Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues and the American people to seriously consider the state of religious freedom around the globe. Exactly 5 years ago we passed groundbreaking legislation aimed at combating international religious persecution. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 only established the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom and the International Religious Freedom Office at the Department of State, but it brought the issue of the religious persecution to the forefront of foreign policy initiatives. Religious persecution remains one of the leading violations of human rights in our world today. It is particularly important that on the 5 year anniversary of the passage of this bill, we remind the world of our commitment to promote religious liberty for all people. This Nation, founded by those seeking to adopt, believe, worship, observe, teach, and practice their religion, has declared in the first amendment that, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .'' And over time, the United States was joined by other countries in signing numerous declaration and international agreements specifically acknowledging the universal human right to freedom of religion. Despite the great achievements we have made concerning religious liberty, we can not close the book on the millions that still suffer persecution. I remind my colleagues that persecution often includes imprisonment, torture, forced conversion, rape and even death. In Vietnam, Christians are forced to drink the blood of animals and denounce their faith. In Uzbekistan, Muslims who do not conform to the government-prescribed ideas are imprisoned and often tortured. Thousands of religious minorities in India have been killed by extremist majority groups because of their faith. We continue to hear stories from China, North Korea, Sudan, Indonesia, Laos, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Tibet, and the list goes on. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq are currently faced with the challenge of incorporating religious freedom into the drafting of their new constitutions. As I have said before, religious freedom is the bedrock upon which democracy, hope and progress rest. Additionally, religious freedom is more than just the ability to practice one's faith, but it is central to other rights and freedoms, including a free press, public assembly, freedom of speech or the right to petition the government. All of these freedoms will be circumscribed if religious freedom is not part of the new constitutions being drafted in Afghanistan and Iraq. The time is ripe to unite and continue our work on behalf of the millions that have endured their own plight from religious persecution. As we remember our victory 5 years ago, let us not forget the crucial work on religious liberty that remains at the forefront of foreign policy today. I hope that this resolution calling for the designation of ``International Religious Freedom Day'' on October 27, 2003 can be quickly considered and approved by my colleagues.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to draw the attention of my colleagues to a topic that is of significant importance in the world. On October 10, the Nobel Peace Prize, the peace prize that was granted to the Dalai Lama in the past, to Martin Luther King, Jr., and to Nelson Mandela, was granted to Shirin Ebadi, not a household name. This lady is a prominent human rights activist in Iran. She was awarded the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize. I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to her because Iran is one of those countries that is a state sponsor of terrorism. They are as a country on the very low end of recognition of human rights. The ruling clerics do not let participation in the society take place. She has been fighting for the rights of students and activists to peacefully meet and speak out. She has done it from inside Iran. For that, she has paid for it in jail time and in harassment. She should now receive a reward from us in recognition. Naturally, the regime in Tehran did not kindly meet upon her recognition as a Nobel Peace Prize winner. The regime actually went on to say there are other Nobel Prizes that are more important, like literature. I looked at that and I thought how would one deny their own countryman the peace prize, the highest of these? They are saying there is something else that is higher. But it is because she has been going at this regime that is illegitimate and does not recognize the people. I want to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Ms. Ebadi and to the Iranian people for their continued struggle for freedom, for democracy, and for human rights, against the clerics who have stripped them of every ounce of human dignity. The Economist described Ms. Ebadi as this: Assertive, severe, and frighteningly well versed in Islamic and Western law, characteristics that challenge the status quo of Iran and the religious ruling clique. Since being barred from serving as a judge, Ms. Ebadi has fought for the rights of homeless children under the repressive regime which treats the children like common criminals. In addition, she has spent the last 4 years investigating the attacks on student protestors by Iranian security forces during the massive July 9, 1999, protest. Ezzat Ebrahim-Nejad was one of those protesters killed during the 1999 protest. Ms. Ebadi represented his family in tracking down the thugs who attacked the students and their paymasters within the Ayatollah's regime. Her devotion to this case and many others landed her a 15-month jail sentence. This