Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. The amendment is simply intended to ensure a level playing field between small businesses and utility affiliates, to protect ratepayers, and the financial integrity of utilities, and to preserve fair competition.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate the chairman and ranking member's commitment and look forward to working with them.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes. Several small business groups have brought to our attention concerns they have about their ability to compete with energy service companies that are separate from, but affiliated with, regulated utilities. These small business groups are concerned about utility ratepayers subsidizing these competitive businesses. Because of these concerns, I have cosponsored an amendment with Senator Feingold to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to require greater structural and financial separation of utility companies and their affiliates and to prevent anticompetitive abuses which are especially harmful to America's small businesses.

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.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, a big event is taking place in another country tomorrow. The Iranian elections are going to take place for the presidency and leadership in Iran. This is a bogus election. The people of Iran are not having a fair choice. A number of people are calling for a boycott of elections in Iran, which is unusual for us but not for them, because the whole slate of those who have been nominated has been selected by the ruling council of Iran. If you were even going to be on the ballot, you had to have been selected by the ruling council. So there may be eight people running for president; some have dropped out, others added in. They all had to be appointed, actually, to be candidates. I wanted to draw this point to the body that there is not just a nuclear crisis going on in Iran; there is a human crisis that is taking place in that country. These elections that will be reported on are not elections. They are appointments that are taking place. It is in many respects a fairly porous society, and yet there are severe restrictions placed on freedom of speech, on press, assembly, association, and religion. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has concluded that ``the government of Iran engages in or tolerates systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom, including prolonged detention and executions based primarily or entirely upon religion of the accused.'' I just met with members of the Ba'hai faith who talked about the severe persecution of the Ba'hai in Iran. But the specific item I wanted to point out even prior to this election is the gender apartheid that takes place in Iran. I received this recently from the Alliance for Iranian Women. The State Department has reported that the testimony of a woman in Iran is worth half that of a man in court. The blood money paid to the family of a female crime victim is half the sum paid for a man. A married woman must obtain the written consent of her husband before traveling outside the country. In his book, Ayatollah Khomeini requires that young girls should be married before they reach the age of puberty. A woman does not have the right to divorce her husband, but a man can divorce his wife anytime he wishes and without her knowledge. A man is allowed to marry four wives and have as many temporary wives as he wants and may end the contract at any time with a temporary wife on a temporary marriage. Temporary marriage is often viewed as the Islamic Republic's way of sanctioning male promiscuity outside of marriage. Mothers do not get custody of their children when husbands divorce them. A widow does not get the custody of her children after the death of her husband. The children will be given to the parental grandparents, and the mother has no right to visitation. If the husband has no family, the mullah of the community takes custody of the child. Daughters get half the inheritance than that of their sons. I point this gender apartheid out because when I heard about it, I was stunned. I wanted other Members of the body to realize this is taking place. The greater focus of what is taking place in Iran has been primarily on nuclear weapons development. But there is a humanitarian and a human crisis and certainly a human rights crisis in that country. I have come here shortly before the Iranian presidential elections. These elections hold no hope of change for the people of Iran. They are elections that will be boycotted and protested, and they are elections that have been manipulated by the supreme leader and the council of guardians. Just last week women in Iran staged a sit-in to protest the disqualification of women from running in the elections. The people of Iran want change. That change will not come through these elections. But it will come through internal, strong demonstrations, and it will come through strong international support for the very people who protest and boycott these elections. Iran has a young and vibrant base that, with the support of the international community, could promote major change in Iran and the region. I encourage the Iranian-American community to unite, build strong coalitions to further promote democracy and fundamental respect for human rights in Iran. I encourage this body to support democracy building, civil society building in and for Iran. I encourage other Members to continue to speak up on behalf of the oppressed in Iran and voice strong support for the people who so desperately want to see democracy flourish. This is a key issue and a timely one. These elections are taking place soon. People need to know this is a bogus set of elections. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, many people think only of wind turbines when renewable sources of energy are discussed. However, I see great potential for Kansas and our nation in the production of renewable energy from biomass sources. We have the technology to produce electricity from grass, hay, wood, livestock manure and many other bio- based sources that the State of Kansas has in abundance. This would not only provide a new market for many of our farmers to access, but would lead to a better environment for all of us by finding beneficial uses for many of these waste products. I believe the Flint Hills to be the most environmentally significant treasure the state of Kansas has to offer. It's paramount that we protect this native land from unsightly development that will ruin this treasure for future generations of Kansans. Therefore, with my vote for a nation renewable portfolio standard, I urge the State to protect Flint Hills from wind turbine development and focus on producing renewable electricity from biomass sources. It is good for our farmers, it is good for the environment and it is good for Kansans.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to get us back on the topic at hand. It is a topic that has been denied for some period of time. It is the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. ``Justice delayed is justice denied'' is an old saying under the law. This lady has been delayed a long time. It is time to get this nomination through. I am glad to see the cloture vote move us forward. She is going to be now approved, I believe, by a majority vote and a majority opinion. And I think if the country had to vote on Janice Rogers Brown, it would be a 90-plus percent vote for this lady, given her background, given her judicial expertise, given her demeanor, given her nature. I think the country would look at this lady, whom I have a picture of here, and say: That is the type of person I want on the bench. This is a good, honorable person, with a great heart, a well-trained mind, who is thoughtful, with great experience. This is the type of person we ought to have on the bench. Yet we have just heard litany after litany of excuses, the dissecting of cases that you try to then parse to say she should not be on the bench for whatever reason. I want to go through some of what has been stated previously. I want to go through, again, her background to get us back on topic. And then I want to go through some of the specifics. She is currently serving as an associate justice on the California Supreme Court. She has held that position since 1996. She is the first African-American woman to serve on the State's highest court. She was retained with 76 percent of the vote in the last election. Certainly, that does not seem to be the sort of extreme case anyone can come up with; that 76 percent of Californians think she should be retained on the court. If she is so extreme, if she is so off the mark, if she is so out of the mainstream, why, in California, wasn't she voted off the bench? Why didn't at least 24 percent of Californians or more than 24 percent vote her off the bench? Why didn't she have a much closer election than that? Where is the beef, an old advertising phrase? In 2002, Justice Brown's colleagues relied on her to write the majority opinion for the court more times than any other justice. Prior to appointment and confirmation to the California Supreme Court, Justice Brown served from 1994 to 1996 as an associate justice on the Third District Court of Appeals, an intermediate State appellate court. Justice Brown enjoys bipartisan support from those in California who know her best. A bipartisan group of 15 California law professors has written to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of Justice Brown. The letter notes that: We know Justice Brown to be a person of high integrity, intelligence, unquestioned integrity, and evenhandedness. Since we have differing political beliefs and perspectives, Democratic, Republican and Independent, we wish especially to emphasize what we believe is Justice Brown's strongest credential for appointment on the D.C. Circuit Court: her open-minded and thorough appraisal of legal argumentation-- even when her personal views may conflict with those arguments. This is a bipartisan group that says she is open-minded and thorough in her appraisal of legal arguments. A bipartisan group of Justice Brown's current and former judicial colleagues has also written a letter in support of her nomination. Twelve current and former colleagues noted in a letter to the committee that: Much has been written about Justice Brown's humble beginnings, and the story of her rise to the California Supreme Court is truly compelling. But that alone would not be enough to gain our endorsement for a seat on the Federal bench. We believe that Justice Brown is qualified because she is a superb judge. We who have worked with her on a daily basis know her to be extremely intelligent, keenly analytical, and very hard working. We know that she is a jurist who applies the law without favor, without bias and with an even hand. This doesn't sound like the same lady who is being discussed on this floor by some of my colleagues on the other side. Ellis Horvitz, a Democrat and one of the deans of the appellate bar in California, has written in support of Justice Brown noting that: . . . in my opinion, Justice Brown [possesses] those qualities an appellate jurist should have. She is extremely intelligent, very conscientious and hard working, refreshingly articulate, and possessing great common sense and integrity. She is courteous and gracious to the litigants and counsel who appear before her. Regis Lane, director of Minorities in Law Enforcement, a coalition of ethnic minority law enforcement officers in California, wrote: We recommend the confirmation of Justice Brown based on her broad range of experience, personal integrity, good standing in the community, and dedication to public service . . . In many conversations with Justice Brown, I have discovered that she is very passionate about the plight of racial minorities in America, based on her upbringing in the south. Justice Brown's views that all individuals who desire the American dream regardless of their race or creed can and should succeed in this country, are consistent with [that group's] mission to ensure brighter futures for disadvantaged youth of color. These are some of the people who know her the best. These are the statements they make about her. This is why she should be on the DC appellate court. Justice Brown is an outstanding and highly qualified candidate as evidenced by her background, credentials, and training. This has been covered and covered. But she is a sharecropper's daughter, born in Greenville, AL, in 1949. During her childhood she attended segregated schools, came of age in the midst of Jim Crow policies in the South. She grew up listening to her grandmother's stories about NAACP lawyer Fred Gray, who defended Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks. Her experience as a child of the South motivated her desire to be a lawyer. Her family moved to Sacramento, CA, when Justice Brown was in her teens. She later received a B.A. in economics from California State in Sacramento in 1974, and her J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 