Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, what we are considering is something that has been negotiated extensively. It has passed the House of Representatives. It has been negotiated extensively in the Foreign Relations Committee amongst the members interested. It is on the issue of North Korean human rights, or the lack thereof, and U.S. policy. This bill establishes for the first time--the first time in at least a generation--a human rights principle toward North Korea. Everybody is familiar with the six-party talks that are going on regarding North Korea and nuclear weapons and the threatening nature of the North Korean Government, of its testing missiles, of it moving military operations to threaten people around the country, in South Korea, in Japan, and in particular the United States to give them direct aid to guarantee their security, and issues mostly surrounding the nuclear weapons development. This bill brings into focus a United States Government position on North Korean human rights abuses, which are extensive, probably the worst human rights abuses in the world. It is at least in the top two or three, and that is saying something when you consider what is taking place in the Sudan and Iran. North Korea lost 10 percent of its population in the last 10 years to starvation. We think they have something around 150,000 people, maybe more, in the gulag system, political prisoners. There is trafficking of individuals taking place within that country. They are counterfeiting money. They are drug running. They are gunrunning. This is a criminal enterprise that is taking place. This bill deals with the human rights issues. It brings it front and center. The bill requires a report to be issued. It requires the Secretary of State to put forward a person of high distinction to press the human rights agenda, and we hope to get the issue of human rights in North Korea elevated to the same level or in the level with the talks in the six-party system. The North Korean Government, when it talks about nuclear weapons development, will bluster and talk a great deal and say they need to be able to do this and they are threatening, but when you raise the issue of human rights, they go silent because there is no response to the shame of what they have done to their own people. We are elevating this issue and making clear the United States Government position on the issue of human rights in North Korea. This is a very important bill. I am delighted we passed it this evening. I wanted to give that brief explanation of this bill as it moves through the process, now to go back to the House and to the President. I thank my colleague from Maine for yielding the floor and giving me this time. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Brownback amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside and that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. R. 4011 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe this body is about to consider and pass the North Korea Human Rights Act and our amendment in the nature of a substitute. It is cleared through the House of Representatives and is on our consent calendar. It is about to clear through here, I believe, and I am thankful to the Foreign Relations Committee, the staff of the committee, the chairman and ranking member, for their work getting this moved forward. This is about the fundamental human rights of the people of North Korea. It is my hope that this will pass today--and if not today, at least Monday. It is no secret that North Korea policy continues to be a matter of intense debate at the highest levels of our Government and governments around the world. Reasonable people with good intentions disagree vehemently on various aspects of what an appropriate North Korea policy should be. This is why I am pleased that the Senate, along with the House of Representatives, will soon be able to come together in unity and speak clearly on one particular set of issues regarding North Korea, and that is the most fundamental rights, human rights, of the people of North Korea, and to put that in a policy position. The people of North Korea have endured some of the most horrendous assaults on the inherent dignity of human beings of any group of people in the world. Inside North Korea, the totalitarian dynasty of the Kim regime permits no dissent and maintains an inhumane system of prison camps that houses an estimated 200,000 political inmates. I have held a hearing on this. We have had satellite photography. People who have left the country have testified about this system of gulags that exists and is in operation today in 2004. The regime strictly prohibits freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and movement. Torture and execution, often in public, are regular tools of state control. Since the collapse of the centralized agricultural system in the 1990s, more than 2 million North Koreans are estimated to have died of starvation and related diseases. That is nearly 10 percent of the total North Korean population--over 2 million people. North Koreans outside of North Korea are also targets of abuse. Many thousands are hiding inside China, which currently refuses to allow the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to evaluate and identify genuine refugees among the North Korean migrant population. This is so even though China is a signatory and has obligations as a party to the U.N. Refugee Convention. China forcibly returns North Koreans to North Korea where they routinely face imprisonment and torture and sometimes execution. The stories from North Korean refugees who are able to get out are absolutely horrific. Inside China, North Korean women and girls are particularly vulnerable to trafficking and sexual exploitation. Recent reports also indicate that chemical and biological experiments are going on in the country's gulags inside North Korea. Let me explain what the bill does. The bill promotes the human rights of North Koreans by funding private, nonprofit