year Ms. Ebadi established a nonprofit organization, a legal defense center for the families of Iranian dissidents and activists. This is challenging work that all Iranians can celebrate, and I am confident she will use the prestige that comes with the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to continue the struggle in Iran. There are dissidents in Iran who I think deserve highlighting, who are being held without reason. Hassan Zarezadeh, a 25-year-old student, is one. He is being held because of participation in a July 9, 1999, protest. He has been in prison since July 6, 2003, in preparation of the anniversary recognition of that protest. There are reports he is enduring torture during his detention. Dr. Farzad Hamidi disappeared on June 18, 2003, in Tehran, barely 1 year after being released from jail. His whereabouts is unknown, but friends and family believe his disappearance is connected to his role in the student protest. Shirin Ebadi's struggles continue for these and many other individuals and activists inside Iran, and dissidents--and all they want to do is be able to peacefully meet and to be able to communicate their message to people within Iran. All they are getting for that is jail, harassment, and, unfortunately, death. Systematic change is needed to take place. A number of people are calling for that inside Iran. The student protesters and others are calling for an internationally monitored referendum on the Government in Iran. That is, indeed, what should take place. I wanted to draw Shirin Ebadi's name and her recognition and her award to the notice of my colleagues. This is an important step in the recognition and movement toward human rights in Iran. We need to celebrate it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will speak briefly about this issue as well. I think as we bring this up, it is important, if we can, to move this forward and get it resolved. One of the things we need to be constantly focusing on is what can we do to grow jobs and create jobs. We have been pressing forward. The Federal Reserve has been pressing forward, keeping interest rates low. We have been pressing forward in cutting taxes to try to stimulate. The early medicine seems to be working. We are starting to get some economic growth. We are starting to get some job creation taking place. Another clear area of importance and need is this area of litigation reform. This is sapping a great deal of strength out of the economy and sapping strength from job creation. This is one of the areas we need to reform. I think there are ways that we can do this and still protect the rights of the individual, rights of those who are harmed in the system, but we are going to have to start to address this problem if we are going to be serious about job creation in the country and serious about what all we can do as a legislative body in creating an atmosphere and situation in the United States that can be the most growth oriented, and in a way that still protects all the rights of individuals in this country. Those are the efforts that are taking place. That is what we are trying to do with this.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is an historic day. For the first time since Roe v. Wade, we are going to deal with the issue of abortion and limit the practice in one significant way. This is an historic day for life; for establishing and supporting a culture of life in the United States; for freedom; and for human rights--for the dignity of the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us, which we all profess to support. This is will go down in history as a pivotal day, where we start to recognize that the child in the womb is a child. The child in the womb is not a piece of property. The child is, indeed, a person with dignity and rights and is entitled to life. That is a very important thing for us to recognize and for the United States to support. I will begin my comments by showing a picture of a very young child. Thanks to modern technology, we are able to see a lot more these days. We now have what is called 4D, four dimensional, CAT scans of children in the womb. We can see children smiling and yawning in the womb at a very young age. I recently had a gentleman in my office--we actually had him testify in front of the Commerce Committee--who performs surgeries on children in the womb--in utero surgeries. This gentleman works on children in the womb a great deal, and in doing these surgeries, for example, he says a child in the womb acts just like a child outside the womb. One has to go into the womb, when they are performing the surgery, to anesthetize the child. When a doctor goes in with a needle to poke the child in the womb, they have to chase them. There is a confined area that the child can run around in the womb, but as they go in with that needle the child jerks back, holds their buttocks back. They do not like to get the needle in them. Having five children myself--two of them are five now--I know it is a major procedure for us to go in and get immunizations in the doctor's office. For us to get two children immunized, it takes five people--two holding down, one giving the shot, and a couple of us saying, there, there, it is all right. It turns out that children in the womb are very similar. They do not like the pain. They feel it. They pull back from it. They repulse, and yet it is something we need to do. I wish to continue my remarks by talking about a famous young child who is probably more famous before he was born than most people are during their life--Samuel Alexander Armas. I had him testifying about 2 months ago. He is now 3 years old. Samuel