1977. She also received honorary law degrees from Pepperdine University Law School, Catholic University, and Southwestern University School of Law. She has dedicated all but 2 years of her 26-year legal career to public service. For only 2 years has she not been in public service, 24 years of public service. Where is the person who is out of the mainstream? Where is the person who is irrational? Where is the person who doesn't hold or have the judicial temperament or doesn't have the intellect or the open-mindedness to be a judge in all of this? She has dedicated most of her life, 24 years, to public service. Prior to more than 8 years as a judge in State courts, Justice Brown served from 1991 to 1994 as legal affairs secretary to California Governor Pete Wilson where she provided legal advice on litigation, legislation, and policy matters. From 1987 to 1990, she served as deputy secretary and general counsel to the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency where she supervised the State banking, real estate, corporations, thrift, and insurance departments. From 1972 to 1987, she was deputy attorney general of the Office of the California Attorney General where she prepared briefs and participated in oral arguments on behalf of the State in criminal appeals, prosecuted criminal cases, and litigated a variety of civil issues. She began her legal career in 1977, when she served 2 years as deputy legislative counsel in the California Legislative Counsel Bureau. She has a broad base of experience from which to draw to be an excellent person to sit on the Federal appellate court bench. She has participated in a variety of statewide and community organizations dedicated to improving the quality of life for all citizens of California. Justice Brown has served as a member of the California Commission on the Status of African-American Males--the commission was chaired by now-U.S. Representative Barbara Lee--and made recommendations on how to address inequalities in the treatment of African-American males in employment, business development, the criminal justice, and health care systems. She is a member of the Governor's Child Support Task Force, which reviewed and made recommendations on how to improve California's child support enforcement laws. She serves as a member of the Community Learning Advisory Board of the Rio Americano High School and developed the Academia Civitas Program to provide government service internships to high school students in Sacramento. She has also assisted in the development of a curriculum to teach civics and reinforce the values of public service. She has volunteered time with the Center for Law-Related Education, a program that uses moot courts and mock trials to teach high school students how to solve everyday problems. She has taught Sunday school class at Cordova Church of Christ for more than 10 years. That is Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Those are the facts. That is who she actually is. So why has it taken that long a period of time for us to be able to get her to the floor? Why is there such consternation about her becoming a DC appellate court judge? Why have we spent years to get her to the point where we will vote on--I would love to see it today, but at least this week--her approval to the DC appellate court bench? I think it goes to the fact that she is a lady, nominated by President Bush, who will strictly construe the Constitution, stay within the bounds of the document, not try to write new opinion as to a new constitutional right or a new issue that is not within the Constitution or not within the law. She is what lawyers would call a strict constructionist. She says if the law says this--and it was passed to say that--that is what we enforce, if that is what the Constitution says. It is not the living, breathing document of let's try to create another right or privilege here and take three or four of the amendments to the Constitution, provisions of the Constitution, frame them together, and then let's find a new right in the Constitution because we think this is good for the country. If it is a change to the Constitution that needs to happen, then it should happen. And it should go through this body with a two-thirds vote. It should go through the House with a two-thirds vote. It should go to the State legislatures for a three-fourths vote. It should not be a majority opinion of a bench somewhere. She says she will stay within the confines of the law. That is what the President is trying to nominate, judges who will stay strict constructionists within the confines of the law and be what judges should be, interpreters of the law, enforcers of the Constitution as it is written, not as they wish it were written. That is what this nomination is about. Others want to see a court that will expand and look and read different things in, even if it doesn't pass through this body or doesn't pass through the legislature or isn't signed into law by the President. We really are at a point of what it is that the judiciary is to be about in America. You are seeing the face of somebody who is a strict constructionist, saying that this is what it is about. The judiciary has a role. It has a constitutional role. It is an extraordinarily important role. But it is defined and it is set. She believes it should stay within. That is why we have had so much trouble with so many of these judicial nominations. During the first 4 years of the Presidency of George W. Bush, the Senate accumulated the worst circuit court confirmation record in modern times, thanks to partisan obstruction. Only 35 of President Bush's 52 circuit court nominees were confirmed, a confirmation rate of 67 percent. To give you a comparison on that: People have said that is not so low; we approved a number of these lower court judges. But let's take President Johnson's term in office. There was a Democrat Senate and a Democrat President. What was his circuit court nomination rate? It was 95 percent. President Bush: Republican Senate, Republican Presidency, 67 percent. What about President Carter? Democratic President, Democratic Senate, and 93 percent of his circuit court nominees were approved. President Bush: 67 percent. What has taken place is a filibuster of good people, such as Janice Rogers Brown, who has served honorably most of her professional career in public service but does believe there are confines within which they rule. It is in the Constitution or it is not; it is in the law or it is not; it is constitutional or it is not. It is not what I wish it were, it is what is actually there. It is what the precedents have said that matters. The average American may not be familiar with Senate rules on cloture or on the unprecedented low confirmation rate of President Bush's circuit court nominees, but the average American can tell you one thing: that the Constitution and common sense require the Government to be accountable to the people for its actions. This is especially the case of what we do in the House and the Senate as we move forward in this country. I want to address some of the items that have been coming up in some of these debates. Various Members have raised specific points, and I want to address a few of those points. Certain liberal special interest groups have tried to distort Janice Rogers Brown's decision when she served on the State court of appeals in the case of Sinclair Paint Company v. Board of Equalization. They claimed she was insensitive to the legislature's desire to protect children from lead poisoning. What was really at issue in the case was the respect for the will of the California voters who wanted to make it more difficult for the California Legislature to raise taxes. California proposition 13--people remember that--enacted in June of 1978, requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature to increase State taxes. That is what proposition 13 did. In 1991, the California Legislature voted by a simple majority to assess fees on manufacturers engaged in commerce involving products containing lead in order to fund a program to provide education, screening, and medical services for children at risk for lead poisoning. Justice Brown simply held for a unanimous court of appeals--a unanimous court of appeals--in affirming the judgment of the trial court that the assessment constituted a tax within the meaning of proposition 13 and thus had to be passed by a two-thirds vote. That seems to be pretty basic and pretty common sense and not about her insensitivity to cases involving lead poisoning but simply what her role is under the law and her role as a jurist. Under applicable California case law where payment is exacted solely for revenue purposes and its payment gives the right to carry on the business without any further conditions, the payment constitutes a tax. The Childhood Lead Poisoning Protection Act did not require the plaintiff to comply with any other conditions. It was merely required to pay its share of the program cost. Justice Brown reasonably concluded the assessment was a tax. There are several other cases that have been brought up that I want to address. Several liberal interest groups have attacked Justice Brown's dissent in Aguilar v. Avis Rent-a-Car Systems in which she argued racial discrimination in the workplace, even when it rises to the level of illegal race discrimination, cannot be prohibited by an injunction under the first amendment. I want to talk about this. Justice Brown, as I have cited, is the daughter of a sharecropper from rural Alabama. She grew up under the shadow of Jim Crow laws. I think she understands the lingering effects of racial classification. In light of her personal history, the allegation she is insensitive to discrimination is absurd. Notwithstanding her personal experiences with racism, Judge Brown's role as a judge has been to apply the law which she has done faithfully and rigorously. As I discussed earlier, it is the role of the judge to apply the law and apply the Constitution, not rewrite the law the way they wish it were, not to rewrite the Constitution the way they think it ought to be, but to apply it in a particular case. And this is a case she could have looked at from her background and said: I understand this situation. I have been in this situation. Yet what does the law itself say? Judge Brown's opinions demonstrate her firm commitment to the bedrock principle of civil rights. Discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, it is immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of a democratic society. Those are her statements. In the Aguilar case, Justice Brown described the defendants' comments as disgusting, offensive, and abhorrent, and she voted to permit a large damage award under California's fair employment law to stand. Her dissent only pertained to an injunction that placed an absolute prohibition on speech. This is commonly called a prior restraint which most free speech advocates strenuously oppose. Justice Brown's opinions demonstrate her firm commitment to the first amendment. She cited a long line of Supreme Court cases for the proposition that speech cannot be banned simply because it is offensive. Justice Brown's opinions also demonstrate her commitment to equality in the workplace. Justice Mosk and Justice Kennard, considered one of the most liberal members of the California Supreme Court, also dissented on first amendment grounds. Here we see the core of the person, the commitment to the law and to the rule of law. Here was something she had experienced, she understood, and yet had to say: OK, what does the law actually say, and what are the first amendment rights? Then she applied them in the case. That is the type of justice who looks at what is their role and what is it that they are required to do under the Constitution. Judge Brown's opinion was so powerful that it prompted one member of the U.S. Supreme Court to take the unusual step of publishing an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari. I find it amazing that the very same liberal outside groups who never hesitate to level accusations of censorship, perhaps, against the administration or even Congress are attacking Justice Brown for standing up for what she interpreted and looked at clearly as a first amendment issue which she had to stand by even though she found the comments herself so offensive and wrong. Justice Brown has been attacked as being insensitive on women's issues because she has voted to strike down a State antidiscrimination law that provided a contraceptive drug benefit to women. Some have claimed her to be hostile to these women's issues. What one has to do is look at the actual case, the actual facts, the actual law in front of her because her role as a justice is to take the law and the facts applied in this particular case, not what she wished it was, not what she hoped it would be, not what she thinks it should be in a perfect world, but what is it. The law involved in the case actually required health and disability insurance policies to cover contraceptives. Justice Brown did not vote to strike down the law, she simply argued that the law should not