweaking'' the ovaries to accept them, Tilly said. It may also be possible to transplant them from one woman to another, he said. In addition, because the cells appear to be a particularly versatile type of adult stem cell, they could provide an alternative to those obtained from embryos, avoiding the political and ethical debates raging around the use of those cells. ``The implications are mind-boggling, really,'' Tilly said. The research is a follow-up to results the team reported in March 2004, when it claimed it had shown that mice can produce eggs throughout their lives. For decades, scientific dogma has been that female mammals such as mice and humans are born with a finite number of eggs. To alleviate doubts about their original claim, the researchers conducted another round of experiments, which they said confirm the findings and explain how it might work. First, the scientists sterilized female mice with a cancer chemotherapy drug that destroyed eggs in the ovaries but spared any egg-producing cells elsewhere. They tested the animals' ovaries 12 to 24 hours later and found signs their egg supply was rapidly regenerating. Two months later, the animals' ovaries looked normal, and they remained that way for life. After tests indicated the source of the cells may lie in the animals' bone marrow, the researchers infused marrow from healthy mice into those that were either genetically engineered to be infertile or had been made infertile with chemotherapy. Two months later, the recipients' ovaries looked normal, whereas those that had not received the transplants remained barren, the researchers reported. Blood transfusions produced similar results, they said. The researchers then infused blood into infertile mice from animals that had been genetically engineered so that their reproductive stem cells glowed fluorescent green. Within two days, green egg cells appeared in the recipients' ovaries, which the researchers said indicated the cells had traveled through the blood to the ovaries. Finally, the researchers screened human bone marrow and blood from healthy women and found that both tested positive for biological markers indicating the presence of immature reproductive cells. ``Mice and humans appear to be the same--they appear to have a set of genes in bone marrow consistent with . . . cells that can make themselves a new egg,'' Tilly said. The findings could help explain previously mysterious cases of women sterilized by cancer treatment who spontaneously became pregnant after receiving bone marrow transplants, Tilly said. This may happen only rarely because some, but not all, techniques used to process bone marrow before transplantation may destroy the cells in some cases, he speculated. The research triggered a mixture of excitement, caution and deep skepticism. ``It's quite amazing,'' said Hans Schoeler of the Max Planck Institute in Germany. ``The idea that cells from bone marrow may be a reservoir for egg cells would be quite astonishing.'' But Schoeler and other researchers cautioned that many crucial questions remained. Several researchers had doubts about some of the techniques the researchers used. Others were puzzled by the speed with which the ovaries appeared to be repopulated with eggs. Many pointed out that the researchers had failed to show the eggs were viable, the mice were ovulating or that they could give birth to healthy offspring. ``I'm very skeptical,'' said David F. Albertini of the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kan. ``There are a lot of holes in the research.'' Tilly attributed the skepticism to the radical nature of the findings and said he already had work underway to address the concerns, including breeding studies aimed at producing healthy offspring. ``We hope we will have the answers very soon,'' Tilly said.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to read one section of this article: A team of Harvard scientists is claiming the discovery of a reservoir of cells that appear capable of replenishing the ovaries of sterilized mice, possibly providing new ways to [create human eggs]. Adult stem cells in the body with the ability to create human eggs. Now, people may say: What do you mean by that? Well, here we have a pluripotent adult stem cell (derived from bone marrow) with a broad capacity to create a lot of different cells, so much so that they can generate, when placed in the right place in the body--a woman's ovary-- human eggs. Listen to what the scientists here say about this: In addition, because the cells appear to be a particularly versatile type of adult stem cell-- I would like to pause for a moment to point out that there are no ethical problems or objections to research conducted with adult stem cells. We should put millions of dollars into this type of research. This type of research is yielding cures--65 treatment applications for humans with adult stem cell research. However, I'd like to conclude the reading of this excerpt: . . . a particularly versatile type of adult stems cells [which] could provide an alternative to those obtained from embryos, avoiding the political and ethical debates raging around the use of those cells. End of quote, in this morning's Washington Post, from Harvard researchers. Mr. President, I ask then, why would we want to kill young human embryos, young humans, who are clearly alive, who are clearly human, when we have the capacity, in adult stem cells, to conduct useful and productive research to cure diseases, that is not hindered by ethical problems? In an article from this month's The Lancet--a well-respected British medical journal--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to remember an important occasion that represents 15 years in our Nation's history and welcome the opportunity to speak on these issues which are near and dear to my heart. On July 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, with bipartisan support in Congress under the leadership of then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, my predecessor from Kansas, and thanks in large part to the dedication and hard work of my current colleague, the good Senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin, as well as current Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Today we must continue to dismantle, brick by brick, the ``shameful wall of exclusion'' that existed in the United States previous to the existence of the ADA. And, building on our 15 years of experiences in tearing down the wall of exclusion, we must continue to bring to realization the full promise of the ideas entailed in the ADA. To carry on this significant legacy, we must recognize that, today, we face new challenges and new policy considerations. It is estimated that there are now in America 50 million citizens with some sort of disability. An amazing individual from Kansas who visited D.C. last week to tell his story is 7-year-old Matthew Whaley. Matthew was denied access to the local recreation department's baseball league because he happened to have cerebral palsy. However, because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, he is now showing off his All-Star baseball skills as an outfielder. When I think about what Congress needs to accomplish for people with disabilities over the next few years, to continue to achieve the dream that should have been, and that the ADA began to make possible, I