human rights and democracy programs, increasing the availability of nonstate-controlled sources of information to North Koreans and U.S. broadcasting into North Korea, urging additional North Korea-specific actions by the U.N. High Commission on Refugees and by the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The bill promotes responsible assistance to the North Korean people by increasing funding for humanitarian assistance to North Koreans outside North Korea. This would include refugees, orphans, widows, and trafficking victims. The bill endorses U.S. support for providing humanitarian aid inside North Korea but conditioning increases over current levels upon significant improvements in transparency, access, and monitoring. To date, we have had no transparency; very little monitoring has been able to take place of the humanitarian aid we have provided to North Korea. It conditions future direct aid to the North Korean Government on substantial progress on human rights and transparency benchmarks. Let me elaborate a little bit on this final point. In an AP story this morning that ran in the Kansas City Star, appearing in many papers across the country, the headline reads: ``North Korea Asking for More Foreign Aid.'' The article quotes an NGO official that the North Korean Government wants not only additional humanitarian aid but also technical assistance and developmental cooperation. At the same time, we have stories and information from Secretary of State Colin Powell warning North Korea against conducting a new missile test. It would be naive for us to think that North Korea was not making a connection between the two. That is, if aid is not forthcoming, they will test new missiles. If that is not blackmail, I don't know what is. This bill will make it clear that as a matter of U.S. policy, we will not give in to those threats. At the same time, I doubt that anyone in this body would oppose providing aid if there were assurances that the distribution and use of such aid were conditioned on substantial improvement in human rights and transparency benchmarks, that NGOs would get complete access to vulnerable populations, that such aid would be clearly marked and targeted for children and people in need and not the North Korean military apparatus, and that the North Korean Government demonstrates that it is cooperating with NGOs. The bill additionally protects refugees by clarifying U.S. policy toward North Korean refugees, and the eligibility of North Koreans for U.S. asylum and refugee processing; urging the U.N. High Commission for Refugees to use all available means to gain access and provide assistance to North Koreans in China; and seeking solutions to North Korea's lack of access to refugee protections. As amended, the bill also asks the President to appoint a special envoy for human rights in North Korea, a person of high distinction. We have in mind someone such as former Senator John Danforth, now the U.N. Representative for the United States to the U.N., who was so instrumental in bringing together the north/south peace accords in Sudan. In addition, the bill requires a number of reports that will keep the issue of human rights front and center so that even as we continue to seek a resolution to the nuclear issue, which we should, that this matter of human rights is not swept under the carpet and that the matter of human rights does not become a mere afterthought. For too long, we have challenged rogue regimes on such fundamental issues and values as freedom of thought, religion, assembly, and press to back down now. We are not going to. We are going to continue to challenge rogue regimes, such as North Korea, on how they treat their own people. As experience has taught us, during the Cold War and the battle over ideas during that period, these are some of the most effective ways in which we can promote freedom: open and democratic institutions within these countries. Recently, a leading member of South Korea's Congress said to me in my office that North Koreans fear the West's criticism of its human rights more than any criticism about its nuclear program. North Korea will throw up all kinds of bluster when it comes to their threat as a potential nuclear power, but if you engage them on human rights, they become silent because even they know they cannot hide from the shame of the crimes they have committed against their own people. With this bill, the regime in Pyongyang will now have to answer for itself in multiparty talks or any other setting on such matters as the gulags, chemical experiments on human beings, the denial of food and deliberate policies of starvation as a political tool, and a thousand other ways they violated human rights by which this regime in Pyongyang maintains its tenuous hold on power. I know some were concerned about the impact of the bill, but the bill does not tie the hands of the President and ongoing negotiations over North Korean nuclear activities. Rather, I believe this bill will strengthen our negotiating position. As I said at the outset, I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the ranking member, Chairman Lugar and Ranking Member Biden, and their staff for their assistance in getting this bill to the floor. Hopefully, as I said, it will clear on Monday. I thank the International Relations Committee, Chairman Leach of the Asia Pacific subcommittee and his staff, Jamie McCormick and Doug Anderson. Both Chairman Hyde and Congressman Lantos were critical in securing a bipartisan consensus in getting this bill to the floor in the House. I also recognize Peter Yeo of Mr. Lantos' staff and Sean Woo of my staff for the tremendous work in getting this moving forward. There is a humanitarian crisis in North Korea, a human rights crisis, and I believe on a humanitarian basis, we are seeing in places such as North Korea and the Sudan a use of a humanitarian tool to maintain power and, in the process, people are dying and being killed. Countries such as North Korea and Sudan have created