Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I just say one final thing. I appreciate the committee working with us, the ranking member and chairman of the committee; I thank them very much.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a group of outstanding students from the state of Kansas. Cindy Garwick's first grade class from Bluemont Elementary School in Manhattan, Kansas, has been chosen as a finalist team in the Toshiba/National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Exploravision Awards Program. The NSTA Exploravision Awards Program is the largest K-12 student science competition in the country. This year, there were nearly 5,000 entries from more than 17,000 students in the United States and Canada. The class was chosen as a finalist for this prestigious award for their invention display prototype, ``The DNA Door Open.'' It is difficult to imagine how much time and energy was spent on this project by these outstanding young students. The award that they have received is a testament to their hard work and dedication. It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge Bluemont Elementary School's first grade class for the honor they have received. I congratulate them and wish them continued success.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the newspapers are full of Kosovo and Serbia, of India and Pakistan and of course, Indonesia. These threatening events have captured most of the headlines and have attracted the attention of the Administration in greater or lesser degrees. These are not trivial issues, and we cannot afford to ignore their importance for challenging US interests. But another conflict rages that, while small, challenges US interests in ways that few other conflicts can: I am speaking of the conflict in the Republic of Georgia in the distant but strategically critical region of Abkazia. And yet the stability in independent Georgia is one of the principal US interests in the former USSR and should be one of our overriding strategic goals. This is not just sentiment for one of the earliest Christian civilizations in a part of the world where Christian civilizations do not thrive: rather it is a clear statement of our own strategic interest and objectives. Georgia is a NATO borderland and an entry point to the emerging new Silk Road. It is a key ally of our partner Turkey and is important in many ways: strategically, militarily, commercially. If Georgia were to become unstable, the entire region would be put in jeopardy. Against overwhelming odds, Georgia has achieved strong positive economic growth in the last few years. It is one of the most stable of the post-Soviet states, with world-class leadership in President Eduard Shevardnadze. It is America's natural ally in a neighborhood that features Iran and Iraq. Georgia is central to the successful development of what the new Silk Road from Central Europe to China. This ambitious project will eventually encompass pipelines, roads and railroads, airports and communications networks that stretch from Central Europe to China. This corridor will completely alter the economics and the politics of Eurasia in ways that we cannot now foresee, but which are certain to intersect US strategic interests in Eurasia in many places. The states of the Caucasus--Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia--lie at the very center of this new Silk Road. For the corridor to function, stability in these states is essential. Not surprisingly, some people wish ardently to jeopardize America's interests in this region by threatening Georgia's stability, and they have fastened on a perverse way of doing so. the small, break-away region of Abkazia has been Russia's best available instrument to diminish Georgia's accomplishments and to imperil its remarkable gains. Russia is the only power to benefit from such activity. Let us not be timid in naming the problem: Russia is the problem, the aggressor and the single-most threat to stability in Georgia and the entire Caucasus. Since the early 1990s, Russia, acting through Abkazia, has attempted to bring down Georgia. This is no secret. Virtually every expert to travel to the region reports the same thing: Russia is responsible for arming, training and sustaining Abkazia's so-called freedom fighters. Russia's support for the pro-Russian Abkazian leadership is barely disguised: Russia has funneled arms and support for more than six years into the Abkaz region of Georgia for one specific task: to destabilize the government of Eduard Shevardnadze so that Georgia will be unable to realize its goals of being independent, of joining the community of free democratic nations, and of providing better lives--free lives--for the people of Georgia. It is high time the Administration took a strong position on the subject of the Caucasus and of Georgia in particular. So far, it has not only failed to reign in Russian efforts against Georgia, but by this very failure, it has insured that the Russian-promoted destabilization efforts will continue. Administartion apathy on this subject is best illustrated by the astonishing lack of urgency that the State Department ascribes to placing qualified and dynamic ambassadors in these countries. Georgia has been without a U.S. ambassador for well over six months. No candidate has yet been identified, let alone brought to the Senate for confirmation, despite persistent and forceful requests by President Shevardnadze and other key leaders in Georgia for such an appointment. The Administration has also been supporting the Russian ``mediation'' of the Abkaz conflict: this policy must be reversed. Russian ``mediation'' consists of injecting Russian peacekeepers into the region to separate the Georgian and Abkaz combatants. Their behavior in