consider what policies we need to change to ensure that Matthew, and others with disabilities, can continue to make a positive difference in this world. We must consider America's aging population. According to the U.S. Census, by the year 2050, 21 percent of America's total population will be age 65 and over. It is understood that the probability of having a disability increases with age. This means that America's population with disabilities will continue to grow. It is imperative that we look for ways to meet the needs of this population and ensure that they can continue to live independent, fulfilling lives. Just recently, I spent time with a constituent of mine who embodies this idea--a man named Rick Davidson from Olathe, KS. Rick is a motivational speaker for at-risk youth, has traveled across the country meeting with lawmakers on disabilities' policy issues, and is attending college for an associates degree in Web design. Rick has lived a healthy and active life as a quadriplegic for almost 18 years-- doctors initially estimated that Rick had just 16 years to live. Another way we can make a positive impact for the future is through supporting endeavors such as the New Freedom Initiative--a comprehensive program to promote the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society by increasing access to assistive technologies, expanding educational and employment opportunities, and promoting increased access to daily community life. In the context of changing public policy, we must also examine how effectively government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, are serving the needs of individuals with disabilities. For example, the Medicare Program's benefit for mobility devices has an ``in the home'' restriction which limits coverage to only those mobility devices that are necessary within a patient's home. Unfortunately, this does not address the needs of a patient who would use this device to obtain access to his or her community, work, school, physician's office, pharmacy, or place of worship. In view of this, I recently signed on a letter requesting that Medicare's mobility device ``in the home'' restriction be modified to improve community access for Medicare recipients with disabilities. I am also a cosponsor of legislation that would offer lower income families who have children with disabilities the opportunity to acquire health care coverage through the Medicaid Program. Along these lines, Congress must address the issue of accessibility to long-term care for the elderly and those with disabilities. Currently, we have a Medicaid system that spends approximately two- thirds of its dollars on institutional care and approximately one-third on community services. This antiquated policy effectively removes disabled and elderly individuals from their community, family, and friends. Even from a cost perspective, this system does not make sense. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the cost of nursing home care ranges from $30,000 to $80,000 per year, while the annual cost of home and community care is much lower. The bottom line is that Congress must work to align the Medicare and Medicaid Programs with goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act. After all, we live in America and in this country we celebrate independence, self-determination, uniqueness, and a sense of community. We must maintain these ideals for our children as well. This year, I introduced the Prenatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act. For some conditions that can be detected in the womb, we are aborting 80 percent or more of the babies who test positive. The effect of this type of ``weeding out'' is the creation of a sort of new eugenics, a form of systematic, disability-based discrimination. The latter process is to the detriment of our society. In addition to the many abilities that persons with disabilities have, these individuals so often have a perspective the rest of us don't have. We learn compassion, heroism, humility, courage, and self- sacrifice from these special individuals--and their gift to us is to inspire us, by their example, to achieve these virtues ourselves. In our discussion of fostering independence, we must keep in mind the importance of guaranteeing all individuals their right to vote. Our citizens with disabilities deserve equal access and an equal voice in our democratic process. Initiatives such as the Help America Vote Act, enacted in 2002, created vital grant programs ensuring electoral participation by persons with disabilities and making polling places accessible to persons with disabilities. Congress must continue to look for ways to expand access to our electoral system for persons with disabilities. While we can change public policy to reflect the ideas embodied in the ADA, it is just as important to seek change at the individual level. Every human being has the ability to change their own ideas and actions in their daily life as they meet an elderly person or a person with disabilities. As Americans, we have a God-given duty to love each and every person, and treat them, not as a means to an end, but as an end in and of themselves. As a Nation, we are so blessed with the presence of individuals who are different than us, and who have the ability to teach us; to teach us about love, about compassion, and about what it means to have strength and courage from within. My vision for America is to continue to build on the momentous legacy of the ADA, where we as citizens continue to celebrate the breadth of experience and life lessons that persons with disabilities offer us. Over 137,000 individuals with disabilities reside in my State of Kansas. My hope for them is the same as my hope for all Americans who have disabilities: that we as a society and as a government do everything in our power to foster their independence, to nurture their soul and to embrace their contributions to society.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and to honor the work of the Women's Missionary Society of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, whose annual conference will be held in my home State of Kansas. As you may know, the African Methodist Episcopal Church has a magnificent and marvelous history in this country. The A.M.E. Church was the first African American Church founded in this Nation. Borne out of the struggle to worship our almighty and benevolent Father without persecution, the A.M.E. Church was founded in order that African Americans could worship freely. And unlike the churches of their time, the co-founder, Bishop Richard Allen, insured that any person regardless of race, creed, or color could worship in church. It is with that spirit and the spirit of benevolence toward one another that the Women's Missionary Society was formed. Through the vision of Mrs. Sarah Allen, the wife of Bishop Richard Allen, there was formed the Women's Missionary Society of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in an effort to mobilize and encourage women in the area of missions. Today the missionary society is still committed to spreading the principles of Christian love and boasts a membership of over 800,000 worldwide. It is their charge and duty to serve God in all they do and to assist in the progression of serving all people worldwide. Indeed, the Women's Missionary Society has a wonderful 130 year history