an axis of death on their own people. This should not be, and it should not be allowed to take place in this world today. We need to stand up for the human dignity of every person, wherever they are located in the world. The North Korea Human Rights Act highlights this problem and establishes a position for this country that hopefully will be a model position for many countries around the world in dealing with the human rights tragedy inside North Korea. I thank the Members of this body for allowing this presentation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 15 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wanted to speak for a minute and thank the managers of this bill, if I may. I thank the chairman and ranking member. They have done an outstanding job on a broad set of topical issues, from Sudan to Darfur to the Global Fund to HIV, malaria issues, food aid programs that we have been able to plus up in a tight budget. This is a bill people can be quite proud of, on which people have done good work. They have done it well within the resources that were available to us. There will be things we will continue to work on in conference that are important, but I think they have done an outstanding job. It is something this Nation can be proud of, that we are investing in other people who are in difficult circumstances in a lot of places around the world. There are not many votes there from this country, but there are a lot of hearts and souls that need to be touched. The chairman and ranking member have done an outstanding job. I wanted to recognize them. This is certainly a vote I will be pleased to make at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for addressing the topic of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism expanding in the world. I have comments to add to this issue as well. This is a disheartening development that is taking place. We are seeing it. It is being documented. I say to my colleagues, if they are interested, I have ``The Rise of Anti-Israelism & Anti-Semitism,'' by Dr. Gary Tobin, Dr. Alexander Karp, and others. It is a good 2, 2\1/2\ inches thick, documenting what is taking place in the world today. It is full of pictures and leaflets that are being distributed. Some of them are ghastly to look at. I do not want to show them on the Senate floor because they are so dark and evil and diabolical. But I think it is something for people to be able to see the documentation. When I first heard about this developing, I said this can't really take place now. We are 60 years out from Auschwitz. That is close enough. People are still alive who experienced this. Surely this does not happen in the world today. Yet it does. We need to identify it as evil and dark and wrong and castigate it and tell people this is wrong and stand up against it. And it is, unfortunately, well documented about what is taking place. I particularly thank my colleague Senator Voinovich for his tireless work in promoting the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 and pushing to identify and get at the roots of the issue. In his book titled ``Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti- Semitism,'' National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, likens anti-Semitism to a disease. He says: Like many diseases, it spreads from person to person. It can be inherited--not genetically, of course, but through the malign impact of a bigoted adult on his or her children and grandchildren. It can lie dormant within an individual, sowing symptoms only in times of stress. And at times when a community is vulnerable, it can spread rapidly, causing an outbreak that is equivalent to an epidemic. We cannot tolerate further spread of this epidemic. Many of us here associate anti-Semitism with the hatred of Jews that hit Europe in the 1930s and escalated to the genocidal measures of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. However, as President Bush stated in a recent speech: . . . Anti-Semitism is not a problem of the past; the hatred of Jews did not die in a Berlin bunker. . . . The demonization of Israel, the most extreme anti-Zionist rhetoric can be a flimsy cover for anti-Semitism, and contribute to an atmosphere of fear in which synagogues are desecrated, people are slandered, [and] folks are threatened. . . . This hatred of Israel and her people continues, endorsed and propagated by many states and their leaders. In a time when we are concerned about terrorism and security, some might question the need to focus on a problem like anti-Semitism. The issues of terrorism and anti-Semitism are inseparably married, wedded by their intolerable hatred of Israel and Jews. They are joined together by their disgust for defenders of peace and democracy. The eerie and lasting relationship of state-sponsored terrorism and state- sponsored anti-Semitism is destroying hope of peace for future generations. In the book I just referenced, the authors state: Terrorism has clearly been chosen and relied upon as a primary tactic by the world's most vehement anti-Israelists and anti-Semites: despotic Arab dictatorships. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine are all led by those who have chosen to use fear and terror to weaken Israeli resolve. In the State Department's Pattern of Global Terrorism report released in 2001, it certifies that: Iran's involvement in terrorist-related activities remained focused on support for groups opposed to Israel and peace between Israel and its neighbors. . . . Supreme Leader Khamenei continued to refer to Israel as a `cancerous tumor' that must be removed. . . . The most recent report states that: During 2003, Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli activity, both rhetorically and operationally. . . . Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian rejectionist groups--notably Hamas, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command--with funding, safe-haven, training, and weapons. That is from our own State Department. In Foxman's book, he reiterates the trend of state-sponsored terrorism taking a more religious approach: So today, thanks to the propaganda of a number of fundamentalist Islamic clerics, supported by Arab leaders in many countries, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been transformed from a nationalist struggle into a religious one. When Palestinian suicide bombers go out on their deadly missions, they wrap themselves not in the banner of the Palestinian Authority but in the green and white flag of Islam. When terrorists record videotapes to inspire their followers and frighten their opponents, they don't talk about demands for land or autonomy, they talk about religious martyrdom and about their wish to kill Jews. We are living in a critical period of history. The war for civilization--and our very way of life--is being fought not only in Baghdad and Kabul, but it is being fought in Jerusalem a well, and has been for a long time. This battle pits democracy against totalitarianism. It pits freedom against subjugation. It pits a culture that values life against a culture willing to throw it away with neither remorse nor regret. While the global war on terror is our common cause now, peace and reconciliation are our actual objectives. Through time immemorial, the people of Israel have simply sought and taught of peace; of a time when swords would be beaten into plowshares; and children would be taught of war no more. When the lion would lay down with the lamb and there would be no more tears. Yet today we are beset with hostilities. Nations are embracing terrorism. Hatreds exist without reason. Peace and truth go together. We must speak of peace with all who embrace peace and speak the truth about those who do not. Evil must be identified for what it is and once exposed to the sunlight of the truth, will waken, whither and fall. Terrorism and anti-Semitism are evil and must be rejected by all civilized people and every nation. Terrorism is practiced on the innocent and anti-Semitism on the vulnerable, and they are tools of dark souls. Those that employ these means must be confronted and renounced by all humanity. Let us call on Syria and Iran, Sudan and North Korea to embrace the nobility of their heritage and renounce terrorism and anti-Semitism. Immunity from the wrath of hatred is impossible, but inoculation from the spread of this disease to future generations is both possible and necessary. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly in favor of the Baucus amendment because of the situation in my home State. Parts of my State have had the worst drought in a century. It is being compared by some veteran farmers to what they witnessed in the Dust Bowl era--crops withering and dying in the fields before the farmers' eyes without any ability to address it. I grew up on a farm. My family still farms. I was secretary of agriculture in Kansas. I have seen these situations. The one point I want to add--I think people pretty well understand these issues--what I want to address is that in some disaster relief-- and we seem to be in a cycle because we have disasters hitting every year, but it is a compassionate society that tries to help those in the worst situation. But more than that, they do not win if they get hit by a disaster and then we do disaster drought assistance. I have not seen people come out ahead. What we try to do is get them back toward zero so they do not lose too much money, so they can continue to farm and continue to operate their ranch and work their crops. That is what we are trying to do, to help people sustain themselves and not have to go out of business altogether. They are not hitting the jackpot when we pass these types of bills. They are simply trying to sustain themselves in their operations--a commodity-based business. Margins are thin, and it is difficult to make it. So we try to help them. Crop insurance is helpful, it is important, but despite its critical value to farmers, it cannot mitigate effects of prolonged drought and its impact in the area. And the weather condition has been building for several years. Fortunately, in areas of my State this has broken. Not all areas. I was at the State fair this past weekend and people continue to cite the problem they are having with the drought and this continuing cycle of lack of rainfall. I support the Baucus amendment. I appreciate him raising it. It is difficult because we are in a budget situation where we all want to get this budget more under control. Yet I do not think that is the place to do it in a situation where we have people suffering because of natural disasters or natural causes. So I am pleased that the amendment has been brought up. I am a cosponsor and am pleased to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Santorum today and introduce a bill that will have a dramatic and positive effect in the lives of individuals re-entering society after incarceration. The Second Chance Act: Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention is a bill that will not only protect our Nation's citizens but will more importantly help to reduce recidivism in our Nation. A hallmark of any just society lies in its ability to protect the interest of all its citizens, and I am proud that the United States is a leader in this regard. Yet, while we continue to strive toward this lofty goal, we must realize that there are areas in which we, as a society and as government, must do more to improve. Nowhere is that more apparent than in our Nation's prison system. Today, we have challenges within the prison system that range from high recidivism rates to budgetary and safety concerns. With this bill, we will be able to address this pressing problem within our society. Already we have seen innovative and model programs within the States and the faith community, and I am proud to say that Kansas is a leader in this regard. However, we must stimulate innovation in this area on a national level, and that is what this bill will accomplish. It is paramount