is a unique and beautiful child. He actually testified in front of the committee. This is his hand coming out of his mother's womb. He had spina bifida, which a number of people recognize is a very difficult thing. The spinal cord does not develop. The child generally has great difficult in mobility and can also be deaf resulting from that. Yet we have now found a way that in utero, in the womb, that we can operate on that child and close that area. When Samuel testified at age 3 in front of my committee, he was fine; though, he does have some mobility problems with his legs. When his parents discovered that he had spina bifida, they had recommendations from their physicians that the pregnancy should be terminated. The parents said, no, no, we believe in life. We are not going to do this to our child. At that time, they had even named him Samuel. They asked: What else can we do? They were told of in utero surgeries, and they decided to try it. This in utero surgery actually took place at 21 weeks of age, which is about the timeframe that partial-birth abortions occur--21 weeks. I want to show a positive side of this. They went in and did the surgery on Samuel. They fixed the problem of the spina bifida. As they were concluding the surgery on Samuel, this picture was taken of his mother's womb. The surgery on Samuel was resolved and a photographer from USA Today was in the room taking pictures. USA Today had asked previously if they could be present at the surgery, taking pictures. This surgery was being done at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. The photographer was there. He had taken pictures throughout the surgery. The surgery was just wrapping up when all of a sudden they saw the womb shake a little bit and Samuel's hand comes out of the womb. The doctor is looking at it. Out of curiosity, I guess, as much as anything, he puts his finger near the womb and Samuel grabs the doctor's finger--21 weeks of age, and Samuel holds onto it. The photographer, in just a moment's notice, just clicks it. He doesn't know if he even gets the picture. He just senses that there is something important that has just happened. The hand lets go and goes back into the womb--Samuel likes it better in the womb at this point in time--and they close up the womb. The surgery is successful. This picture that appeared in USA Today--it has actually been all over the world and is one of those famous pictures--has been renamed ``The Hand of Hope,'' as Samuel reaches out from the womb and grabs hold of that next generation already there, seeking and yearning to join them. The photographer was stunned about it. He was stunned how the picture had come out. He was stunned by the response that he received around the world. He gets e-mails on a regular basis, all the time, frankly, in response to this ``Hand of Hope.'' It has appeared in USA Today and in newspapers around the world multiple sets of times. We had Samuel in to testify. We had his parents testify about what they went through to undergo this surgery. We had a doctor testify about the number of things we can now cure in utero. I think it is important that we start to cover children in utero because, when you have these sorts of surgeries, they are expensive, but they are important and they are better covered at that point in time. This is a heroic thing. It is a beautiful thing. It is the other end of the tragedy that we close here today because Samuel, until this procedure is banned, could be aborted legally and killed by this brutal procedure called partial- birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion is a procedure that we have had gruesomely described to the American public on numerous occasions. So while at this stage of life, Samuel has a hand of hope. He also could legally be killed at this point in time by that brutal procedure, partial-birth abortion, which involves no anesthetic, nothing--just a brutal, gruesome procedure that we will not stand for anyplace in the world, being the country that we are that believes in freedom and hope and in opportunity for everybody. We believe in life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The central debate we are finally getting out into is this little hand of Samuel, and asking is that the hand of a person or is that the hand of a glob of tissue? Is it the hand of an individual? Is it the hand of an extension of the mother? Is it a person or is it a piece of property? That is the central question, and it is a question we have wrestled with before. We wrestled with this question on the slave issue when we--in that original sin of the United States of having slavery-- would not recognize an individual as a person but rather as a piece of property. It was a horrible thing, a horrible chapter. We have all recognized that and we say it was a bad thing. Now we are on the same debate. Here is little Samuel's hand. Is it the hand of a person or the hand of a piece of property? If it is property, we can dispose of it as we choose to see fit. If it is a person, it has rights and we have responsibilities towards that beautiful child; that Samuel is and is on a continuum, this child, from that point of time as well. Do we want that child killed or do we want that child cured? Do we want that child in our society or do we want that child somehow just kind of done away with for whatever reason the case might be? I do hope we get into a substantial and long-term debate about the nature of Samuel and his hand of hope as he reaches out from the womb and, by that little hand, says to us: I am a person. I am yearning to be free, yearning to live. I have much to give to you. I have much to give