within the A.M.E. Church. In early 1900s the Kansas/Nebraska Conference Branch Women's Missionary Society was formed. At this time, Kansas/Nebraska conference began to serve and meet the needs of the church and the community. During their 130 year history, the Missionary Society encountered many social challenges. And holding true to their legacy, they learned to adjust, adapt, and to be of service to the A.M.E. Church and the African American community. As a conference, they sponsor and hold workshops and seminars to educate the A.M.E. Church and the community on social issues that affect the Black community daily. The Kansas/Nebraska Missionary Society has had several Episcopal supervisors who met the challenges of mission with the A.M.E. Church and the African American community in general. Today, the missionary society has opened a new chapter of missions with a Supervisor who has a global mission to serve abroad as well as at home, Reverend Dr. Cecelia Williams Bryant, who is affectionately known as ``Rev. C.'' Holding true to the A.M.E. Church legacy, Rev ``C'' is a true visionary. Under the direction of Rev. ``C,'' the missionary society will create opportunities for those in need, obtain resources for the changing needs and work to address the concerns of people throughout the world. They will also offer aid and assistance to women's organizations throughout the world as well. They also plan to pray and enthusiastically send the message throughout the Nation and the world that prayer will and can make a difference. On the evening of September 6, 2005, at St. John African Methodist Episcopal Church, Topeka, KS, the Kansas/Nebraska Conference Branch Women's Missionary Society of the African Methodist Episcopal Church will proclaim ``The Healing of the Nations'' as they explore and tell the story of the women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and the Boothheel of Missouri. Mr. President, it is quite evident that the Kansas/Nebraska Women's Missionary Society is ready to accept the challenges to move forward and continue to serve this Nation and the world in the areas of missions.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, it is a great honor for me to recognize today a young Kansan who has been nationally recognized for his intelligence and outstanding participation in the 16th annual National Geographic World Championship Geography Bee in Budapest, Hungary. Andrew Wojtanik, of Overland Park, KS, won gold for the 2004 National Geographic Bee, and has also published a book, called Afghanistan to Zimbabwe: Country Facts that Helped Me Win the National Geographic Bee. Then 14-year old-Andrew was among three young Americans to compete against over 5 million students from all over the world. In preparation for the 5 day world championship, Andrew compiled a 432-page study guide with information on 193 countries around the world. After Andrew's guide was published by National Geographic Society, he was congratulated by the United States Congress on the floor of the House of Representatives. The House passed House Resolution 815 in honor of Andrew as the champion of the National Geographic World Championship. Andrew Wojtanik's recognition for the Geographic Bee is well deserved. His commitment to understanding the world helped America defend its championship title in the 2004 National Geographic Bee. Today, I join the United States Congress in recognizing and paying tribute to this extraordinary young American. Andrew Wojtanik is a true champion, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this young man for his outstanding achievement in the 2004 National Geographic World Championship.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague Senator Corzine and 11 other cosponsors to introduce the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2005. I applaud Senator Corzine for his tireless work on this issue--he has traveled on several occasions to Sudan, and was instrumental in moving the U.S. to declare the atrocities genocide. In addition, there is a strong bipartisan coalition forming to address one of the greatest moral issues that faces our world today. I wish to thank many of my colleagues for their support for the Darfur Accountability Act that was introduced in March and passed unanimously by this body as an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental. Unfortunately, that provision was stripped in conference. Since that time, several relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions have been passed, NATO has committed to assisting the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), and the National Unity Government of Sudan was established just two weeks ago on July 9, following the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and the South. While we applaud the recent peace agreement ending the longest civil war in Africa, we pause with great concern that genocide continues in Darfur. There can be no comprehensive peace in Sudan until the crisis in Darfur has been resolved. Just today news reports were swarming about the Sudanese officials who manhandled Secretary Rice's staff and reporters during their meeting with President Bashir. When a U.S. reporter asked a question about the killing of innocent civilians, she was taken by the arm and promptly removed from the meeting. It is unfortunate that the ``international incident'' not being reported is about the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, or the 2 million refugees who live day to day on inadequate portions of food and very little clean water. In remarks prior to the G-8 summit on June 30, 2005, President Bush declared, ``the violence in Darfur is clearly genocide,'' and ``the human cost is beyond calculation.'' While momentum for international support to end this crisis has been building, the violence and humanitarian crisis continues. Rape is still being used as weapon against women. Some women who have become pregnant due to brutal rape, have been forced to abort their babies and other women have been imprisoned for bearing illegitimate children. In addition, the government seems to be prepared to raze the Kalma refugee camp of 120,000 people against their wishes, sending them back into areas where there is no security against these rapes and killings. I remind my colleagues that it was one year ago, on July 22, we stood together in Congress to denounce the atrocities in Darfur as genocide. Twelve long months later is not the time to start thinking about easing sanctions or restoring certain diplomatic ties, rather it is time to address the needs of the African Union and it is time to sanction those responsible for genocide. That is why we are joining with colleagues in the House to introduce new bipartisan legislation called the Darfur Peace and Accountability act of 2005. This bill increases pressure on Khartoum, provides greater support to the African Union mission in Darfur to help protect civilians, imposes sanctions on individuals responsible for atrocities, and encourages the appointment of a U.S. special envoy to help advance a peace process for Darfur. I applaud our colleagues in the House, including Congressmen Hyde, Tancredo, Payne, Wolf, Smith and others, who have diligently worked with us to ensure a strong piece of legislation that we hope will move quickly and be enacted so that we may provide further relief to the suffering victims. I urge my colleagues to support this very important piece of legislation. For the first time in history we publicly speak of genocide while it is underway, yet we have broken our promise of ``Never Again.'' We can no longer be indifferent to the suffering Africans of Darfur. We have got to move beyond partisan politics, and agree on the fundamentals that will help save lives immediately.