the recent fighting in Abkazia shows their true intentions: the best case scenario shows that the Russian peacekeeping forces did nothing to interdict the flow of separatist personnel and heavy weaponry into the region where the fighting was taking place. The worst case scenario has them actually providing weapons to the Abkaz combatants. This is unacceptable. Allowing continued Russian control over this situation is tantamount to inserting the fox's first cousin as a mediator between the foxes and the hens. The current situation insures that Georgia can only lose. It is time for the Administration to demand the removal of the bogus Russian peacekeepers, and to insist on their replacement by an independent force of peacekeepers. To do less is to acknowledge implicitly that Georgia remains within Russia's sphere of control. This matter also raises the issue of the continued presence of Russian military bases in Georgia. They are there despite the overwhelming opposition of Georgian citizens. These bases were established at a time when Georgia was in no position to repulse Russian advances. Russia has no legitimate national security claim on Georgia. Russia is no less safe--indeed it is safer--with a Georgia that is free, independent, democratic and with free markets close to its southern border. These bases--from which the perpetrators of the assassination attempts on President Shevardnadze are reported to have fled--must be closed. The United States must not accept the notion that Georgian independence can only be secured by Russian power. Nothing could be more alien to the truth and to our national values. Mr. President, it is time for the Administration to state unequivocally that the stability and survival of an independent Georgia is a fundamental U.S. interest. That Russia's collusion with the Abkaz is nothing less than Moscow's effort to maintain control over sovereign Georgia and will not be tolerated; and that it is time to put an end to Russian Trojan horses in Georgia--the phony Russian ``peacekeepers'' and the military bases that provide Russia with the means to threaten Georgia's future and to put U.S. interests at risk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize two outstanding educators from Kansas. Linda Potter and Bill Kirk were selected to receive Time Warner's distinguished Crystal Apple Award, which is given to 15 educators selected from around the nation. Linda and Bill were selected from a pool of more than two million teachers from around the nation on the basis of their exceptional work as educators. It is hard to overestimate the importance of caring and dedicated teachers such as Linda and Bill. Teachers invest their time, talent and knowledge into our nation's students, thereby shaping the minds of our future leaders. It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge Linda's and Bill's extraordinary work in education. I congratulate Linda and Bill and wish them continued success.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, it is a great honor for me to recognize today a young Kansan who has been nationally recognized for her quick thinking and valor. Betty Hood, of Wichita, Kansas, has been awarded the Young American Medal for Bravery for 1996 from the U.S. Department of Justice, for her heroic efforts to save her younger brothers and sister from their burning apartment. Then ten-year-old Betty awoke in the early morning of May 17, 1996, to discover that her bed had caught on fire from a lamp that had been left too close to the sheets and blankets. Realizing the danger she and her siblings, who were in the room with her, were in, Betty carried her brother, James and sister, Hallie, to safety. She returned to help her remaining brother Clifford, but was unable to assist him as the fire had spread to the area where he was sleeping. Betty Hood's award for bravery is well deserved. She did not escape unharmed, as both Betty and her mother were treated for burns, nor will she ever forget her six-year-old brother, Clifford, who perished in the fire. Today, I join the Department of Justice in recognizing and paying tribute to this extraordinary young American. Betty Hood is a true hero, and I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting this young woman for her bravery and quick thinking that saved her brother and sister.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, thank you very much. I appreciate the Senator from Arizona recognizing me to speak on this very important act. The Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act is more important now than ever. I chair the subcommittee in the Foreign Relations Committee which deals with Iran. We have had a number of hearings on this particular issue. We just had a hearing last week on what all Iran is doing around the world. It might be of interest for many people in this body to know that, according to the State Department's last report, Iran is operating in some 21 countries around the world with either terroristic actions taking place or building the base for further expansion of their activities and interests and terroristic actions to happen. I am sure a number of people have already noted as well the recent finding by the Argentine Government of Iranian-backed terrorists involved with the horrendous bombings that took place in that country earlier this decade. The recent nuclear test by the Indians drives this point home even more. It is more urgent now than it was even 10 days ago to alert the world, and Iran in particular, that the United States will not tolerate an Iranian nuclear program, period. The administration has already shown lack of resolve in its recent decisions to waive the sanctions on Total and Gazprom under the Iran- Libya Sanctions Act. This, in my estimation, was