to this society. I have much to help with, and I want to do it and I want to be able to help you. I want to be there with you when my time comes. And Samuel did. He came out, and he is now with us. We are this day moving forward on an issue of human dignity that I think is incredibly important. I think it is also an obligation for us to stand and recognize that human life--at whatever stage--is sacred, unique, and a precious gift. Each day when we have the call that says we lost a soldier in Iraq--two--three--each of us in this country just gets sick at the stomach because that person was somebody's brother; that person was somebody's sister; that person was somebody's father or mother; that person is unique, sacred, and that person is precious to us. Is Samuel Alexander Armas any less unique and sacred and precious? If you kill him at this point in time, isn't he dead for the rest of his life? Is it somehow that because he is in the womb he is not a life continuum at that point in time? Is there something different here? At this point in time he is property, and then when he comes out of the womb he becomes a person with rights and responsibilities? Why? Is it that he is dependent here in the womb? He is dependent when he is born, but he is property here that can be disposed of, and he is a person who must be protected when he is born? His hand speaks to us. His hand challenges us. His hand is a hand of hope to us as a society that says, yes, we recognize the rights of the most vulnerable amongst us, and we are going to protect them. We are going to stand for them. We are not going to let them be killed. This is an enormous day. This has been a long, 7-year fight about the issue of partial-birth abortion. In many ways it has been instructive to us as a country. I am absolutely convinced the American people are convinced that Samuel is a child and not somehow a piece of property or a lump of tissue. People in this country do not want children killed. They do not want that to take place. As this debate has gone on and on, what we found is the American public has shifted. Now, particularly amongst young women of child- bearing age, you are seeing for the first time since this has been recorded that they are more pro-life than pro-choice. They are recognizing this is a child, it is a person, it has rights, it has beauty, it has things it wants to contribute. It is important that we let that child contribute. Last weekend was a celebration of Mother Teresa's beatification. It is quite something. A number of people in this body had a chance to meet Mother Teresa--a great contributor to the society around the world to the most weak and defenseless. She often came to the United States and graced us with her presence. She talked about the beautiful things, and she would talk about each of us having our own Calcuttas, where we can help people wherever we are. She talked about poverty in America. Actually, she was talking about the poverty of love. She was most harsh about the institution of abortion, where a mother would end the life of her own child. She cared deeply for the mother and she cared deeply for the child. She once said this: If we can accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? She asked this sort of haunting, piercing question. If we allow this in society, don't we spawn a continual culture of death instead of a culture of life at the very inception of things? What do we say to Samuel later on? Well, OK, we could have killed you by a brutal procedure at this point in time, legally, and that would have been fine, or we could have saved your life. There was no protection in particular one way or the other. This is an important day for life. It is an important day for a transition in the culture of life. I ask people who are opposed to this ban to look at this hand of Samuel. My colleague from California cares passionately about this issue, and about the issue of choice and the right of a woman to choose. But I don't know that she or anybody else can deny that this is the hand of a child, and we have some responsibilities to that child as well. Maybe we can call a hand a piece of property. But I don't know how else biologically it could be defined. I don't know how else physically it could be defined. With each passing day, and our technology getting better and better and better, I really do ask people on the other side, Is this not a child? Am I not a person? Am I not a brother? A sister? Am I not? Others care deeply about the right to choose. I respect that. But we all have choices to make. Is it one that we choose to terminate a brother or sister, a person who could be a parent, a person who could be a contributor, or do we not? It really is a defining moment. I hope people on the other side would look at this picture and say: Yes, I cannot deny the humanity of that hand, the hand of hope. I support the ban on partial-birth abortion and look forward to the day when it is signed. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Is this the hand of a child?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am responding to what you were saying.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask that it not be taken off your time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Just a question.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I think these are very carefully crafted areas we are going at. We have looked through this bill. I have worked in this region for some period of time. So I think it is important we consider higher priorities and we really think about what we are doing in shifting some of these resources. It is important to take from lower priority areas in Iraq which a lot of people identified, and put in higher priority areas. With that, I yield a minute to my colleague from Vermont, who is a cosponsor of this particular amendment, if he seeks recognition.