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague Senator Corzine and 11 other cosponsors to introduce the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2005. I applaud Senator Corzine for his tireless work on this issue--he has traveled on several occasions to Sudan, and was instrumental in moving the U.S. to declare the atrocities genocide. In addition, there is a strong bipartisan coalition forming to address one of the greatest moral issues that faces our world today. I wish to thank many of my colleagues for their support for the Darfur Accountability Act that was introduced in March and passed unanimously by this body as an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental. Unfortunately, that provision was stripped in conference. Since that time, several relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions have been passed, NATO has committed to assisting the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), and the National Unity Government of Sudan was established just two weeks ago on July 9, following the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and the South. While we applaud the recent peace agreement ending the longest civil war in Africa, we pause with great concern that genocide continues in Darfur. There can be no comprehensive peace in Sudan until the crisis in Darfur has been resolved. Just today news reports were swarming about the Sudanese officials who manhandled Secretary Rice's staff and reporters during their meeting with President Bashir. When a U.S. reporter asked a question about the killing of innocent civilians, she was taken by the arm and promptly removed from the meeting. It is unfortunate that the ``international incident'' not being reported is about the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, or the 2 million refugees who live day to day on inadequate portions of food and very little clean water. In remarks prior to the G-8 summit on June 30, 2005, President Bush declared, ``the violence in Darfur is clearly genocide,'' and ``the human cost is beyond calculation.'' While momentum for international support to end this crisis has been building, the violence and humanitarian crisis continues. Rape is still being used as weapon against women. Some women who have become pregnant due to brutal rape, have been forced to abort their babies and other women have been imprisoned for bearing illegitimate children. In addition, the government seems to be prepared to raze the Kalma refugee camp of 120,000 people against their wishes, sending them back into areas where there is no security against these rapes and killings. I remind my colleagues that it was one year ago, on July 22, we stood together in Congress to denounce the atrocities in Darfur as genocide. Twelve long months later is not the time to start thinking about easing sanctions or restoring certain diplomatic ties, rather it is time to address the needs of the African Union and it is time to sanction those responsible for genocide. That is why we are joining with colleagues in the House to introduce new bipartisan legislation called the Darfur Peace and Accountability act of 2005. This bill increases pressure on Khartoum, provides greater support to the African Union mission in Darfur to help protect civilians, imposes sanctions on individuals responsible for atrocities, and encourages the appointment of a U.S. special envoy to help advance a peace process for Darfur. I applaud our colleagues in the House, including Congressmen Hyde, Tancredo, Payne, Wolf, Smith and others, who have diligently worked with us to ensure a strong piece of legislation that we hope will move quickly and be enacted so that we may provide further relief to the suffering victims. I urge my colleagues to support this very important piece of legislation. For the first time in history we publicly speak of genocide while it is underway, yet we have broken our promise of ``Never Again.'' We can no longer be indifferent to the suffering Africans of Darfur. We have got to move beyond partisan politics, and agree on the fundamentals that will help save lives immediately.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in making brief comments about the selection of Judge John Roberts from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to serve as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and I follow my colleague from Kentucky in noting how Ruth Bader Ginsburg was treated--appropriately, properly, with due diligence, and speed so that the nomination went through in an orderly process. She took the seat of Justice Byron White who was one of the dissenters in Roe. A number of my colleagues are saying we need to have somebody in this position that is exactly the same as Sandra Day O'Connor in her position. Yet that wasn't the standard that was applied in the most recent case with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the replacement for Justice Byron White. The process is as it is. The President nominates. The President campaigned vigorously about the role of the Supreme Court and the role of the courts in society today. He has made a noteworthy choice, a person of outstanding academic credentials. I have heard a colleague of mine say: I don't know yet how I will vote, but I would certainly hate to argue a case against him. Somebody who has argued 39 cases in front of the Supreme Court is very impressive indeed. But I also would like to note that the process is for the President to nominate and us to vote by a majority. That has been the historical setting, and that is what we should continued to do in this case. My colleagues have already outlined some of Judge Roberts' excellent legal credentials. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. He clerked for then-Associate Justice Rehnquist. He served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General at the Department of Justice. He amassed a strong record as a Supreme Court advocate in private practice and has distinguished himself as a judge on the court of appeals. As one of my colleagues said last night, Senator Schumer, Judge Roberts has the ``appropriate legal temperament and demeanor.'' We would call that, from my part of the country, ``midwestern calm.'' He has a great deal of calm demeanor about him that is quite good for judicial temperament. I was particularly struck by Judge Roberts' statement at the White House yesterday evening, speaking extemporaneously and with all the skill of a practiced lawyer and as a person of not only a well-trained mind but a deep heart. He said he had a ``profound appreciation for the role of the Court in our constitutional democracy.'' The role of the Court in American life and Government is of great concern to the country today. That statement means a lot--rule of law rather than the rule of man. We are a country of laws, ruled by laws and not by the whim of any person or any five people. It is a set of laws. It is a Constitution. That is what rules in this country. It