that we ensure the safety of our communities and ensure that those incarcerated have the tools necessary to succeed after they rejoin society. With this bill, we will be able to combat the extremely high recidivism rates plaguing the prison system, currently as high as 70 percent, as well as address the financial burdens that hinder many of our State penitentiaries. We will also be able to help those incarcerated make positive changes within their lives so that when they do rejoin society, they will be able to do so with the confidence of knowing that they can contribute to society in a positive manner. Specifically, this bill facilitates change within our current correctional system, and promotes coordination with the Federal government to better assist those returning to our communities after incarceration and their children. The bill reauthorizes the Re-Entry Demonstration Project with an enhanced focus on jobs, housing, substance-abuse treatment, mental health, and the children and families of those incarcerated. The bill authorizes $160 million over a period of two years to fund these demonstration program and creates performance outcome standards and deliverables. It will also encourage States to enhance their re-entry services and systems with grants to fund the creation or enhancement of State re-entry councils for strategic planning and review the State barriers and resources that exist. Additionally, the bill creates a Federal interagency taskforce to facilitate collaboration and identify innovative programs and initiatives. The taskforce will review and report to Congress on the Federal barriers that exist to successful re-entry. Finally, the bill will create a $45 million two-year mentoring program geared toward reducing recidivism and the societal costs of recidivism. This mentoring program will help ex-offenders re-integrate into their communities. This initiative will specifically harness the resources and experience of community-based organizations in helping returning ex-offenders. We have an incredible opportunity to re-shape the way in which this Nation's prison systems operate. Much like welfare reform in the mid 1990s, we have a chance to make real and effective change in an area where change is sorely needed. I look forward to pushing this legislation forward.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Santorum today and introduce a bill that will have a dramatic and positive effect in the lives of individuals re-entering society after incarceration. The Second Chance Act: Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention is a bill that will not only protect our Nation's citizens but will more importantly help to reduce recidivism in our Nation. A hallmark of any just society lies in its ability to protect the interest of all its citizens, and I am proud that the United States is a leader in this regard. Yet, while we continue to strive toward this lofty goal, we must realize that there are areas in which we, as a society and as government, must do more to improve. Nowhere is that more apparent than in our Nation's prison system. Today, we have challenges within the prison system that range from high recidivism rates to budgetary and safety concerns. With this bill, we will be able to address this pressing problem within our society. Already we have seen innovative and model programs within the States and the faith community, and I am proud to say that Kansas is a leader in this regard. However, we must stimulate innovation in this area on a national level, and that is what this bill will accomplish. It is paramount that we ensure the safety of our communities and ensure that those incarcerated have the tools necessary to succeed after they rejoin society. With this bill, we will be able to combat the extremely high recidivism rates plaguing the prison system, currently as high as 70 percent, as well as address the financial burdens that hinder many of our State penitentiaries. We will also be able to help those incarcerated make positive changes within their lives so that when they do rejoin society, they will be able to do so with the confidence of knowing that they can contribute to society in a positive manner. Specifically, this bill facilitates change within our current correctional system, and promotes coordination with the Federal government to better assist those returning to our communities after incarceration and their children. The bill reauthorizes the Re-Entry Demonstration Project with an enhanced focus on jobs, housing, substance-abuse treatment, mental health, and the children and families of those incarcerated. The bill authorizes $160 million over a period of two years to fund these demonstration program and creates performance outcome standards and deliverables. It will also encourage States to enhance their re-entry services and systems with grants to fund the creation or enhancement of State re-entry councils for strategic planning and review the State barriers and resources that exist. Additionally, the bill creates a Federal interagency taskforce to facilitate collaboration and identify innovative programs and initiatives. The taskforce will review and report to Congress on the Federal barriers that exist to successful re-entry. Finally, the bill will create a $45 million two-year mentoring program geared toward reducing recidivism and the societal costs of recidivism. This mentoring program will help ex-offenders re-integrate into their communities. This initiative will specifically harness the resources and experience of community-based organizations in helping returning ex-offenders. We have an incredible opportunity to re-shape the way in which this Nation's prison systems operate. Much like welfare reform in the mid 1990s, we have a chance to make real and effective change in an area where change is sorely needed. I look forward to pushing this legislation forward.