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Senator Leahy is a cosponsor. I wanted to offer a minute. I just saw Senator Leahy step inside. I do have one other comment I would like to make.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1885, as modified, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, this is a very simple, straightforward amendment. It does some of what the House has done. I will explain this briefly because I think most of the people are knowledgeable of these particular issues. What we do with this particular amendment is rescind $600 million from nonsecurity accounts--none of the security money, all nonsecurity grant funding--that is not immediately necessary for reconstruction. It prohibits projects such as memorials, athletic committees, solid waste removal, catchup business training, telephone/postal company, housing. It would limit some of the petroleum product imports. That is where we take the funds from. The resulting savings would be reallocated to a couple of areas-- enhancing security efforts in Iraq, where we would put $50 million above the President's request for the Iraq civil defense corps. It would, too, bolster funding for reconstruction of Afghanistan. There we put $400 million into Afghanistan. We take the funds there and reallocate them into Afghanistan, into a series of areas that are high priority. I think it is important to remember we invaded and fought to remove terrorists in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is somewhat the forgotten child. We have not put nearly the resources forward that resource-poor country needs. This is in line with some of the thinking and the actions the House took. We also put a portion of resources into the United States Emergency Fund For Complex Foreign Crises, increasing this account to $250 million--80 percent of which, or $200 million, will go to Liberia, earmarked for humanitarian relief and reconstruction in Liberia. I think colleagues are well familiar with what is taking place in that country. So we have taken $600 million from nonsecurity accounts, key areas a lot of people identified as areas that may be useful to fund but not high priorities, not things into which we need to put these emergency funds, and shifted them into Afghanistan, Liberia, and $50 million to increase the civil defense in Iraq. This is what is going to help us bring our troops home faster, the faster we stand up an Iraqi military and paramilitary force. It is pretty straightforward. This is a Brownback-Leahy amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment a number of my colleagues are supporting. I ask for favorable consideration. I do ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield a minute to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to discuss something that I consider a major cornerstone to any free society--religious freedom. I recently offered an amendment during the markup that would condition the money going to the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, by ensuring the preservation of ``full rights to religious freedom for all individuals, including a prohibition on laws which would criminalize blasphemy and apostasy.'' The first part of that phrase, ``full rights to religious freedom for all individuals,'' is extremely important given the recent historical record on constitutions that established Islam as the official religion of the state. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic in which the constitution extends some rights to groups to engage in their religious practices. However, the constitution does not allow for the freedom of conscience of individual believers, either within different sects of Islam or for those wishing to convert. Therefore, the biggest danger may be to those who do not subscribe to the prevailing interpretation of Islam. With the Afghan constitution just now coming to light, the international community and the Afghan people are slowly becoming aware that their constitution will not preserve their individual right to believe what they wish. On October 1, 2003, the New York Times published an op-ed piece written by members of the United States Commission on Religious Freedom which precisely outlined the significant importance of only supporting a constitution that, and I quote, ``clearly and unequivocally enshrines human rights and religious freedom.'' We must not settle for anything less and we must not encourage the Afghan people to settle for any less. As stated in the article, ``After all, it is not just Afghanistan's future that is at stake. Iraqis are watching to see what minimum standards of individual rights will be acceptable to the United States.'' In addition, the last part of the phrase which would prohibit criminalization of blasphemy and apostasy is equally as important. As much as the constitution must be absolutely secular, those who would freely renounce their faith, apostasy, or those who would speak out profanely against religion, blasphemy, must have their rights preserved. The freedom of religion is more than just the ability to practice one's faith, but is central to other rights and freedoms, including a free press, public assembly, free speech or the right to petition the government. All of these freedoms will be circumscribed if religious freedom is not part of an Iraqi constitution and a reconstituted Iraq. My amendment, which also appears in the House language, would also require the President to submit a report to the Congress every 90 days detailing efforts to make religious freedom a major tenet of the Iraqi constitution. If Secretary Powell's recent statement is correct, then there should be a constitution in six months. That would, at most, require two reports on the status of the constitution if completed within 6 months. In my view, religious freedom is the bedrock on which freedom, hope and progress rest and should be a top priority as we discuss the many foreign policy issues at hand. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times op-ed article be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the Biden amendment and make comments regarding it. I rise in opposition to that amendment and I wanted to indicate why. First, I want to indicate how we got to the point we are today. There were a number of people who came forward to say this is a huge bill-- and it is. This is too much. I think we should examine that issue. I hope nobody says we should not be paying, because we have started down this road sometime back and it was the Congress that started down this road, not the administration. It was the Congress that started down this road. I think we now need to see this on through or we could leave the situation that we in the Congress started in a worse position than it was when we got into this in the first place. This is what I want to point out. Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. This was the vote in the House of Representatives: 360 to 38. The Senate, by unanimous consent, passed this bill, the Iraq Liberation Act. What did it call for? It called for regime change in Iraq. This was signed into law by President Clinton. We allocated, authorized, and appropriated $100 million to spend on this effort of regime change in Iraq. That was to get Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. He was supporting terrorists, he had used weapons of mass destruction, he wreaked terrorism upon his own people, and he was costing us billions of dollars a year in containment because we had soldiers and airmen stationed in Saudi Arabia, and we were doing regular bombings into Iraq. We were conducting no-fly zones in the north and in the south. We built airbases in Saudi Arabia to be able to move this on forward. This was an untenable situation. It was bad for the Iraqi people, bad for us, and bad for the region. All the countries in the region had some difficulty or problem, either being attacked, as Kuwait was, launched into, as Saudi Arabia was, threatened, as Jordan had been, at war as Iran. These are the countries, other than Turkey and Syria, that surround Iraq. Most of the countries in the region were saying something needed to be done, but they weren't willing to step forward unless the United States was serious. This was part of our statement that we were serious. President Bush took this forward after 9/11 when the whole world changed for the United States. We decided after 9/11 that we would no longer wait for the terrorists to gather up steam and build up forces against us and then launch. We were going to go to the terrorists and disrupt them first, rather than wait until they came to our soil so tragically. Thus ensued the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq, we had a country that had in the past used chemical weapons against its own people and against the Iranians. That is the fact and that is what we knew and this is where it started, and it started with the Congress. Now to the issue today of the supplemental and how do we pay for it. I think it would be a terrible mistake for us at this time to raise taxes on the American people, just at the time when we are starting to get the economy recovered and moving again. Finally, this last quarter we had our best quarter in 2 years, with 3-percent GDP growth. The Gross Domestic Product grew by 3 percent this last quarter. We are finally getting some growth and that growth has to occur and has to build up for us to create jobs. There is a lag between that growth and creating jobs. If we go right now and say to the American people that we are going to raise taxes on you at this point in time, you are going to threaten the very early stages of growth and the creation of jobs which is starting to take place. That is the wrong message to send. The thing we need to do is keep the growth occurring in this country. You do that by low interest rates and by lowering taxes. Those are the two tools that are being displayed and used now, and they are working to start the economic recovery. If you grow taxes at this point in time, you send the wrong message. We do have a growing Federal deficit. What should we be doing to address that? I think we should address that issue of the Federal deficit. It is important. It is an issue. It is something that needs to be addressed. I want to put forward an idea that we have 28 cosponsors on now. I want to put it forward in the context of how we balanced the budget in the past. We were able to balance the budget for several years in a row. It is the Congress that appropriates the money and allocates the spending. It is the Congress that gets the budget either in surplus or deficit, and it was the Congress that balanced the budget previously. How did we do it? There were two things. There was a strong growth in the overall economy producing receipts coming into the Federal Government and there was a slowing of the growth in Federal spending. We restrained the growth of Federal spending so the growth in the economy and the receipts it produced were more than the growth in the spending of the Federal Government, and we were able