is my hope that Judge Roberts and any nominee to the Supreme Court would be faithful to the role originally intended for the courts by the Framers of the Constitution. In our system of government, the Constitution contemplates that Federal courts will exercise--this is very clear within the Founders--limited jurisdiction. The Federal court is to be a limited jurisdiction court. They should neither write nor execute the laws but simply ``say what the law is,'' as former Chief Justice Marshall stated in Marbury v. Madison. As Alexander Hamilton explained, this limitation on judicial powers is what would make the Federal judiciary the ``least dangerous branch.'' In his view, judges could be trusted with power because they would not resolve divisive social issues, short circuit the political process, or invent rights which have no basis in the text of the Constitution. That was simply not the role of the courts. They were simply to say what the law is, not to write it, not to execute it. The expanded role assumed by the Supreme Court in recent years--and in Federal courts generally--makes it all the more important that Judge Roberts exhibit proper respect for the restrained role of the Federal courts in American Government. I hope the confirmation process demonstrates that he will live up to the President's ideal of nominating individuals who will refrain from making law on the bench. This is a big issue in society today. People want to have legislatures to make laws. That is what we do. They want to have executive branch to execute. That is what they do. And the Court simply says what the law is. It does not write it. Speaking of the confirmation process, I will say a few words about what to expect in the days ahead. Judge Roberts hardly had a chance to step before the cameras last night before interest groups had attacked him. MoveOn.Org attacked Roberts as a ``right-wing corporate lawyer and ideologue.'' NARAL Pro-Choice America blasted Roberts immediately as an ``anti choice extremist,'' urging him to ``help save the Supreme Court from President Bush.'' Even though Judge Roberts was approved as a DC Circuit Court judge in 2003, 2 years ago, without objection, and received the vote of Ranking Member Leahy in the Judiciary Committee at that time as well, the interest groups immediately came out, before a word was said, even before the President presented him to the public, and made these sorts of characterizations of Judge Roberts. It is not right. It is not the process we should follow. We should look to the record of the individual and we should hold open and in-depth hearings. But there should not be these sorts of characterizations. These statements smack of personal attacks and litmus tests and are not becoming of a serious, openminded debate on the nominee. I hope my colleagues resist the demands from these outside groups for knee-jerk opposition to Judge Roberts. We should instead live up to the tradition of careful, considered debate, which is the heritage of this great institution. Our deliberation on this nomination should be respectful and it should focus on substance. It would be a tragedy for this body, and for the Republic, if the confirmation process for Judge Roberts reflects the treatment some of President Bush's nominees to this point, including Roberts himself in looking to be a circuit court nominee, have received. Judge Roberts' pleasant demeanor should be matched by civil treatment in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. Finally, neither filibusters nor supermajority requirements have any place in the confirmation process. Those tactics of obstruction should become the historical relics they deserve to be. The country deserves, and the Constitution demands, a prompt, thorough debate, and a fair up- or-down vote on Judge Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court. I look forward to being an active participant in that process and also to having this debate about the role of the courts in American society and American Government today. I think it is important that we have those debates. This is an eminently qualified nominee. He deserves fair treatment and a fair up-or-down vote. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Charles Kane, a legal intern on the committee staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor from the U.S. Supreme Court. First, I wish to applaud her public service that has been part of her entire life. She is a fantastic role model; she is a role model to two of my older of five children. My two older daughters have seen her as someone who moved into an area that had not been occupied by a woman before-- the Supreme Court of the United States. One of my daughters got to meet with her at one time. It was quite an event in her life, being able to see a woman on the U.S. Supreme Court at a young age. And that has been replicated, of course, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Women have broken through. That will continue to be the case, and will continue to be an inspiration to people throughout the world in general, and my family in particular. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was raised in southeastern Arizona on her family's ranch. Her humble beginnings contributed to her appreciation for common sense and limited government, which she carried forward on the Court. She received her undergraduate degree from Stanford University; one of the great schools of our country. At Stanford, she successfully pursued a degree in economics and graduated third in her class at Stanford Law School. It was during law school that she met her husband John. As a young female attorney, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor faced great adversity in finding employment. It does not seem possible that someone graduating third in their class from Stanford Law School would face this problem. But those were different times, and she was a woman and was looking for employment in the private sector. She persevered, accepted a position as deputy county attorney for San Mateo County in California, where she served with distinction. In 1958, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor began a small private practice in her native Arizona. In 1965, after returning to work following a brief hiatus to care for her children, Justice O'Connor accepted a position as an assistant attorney general for the State of Arizona. In 1968, she was appointed to the Arizona State Senate by the Governor to fill a vacancy. During O'Connor's tenure in the State Senate, she demonstrated wisdom and excellence to become the majority leader. O'Connor was elected judge of Maricopa County Superior court in 1975 and served until 1979 when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan fulfilled his promise to nominate the first woman to the Nation's top Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was confirmed unanimously by the Senate. It is hard to think of a Supreme Court nominee getting a unanimous confirmation in this body today, but it happened in 1981. Justice O'Connor's life is a testament to perseverance, integrity, and appreciation of constitutional government. She served as a role model to a generation of women in the legal profession. I commend her for her 24 years of dedicated service to the U.S. Supreme Court. In her letter to the President announcing her retirement, I was impressed