a grave mistake, as the world has now received the message that it is once again free to fill the Iranian coffers and help it pay for the development of its nuclear capability, as well as fund its terrorism activities overseas. In the most recent State Department report that was out less than a month ago, Iran is the leading nation around the world sponsoring terrorism as a state. In the State Department's most recent report, Iran is the leader in this most ignoble category. We need to make the world understand that Iranian development of an indigenous missile capability, combined with nuclear capability, is dangerous to everyone. While Iran has been quite open in its calls to annihilate Israel, a nuclear-capable Iran will threaten countries far beyond its borders. The very countries which are now planning to refill Iran's coffers are the countries which will be at risk in the future. The Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act is not a country-wide sanction. What we are proposing here is intended to sanction specific entities known to be providing Iran with missile technology. This bill is an effort to stem this dangerous flow to Iran and is designed to impose certain sanctions on foreign persons who transfer items contributing to Iran's efforts to acquire, develop, or produce ballistic missiles. There is good intelligence about which Russian entities are involved. Some of them are involved in joint space cooperation with the United States. These companies should know that there will be costs if they engage in behavior which so obviously threatens our security interests, the security interests of the region, and the security interests of the entire world, from the leading sponsor of terrorism around the world, which is the Iranian regime. The administration claims it is making progress with the Russian Government on this matter, that we need to give them time to implement the relatively new decree tightening the export of dual-use technology. We keep hearing about the progress we are making with the Russians, but we do not see it. I might note as well, there were recent bills passed in the House of Representatives going at the administration in this country about the sharing of dual-use technology with China and saying that this was wrong what the administration has been supporting. How can we believe them that they are going to be able to stop the Russians when they are providing some of this in a questionable dual- use area to the Chinese? Mr. President, we do not undervalue what the Russian Government is trying to do. We are all encouraged by the progress that is being made. But the fact remains that the transfers continue. Just 2 weeks ago--2 weeks ago--the Government of Azerbaijan intercepted a transfer of materials going from Russia to Iran which would have significantly enhanced Iran's ability to produce missiles indigenously. If the Russians are working so diligently on this program, this bill poses no threats and in fact really would help them in these efforts. The bill would not sanction the Russian Government. That is a very important point to make. It does not sanction the Russian Government. In fact, if the Russian Government is serious about stemming the flow of this technology, this bill only helps them. After all, it is going after companies which are now breaking Russian laws. Mr. President, there is no reason why the U.S. taxpayer should be providing any taxpayer dollars to companies that are colluding with Iran to make that country an even greater danger to the United States, the leading country sponsoring terrorism around the world that is seeking to get this technology. We cannot allow this river of technology and assistance without doing everything possible to stop it. This bill works towards that goal. I encourage my colleagues to vote for it. I encourage the administration to sign it and to help us stop the flow of this technology to the leading terrorist regime around the world that seeks to get these weapons that can strike at U.S. interests. This bill is clearly in the United States' best interests. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding time to me.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina for yielding me 5 minutes. I want to stand up and speak on behalf of Grandma Gramm, that her money not go to lawyers as well. Mr. President, I have been following this debate back in the office. I followed it for some period of time. I serve on the Commerce Committee. I initiated this debate in the Commerce Committee and discussed it there. It seems as if the points have been pretty well made, pretty significantly made and repeated in the true tradition of the Senate about five times, so we all get it pretty clearly. One thing that I want to point out, though, at this juncture, because the debate has been engaging, is whether or not the Senate should set legal fees, whether we should get involved in this. And I generally, as a principle, would say no, we should not, but the fact is, in this bill we already are setting legal fees. We are setting them in this bill. And so to the extent that we are going to set them, I think the only question for us to ask ourselves is how much. Should it be nearly $100,000 an hour or should it be $250 an hour? As to the question of whether or not we are setting legal fees, they are being set in this bill. In this bill, we are providing the money. We are setting in place the mechanism to give this money to the trial lawyers. That is happening. I don't care how you cut it. That is what happens if this bill passes. If this bill doesn't pass, that doesn't happen. We are setting the amount the lawyers are going to get. The only question that remains is how much per hour is good compensation. Now, I understand the good