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader identifying the successes and what we need to be working on. I also appreciate the first part of his speech when he talked about the Sudan, which is something I wish to address for my colleagues. The House of Representatives has just passed 422 to 0--they rarely do things quite in that fashion--a resolution calling what is taking place in Sudan genocide--genocide, the killing of a group of people purposely by a government, by a group. I do not think we have ever done that before in the middle of a genocide as it is taking place. We have always adopted a resolution afterward, and once the genocide has occurred, we have said: That is terrible; that should not have happened; and, oh, by the way, it was genocide. They have taken a bold step, the right step, the proper step for the first time to say, while we are in the middle of this crisis, let's call it genocide now, put pressure on the international community to act and address it. I say to my colleagues tonight, we have virtually the identical resolution in front of this body that we are seeking to move through by unanimous consent. I hope they will consider it and let it through. At this point in time in our sessions, people hold up everything: I am not going to let anything get on through here. I plead with my colleagues, people who are watching, who are monitoring the Chamber, if you are considering that on this resolution, please pull it off and please let this one pass on through so both the House and the Senate can speak with clarity and call the situation in western Sudan, this Darfur region, genocide, and stop the killing. While the world debates, people die in Darfur, and that is what is taking place today. I was there about 3 weeks ago and 30,000 had died already. Over 300 villages had been burned out, and about a million people were in refugee camps in western Sudan and Chad. The people were in horrific condition and in a very fragile state. They were willing to return to their villages if security could return to the region, but an armed Arab militia was strong through the region, called the Janjaweed, which are men on horses and camels in some cases, with guns. They go in and burn out villages, shooting and killing the men, raping the women, and driving people into refugee camps. These are deplorable conditions which, if they are not eased, if the situation does not improve, our own Agency for International Development projects that at a minimum 300,000 will die. We are at 30,000 now. We project 300,000 will die if everything goes well from this point forward, and it could go up from there. That is where we are right now: 30,000 dead, projecting 300,000 in the next 6 to 9 months, and it could go above that very easily. We have a chance, we really have a moment, that we can actually get it right before they die. It was just a couple of months 10 years ago that in Rwanda we saw 800,000 people die. We said after that, ``never again.'' Well, now we have 30,000 and we are headed to 300,000. Are we going to look back on this one and say, ``never again,'' or are we going to get in on this one now and say, ``no, let us stop it''? It is a fairly simple solution, putting pressure on the international community, putting pressure on the African Union, to bring in troops to stabilize this area. It cannot be done by the Government of Khartoum. They have dirty hands. They have armed the Arab militias that are going into the region. It cannot be done by the Arab militias. They are killing the African villagers in this region. They are doing ethnic cleansing and raping the women. We interviewed a number of different women who had been raped. All of them said that their rapist said to them: We want to create lighter skinned babies. In that region, the paternity determines the ethnicity of the child. We cannot let this one keep going when we know it is happening and we have a way to stop it. I plead with my colleagues, just look at this. Let this one move on through, then both the House and the Senate will have spoken and called it genocide. We will put pressure on the international community to act, put pressure on Kofi Annan at the U.N., put pressure on the African Union to address this situation before the numbers keep mounting. We can do this. I will show briefly to my colleagues new pictures Congressman Frank Wolf and I took, as I say, about 3 weeks ago when we were in the region. This is a typical burned-out village that we saw. We drove by a number of these. These are some of the leaders of the group who are trying to come back to the village. The raids all happened very similarly. Bombers came in, supplied by the Sudanese Government. Helicopters--I will show a picture of one of those in just a little bit--supported by the Sudanese Government would come in in an air attack. Then the Janjaweed, the Arab militias, would come back on camels, horseback, guns blazing, burn the various houses, kill the men, rape the women, pillage, plunder, and steal. As we can see from this picture, this is a sparse and difficult climate in which to live. They drive people out of their villages, away from their wells, and people die. This next picture is one of the helicopters used in these raids. It has guns mounted on the front. This is old Soviet equipment, yet it works very well in this region when the people they are going against are unarmed altogether. They will go in on these runs. We saw this particular helicopter within 100 yards of a Sudanese Government outpost, within 50 yards of a Janjaweed encampment. So when the Sudanese Government is saying, Well, it is the Janjaweed that is doing it and we are going to try to disarm them, we are going to control them, they are arming them, this is just them doing something they have done in the south for years, where they arm a militia so they can have some deniability that it is their hands, but in fact it is clearly them who are conducting this. The next picture I want to show is a woman who has been shot. She is an amputee. We visited with her. We can see where her leg was shot and amputated. This final picture is chilling. We