by Justice O'Connor's reference to the ``integrity of the Court and its role under our constitutional structure.'' I think it is important to remember that in our system of government, the courts have but limited jurisdiction: they should neither write nor execute the laws, but simply ``say what the law is,'' in the famous phrase of former Chief Justice Marshall. As Alexander Hamilton explained, this limitation on judicial power is what would make the Federal judiciary the ``least dangerous branch.'' They were not meant to resolve divisive social issues, short-circuit the political process, or invent rights which had no basis in the text of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the courts in recent years have not kept themselves within the circumscribed role envisioned by the Framers. Hamilton himself likely would be shocked at the broad sweep of the exercise of judicial power in America: Federal courts today are redefining the meaning of marriage, removing the role of faith in the public square, running prisons and schools by decree, enhancing Federal power at the expense of the States and, just last week, radically expanding the power of government to take private property from one individual and hand it over to another in the name of public use; by 5-to-4 decisions--5 for, 4 against. The expanded role assumed by the Federal courts generally in recent years makes it all the more important that the upcoming nominee exhibit the proper respect for the restrained role of the Federal courts in American Government, staying within the text of the Constitution. Given the President's repeated statements during his campaign that he would pick Justices who would faithfully interpret the text of the Constitution and the resonance his position had with the American people, I am confident that he will nominate a well-qualified individual who will refrain from making law from the bench. I will conclude by simply saying, in the confirmation process, I hope this body can take a position where we hold fair hearings, where the nominee is not maligned by outside groups seeking to cast aspersions that are clearly not there, or trying to paint an individual where the factual setting is not there; that it will be a process of 51 votes and not 60 votes, that there will not be a filibuster for this Supreme Court nominee position. It should not be an extraordinary circumstance. The position is to be filled by a majority vote of this body, not by a supermajority vote of this body. I hope we could move forward with a confirmation process through the Judiciary Committee, on which I and the Presiding Officer serve on, in a timely and reasonable fashion; that we could bring the nomination in front of this body, have a robust debate on it, and then vote. The person either goes on the Supreme Court or they do not go on the Supreme Court--by 51 votes. That is what it should be. I think that is clearly the case of what was anticipated by the Framers in the overall process. I see my colleague from Texas is here, who is to speak on the floor. I do want to end by again commending Sandra Day O'Connor's lifetime of service, the inspirational role that she has played for many people in this country--to people in my family. I thank her and say Godspeed to her and her family, and I am sure she will continue to serve this Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, on this beautiful day in Washington, DC, we are about to create some great opportunities for Kansas farmers, Kansas manufacturers, and opportunities of hope for people in Central America. That is to me what this CAFTA bill represents. I do not want to oversell it. I do not think it should be oversold. I do not think it is a panacea for democracy building or opportunity in Central America. I do not think it is a panacea for all my farmers and manufacturers in the State of Kansas. But I do think it is a little more good in the world, a little more good for opportunities for people in the United States, lowering tariffs and trade barriers in our neighborhood, in this region of the world, a little more good and opportunity for economic chances and opportunities in Central America and the Dominican Republic, chances that do not exist today, chances that are not doing well today in Central America, chances that are hurting the spread of democracy, free societies, even in our own hemisphere. I was troubled recently when I read a poll published by one of the major newspapers in this country. The poll was asking people in Central and South America would they give up their democracy if their economy would grow. In other words, if a dictator comes in and can produce economic reform and opportunity where you would have a growing economy instead of the stagnant situation you are in today, would you give up democracy? A surprisingly large number of people said yes. I suppose in their hierarchy of needs, what they were looking at is: Look, democracy is great, but what I need right now is a job, what I need right now is income for my family, what I need right now is to be able to pay my bills and send my kids to school. If I have to give up this other right to do that, I am willing to look at it. I was very troubled by that poll. I have relatives traveling to Central America talking with me in return about the troubling aspects of what they are seeing in the willingness to give up democracy and the fragility of democracy in our own hemisphere because of a lack of economic opportunity. I think as well a lot of this is because of the juggernaut China is today, more than we solve by CAFTA. CAFTA is a little more good. CAFTA is a positive step in the right direction for those democracies to build economies and for opportunities for us in this country. It is not opportunities for everybody. There will be winners and some losers, as there are in trade agreements, because on the basis of a trade agreement, each country does what they do best and then you trade goods back and forth. Overall, the economy is lifted. There are people who are dislocated and harmed in these processes. Overall, there is a betterment of societies, cultures, and opportunities. That is what I think overall will take place with CAFTA. I do believe we have an extra issue that is at risk and is rewarded by CAFTA, and that is democracy building in our hemisphere. I do not think it can be put forward too lightly. While I do not think people in Central America will say, OK, I am going to rejoice with the passing of CAFTA, that this is going to solve all my problems, I do think it will remove a great deal of hope if this does not pass. It will certainly have a negative impact in Central America if it does not pass, and I think we have to look at that as well. Everybody has heard the numbers until I am sure they are blue in the face. The U.S. tariff regime is one of the lowest in the world, 3 percent. For a State such as mine, Kansas, having open markets is vital for the exportation of agricultural commodities. The aircraft industry is also dependent upon an export market. So additional liberalization should benefit our producers. About one-third, or $3 billion in farm cash receipts out of a total of $9 billion of gross farm income in Kansas comes from exports. Kansas ranks sixth in the Nation for States with the greatest share of agricultural exports. Movement toward freer economies is helpful in doing that. I want