to get our way to a position where we had a balanced budget for several years in a row, indeed pushing forward strong surpluses. That is the way we will balance the budget again. Getting the economy growing and restraining the growth in Federal spending. How do we restrain the growth in Federal spending? The Commission on Accounting and Review of Federal Agencies--CARFA, for short. The model for it is the BRAC procedure. With the BRAC procedure, we looked at the totality of the military bases we had. We said we had too many military bases; we should cut back those military bases, consolidate them, and use whatever we can save if we can save among the bases we keep. It is called the BRAC process. How does that work? We had a commission. The commission met, they discussed it, and said we should eliminate these 50 bases. Then a bill was introduced in the Congress with no amendments, and you gave each House one vote up or down, whether they agree or disagree. By that means we were able to eliminate and consolidate bases. I say let's do the same thing with domestic discretionary programs. By that I am saying not for the military; we already have a procedure there. Not for entitlement programs. Let's move forward that way, and that is a way we can address this issue. That is how we will actually get back to a balanced budget, not by raising taxes. As to Iraqi spending, I want to discuss that. I think we should review and reduce some of the spending in this area that has been proposed. I have gone through in some detail, not the full proposal yet but most of it. I think there are areas we should not be paying for. Memorials to human rights abuses--clearly those are things that would be good to do. But should we, the American people, the American taxpayer, be paying for that? Is that central to redeveloping Iraq? I don't think it is, particularly at this time. Should we be paying $50,000 per garbage truck? I don't think so, not in a part of the world that maybe it would be good to have, but there is probably garbage being collected in old pickup trucks. That is the way we used to do it in my hometown many years ago. There is nothing wrong with that, maybe, at the current stage of development. Maybe later you would use something better. But I think we should take some of these areas and say, let's pull those down and pull those out and let's reallocate some into more policing, which is critically important in Iraq, for us to get our troops garrisoned and less subject to exposure. Put it in the Iraq development bank, where we can see the Iraqi people growing their own money and we will be saving some of the money for our deficit purposes here, working to reduce that. I will be working with a group of people to put such a proposal together and put it in front of my colleagues. I think that is an important part the job of this body, to review what the President has put forward and see where we agree and let's pass that and other areas where we would change it. I do not think it is an option for us not to pass the supplemental. We need the supplemental for the troops. We need the supplemental to develop Iraq. It is not an option for us to fail in Iraq. We must succeed. Indeed, Iraq and its success is central to us bringing forward a reduction in the swamp area where terrorism has bred and where it has stewed and where it has grown, in an area we have seen terrorism coming forth and attacking us. This is an area we have to go out and change. We change it by bringing forth our ideas and our models of democracy, of an open society, and of a free economy. This Iraq is going to be an area where we will have to concentrate and focus, deliver that, and hopefully that will affect much of the rest of the region. There is some indication that is already happening. So you drain the swamp away, and drain it away with our set of ideas. Failure in Iraq is not an option. We must succeed in Iraq by moving forward with our model on the war on terrorism, which is we take the war there rather than letting them gather steam and come at us and kill our people here. I think there are legitimate ways to address this issue. I think we ought to look at the issues of loans versus total grants. This is a large-scale, oil-based country that wants those production wells going again. I think there is going to be oil produced and a substantial amount of income. I think we ought to look at the overall proposal. There are places where we should adjust. But overall, we are going to need to pass this supplemental. For us to raise taxes at a time when we are just getting the economy going would be the wrong way for us to go as a government, as a society, and for this country. We have to allow this growth to continue taking place. The key here would be instead of reducing our overall spending to look for places we can save within this overall spending bill. We are going to have a spirited debate. As we go out for a week and do townhall meetings across the country--and I will be doing that in my State--I look forward to gathering a lot of input from individuals. I think that will be helpful for us as we move forward. But I don't want us to send an improper signal. Failure in Iraq is not an option. We cannot fail. We need to do this supplemental, but I think we can make some changes. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care for Veterans of Project 112/Project SHAD Act of 2003. This bill will authorize health care assistance for veterans who participated in specific Department of Defense chemical and biological warfare testing without any requirements related to proof of service-connection for their illness. Project 112 consisted of a series of cold war chemical, nuclear, and biological tests conducted both at sea and over land from 1962 to 1973. This project was one of 150 military initiatives designed to identify U.S. military personnel and warship vulnerabilities to chemical, nuclear, and biological attacks. Some of the tests that were part of Project 112/Operation Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD) involved the use of dangerous agents such as sarin, VX, tularemia, and anthrax. The Defense Department has recognized that it does not have adequate documentation to prove that test participants were informed of the potential risks, or that personnel received adequate protective gear during testing. After an extensive search for records to identify all tests conducted and link the dates of specific tests to the personnel on-board at the time, the DOD produced a comprehensive list of all tests conducted and each veteran involved in this project. In response to a VA request, DOD reviewed and declassified information concerning the exact agents used and other details of the Project 112 tests. This information was subsequently turned over to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the VA began the process of contacting the veterans identified as participants. A total of 5,842 persons were identified as having been present in one or more of the tests. All veterans who believe they were involved in tests and have medical concerns have been encouraged to contact VA to receive medical evaluations. Although Project 112 veterans suffer from a broad range of ailments from cancer to hypertension, a causal link between the tests and their current ailments has not been established. Due to the amount of time that has passed and the relatively small number of people involved in any specific test, it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to fully determine the health effects from the tests. It would be unconscionable to require Project 112 veterans to prove a connection between their involvement in these tests and their current health problems. If we cannot disprove a service connection, then we should assume responsibility for their health care. This Health Care for Veterans of Project 112/Project SHAD Act of 2003 would provide priority access to VA hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care for veterans identified as participants in these tests, and not require medical evidence that any illnesses are attributable to such testing. This is an important step in bringing some finality to this issue and living up to our commitment to this group of veterans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care for Veterans of Project 112/Project SHAD Act of 2003. This bill will authorize health care assistance for veterans who participated in specific Department of Defense chemical and biological warfare testing without any requirements related to proof of service-connection for their illness. Project 112 consisted of a series of cold war chemical, nuclear, and biological tests conducted both at sea and over land from 1962 to 1973. This project was one of 150 military initiatives designed to identify U.S. military personnel and warship vulnerabilities to chemical, nuclear, and biological attacks. Some of the tests that were part of Project 112/Operation Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD) involved the use of dangerous agents such as sarin, VX, tularemia, and anthrax. The Defense Department has recognized that it does not have adequate documentation to prove that test participants were informed of the potential risks, or that personnel received adequate protective gear during testing. After an extensive search for records to identify all tests conducted and link the dates of specific tests to the personnel on-board at the time, the DOD produced a comprehensive list of all tests conducted and each veteran involved in this project. In response to a VA request, DOD reviewed and declassified information concerning the exact agents used and other details of the Project 112 tests. This information was subsequently turned over to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the VA began the process of contacting the veterans identified as participants. A total of 5,842 persons were identified as having been present in one or more of the tests. All veterans who believe they were involved in tests and have medical concerns have been encouraged to contact VA to receive medical evaluations. Although Project 112 veterans suffer from a broad range of ailments from cancer to hypertension, a causal link between the tests and their current ailments has not been established. Due to the amount of time that has passed and the relatively small number of people involved in any specific test, it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to fully determine the health effects from the tests. It would be unconscionable to require Project 112 veterans to prove a connection between their involvement in these tests and their current health problems. If we cannot disprove a service connection, then we should assume responsibility for their health care. This Health Care for Veterans of Project 112/Project SHAD Act of 2003 would provide priority access to VA hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care for veterans identified as participants in these tests, and not require medical evidence that any illnesses are attributable to such testing. This is an important step in bringing some finality to this issue and living up to our commitment to this group of veterans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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