went into three different refugee camps. Fortunately, children are children everywhere, and they will lighten up. They will be lively. They have smiles on their faces. In one of the camps they were doing an art project to encourage kids to make different things out of clay or actually out of mud. They were doing the soldiers on horses who had attacked them with guns. They made these little mud figures showing what had taken place. We also have drawings that were brought back, drawn by the children, of villages being burned. There is nothing quite like seeing the world through the eyes of a child. It is a very dangerous world and a deadly world these children have seen. I have a trip report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. The hour is late, but I simply ask my colleagues that we pass this by unanimous consent and then both Houses will have spoken. This is a situation of Muslim-on-Muslim violence. If people are worried about different religions, this is not the case. It is ethnic. It is Arab-on-African violence. Osama bin Laden had been in Sudan for 5 years, 1991 to 1996. This is where he started organizing violent groups. He did it first in Sudan. The government there has been very efficient in carrying forth what Osama had taught them. Finally, we can make a difference in Sudan and, by extension, all of Africa, but we really need to act now. We are going to be out the whole month of August. By that period of time, thousands more will die. I realize this is a resolution, so it can be said, well, it does not do that much, but it does put pressure on the international community. It will be the first time we spoke ahead of the full genocide taking place where we actually maybe can stop it and save some lives instead of lamenting afterwards that we should have done something. The administration has really done an overall very good job on this issue in pushing and pressing it, but let's not stop there. Let's keep moving and let's try to get something done. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Obviously we know that from the social data. I have charts I have gone through previously that show that each contributes differently to the makeup and the nature of that child and making a healthy, well-rounded child. We know that from the social data. But there is another argument that I think is actually more powerful. We know that in our hearts. We know that from the time we have come up in this society. We know that from 6,000 years of human history. That is one of those things that, again, is written on the heart of man, that you know this is the way it is to be. Even when you talk with people today who are raising children in a single-parent household, by and large virtually all of them wish what they had was a mom and a dad here in a bonded relationship who love each other and care for each other, that recognize divine authority in their lives and that pass on to that next generation the hope and their love and the yearning for yet a better era coming forward. That is what we all want. It is not by accident or even by social programming that we want that. That is written on our hearts. All of our colleagues would agree with that. I think we should recognize the truth of that and not say that may be written on your hearts but that was programmed when you were a kid growing up in Parker, KS, and this is different. This is there. It is there for a reason. It is there because it is best for the kids.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I could not agree more. Since I have been in the Senate, I have been one who has spoken out about the cultural problems that we have had and that we are in. If we take an already weakened institution--that is, the central basis by which we have values that we pass on to the next generation the lessons learned from the prior generation, where there are people who care and are in a bonded relationship that is there for life--if that is further eroded by teaching through the law that it can be any sort of arrangement one wants it to be and it is about how people care for each other, if they have love for each other, and not about the next generation or building that family and building children for the next generation, we really are moving ourselves into a terrain we have not seen in human history. What we see taking place now says it takes us in the wrong direction. We know that clearly from the Netherlands and we know that from their scholars now who are saying they have to figure some way to try to again instill traditional marriage because people are walking away from it. There are counties in Norway where 80 percent of the children are born out of wedlock because you have defined away that marriage institution and you have said it is not a sacred institution, it is a civil rights institution, and it can be any arrangement you want. It weakens a fundamental institution we need for this country to be strong in the future.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague and yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. There is not only a rational basis as the legal argument would have it, there is a moral imperative to do so. If you want a strong citizenry in the future, raised in a situation that is optimal--a mom and a dad bonded together for life, in a low-conflict union--if you want an optimal setting for most of your citizenry, you are obligated to push this union in a setting and to say, in speaking to the society, this is where we need the children raised. This is the optimal setting. This is the place. Not that everybody will achieve the optimal. They clearly will not. All families in this country, mine included, have had difficulties in this area. There is no question about that. But if you remove the optimal and say it is too hard, we can't get there, and let's give up, it is a sure way to pave the road down. We know that from other countries' experience. It is not only a rational basis, a legal argument, I would say it is a moral imperative as a government official that you press as much as you can to have children raised in this optimal setting.