to focus briefly in the time I have on a couple of specific products that will benefit my State. As I mentioned, we have a heavy agricultural export industry. Agricultural exports support some 47,000 jobs in Kansas. I think, in this particular case, we have a decent chance of expanding more agricultural exports. Beef is our largest section of the agricultural economy of my State. We are the second largest beef exporter in the country. As I mentioned, it provides the single largest source of cash receipts in agriculture in my State at over $5.6 billion. We believe CAFTA will help the cattle industry. Pork producers, who add about $252 million to Kansas annually, will also benefit from the trade agreement. Current import tariffs on U.S. beef exports is as high as 30 percent in some of these countries. Duties on the products most important to the U.S. beef industry--prime and choice cuts--would be eliminated immediately in these Central American countries. I don't want to paint that again as a panacea because I don't think there is going to be a large initial export. There is not a large market of that cut initially, although there is market opportunity. The American Farm Bureau Federation economic analysis of CAFTA estimates that Kansas will increase meat exports to the six countries by $130 million per year on the full implementation. That full implementation has a very long window to it, 2024. This is some period to come. These are economic analyses which are useful to use to generally show trend lines. I have learned enough over the years to not rely upon these as money in the bank because factors come in to play--sanitary issues enter the picture, and we have recently been wrestling with BSE. Those all are major factors. Still, it points to a positive trend line. As the Nation's top wheat exporter and with State farm cash receipts of $1.3 billion, Kansas wheat producers will benefit from CAFTA. Grain suppliers will benefit from zero tariffs immediately on wheat in all six countries, as well as some processed grain products. Again, the American Farm Bureau economic analysis of CAFTA estimates that Kansas will increase wheat exports to the six countries by $8 million per year. Again, this is after full implementation of CAFTA. That is some time in the future. Its economic analysis could well be off, but it shows a generally positive trend line--small but positive. That is why I say a little more good in the world for my producers. I conclude by saying, as we continue to fight this global war on terrorism, we must continue to spread democracy and hope throughout the world. Engaging in free trade practices and policies helps improve relationships with other countries and improves the standard of living in these developing countries. Helping to improve other countries' standard of living will result in a more hopeful society and a more peaceful world. Certainly we have learned over the years that democracies are far easier and better for us to deal with. If we can help strengthen democracy, particularly in our hemisphere, by this passage, minor as it might be as a positive point, that is a good and hopeful sign and something we should do. I support CAFTA, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of passage of the CAFTA trade agreement. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parents Tax Relief Act. The Parents Tax Relief Act would help restore to families the pride- of-place, which they enjoyed during the early days of the income tax. This important legislation would relieve the growing tax burden on families with children; provide a realistic option for one parent to stay at home and care for the children; and acknowledge the indispensable social value of the time and effort that parents put into rearing and forming their children. Letting parents keep more of their hard-earned money for family- related expenses leaves the childcare decision to parents. Given this opportunity to make their own decision about childcare, many will choose to stay at home and care for their children themselves. This legislation is necessary because parents have been hit especially hard by increasing taxes over the past half-century. In 1948, the average family with children paid 3 percent of its income in Federal taxes; today, that same average family with children pays almost 25 percent of its income in Federal taxes. It is time for the Federal Government to step back and recognize the contributions of the American family. As a matter of policy, I believe we should work to further reduce taxes on families with children in order to make it easier for parents to be parents and care for their own children at home. Outside of abusive situations, nothing is better for our children than spending time with their parents. The Parents Tax Relief Act takes a modest step towards empowering and strengthening the family. It builds on Marriage Penalty Tax Relief and the Child Tax Credit, making both permanent. While the Child Tax Credit was significant in leveling a three-decade trend of an increasing percentage of married mothers with preschool children who work outside the home full-time, more needs to be done to give parents the chance to decrease this percentage. To accomplish this end, the Parents Tax Relief Act would increase deductions for young and elderly dependents. It would equalize existing Federal preferences between parents who choose to stay at home with their children and parents Who choose to work outside of the home and place their children in paid daycare. The bill would make it easier for a parent to spend more time with their children through provisions that encourage telecommuting and home businesses. And it recognizes the societal contributions of parents by granting 10 years worth of Social Security credits to a spouse who leaves the workforce during their prime-earning years to care for a young child. The Parents Tax Relief Act is about investing in human capital. The hard-working American family, instilling traditional values to children, has been the bedrock of American society. As the family goes, so goes the Nation. In recent years, the Federal Government has engaged in a massive experiment with paid, out-of-home daycare. As a national policy, through Federal subsidies, we have encouraged parents to place their children in daycare, and further, we have increasingly become a Nation where it is necessary for both husband and wife to be in the workforce just to cover a family's basic needs. The end result is that children are getting less of their parents' time when they need their parents the most. Make no mistake, both men and women have made valuable contributions to our national workforce. Our Nation's productivity is strong, and we have enjoyed a great period of national prosperity. But how long will it last when our children are spending less time with mom and dad? Sociological data confirms time and again that children do best when raised by a mother and a father, where one spouse works and the other spouse stays at home with the children. Unfortunately--and I believe that most mothers, especially, would tend to agree--we have reached a point where a family has to make a truly great sacrifice for one parent to stay at home to raise the children. I have heard so many stories of mothers wanting to stay home with their children, but between paying a mortgage and taxes, they feel helpless. They feel that they must work in order that their family can enjoy and maintain a middle-class lifestyle. It is time for us to acknowledge, through Federal policy, the sacrifices that parents make to invest in the upbringing of their children when they stay at home. That is goal of the Parents Tax Relief Act, and it is the reason why I am introducing this important measure. It costs a great sum to raise children these days, and it is essential to our Nation's social and economic welfare that we ensure Federal tax policy does not infringe on a parent's ability to afford that great sum. The Parents Tax Relief Act would establish a new national tax policy that would allow parents to invest more time and effort in the formation of their children. In the end, this type of investment in human capital may be the most effective way for the Federal Government to ensure our future economic growth and competitiveness. The legislative road to this new policy begins today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make it a reality.