be applied to force a religious institution--here Catholic Charities of Sacramento--to do something that violated its religious beliefs. This case was about religious freedom under the first amendment, not about gender discrimination or revisiting the right to contraceptives. It is about discrimination based on religion, and Justice Brown stood against this discrimination. Telling us about this case without saying a word about religious freedom on the issue misinforms people totally about this particular case and this person. Justice Brown has been attacked for rendering opinions that have been considered outside the mainstream. These allegations are spurious. As I have stated, she has been affirmed by the population, the public voting in California, with a 76-percent approval rating. If her opinions are so out of the mainstream and so wrong, why weren't more Californians than roughly 25 percent concerned about this? The flip side of this is that I have never won an election by a 75- percent margin. I would love to win an election by that margin. This is a confirmation election. It is different than what we face in the Senate. Still, as somebody who has run for elections, when you get up to that three-fourths mark, that is really good, standing in front of the public and asking them to endorse your status, endorse your position, particularly if this allegation were true. If it were true that she is way out of the mainstream of public opinion in California and she is way out, on a consistent basis, so that her opinions are in the paper all the time and they are way out there, contrary to California public opinion, would you not think more than 25 percent of Californians would say, I am going to vote against confirming this lady? I think probably a lot of people would look down the ballot box on judges and say, Which ones can I vote against because I am used to voting for all of them, particularly if somebody was so out of the mainstream on such a consistent basis that she is in the papers all the time about being in this dissent or being overruled in this case, that there would be some recognition of her and more people would be concerned. Yet that is not the case. I submit it is because it is just not true. She is not outside the mainstream. I believe the criticism is utterly baseless. Among the eight justices who served on the California Supreme Court between 1996 and 2003, Justice Brown tied with another judge as the author of the second most majority opinions for the court. Only the chief justice wrote more majority opinions. Now, those are her colleagues on the bench saying: We think you are the right person to write this opinion. You are expressing the opinion for most of us. You are a hard worker. You are intelligent. You are an excellent wordsmith. These are all traits we would want in a justice. Justice Brown also ranked fourth among the eight justices for the number of times she dissented alone. This puts her squarely in the middle, certainly not on either fringe in that category. It is wrong for Justice Brown's opponents to throw out numbers without offering any basis for comparison on her court. I wish to talk about a particular case, the case of People v. McKay. Justice Brown stood alone among her colleagues in arguing for the exclusion of evidence of drug possession that was discovered after the defendant, Conrad McKay, was arrested for riding his bicycle the wrong way on a residential street. Her dissent is remarkable for its pointed suggestion of the possibility that the defendant was a victim of racial profiling. Justice Brown commented: Questions have been raised about the disparate impact of stop-and-search procedures of the California Highway Patrol. The practice is so prevalent, it has a name: ``Driving While Black.'' This is somebody who is insensitive? I do not think that is the case with Justice Brown. I will go on and read from the conclusion of her dissent. She added the following stirring comments: In the spring of 1963, civil rights protests in Birmingham united this country in a new way. This is a native of Alabama. Seeing peaceful protesters jabbed with cattle prods, held at bay by snarling police dogs, and flattened by powerful streams of water from fire hoses galvanized the nation. Without being constitutional scholars, we understood violence, coercion, and oppression. These are the words of Justice Janice Rogers Brown. And I continue: We understood what constitutional limits are designed to restrain. We reclaimed our constitutional aspirations. What is happening now is more subtle, more diffuse, and less visible, but it is only a difference in degree. If harm is still being done to people because they are black, or brown, or poor, the oppression is not lessened by the absence of television cameras. I do not know Mr. McKay's ethnic background. One thing I would bet on: he was not riding his bike a few doors down from his home in Bel Air, or Brentwood, or Rancho Palos Verdes--places where no resident would be arrested for riding the ``wrong way'' on a bicycle whether he had his driver's license or not. Well . . . it would not get anyone arrested unless he looked like he did not belong in the neighborhood. That is the problem. That was her dissenting opinion, a stirring opinion, quoting things that in her growing up and in her childhood she had witnessed. She is very sensitive on racial issues. Last month, Ginger Rutland, who is on the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee, wrote this in her newspaper about Justice Brown's judicial courage: I know Janice Rogers Brown, and she knows me, but we're not friends. The associate justice on the California Supreme Court has never been to my house, and I've never been to hers. Ours is a wary relationship, one that befits a journalist of generally liberal leanings and a public official with a hard-right reputation fiercely targeted by the left. . . . I find myself rooting for Brown. I hope she survives the storm and eventually becomes the first black woman on the nation's highest court. In describing Justice Brown's position in the McKay case that I quoted Justice Brown earlier, Rutland, the editorialist from the Sacramento Bee, says the following: Brown was the lone dissenter. What she wrote should give pause to all my friends who dismiss her as an arch conservative bent on rolling back constitutional rights. In the circumstances surrounding McKay's arrest, the only black judge on the State's highest court saw an obvious and grave injustice that her fellow jurists did not. . . . In her dissent, Brown even lashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court and--pay close attention, my liberal friends--criticized an opinion written by its most conservative member, Justice Antonin Scalia, for allowing police to use traffic stops to obliterate the expectation of privacy the Fourth Amendment bestows. This is an admitted liberal editorial writer talking about Brown's courage. This is a lady who is going to do an outstanding job on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The only tragedy is that she has not been there years earlier. The tragedy is that she has been held up because she looks at doing her job for what it is, which is staying within the Constitution and enforcing it, looking at the law and enforcing it; or if it goes against what is in the Constitution, ruling it unconstitutional, but not looking at the Constitution as she hoped it would be or mixing together a series of ideas in the Constitution and finding a new right; or looking at the law and thinking it should be this way or that and expanding it that way. This is a person who looks at her job as being a judge, in an honorable role, but it is a role that has a set to it and a way, and she is upholding that. I believe that is really what is at the cornerstone of this debate. Unfortunately, we get it mired so often in personalities and accusations and hyperbole, comments of a personal nature toward an individual that are simply not true, when really what we are talking about is the role of courts. Courts, like every institution, are people. People are on the courts. We have judges who are appointed to the courts, and they have their views and they have a way of looking at the Constitution or they have a way of looking at various documents or laws. She looks at it as more of a strict constructionist. That is an honorable way to look at it. I believe it is the right way to look at it. Yet she gets painted with all the other sorts of accusations that are simply not based on fact but are a disguise for what the real debate is about, which is the role of the judiciary in America today. We are having a rolling debate about that issue. We are having a lot of discussion about that. We are having discussions in various States and in the Nation about what is the appropriate role of the judiciary. I believe this is a lady who would stand by that role. Those are a series of issues. I may visit some others later on, but this is a lady who is eminently qualified, will do a wonderful job. I support her nomination, and I hope we can get to a strong vote fairly soon on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to mark the occasion of the 500th nonprofit and faith-based group joining Rescue & Restore Victims of Human Trafficking, an initiative by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Rescue & Restore is a project to help protect the victims of trafficking in human beings. After years of working on a bipartisan level with colleagues to pass the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, it is my distinct pleasure to commemorate this landmark achievement. Rescue & Restore is a multicity, decentralized national coalition to find, identify and rescue victims of human trafficking in the United States and restore them to a condition of human dignity. The program does this through the engagement of thousands of individuals and hundreds of government and community organizations. TVPA was designed to protect the victims of involuntary servitude, sexual exploitation, forced labor and other forms of a contemporary slave trade. Since the launch of the first Rescue & Restore city coalition in 2004, the rate of trafficking victims rescued has more than doubled over the previous reporting period--from 107 victims receiving certification letters, to 224. More victims are being identified every day. There are now more than 10,000 ``boots on the ground'' in 14 cities and trained advocates actively seeking out trafficking victims. Today, June 7, a statewide Rescue & Restore coalition is set to be launched in Illinois in cooperation with the administration of Governor Rod Blagojevich. The Chicago rollout is a true watershed in the mission to locate, identify, rescue, and restore trafficking victims to a condition of human dignity. This is a statewide endeavor, the first of its kind, involving the full panoply of Illinois state and local government law enforcement and health and human welfare agencies working in a coalition with more than 60 nongovernmental and social welfare organizations, child advocates, and health care professionals mobilized to combat trafficking. Other coalition launches are planned for Long Island NY, Houston, and Los Angeles later this year for a total of 17 geographical regions to be served. Human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal industry in the world today, affecting as many as 900,000 victims worldwide. The CIA estimates that as many as 17,500 men, women and children are brought into the U.S. annually by force, fraud or coercion as victims of human trafficking. Others are victimized right here in America, trafficked into prostitution or forced labor. Many of the victims are women or children who are forced into prostitution; others are pressed into labor slavery such as sweatshops, peonage, or domestic servitude. Rescue & Restore coalition partners are using their existing channels of communication and growing public awareness to help Americans recognize the existence of human trafficking. They are educating their associates and constituents on how to identify and assist trafficking victims. We now have taken vital steps toward wiping the scourge of human trafficking from our shores.