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Then it seems questionable to me, if we have done these sort of things, we have invested billions of dollars to try to strengthen marriage, we are doing away with the marriage penalty tax because we want to encourage marriage because that is good for children and good for America, and we are trying to encourage marriage in the welfare reform bill because it is good for children and good for people in poverty to lift them out of poverty, and the Senator was citing that, then why would we allow the courts to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions where we know in case study after case study that weakens the institution of marriage, that hurts the creation of strong, vital marriages, and it is defining marriage downward? Why would we do something that is so counter to what we have been trying to change over the past several years by making promarriage policies and we would now do something that is antimarriage and against the children?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I worked with him on a number of issues, and he was a great study of culture. He actually said the central conservative truth is that culture is more important than government. What culture honors and what it does not honor, what it upholds, what it says is good, and what it says is wrong is more important than the government around it. He was saying actually that the central role of government at all levels should be to see that children are born and remain in intact families. This was his comment. He was saying that because that is the central foundational character of building the institution that we have. It is not government. Government is important. It provides a number of very useful functions, but it is not the central entity. It is that family basis that builds the strong citizenry, strong people. As a cultural commentator, he saw that. As a matter of fact, he nearly lost his job in the 1960s by commenting about the disintegration of the American family in a particular ethnic group at that time, but he was just saying that if that family unit is ruined, it goes downhill and has an effect on the children. That is why he felt so strongly about it and why I feel so strongly about it. In looking at these cultural indicators, we need to do everything we can to help this institution that is in trouble. Marriage is in trouble in America. I have a chart that I will quickly share with my colleagues to show the type of trouble we are in.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, to make this point, and I will not belabor it with my colleagues who want to speak, but I want to show the portion of children entering broken families has more than quadrupled since 1950. I think a lot of us in this room were born in the 1950s. We can see on this chart the children born out of wedlock and as parents are divorced in 1950 is about 12 percent or so. Going to the year 2000, it is up to about 55 percent. The reason that is problematic is we know children operate and function best in a family with a mom and a dad and a low-conflict union. We know that marriage is incredibly important to the formation of these children for the next generation. That does not mean they cannot succeed in this type of setting. They can, and many do. It just means the odds are tougher. It is more difficult for them. Now if we take this institution of marriage that is already having difficulty, already is having trouble staying together, and say to it basically we are going to define it differently now than we have through 5,000 years of human existence--and the reason it has been defined this way for 5,000 years of human existence is there is a natural order to us. We know that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is written in our hearts. We understand that. A law does not have to be written on it; it is in the natural order of mankind. If we start telling people by the law, and the law is a teacher, no, it is not really that, it can be any sort of union one wants: It can be two men, it can be two women, then it starts to further make difficult this situation and it further erodes the marital union. That is the problem. This is not about same-sex marriage. This is about kids. This is about a 5,000-year-old institution that has served society throughout history, and it is being redefined in a way that goes against what we understand it is in our hearts. This is harmful, and we know that from other countries that have engaged in it. This is going the wrong way, and it is against clear public policy trends that we have engaged in in this body. It is even against what everybody in this body says. Everybody in this body says they are for traditional marriage between a man and a woman. So if they are, then vote that way and stand up for it instead of further harming these trendlines of an institution that is vitally important. We should not do that.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, I would be happy to.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I can ask the Senator from Alabama, it seems to me that we have been discussing for at least 2 years, maybe 5 years now, ways to strengthen marriage in America. I believe the Senator supported the elimination of the marriage tax penalty. We have had huge debates about that marriage tax penalty, the whole issue being, how can we strengthen marriage and why do we want to do that. Because it is the best place to raise children and the Government has a great interest in it. We just embarked, I believe, on a welfare debate where we were debating the issue within welfare and trying to encourage marriage amongst people on public assistance because it raises them out of poverty and helps children; is that correct, we have been debating those two issues as ways to strengthen marriage?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield for another question?