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parents Tax Relief Act. The Parents Tax Relief Act would help restore to families the pride- of-place, which they enjoyed during the early days of the income tax. This important legislation would relieve the growing tax burden on families with children; provide a realistic option for one parent to stay at home and care for the children; and acknowledge the indispensable social value of the time and effort that parents put into rearing and forming their children. Letting parents keep more of their hard-earned money for family- related expenses leaves the childcare decision to parents. Given this opportunity to make their own decision about childcare, many will choose to stay at home and care for their children themselves. This legislation is necessary because parents have been hit especially hard by increasing taxes over the past half-century. In 1948, the average family with children paid 3 percent of its income in Federal taxes; today, that same average family with children pays almost 25 percent of its income in Federal taxes. It is time for the Federal Government to step back and recognize the contributions of the American family. As a matter of policy, I believe we should work to further reduce taxes on families with children in order to make it easier for parents to be parents and care for their own children at home. Outside of abusive situations, nothing is better for our children than spending time with their parents. The Parents Tax Relief Act takes a modest step towards empowering and strengthening the family. It builds on Marriage Penalty Tax Relief and the Child Tax Credit, making both permanent. While the Child Tax Credit was significant in leveling a three-decade trend of an increasing percentage of married mothers with preschool children who work outside the home full-time, more needs to be done to give parents the chance to decrease this percentage. To accomplish this end, the Parents Tax Relief Act would increase deductions for young and elderly dependents. It would equalize existing Federal preferences between parents who choose to stay at home with their children and parents Who choose to work outside of the home and place their children in paid daycare. The bill would make it easier for a parent to spend more time with their children through provisions that encourage telecommuting and home businesses. And it recognizes the societal contributions of parents by granting 10 years worth of Social Security credits to a spouse who leaves the workforce during their prime-earning years to care for a young child. The Parents Tax Relief Act is about investing in human capital. The hard-working American family, instilling traditional values to children, has been the bedrock of American society. As the family goes, so goes the Nation. In recent years, the Federal Government has engaged in a massive experiment with paid, out-of-home daycare. As a national policy, through Federal subsidies, we have encouraged parents to place their children in daycare, and further, we have increasingly become a Nation where it is necessary for both husband and wife to be in the workforce just to cover a family's basic needs. The end result is that children are getting less of their parents' time when they need their parents the most. Make no mistake, both men and women have made valuable contributions to our national workforce. Our Nation's productivity is strong, and we have enjoyed a great period of national prosperity. But how long will it last when our children are spending less time with mom and dad? Sociological data confirms time and again that children do best when raised by a mother and a father, where one spouse works and the other spouse stays at home with the children. Unfortunately--and I believe that most mothers, especially, would tend to agree--we have reached a point where a family has to make a truly great sacrifice for one parent to stay at home to raise the children. I have heard so many stories of mothers wanting to stay home with their children, but between paying a mortgage and taxes, they feel helpless. They feel that they must work in order that their family can enjoy and maintain a middle-class lifestyle. It is time for us to acknowledge, through Federal policy, the sacrifices that parents make to invest in the upbringing of their children when they stay at home. That is goal of the Parents Tax Relief Act, and it is the reason why I am introducing this important measure. It costs a great sum to raise children these days, and it is essential to our Nation's social and economic welfare that we ensure Federal tax policy does not infringe on a parent's ability to afford that great sum. The Parents Tax Relief Act would establish a new national tax policy that would allow parents to invest more time and effort in the formation of their children. In the end, this type of investment in human capital may be the most effective way for the Federal Government to ensure our future economic growth and competitiveness. The legislative road to this new policy begins today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make it a reality.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we have had a big debate about this in Kansas. We embrace wind power, wind generation. We will be a major benefactor and producer of wind energy. In the middle of the State, we have a tallgrass prairie, which is also in Oklahoma. This is really a majority of the untouched, unplowed, tallgrass prairie that remains in the United States. Over 90 percent is in a swathe between Kansas and Oklahoma. What we are asking and are part of in this bill is that those areas that are protected within the Flint Hills Refuge, the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, and the Konza Prairie be within the designation areas that don't get the tax credits for the wind energy and the 20-mile radius around. That is responsible. These are very key areas, and the impact on the viewscape around it is significant and important. That is why I am pleased to be part of and I support this amendment that my colleague from Tennessee has put forward. This is a responsible way to do it. We need to embrace wind power and generation but not in environmentally sensitive areas. This is a responsible way to do it. I am glad to support this amendment. I yield the floor.