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to take up the discussion of Justice Janice Rogers Brown and her qualifications for serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and some of the accusations and charges that have been brought against her. There have been a number that have been put forth. I had a lengthy discussion earlier about what I think this is really about, that it is about her being a strict constructionist, wanting to stay within the confines of the Constitution and the law and her interpretation rather than an expansive reading of it. I think that is really what is at the root of this, but people bring forth all sorts of allegations and charges, and I want to address some of them. One of them is on a particular case, the Lochner case. As it might be described, this is getting into the weeds and details of some items, but I think it is meritorious to raise. She has been charged by some of our colleagues that in the Santa Monica Beach v. Superior Court case that Justice Brown called the demise of the Lochner decision, which was overruled in 1937, the revolution of 1937, and ``she wants to undo'' this overruling. A couple of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that Justice Brown believes in Lochner and wants the New Deal undone. That is the charge against Janice Rogers Brown. I want to talk about that particular charge because the opposite is what is actually true. This is the opposite of what Justice Brown said, and I want to go through her words of what she said to refute that particular case. They are accusing her of wanting to undo the New Deal and the legislation that has been in place surrounding and regarding the New Deal. In the Santa Monica case, which is the case that is cited for her opinion that she wants to undo the New Deal legislation of Roosevelt-- FDR--she clearly criticized Lochner as wrongly decided: [T]he Lochner court was justly criticized for using the due process clause as though it provided a blank check to alter the meaning of the Constitution as written. It was in the very next sentence that Justice Brown mentioned ``revolution of 1937.'' In context, it is clear that Brown felt the end of Lochner was a good thing, that the end of Lochner was a good thing, and she says that. Moreover, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee flatly asked Justice Brown at the hearing--we are at her confirmation hearing--this issue has been put forward. This charge has been made that you want to undo the New Deal legislation, that you want to overturn FDR, and the legacy of FDR. That is what you want to do. The ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee flatly asked Justice Brown at her confirmation hearing: Do you agree with the holding in Lochner? She answered just as directly, ``No.'' This evidence is out there for all to see. Why pretend it is not there is what I would say. She says no, she does not want to undo the New Deal legislation. She said it in sworn testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee. She says that in her opinion in the Santa Monica Beach case. She does not want to overrule the case. Others have attacked Justice Brown's speech to the Federalist Society when she lamented the demise of the Lochner era, in which the Supreme Court violated property or other economic rights. That is the allegation. Justice Brown's speeches illustrate her personal views. To suggest that her critique of the Holmes dissent in Lochner is evidence of how she would rule in a certain case belies the facts. Indeed, Justice Brown has taken issue with the Lochner decision, criticizing the Supreme Court's ``usurpation of power,'' stating the Lochner court was justly criticized for using the due process clause: . . . as though it were a blank check to alter the meaning of the Constitution as written. That is what she actually said. Discussing the history of the judiciary, which Hamilton stated was to be the branch ``least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution,'' Justice Brown has stated her personal views that judges too often have strayed from this framework and engaged in judicial activism. That is something we have talked about a lot, about judicial activism. She believes that too often judges have strayed from this framework and engaged in judicial activism. It was in this context that Justice Brown stated the standards of scrutiny employed by the judiciary, which are not enumerated in the Constitution, often are used by judicial activists to reach the results they want. Justice Brown's record shows she is committed to following precedent, even when she might personally disagree with it. Partisan attack groups, lacking evidence that Brown is unable to follow precedent, have indicated their opposition stems from Justice Brown's supposed incorporating her personal views into judicial decisionmaking. They assert she injected her personal views on property rights into judicial opinions, but nothing could be further from the truth. The two cases cited by the attack groups in this context deal with the Takings clause. The groups fail to point out the Supreme Court itself expressed the view that Justice Brown herself is now accused of advocating, that property rights were intended to carry the same import as other rights in the Constitution. In Dolan v. City of Tigard, the Supreme Court majority wrote: We see no reason why the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as much a part of the Bill of Rights as the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment, should be relegated to the status of a poor relation in these comparable circumstances. That is a 1994 case. The reason I point these out is I want people to know the factual setting here, that she does not support an opinion to overrule New Deal legislation. She has been attacked on her judicial qualifications, which I covered in an earlier presentation, but I want to also state here clearly and for the record, the ABA recently found Justice Brown qualified and concluded--this is from the ABA, the American Bar Association--that Justice Brown: . . . meets the Committee's very high standards with respect to integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament and that the Committee believes that the nominee will be able to perform satisfactorily all of the duties and responsibilities required by the high office of a federal judge. If we are going to consider outside evaluations of judges, I would think the ABA's assessment that she is fit to serve on the DC Circuit is far more relevant than any others that might come forward. I mentioned these to address some of the attacks on her that I think are based on her more limited strict constructionist view than on what others are basing their attacks, by trying to piece things together. Justice Brown is enormously qualified by her set of personal experiences, public service, good legal mind, good legal temperament, sound training and abilities to serve on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. She will make an outstanding judge on that court of appeals.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Carney, Megan Martin, and Charles Kane, interns on my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA, Act with over 20 original cosponsors. This is an important measure that I have been developing and advocating over the past few years. CARFA's premise is simple: Members of Congress need a tool that will help them use taxpayer dollars more efficiently. Members of Congress need a tool like CARFA because the special interest in keeping a program alive is almost always more powerful than the general interest to realign or even end a Federal program. A good example of this is tobacco. While there is a general interest in discouraging smoking--and while we spend many taxpayer dollars to this end--there is also strong special interest pressure to keep taxpayer tobacco subsidies alive. Thus, the Federal Government both subsidizes and discourages tobacco. CARFA is the tool that would give members a chance to advance the general interest. CARFA would take all Federal Government agencies and programs--both discretionary and entitlement--and put them under the review of a bipartisan commission. Members of the commission would be appointed by both majority and minority leaders in both House of Congress and by the President. The commission would review Federal agencies and programs in order to present draft legislation to the Congress that would realign or eliminate duplicative, wasteful, inefficient, outdated, irrelevant, or failed agencies and programs. Each House of Congress would get one vote on the draft legislation-- up or down--without amendment. CARFA would create a new approach to increase the efficiency of the Federal Government by giving the general interest a stronger voice in the system. For example, there might be a program that is important to my home State of Kansas that would be cut by the proposed legislation, but I only get one vote and there are a variety of other programs that I really do think need to be eliminated. Since I only have one vote, I can justify voting for the measure when I go back home by showing to my constituents that there were a number of other programs that needed to be realigned or cut. Thus, CARFA makes the overall goal of balancing the Federal budget more achievable. We need CARFA now more than ever. The Federal Government spends $2,292,000,000 per year on discretionary and mandatory spending. That is a lot of money. My Kansas constituents often say: ``I don't mind paying my taxes, but make sure my hard-earned money is well spent.'' At a time when Federal spending is at an all time high, topping $20,000 per household, we owe our constituents the accountability that would result from CARFA. Last year, we had a bipartisan hearing on CARFA, at which all witnesses supported the CARFA concept. We have incorporated some of the suggestions made at that hearing, and I believe this year's version of CARFA is even better. I am pleased that the Senate is already on record supporting the CARFA concept through Section 502 of this year's budget resolution, and it is my hope that we will be able to work with leadership to see CARFA become a reality this year.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA, Act with over 20 original cosponsors. This is an important measure that I have been developing and advocating over the past few years. CARFA's premise is simple: Members of Congress need a tool that will help them use taxpayer dollars more efficiently. Members of Congress need a tool like CARFA because the special interest in keeping a program alive is almost always more powerful than the general interest to realign or even end a Federal program. A good example of this is tobacco. While there is a general interest in discouraging smoking--and while we spend many taxpayer dollars to this end--there is also strong special interest pressure to keep taxpayer tobacco subsidies alive. Thus, the Federal Government both subsidizes and discourages tobacco. CARFA is the tool that would give members a chance to advance the general interest. CARFA would take all Federal Government agencies and programs--both discretionary and entitlement--and put them under the review of a bipartisan commission. Members of the commission would be appointed by both majority and minority leaders in both House of Congress and by the President. The commission would review Federal agencies and programs in order to present draft legislation to the Congress that would realign or eliminate duplicative, wasteful, inefficient, outdated, irrelevant, or failed agencies and programs. Each House of Congress would get one vote on the draft legislation-- up or down--without amendment. CARFA would create a new approach to increase the efficiency of the Federal Government by giving the general interest a stronger voice in the system. For example, there might be a program that is important to my home State of Kansas that would be cut by the proposed legislation, but I only get one vote and there are a variety of other programs that I really do think need to be eliminated. Since I only have one vote, I can justify voting for the measure when I go back home by showing to my constituents that there were a number of other programs that needed to be realigned or cut. Thus, CARFA makes the overall goal of balancing the Federal budget more achievable. We need CARFA now more than ever. The Federal Government spends $2,292,000,000 per year on discretionary and mandatory spending. That is a lot of money. My Kansas constituents often say: ``I don't mind paying my taxes, but make sure my hard-earned money is well spent.'' At a time when Federal spending is at an all time high, topping $20,000 per household, we owe our constituents the accountability that would result from CARFA. Last year, we had a bipartisan hearing on CARFA, at which all witnesses supported the CARFA concept. We have incorporated some of the suggestions made at that hearing, and I believe this year's version of CARFA is even better. I am pleased that the Senate is already on record supporting the CARFA concept through Section 502 of this year's budget resolution, and it is my hope that we will be able to work with leadership to see CARFA become a reality this year.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, we will have much discussion of this issue if it comes before this body. I am going to be working aggressively with a number of individuals to see that we continue this stem cell work in an ethical manner, but not where it involves the destruction of human life. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an issue that has been worked on in the country for some period of time. Soon, a House vote will take place on embryonic stem cell research. The issue that will soon be voted on in the House--and may come before this body--is whether to allow the taxpayer funding of destruction of young human life. This legislation being considered in the House of Representatives would take young human embryos, would provide taxpayer dollars to destroy these embryos and conduct research on the stem cells derived from them. I believe we all have a duty to protect innocent life. We have a duty and a responsibility to look out for the downtrodden, those who do not have a voice. These are the youngest of human lives; they should be protected, and they should not be researched on. We have at times in the past in the United States researched on other human beings. Whenever we have done so, at the moment in time when it was done, people did it on the basis that we need to know, or we need to be able to conduct this research, or this research will provide a cure for something. Yet in every instance--either in this country or others--when it has been done and the society at large has allowed it, we have always, always regretted it later. It has always been wrong for one group of humans who are in a more powerful position to research on somebody in a lesser position. That has always been true, and it remains true today. We should not use taxpayer dollars to fund research on the youngest of human lives. It is wrong, it is not necessary, and it should be stopped. I am pleased that the President has promised to veto this legislation. However, I also intend to not let this piece of legislation make it forward, to move to the President's desk. If others choose to bring this destruction of human life--taxpayer-funded destruction of human life--in front of this body, I intend that we are going to talk about it for a long time and address a whole series of issues, whether it be human cloning, which is associated with this human destructive legislation, or the creation of human-animal crosses for research purposes. We are going to spend a lot of time discussing this because young human lives are at stake. I will not sit idly by and acquiesce in their tragic destruction. If this human destructive legislation, or a Senate counterpart, comes before this body, I will use all means available to impede its progress. At the very least, we should have a lengthy debate on this issue before taking any action. The reason is that young human lives are at stake. I believe the very nature of our culture--whether we will have a culture of life or not is at stake. Will we honor human life because it is sacred per se, or are we going to use it for a research apparatus for the benefit of others? We have always regretted that when we have done it before. Today is a similar type of discussion. Some are saying this doesn't really look like a human life; it is so small, so microscopic in some cases, that some say it really cannot be human life. Yet, according to the biological and scientific definition, this is young human life. If allowed to be nurtured, it becomes you, me, or anybody watching. Life has to be nurtured at all stages. It is no different biologically at that stage versus at a later stage. It has the same biological components, or ``software,'' if you will, or DNA structure. It needs to be nurtured, and it matures into an adult human. If we are going to proceed on this, I think we are really hurting ourselves as a society. I also point out that some people are saying we need to do this to find cures. I want to find cures, also--cures for people with cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, or juvenile diabetes--and I have been working on that. The thing is, we have a route to find these cures that is ethical and moral. The House is also considering a cord blood bill from Congressman Smith today, and there are also adult stem cells. We have had this discussion before, but I think people hear ``stem cells,'' and they say: I am for it. We need to be clear that there are different types of stem cells: There are cord blood stem cells in the umbilical cord, there are embryonic stem cells, where you have to destroy the embryo itself to get the stem cells, and there are adult stem cells in my body and yours and anybody watching. These adult stem cells are a kind of repair cell that goes around the body fixing different parts of the body. We have been able to take adult stem cells out and grow them outside the body to the point that, today, over 58 different human diseases are being treated in human patients. There are published clinical studies using adult stem cells--the stem cells from one's own body. A Parkinson's disease patient, treated with his own adult stem cells, continues to exhibit relief of 80 percent of his symptoms more than 6 years after the surgery. I had the man come in himself, who was treated with his own adult stem cells taken from the base of his nose, grown outside the body, put in the left-hand side of his brain, with a substantial improvement on the right-hand side of his body. That is purely ethical research. It is working and getting the job done. Spinal cord injuries. Dr. Carlos Limas treated 34 patients in Portugal with their own adult stem cells. I had two of them in to testify at a hearing last year--one is a paraplegic and one is a quadriplegic--and they are walking with the assistance of braces and their own adult stem cells. Also, umbilical cord blood cells were used to treat a South Korean woman who had been paralyzed for 19 years. She had not walked for 19 years, and she can now walk with braces. What about juvenile diabetes? This disease affects a lot of people. This is one that has vexed a lot of people. We all want to find a cure for juvenile diabetes. Dr. Denise Faustman at Harvard is a leading diabetes researcher. She has completely reversed end-stage juvenile diabetes in mice and has FDA approval to begin human clinical trials using adult stem cell therapy. My point in mentioning these 3 of the 58 different areas is that we have an ethical answer. We have an answer that does not involve the destruction of human life, and it is right before us. We can do it. We can fund it, and we can move forward with it. We do not have to destroy young human life to do this, and it is wrong if we do. There is going to be a big discussion. We are going to have a lot of debate about this issue on the floor or in committee or other places if people decide to move this legislation forward. This is not about banning human embryonic stem cell research. This is about taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is legal. It is being conducted in this country. It is being funded by the Government of the United States on a limited set of lines. The President had the discussion and put forward the guidelines--a limited set of lines that were identified, on which a life-and-death decision had already been made prior to funding. That research continues and goes on today. The House bill would expand that and say we can kill young human life today for research on embryonic stem cells, and we want to do it with taxpayer funding. That is what I am saying I am opposed to is the taxpayer funding where a life-and-death decision has not been made, and we involve the destruction of young human lives. The House bill should not move forward. Mr. President, there are two statements that the President has put forward saying that he would veto such legislation if it comes forward. I ask unanimous consent to print these statements in the Record.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to cover some of the ground on Janice Rogers Brown that is well known in this situation because she has been in front of us so much, so long, but I think it bears repeating. She was born to sharecroppers, came of age in the Jim Crow era, went to segregated schools. Do you know what motivated her to become a lawyer? It was her grandmother's stories of NAACP lawyer Fred Gray, who defended Rosa Parks, and her experience as a child of the South. When she was a teenager, Justice Brown's family moved to Sacramento, CA. She received her bachelor's degree in economics from California State in Sacramento in 1974 and her law degree from the UCLA School of Law in 1977. These are all well-known matters. I don't know if people know as well all of her public service, but they probably cannot because it is so extensive. All but 2 years of her 28 years in her legal career have been in public service. This is a public servant of 26 years standing. I ask the Presiding Officer or anybody listening, if you serve as a public servant for 26 years in the State of California, how can you be a radical conservative out of the mainstream judicial thought? Can that be while you are serving for 26 years in public service in the State of California in various capacities? She began her career in 1977 and served 2 years as a deputy legislative counsel in the California Legislative Counsel Bureau. From 1979 to 1987 she was deputy attorney general in the office of the attorney general of California. Governor Pete Wilson selected her to serve as his legal affairs secretary from 1991 to 1994. She then served on the State court of appeals for 2 years before joining the California Supreme Court where she served with distinction until 1996. Then she was involved in her community. So we have 26 years of public service in the State of California. I do not see how that person could be somebody out of the mainstream of thought and serve in so many capacities in that State. That seems to me to defy logic. She has performed a lot of community service. She served as a member of the California Commission on the Status of African-American Males, focused on ways to correct inequities in the treatment of African- American males in employment and in the criminal justice and health care systems. Is this out of the mainstream? She was a member of the Governor's Child Support Task Force which reviewed and made recommendations on how to improve California's child support system. Out of the mainstream? She was a member of the Community Learning Advisory Board of the Rio Americano High School and developed a program to provide government service internships to high school students in Sacramento. Out of the main stream? She taught Sunday school at the Cordova Church of Christ for more than 10 years, just as former President Carter teaches Sunday school. Out of the mainstream? Given the impressive range of her activities and legal and personal experiences, it is no surprise that the President would nominate her. What is surprising is that she would be labeled somehow out of the mainstream. I think this is simply and demonstrably ridiculous. If Janice Rogers Brown is an extremist, the people of California, I guess, must be so, too. In 2002 they overwhelmingly approved her in a retention election with 76 percent of the vote. Her support was more than any other justice on the ballot in that election. If Janice Rogers Brown is extremist, so, too, must be a bipartisan group of 15 California law professors who wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of Janice Rogers Brown, knowing her to be: . . . a person of high intellect, unquestionable integrity and evenhandedness. She is not out of the mainstream. She is extraordinarily qualified, and this is just an attempt to smear a good candidate. I turn, finally, to one issue about the approval rate of court of appeals judges under President Bush. We heard a lot of numbers thrown around about judges and the number who have been approved by this administration and what happened under the remainder of the Clinton years administration. I want to put up one chart about this and talk briefly about it. We have a Republican President and a Republican Senate. I am delighted. I think we are going to make good progress for the American people and show progress in moving things forward. I want to go back to two other Democrats, two Democratic Presidents who had Democratic Senates under them, an appropriate comparison of apples and apples, and look at the approval rate of circuit court judges. Remember you have federal district court judges, circuit court judges, and then Supreme Court Justices. Circuit court and Supreme Court jurists are the ones who have the most latitude on enforcement, interpretation, or rewriting of laws. Look what we had under Democrat President Johnson, a Democrat President: 95 percent approval rate of circuit court judges. President Carter, Democrat President, Democrat Senate: 93 percent approval rate. President Bush, Republican President, Republican Senate: 67 percent approval rate of circuit court judges. What changed during this period of time? I suppose some would say they are nominating a different sort of nominees who are not qualified or outside the mainstream, but I think that argument has been put to rest. What you have taking place is the unprecedented use and threat of the filibuster that has never been used before and is targeted at the circuit court, not at the lower Federal court, the finders of fact at the district court level, but at the appellate level so that continued broad interpretation of laws by which some would seek to put their own views more in, can continue to be expressed: 95, 93, 67. Others will argue, What about the Clinton years? You have a Republican Senate and a Democrat President. There are obviously differences of opinion that will occur during that period of time, more so than when you have a body that is of the same party. But even then, we move forward large numbers of Clinton nominees. This is unprecedented, 67 percent, the falloff from what has taken place because of the use of the filibuster. This needs to change back to where the filibuster is not used against judicial nominees. Actually, I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to use the filibuster on this so we can move forward with up-or-down votes and leave the institution intact, the way it has been for two centuries, where the filibuster is not used on the advice and consent provisions of judges that is required. Filibuster means supermajority vote on circuit court or Supreme Court nominees. That is not contemplated, it is not considered, it is not appropriate under the Constitution. It is time to move these judges on forward. We are going to have a robust debate for the next several days about this. The issue underlying that is really going to be about the role of the judiciary, whether it is expansive in rewriting broadly laws and the Constitution, or if it is more strict constructionist, staying within the roles and boundaries of what the judiciary should be. I offer to have the American people decide what role the judiciary has, what role the United States Senate has on appointing people to the judiciary. I regret we are at this point. I regret this chart shows this way. But nonetheless it is what it is. It is something that now we have to deal with. It will be a robust debate, and I hope at the end of the day what we will have is the approval of circuit court judges who are mainstream and who are consistent; the role of the judiciary being appropriate as it was designed by the Framers of the Constitution and the Founders of the Republic and within the lines of the Republic. If that is what we will get back to, their proper roles, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, it will be a long time coming. But I think it is important and it is worth doing. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, that has been my view of what has been taking place recently. Individuals increasingly have said we cannot win this legislative fight in the States or in the Congress, so we are going to take it to the courts. A judge who is a strict constructionist would ask, is this within our purview under the Constitution? And if it is not, the case would be thrown out, rather than the judge saying that the Constitution is an organic, living document, and I can look at this law imaginatively, how I want to, and then somehow find a way to reach the conclusion I want. To me, that is what the frustration of the public has been--that somehow they are now thrown out of the process. They can vote for or against the Senator from Alabama or the Senator from Kansas or the Senator from New Hampshire or the Senator from Massachusetts on the basis of a policy issue. But they don't have any right or ability to be able to contact a judge. Yet you have these massive issues that directly impact people regarding marriage and life. We have a bill up now where a Federal court has said that the Congress has appropriated this money and that is inappropriate and they must give these moneys out. Under the Constitution, the appropriation powers are clearly given to the Congress. The court is now stepping into that. My question to my colleague would be, Where does this stop if you don't start putting on judges who are judges rather than super legislators? Where does it stop?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would think they would expect criticism on that. But that has been the built-up frustration, where people say the only way we can go is to amend the actual Constitution in the process. I do not believe that is the right way for our democracy to be going. I appreciate my colleague from Alabama and his work on these issues. I believe that is really at the core of these matters. Mr. President, I note that we have had a lot of debate on Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. I don't think anyone who listens to any of this debate is unfamiliar with these two individuals. I am going to talk some more, as well, about these individuals and answer some questions and comments made from the other side about these two individuals. At the end of the day, we need to recognize what this is about. I believe President Bush responded to this well at his last press conference when he was asked: Why do you think the Senate Democrats are opposing your nominees? Do you think it is based on the religious preference of your nominees? Some of these are people of faith who have religious conviction. He said: No, I think it is because they would interpret the law rather than trying to rewrite the law, that these are people who would stay within the construction of the law and the construction of the Constitution and not try to rewrite it. I believe that is what really is at stake here. Are you going to have a super legislative judiciary, or are you going to have one where it is the role of a judiciary to determine what is constitutional within the framework of the Constitution, not what some sort of expansive living document reading of the Constitution would be? That really is the heart of the matter we are debating here today. It is a very live issue in front of us right now. I note to those who may be listening to these proceedings right now, last week, a Federal judge in the State of Nebraska ruled that the State constitutional amendment that the people in Nebraska had passed defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman--the people of Nebraska passed a State constitutional amendment with 70 percent of the vote, which is a high mark in any election, saying, yes, we agree that the union of a man and woman is the definition of marriage in Nebraska. A Federal court in Nebraska ruled that is not only unconstitutional under several different provisions, but that civil unions must be granted to people of the same gender. The Federal court is saying you must give that. So it is not just saying that the State of Nebraska is wrong and cannot define marriage, which we have left up to the States in the history of the Republic, but it is also saying that the U.S. Constitution, in some reading of it, actually requires the recognition of same-sex civil unions. Where was that ever written in the Constitution? Where was that ever considered in any sort of constitutional debate? Why is that, at this point in time in our Constitution, seen as somehow in this organic document of where we are today? I think we have had 17 States now directly vote on the issue of marriage, and every one of them said marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Now you have a Federal court that says, no, that is not allowable for States to determine. States in every place and every region in the country have passed this when the people were allowed to vote. Now you see again the issue-setting of an activist judiciary going in and saying: We know what the people think and what the people vote on this, but we say different. You are going to create yet another festering frustration among the people of America if the court starts walking--and apparently it has--into this issue of the definition of marriage. These are things, if properly left to legislative bodies to determine, look at and figure, wrestle with, and have elections about, which people can have an impact on and say, I think this should be a certain way, and a determination is then made by the people. That has been left up to the people, and it should be. When the court steps in and makes a new determination, makes a new ruling on it, that is going to build to that festering. It happened in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, where the Court discovers this right to privacy that is a constitutional right to abortion, which cannot be limited in any means, by any State, by the Federal Government, by the Congress. Prior to that period of time, it had been held valid, constitutional, and appropriate for States to regulate and to deal with this issue, so we had different States ruling different ways prior to Roe v. Wade. This is what would happen again if and when Roe v. Wade is overturned; the States simply would then handle this issue as they did prior to 1973. But once the Court discovers this constitutional right to privacy that is interpreted to mean there is a right to abortion, the states cannot decide for themselves at all. We are starting down the same path with marriage. We can look around the country and ask: Why are people fired up about the judiciary? Why, during the last election cycle, was the lead applause line for President Bush's rallies about appointing judges who will stay within the laws rather than rewriting them? The reason is people have this deep-felt frustration at how the courts are coming at all of these opinions, so contrary to the feelings of the vast majority of people in the United States. And where is it written within the Constitution, if it is within the document, that we should have a constitutional right to abortion? Bring it to this body, with two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate, three- fourths of the States passing it. That is how you amend the Constitution, not by a majority vote of the Supreme Court. That is the durable way we amend the Constitution and deal with it, instead of this building up of frustrations to the point where people say: I have been disenfranchised. I thought the people voted, that the people ruled, within the parameters of the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution gives a broad swath of power to the people and limits government. That is the role of the Constitution. It gives broad authority and power to the people and limits the role of the government. We have embarked today upon addressing this issue. Really what we are seeing take place now are these large plates pushing against each other. Political scientists for years have debated the issue of Presidential power taking away from legislative power. That has always been the debate over the years. During a war, a President is stronger; the legislative body is considered weaker. Outside of war, it reverses and the legislature assumes more authority over the executive branch. And for years political scientists have debated this back and forth--who is gaining, who is receding. Yet we have seen taking place now over the past 40 years an ever-increasing encroachment of the judicial branch within these purviews reserved under the Constitution for the legislative and the executive branches. I spoke of one just previously with my colleague from Alabama, and that is the appropriation of money. In the Constitution, the appropriation of money is given to the legislative body. That is specifically stated within the Constitution. Jerry Solomon, a former Congressman from New York who passed away, observed that a number of colleges in the United States were not allowing military recruiters to come on to their college campuses. He said they ought to at least have them come on to the campuses and have their voices heard. The colleges said no. Congressman Solomon put forward an amendment that if a college decides to bar military recruiters from its campus, that is its right, but it then cannot receive certain Federal appropriations. The amendment said if you are not going to let military recruiters on campus, then we have the right to withhold these Federal funds. If you are not going to give them a chance at free speech, we think there is some price to be paid with that. It is the authority of the Congress to appropriate money. That was done with the Solomon amendment. It passed by a majority vote. It passed by a majority vote in the Senate and was signed into law by the President of the United States. Now a Federal court says, no, Congress, you cannot do that. The money must go to those colleges in spite of the Solomon amendment. How many places across the country are courts allocating money for States? These are specific authorities and powers reserved to the legislative body, and the reason is, the Founders, in all their wisdom, said legislators are elected by the people, and the allocation of money is one of the key power for any governmental entity that should belong to the elected representatives of the people. But now we have the courts continually taking, taking, taking. The judiciary continues to come in to areas reserved for the executive and legislative branches, and so we come to where we are today: President Bush seeking to appoint judges, bright judges, well-qualified judges, balanced judges, ones who say the law should be interpreted as to what the law is, not what they choose for it to be or what outside groups want it to be. The Constitution is what it is, and it is not something through which I can invent new rights, however much as I think they should be in the Constitution. If that right is to be, it should be passed by two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, three-fourths of the States, and then it becomes a constitutional amendment, not by a majority vote at the Supreme Court. This is what these judges generally stand for. It is what we should get the judiciary back to. And yet nominees who would do that are being blocked, they are being filibustered inappropriately. Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown--we have a group of four judges who collectively have been filibustered for a total of 13 years. It is amazing that they would be filibustered for that period of time. This is a key, defining moment for us as a country. Will the judiciary be the judiciary, or is it to continue to accumulate power and become more of a superlegislative body? That is much of the debate that is in front of us today with the judges. That is taking place in the form of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and several other judges. That remains the issue. When a Supreme Court position comes open, will we appoint somebody who will stay within the letter of the law of the Constitution or not? Will it require 60 votes to approve a Supreme Court judge, something that is never required, or will it be a majority vote? Must we have a supermajority? If you want a supermajority to approve a Supreme Court judge, then amend the Constitution to state that it requires a supermajority, like we do with respect to treaties, what it takes to approve a treaty. The Founders did not say that. They said advise and consent. They did not say a supermajority or two-thirds vote of the body. They said advise and consent. Do you anywhere interpret a supermajority vote to be required to approve a Supreme Court nominee? No, that is not within the reading and understanding of the document. But because this role of judges as legislators keeps coming back up, particularly from the left, it is going to continue to be pushed. There have been a number of issues raised regarding the nominees. I now want to address what has been raised. It has been asserted that current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales accused Priscilla Owen of judicial activism. He is Attorney General of the United States and was on the Texas Supreme Court with Justice Owen. I asked the Attorney General in his confirmation hearing for Attorney General if that was something he had said about Priscilla Owen. He said no. He testified under oath that Justice Owen is a great judge he never accused of judicial activism. That is Alberto Gonzales, under oath, in front of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. I think that should put that to sleep. He testified under oath that he had never accused Justice Owen of engaging in judicial activism. Justice Brown was accused of justice activism in supporting the Lochner case. Again, I want to put that issue to rest. Indeed, Justice Brown has taken issue with the Lochner decision. This is considered a judicial activism case. She is being accused of supporting it, when in fact she actually stated in an opinion that: The Lochner court was justly criticized for using the due process clause as though it provided a blank check to alter the meaning of the Constitution as written. That is Justice Janice Rogers Brown, in a written opinion on Lochner. She cannot be accused of this. Maybe her words in a speech are accused, saying she is supportive of Lochner, but her actual stated written opinion says, no, that the Court was justly criticized for the Lochner case. I think those are important things to put clearly in the record. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair how much time remains of my allocation?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his presentation and his work on the Judiciary Committee since the time we have both been in the Senate. He has served for some time and has done an excellent job. He brings a lot of good sense to it. We are both very familiar with Janice Rogers Brown and Justice Owen. They have been in front of us for years now. Priscilla Owen was in front of us when I was last on the Judiciary Committee over 2 years ago. I can remember that during her confirmation hearing, she gave a law school professor dissertation to almost every question that came up. She had the answers. She responded directly to our colleagues. She is a brilliant lady, both on resume and in person. Something you said earlier caught my attention, because it is what a lot of this battle is about. The left in America doesn't get this agenda through the legislative or executive branch, so they go through the courts. And that is really what we are fighting about now, it seems to me-- you have judges we are putting forward for confirmation who are strict constructionists, meaning they will rule within the letter of the law of the Constitution. The left wants people who will be super legislators, legislating from the bench. In your experience on the Judiciary Committee, have you heard that debate taking place, or is it always pretty much underneath the water, you really don't see it? Have you heard that debate rise up where people say, well, we cannot change the marriage definition in the U.S. Congress or in the States, so we are going to do it through the courts?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, several weeks ago I introduced a joint resolution which has been given the number S.J. Res. 13. This resolution is a one sentence amendment to the Constitution declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. I would like the Record to reflect at this point that I would like to withdraw this resolution. I understand that under the Senate rules, a unanimous consent withdrawing a joint resolution would not be in order. Thus, copies S.J. Res. 13 will remain available from the Government Printing Office. However, while it is my intent to continue to hold hearings on the important issue of traditional marriage, it is not my intent to advance S.J. Res. 13 through the legislative process.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe I am pleased to submit a bipartisan resolution in support of the vital work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in conjunction with the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act on August 1. I am pleased that Senate Commissioners Smith of Oregon, Chambliss, Dodd, Feingold, and Clinton are included as original cosponsors of this resolution. For three decades the OSCE has provided an important framework for advancing democracy, human rights and the rule of law in an expansive region encompassing the U.S. and Canada, Europe and the countries of Central Asia. Over the years, the OSCE participating States have hammered out an extensive body of commitments agreed on the basis of consensus. Our Commission was established by Congress to monitor and encourage the OSCE participating States--now numbering 55--to implement the commitments they have accepted. The Commission's mission can be distilled to a single word, accountability. As President Ford remarked when signing the Final Act on behalf of the United States, ``History will judge this Conference . . . not only by the promises we make, but by the promises we keep.'' The Final Act inspired courageous individuals in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to form monitoring groups to assess how their respective governments lived up to the commitments they had endorsed on paper. For their temerity in seeking accountability most activists were imprisoned, banished or exiled. Many endured years of suffering in the gulag. Some paid the price with their very lives. Ultimately, their sacrifice and the work of countless others began to bear fruit, ushering in the dramatic changes of the late 1980's and early 90's. A catalyst for change, the Helsinki Final Act and the process it began provided an important backdrop against which President Ronald Reagan, standing in front of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, could boldly declare, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' Bold leadership led to concrete results with the resolution of hundreds of cases of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience as well as the reunification of tens of thousands of families. Progress in implementing existing commitments paved the way for the participating States to address the need for systemic change to ensure sustained respect for human rights. In 1990, as the Iron Curtain began to fall, the leaders of the then--35 participating States declared, ``We undertake to build, consolidate and strengthen democracy as the only system of government of our nations.'' The following year they categorically and irrevocably declared that human rights commitments ``are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned.'' In a step designed to preserve the unity of the Helsinki process, each country that joined the OSCE after 1975 submitted a letter in which the accepted in their entirety all commitments and responsibilities contained in the Helsinki Final Act, and all subsequent documents adopted prior to their membership. To underscore this continuity, the leaders of each of these countries signed the actual original 1975 Final Act document. With the break up of the Soviet Union, many observers believed--or hoped--that the fall of communism would usher in a new era and the relatively speedy emergence of states that treat their citizens and neighbors with respect. Regrettably, the gap between commitment and the situation on the ground in a number of OSCE participating States remains wide, and in at least a couple of countries is growing alarmingly wider. Elsewhere, the OSCE has played an important role in the aftermath of conflicts that ravaged much of the Balkans region. The atrocities committed during these conflicts, in particular during the Bosnian conflict from 1992 to 1995, represent the most egregious violations of Helsinki principles in Europe since the Final Act was signed, indeed since World War II. By placing field missions throughout that region, the OSCE has helped heal the wounds, in particular by facilitating the return of those displaced from their homes, by improving conditions for elections, by training local police and by monitoring borders used by criminal gangs who profit from the chaos of conflict. There have been improvements in recent years, but there is still plenty of work to do to build the democratic institutions and respect for the rule of law. Freedom is on the march in places some had written off as unsuited for democracy. Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution, Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution, and Serbia's Democratic Revolution testify to the enduring power of the ideas reflected in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Final Act, a number of signatory states--most notably Russia and Belarus--seem determined to diminish the democratic content of the OSCE and rewrite related commitments they accepted when they joined the OSCE. It is imperative that the United States hold firm to the values that have inspired democratic change in much of the OSCE region, even as we redouble our efforts to encourage all participating States to implement their freely accepted commitments. In recent years the OSCE has made significant inroads in confronting and combating the rise in anti-Semitism and related violence in the OSCE region, including the United States. I would point out that the OSCE was the first multilateral institution to speak out against anti- Semitism. While many OSCE states have responded appropriately, vigorously investigating the perpetrators and pursuing criminal prosecution, we must remain vigilant in addressing manifestations of anti-Semitism. The OSCE conference on anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance to be held in June in Cordoba will provide a timely opportunity for countries to report on measures they are taking to address these concerns. The OSCE is also playing an important role in promoting the right of individuals to freely profess and practice their faith. A number of countries in the OSCE region have adopted or are considering laws on religion that would severely restrict or otherwise regulate this fundamental right. Similarly, the OSCE has given priority attention to efforts to combat trafficking in human beings, encouraging a number of participating States to adopt measures to prevent trafficking, prosecute perpetrators, and protect victims. In her confirmation testimony, Secretary of State Rice referred to the potential role that multilateral institutions can play in multiplying the strength of freedom-loving nations. Indeed, the OSCE has tremendous potential to play an even greater role in promoting democracy, human rights, and rule of law in a region of strategic importance to the United States. Over the past three decades the OSCE has served as an important catalyst for change. An important aspect of the success of the Helsinki Process has been the strong partnership forged with human rights advocates, including non-governmental organizations. As we look toward the work ahead, we would do well to recall the insightful observation of renowned physicist, humanitarian, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Andrei Sakharov, ``The whole point of the Helsinki Accords is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe I am pleased to submit a bipartisan resolution in support