Senator from South Carolina. He and I debated this in the Commerce Committee. He thinks they are entitled to whatever they can get because they were the ones willing to put forward this litigation. They were the ones willing to put themselves on the line. They were the ones willing to say, I am going to go out here, and I may not get a dime or I may hit the jackpot. I hit the jackpot. So they are entitled to get that. I understand that. But I can't vote for that. I can't in the Senate say I am going to tax the people so that we can transfer $100,000 per hour in legal fees. I think Grandma Gramm would say $250 an hour is too much, too, but it is a lot closer and a lot better than $100,000 per hour. And this bill sets those legal fees. No matter how you cut it, it puts the money in place to set those legal fees. Without this bill, that money doesn't go. With this bill, that money does go to lawyers. So it is only a question of how much. I just ask my colleagues to look at it. Which is the more appropriate figure, $100,000 an hour or $250 an hour? With that, everything having been said four or five times, I yield back the remainder of my time to the manager of the bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Michigan yielding time to me to speak on this very important amendment. I have been listening to the earlier debate about the ability of U.S. workers to get these jobs versus workers coming in from overseas. I think the critical point that maybe is not being clearly put forward on this is what we are talking about here is being able to keep U.S. businesses in the United States, and, thus, access to these jobs dominantly by-- indeed, in many cases exclusively--by U.S. workers. We are trying to keep the businesses here. Many of these businesses could easily and rapidly move overseas, particularly ones in developing computer software and programming. That is something they could rapidly and easily move overseas. We want those jobs here so our workers have access to them. What we are talking about in the amendment put forward by the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, is a present crunch that we have getting some workers into some of these jobs. This seriously needed legislation will raise the visa cap for professional workers from the present maximum of 65,000 to an additional 30,000 visas for 1998 with a 5-year sunset for additional H-1B visas. A failure to act would be a blow to many American companies, which are striving to obtain these workers at this immediate need and juncture in a very highly competitive marketplace. Without the visa increase, they will be denied the ability to secure workers central to their immediate needs. I agree, we need to offer benefits and help more and make sure that U.S. workers have the greatest access, and they should. What we have is an immediate problem, and we don't want these businesses moving overseas. The legislation seeks to address this problem. There is an immediate, severe, technical worker shortage in America which can only be met by this legislation. It is reported by the INS that by early May the present cap of 65,000 will have already been reached--already reached. This means that American businesses will be entirely foreclosed for over half a year from obtaining some of the highly skilled professional workers that they need under this option for immediate need--immediate work and immediate help--rather than moving these businesses overseas to be able to access those workers. This legislation will help to maintain America's competitive edge in the global marketplace. It will encourage--not hurt--American business growth and, thus, job creation in the United States, which is presently at an extraordinarily high level. It will enable technical businesses to retain the workers required to develop their products in a highly competitive market. It will empower companies to maintain timely production schedules. Companies from throughout the country say that they must have this additional ability to hire needed workers to be able to remain in the United States. This is especially true for high-tech industries across America which specialize in computer-related products. This industry is extremely time sensitive, requiring speedy product development and production. For example, computer software is frequently developed in 6-month cycles. Failing to deliver within these time frames because of technical worker shortages can severely compromise a company's competitive edge. One observer of the current system said: Critical projects will be abandoned or put on hold--at the cost of many more American jobs. This can be disastrous for our industries with short product cycles that are trying to compete against fierce global competitors. Who supports the legislation? Businesses, universities and ethnic organizations, all back this effort, as well as workers concerned that their companies might be forced to move offshore. Speaking of that subject, the New York Times recently wrote this: If U.S. companies are told to put up ``No Vacancy'' signs, they are inevitably going to move more operations overseas, and that will spur more innovation, wealth creation, and jobs over there. By contrast, this legislation helps to encourage companies to stay within American shores and keep jobs here in America, and growth taking place here in America. At this time of economic growth, our Government must be sensitive to respond to needs as they arise in the marketplace. This legislation is a sensible response to a legitimate problem, and represents that American Government is a partner to encouraging, not discouraging, growth, job creation, retention of jobs, and prosperity in America. Mr. President, I yield the floor and commend Senator Abraham for sponsoring this important legislation, needed for American jobs to be able to stay in America. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the time.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as I pointed out, I am a cosponsor of Senator Feinstein's efforts in this regard, the resolution being put forward. I think that is positive and it is a right step to do. I think we need to do that. But I think at this critical juncture we have to act even more decisively than what we are doing with this resolution, and that is why I am proposing this amendment to the resolution that I cosponsor. I think the amendment that Senator Feinstein has put forward is the right thing to do. I think, as well, at this very moment in Islamabad and throughout Pakistan they are considering: How do we respond? What do we do? Should we set off a nuclear weapon ourselves, in this escalating set of events? If you are in Islambad and you are the Prime Minister of this country, or a parliamentarian, or somebody that's an official in this nation, you have to be sitting there saying, What do we do? Is this the time we should show strength in the form of retaliation, in the form of setting off another nuclear weapon, and we get the escalation going on? And there is pressure building in the streets, and the people in the streets say, ``We need to respond, we need to show strength in the form of detonating a nuclear weapon.'' We have to do everything we can today to try to encourage the Pakistanis not to respond in kind. We need to hold out some carrots to them, saying if you will show restraint, if you will show wisdom, if you will show moderation, we can help and we can work with you and here is a way. The Pressler amendment has been in place. It has been partially repealed over time. We can say to them, If you will show restraint, we are going to move towards lifting this; we are going to lift this Pressler amendment. Then they have a different choice to make. They can say, You know, if we don't respond in kind we can get the onus of this off our back that we have tried to have removed for some time. If we do respond in kind, the Glenn amendment automatically hits the Pakistanis as well, and you are going to have a wider range of issues and of sanctions that will be hitting Pakistan. So now there is a carrot and a big stick sitting out there of, How do we respond? And the pressure is building in the streets in Islamabad and throughout Pakistan of, How do we respond? We have to do everything we can, near term, to stop that and provide them some option and some means and some reason not to set off a nuclear weapon. What repealing this outdated, I think, unilateral sanction will do is bring Pakistan on the same playing field as the rest of the world and will offer them a carrot. If Pakistan detonates a nuclear weapon, as India has, it will be subject to the same sanctions as India. And believe me, I will be the first one to urge that the United States move swiftly and decisively to impose the sanctions. It is important that we factor in several considerations as we consider this amendment. The first is that there are multiple laws in place to deal with nuclear proliferators: the Glenn-Symington amendment, the Glenn amendment, and various others. Pakistan will not, and should not, be allowed to get away with nuclear proliferation. There can be no excuse for transgressing international norms or U.S. laws. However, we must also face an important reality. Pakistan, a long- term friend and ally of the United States, is next door to a nation of 960 million people who just tested five nuclear weapons this week. India could not have been more clear that it was sending a message to China and as well to Pakistan and the rest of the world. It is not unnatural, though it is clearly unwise, for Pakistan to consider its options. Pakistan's conventional military abilities have been seriously eroded because of the Pressler sanctions. I believe that were Pakistan able to be more reliant on a conventional deterrent the nuclear option might seem less attractive. In addition, were Pakistan aware of the immense international support behind a policy of restraint, so, too, might they feel less threatened and feel like there is something in this for them if they show a bit of moderation and a bit of restraint. We are at a crucial moment. Failure to take decisive action at this juncture could mean disaster in south Asia. I think time is absolutely of the essence or I would not have brought it out on this today. Decisions are being made now in Islamabad of what reaction they will take to the Indian's action, what they have done this week in detonating five nuclear weapons. Those decisions are being made now. I wish we could put this debate off for a month or 2 or 5 months, or a year, but it is now that it counts. It is now that decisions are being made. I hate to rush people towards these sorts of actions, but if we fail to act now, with all the potential we have to urge restraint in Pakistan, I am fearful we will have acted too late and the graphite rods will have been pulled out and the chain reaction continues and we have not done everything we possibly can. This is something we can possibly do. I wish it were in another place on another vehicle. There is no other place or time to be able to do this. I think the base amendment is a good one to pass. I think this one sends the absolute positive signal to Pakistan, please, please show restraint. That is why I ask consideration of my amendment to the amendment. At the appropriate time, if necessary, I will be asking for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I wish to address this body on this very important issue. Before I get started, I ask unanimous consent that Terry Williams of my staff be allowed in the Chamber.