of the vital work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in conjunction with the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act on August 1. I am pleased that Senate Commissioners Smith of Oregon, Chambliss, Dodd, Feingold, and Clinton are included as original cosponsors of this resolution. For three decades the OSCE has provided an important framework for advancing democracy, human rights and the rule of law in an expansive region encompassing the U.S. and Canada, Europe and the countries of Central Asia. Over the years, the OSCE participating States have hammered out an extensive body of commitments agreed on the basis of consensus. Our Commission was established by Congress to monitor and encourage the OSCE participating States--now numbering 55--to implement the commitments they have accepted. The Commission's mission can be distilled to a single word, accountability. As President Ford remarked when signing the Final Act on behalf of the United States, ``History will judge this Conference . . . not only by the promises we make, but by the promises we keep.'' The Final Act inspired courageous individuals in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to form monitoring groups to assess how their respective governments lived up to the commitments they had endorsed on paper. For their temerity in seeking accountability most activists were imprisoned, banished or exiled. Many endured years of suffering in the gulag. Some paid the price with their very lives. Ultimately, their sacrifice and the work of countless others began to bear fruit, ushering in the dramatic changes of the late 1980's and early 90's. A catalyst for change, the Helsinki Final Act and the process it began provided an important backdrop against which President Ronald Reagan, standing in front of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, could boldly declare, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' Bold leadership led to concrete results with the resolution of hundreds of cases of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience as well as the reunification of tens of thousands of families. Progress in implementing existing commitments paved the way for the participating States to address the need for systemic change to ensure sustained respect for human rights. In 1990, as the Iron Curtain began to fall, the leaders of the then--35 participating States declared, ``We undertake to build, consolidate and strengthen democracy as the only system of government of our nations.'' The following year they categorically and irrevocably declared that human rights commitments ``are matters of direct and legitimate concern to all participating States and do not belong exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned.'' In a step designed to preserve the unity of the Helsinki process, each country that joined the OSCE after 1975 submitted a letter in which the accepted in their entirety all commitments and responsibilities contained in the Helsinki Final Act, and all subsequent documents adopted prior to their membership. To underscore this continuity, the leaders of each of these countries signed the actual original 1975 Final Act document. With the break up of the Soviet Union, many observers believed--or hoped--that the fall of communism would usher in a new era and the relatively speedy emergence of states that treat their citizens and neighbors with respect. Regrettably, the gap between commitment and the situation on the ground in a number of OSCE participating States remains wide, and in at least a couple of countries is growing alarmingly wider. Elsewhere, the OSCE has played an important role in the aftermath of conflicts that ravaged much of the Balkans region. The atrocities committed during these conflicts, in particular during the Bosnian conflict from 1992 to 1995, represent the most egregious violations of Helsinki principles in Europe since the Final Act was signed, indeed since World War II. By placing field missions throughout that region, the OSCE has helped heal the wounds, in particular by facilitating the return of those displaced from their homes, by improving conditions for elections, by training local police and by monitoring borders used by criminal gangs who profit from the chaos of conflict. There have been improvements in recent years, but there is still plenty of work to do to build the democratic institutions and respect for the rule of law. Freedom is on the march in places some had written off as unsuited for democracy. Kyrgyzstan's Tulip Revolution, Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution, and Serbia's Democratic Revolution testify to the enduring power of the ideas reflected in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Final Act, a number of signatory states--most notably Russia and Belarus--seem determined to diminish the democratic content of the OSCE and rewrite related commitments they accepted when they joined the OSCE. It is imperative that the United States hold firm to the values that have inspired democratic change in much of the OSCE region, even as we redouble our efforts to encourage all participating States to implement their freely accepted commitments. In recent years the OSCE has made significant inroads in confronting and combating the rise in anti-Semitism and related violence in the OSCE region, including the United States. I would point out that the OSCE was the first multilateral institution to speak out against anti- Semitism. While many OSCE states have responded appropriately, vigorously investigating the perpetrators and pursuing criminal prosecution, we must remain vigilant in addressing manifestations of anti-Semitism. The OSCE conference on anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance to be held in June in Cordoba will provide a timely opportunity for countries to report on measures they are taking to address these concerns. The OSCE is also playing an important role in promoting the right of individuals to freely profess and practice their faith. A number of countries in the OSCE region have adopted or are considering laws on religion that would severely restrict or otherwise regulate this fundamental right. Similarly, the OSCE has given priority attention to efforts to combat trafficking in human beings, encouraging a number of participating States to adopt measures to prevent trafficking, prosecute perpetrators, and protect victims. In her confirmation testimony, Secretary of State Rice referred to the potential role that multilateral institutions can play in multiplying the strength of freedom-loving nations. Indeed, the OSCE has tremendous potential to play an even greater role in promoting democracy, human rights, and rule of law in a region of strategic importance to the United States. Over the past three decades the OSCE has served as an important catalyst for change. An important aspect of the success of the Helsinki Process has been the strong partnership forged with human rights advocates, including non-governmental organizations. As we look toward the work ahead, we would do well to recall the insightful observation of renowned physicist, humanitarian, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Andrei Sakharov, ``The whole point of the Helsinki Accords is mutual monitoring, not mutual evasion of difficult problems.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I welcomed the recent visit of Romanian Foreign Minister Razvan Ungureanu, and I regret that I was not in Washington to meet with him. Our countries have forged closer links, and I hope that trend will continue. While there have been many positive reforms implemented in Romania, unfortunately the situation of the Romani minority is largely the same. Romania has the largest Roma minority in Europe, estimated at 1.5-2 million people. They remain profoundly marginalized and subjected to pervasive discrimination and prejudice. On April 13, for example, a soccer match in Bucharest turned very, very ugly. Fans of one team, Steaua Bucharest, unfurled a banner reading ``We have always had and will always have something against Gypsies.'' They chanted, ``We have always hated Gypsies and we have always urinated on you.'' During the game, the stadium announcer played an anti-Roma song called ``Gypsies and UFOs'' and made anti-Roma remarks. The coach of Steaua Bucharest called the coach of the opposing team a ``stinking Gypsy.'' The opposing team, Rapid Bucharest, is from a district with a significant Romani minority. Response to this rabid anti-Roma manifestation was swift with mixed results. On April 20, the Romanian Football League suspended the stadium announcer for 6 months. But the League also sanctioned both teams that were present at the April 13 match: Steaua Bucharest, the team responsible for hurling racist invective was fined, but so was Rapid Bucharest, the team against whom these slurs were directed. While it is completely appropriate for a sports league to police itself and its members, sanctioning those who were the targets of this abuse makes no sense. No one will be fooled by the League's effort to appear pro-active and even-handed while punishing the very people who were the victims of abuse. The National Council for Combating Discrimination, a Romanian Government body, also sanctioned the offending team about $1400 and fined the stadium announcer about $600. The fact that a governmental body so quickly recognized the racist nature of these events was a positive signal. However, any time a state positions itself to regulate speech, there is the risk that free speech, which may include unpopular or controversial views, will be unduly limited. I believe there are other ways to combat racist, xenophobic, or anti-Semitic manifestations. In particular, it is critical that Romania's public leaders, including President Traian Basescu, speak out against such manifestations. Unfortunately, the April 13 events were not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a pattern of racist abuse in Romania. In 2002, scores of fans at a Bucharest soccer match worked in concert to display a massive sign reading ``Die, Gypsy.'' In 2003, like-minded fans displayed a sign reading ``One million crows, one solution--Antonescu.'' ``Crow'' is a pejorative slang term in Romanian for a member of the Romani minority. General Ion Antonescu was Romania's World War II fascist dictator who spearheaded the selection of Roma for deportation to Transnistria. These manifestations tell us two things. First, it is not enough for public leaders to leave it to the National Council for Combating Racism to speak out against these manifestations. Romania's highest leaders must stand up and confront such outrages. Those who would foment racism, and who potentially incite racist violence, must be given no safe harbor. Invoking praise for the World War II dictator who oversaw the persecution of Romania's Jews and Roma is despicable. Second, these manifestations underscore the need for continued efforts to improve Holocaust education in Romania. Following decades of denial, the Government of Romania has made great strides in the past year in recognizing Romania's role in the Holocaust and in the deportation and death of Jewish and Romani citizens. The government is to be commended for taking steps to examine this dark and painful chapter in the country's history. Last November, the International Commission for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania, led by Elie Wiesel, officially issued its findings in Bucharest. In addition to the establishment of a national Holocaust Remembrance Day, which Romania marks on October 9, the Commission recommended that Romania establish a national Holocaust memorial and museum in Bucharest, annul war criminal rehabilitations and develop a Holocaust education curricula and courses in secondary schools and universities. I hope the Government of Romania will move quickly to implement the Wiesel Commission's recommendations. With this in mind, I was heartened to learn that in April the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest hosted the premier of ``Hidden Sorrows,'' a documentary about the tragic deportation of 25,000 Roma from Romania to Transnistria during the Holocaust; more than 11,000 men, women and children died from the horrific conditions of their internment. Several, nearly 100-year-old survivors attended the premier, adding a deeply personal element to the documentary's message. From the Inquisition to the Holocaust, Roma have suffered some of humanity's worst abuses. They were enslaved in Romania until the formation of the modern Romanian state in 1864. They were persecuted and deported and murdered during the Holocaust. Even after the fall of Ceausescu, they were subjected to dozens of pogroms. And yet they have survived. The Romani people, who have endured so much, should not be made to suffer at a time that otherwise holds so much promise and hope for so many. We must ensure that these people, their culture, and their heritage are not destroyed by hatred and violence.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield myself such of that time as I may consume.