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the Feinstein amendment. Senator Feinstein and I spoke yesterday about this issue and the need to speak and to act quickly by the United States in a statement of condemnation towards India, of support towards Pakistan, to encourage the Pakistanis to stand strong as a nation and not to ignite and set forth a nuclear weapon and escalate this chain reaction. We put forward this resolution of which I am a cosponsor. I believe it is the right and appropriate step for us. She has offered it, and she has been a peacemaker and a peacekeeper for these countries, had their representatives in her home to try to get the Ambassadors of these two nations to speak together and to not further proliferate but, rather, to seek peace. And all of that to no avail as far as the action that the Indian Government has taken this week. We had, yesterday, a hearing in my subcommittee that Senator Feinstein attended where we heard of the great problems we are facing on this entire subcontinent. Indeed, this is probably the most difficult area of the world today and the most problematic, and the most probable flash point that the world is facing today with the use of nuclear weapons. With the Indians taking this action, five being set off, and then the response in India, not being one of ``My goodness, what have we unleashed, these first devices being set off since 1974 by a nonnuclear-weapons state; my gosh, what have we released?'' the reaction in the street has been jubilation, which is greater cause for concern, for concern of what is going to happen in Pakistan, which is most likely the next place for there to be a response, whether they would step forward and set off a nuclear weapon themselves, and where do we escalate from there? These two nations have gone to war three times in the last half century. This, to me, is a grave situation we are facing today. The world was duly horrified this week when the Government of India detonated these three nuclear devices. I think India has behaved irresponsibly and has relegated itself to the category of an outcast. It is a terrible shame for a great nation. Rather than a celebration in the streets, the people of India should be demonstrating against their government for plunging their nation into this international crisis. That is why I support this resolution. South Asia is facing a moment of truth. India has already acted. We know Pakistan is poised to retaliate. I believe we have to have a chance--and I want to note this, just a chance--to stop Pakistan, or encourage Pakistan from taking a foolish and dangerous step. We must, as President Clinton has recognized, do all we can to persuade the Government of Pakistan to show restraint, moderation, and intelligence. Deputy Secretary of State Talbott, Assistant Secretary Inderfurth and General Zinni are in Pakistan right now. I support their efforts and wish them every success in their discussions with Prime Minister Sharif. But I think we, too, must act in the U.S. Senate. With this resolution, I think we must demonstrate, also, our support for Prime Minister Sharif in the face of incredible pressure that he is going to have from his country to respond to India's nuclear tests. That is why I believe the Senate should do this, and I also think the Senate should go further. I think we need to take further and even more aggressive and bold action to try to encourage the Pakistanis: Don't respond in kind. With that, I think we need to act today to repeal the Pressler amendment as an action we can take, as an overt carrot to hold out to the Pakistanis, saying, ``We believe in your cause. Please, show restraint. Don't go on forward. Don't ignite a nuclear weapon. Don't continue this chain reaction. And if you don't, we are prepared to move forward with removing something that has been a thorn in your side for some time, the Pressler amendment itself.'' This is not about rewarding Pakistan or punishing India. This is a signal to Pakistan at a crucial moment. Repealing the Pressler amendment will have little impact on the ground. Pakistan is already subject to Glenn-Symington sanctions dating back more than a decade. Those sanctions already preclude providing Pakistan any assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act. So, in this regard I would like to send an amendment to the desk regarding the Pressler amendment and ask for its immediate consideration. This will be in the form of an amendment to the amendment. Amendment No. 2407 to Amendment No. 2405 (Purpose: To repeal a restriction on the provision of certain assistance and other transfers to Pakistan)

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

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I had been asked previously by the Senator from Iowa that he be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment I put forward. I ask unanimous consent that while we are waiting that he be added as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to be heard.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, particularly in light of the 1996 Farm Bill, it is important that the federal government focus its attention on the factors that will increase U.S. agriculture's competitiveness in a deregulated farm economy. This includes improving efficiency in the transportation system, keeping international markets active and growing, advancing research, and facilitating use of market oriented risk management tools. Yesterday the Senate approved the Conference Report to S. 1150, which provides for two of those critical factors. First of all, it provides important funding for agriculture research programs. Though I am critical of government funding of applied research that would otherwise be financed by those who will directly benefit in the private sector, I view basic research as a responsibility of the federal government. It is through research--largely conducted by the land grant universities supported by the federal government--that we experienced the ``green revolution'' whereby the world learned to produce more food using fewer resources. Through research we have developed technologies that have increased farm efficiency exponentially, transformed food processing, and enhanced human nutrition. Given the structure of the agriculture industry, these advances never would have occurred if it had been up to individual farmers or individual companies to conduct the necessary research. Furthermore, the intensive use of farmland here in the U.S. means that sensitive ecosystems around the world--which would have to be converted to farmland were it not for the productive capacity of the Midwest--can be spared. Continuing to search for ways to increase the productive capacity of America's farmers will help ensure that these ecosystems are not destroyed in order to provide for the food needs of the world's growing population. So the advances achieved through research have not only improved our own economic position, they have also benefitted the environment worldwide. The bill also provides a stable funding mechanism for crop insurance, which has been subject to annual debates in recent years. This has been problematic for farmers and insurance agents, who need to be able to plan ahead. With the more liberalized market conditions that the new Freedom to Farm Act provides, risk management is more important than ever for farmers. And, for many, crop insurance is the most viable option for managing risk. In fact, lenders often require that producers obtain crop insurance in order to qualify for operating loans. All of the spending that is directed toward these programs is offset by savings from food stamp administration accounts and the limitation of Commodity Credit Corporation funding for computers. So, the increased spending in this bill does not jeopardize the balanced budget agreement enacted last year. It goes without saying that this bill is critical for a farm state like Kansas. However, the benefits of agricultural research and a reliable mechanism to manage risk extend well beyond the state lines of farm states--this country's production affords our consumers in rural communities and cities alike the cheapest, safest, and most abundant food supply on earth. It is imperative that Congress continue the investment that makes this competitive advantage possible. I am glad that the Senate finally approved the Conference Report, and hope that the House will act soon to secure these benefits for rural America.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask to speak up to 3 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Senator Harkin from Iowa recently spoke on the floor about the terrible occurrence recently happening in India, the explosion of three nuclear devices, which has been roundly condemned around the world. It is very destabilizing in the Indian subcontinent and is going to trigger a set of automatic sanctions. In the Foreign Relations Committee, at 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon, we will be holding a hearing about the actions taken by the Indian Government, its consequences on the U.S.-Indian relationship, and its consequences throughout that subcontinent. I certainly invite all the Members of the U.S. Senate and others interested to watch these hearings and to follow those, because this is a significant event that has occurred. It has significant ramifications on U.S.-India relationships and is an action that is happening in one of the most volatile regions of the world. I think we all advise and advocate strongly, for our allies and other friends of ours in the neighborhood, for there to be a calm, stable response to this and that there not be further testing to take place. We will explore these issues in the Foreign Relations Committee tomorrow at 2 o'clock. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to note my support for the resolution of my colleague from California. I think this is an important, quick statement for us to be making to the Government of India and to the nations in the region, both Pakistan and China in particular. The nuclear test that took place yesterday will have a tremendously destabilizing impact in the region. It was a bad move on the part of the Government of India. I think this is something the U.S. Senate needs to speak out on clearly and quickly, to state our displeasure, and that this will have consequences to it. I urge the administration to put forward the sanctions that are called for in the Glenn amendment. I don't think we can stand by and tolerate the sort of actions that have taken place. I urge my colleagues to look at this resolution, to sign on. Hopefully, we can pass this in an expedited fashion.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I rise to recognize an outstanding high school student from Wichita, KS. Shannel Quarles won the Kansas Youth of the Year award for 1998-1999. Along with this award, Shannel will receive a four-year scholarship to the college of her choice, sponsored by Oprah Winfrey's Angel Network. Mr. President, I am proud to recognize the outstanding accomplishment of this high school sophomore. She is an exemplary role model for young people in our nation. I congratulate Shannel and her family and wish her continued success.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 7, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in SR-328A. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine U.S. Agricultural Trade Policies in preparation for the World Trade Organization talks.