Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, many of the lessons that we have learned regarding agricultural trade strategy, to change the subject to one that we have been not necessary been talking recently, have taken a lot of time for us to learn. I used to work in this field, the trade field. I worked for the Secretary of Agriculture, and I have been around some of these negotiations. It took the United States forty years of multilateral negotiations, but in the Uruguay Round, we finally got it right: in order to achieve meaningful agricultural market liberalization, we must link progress in agricultural liberalization to progress in other sectors critical to our trading partners. Throughout the world, agriculture is one of the most highly protected industries. It is also represents one of the strongest comparative advantages that the United States enjoys. Additionally, the U.S. agriculture industry is a critical building block of this economy, employing 22.7 million people. That is about 17 percent of the total domestic labor force. Agriculture also contributed $997.7 billion dollars to our economy in 1996. In other words, 13.1 percent of our country's GDP is agriculture-based. Furthermore, a large portion of what we produce in the U.S.--roughly 40 percent--is consumed overseas. Because agriculture is so critical to the U.S. economy and so reliant on exports, I find it exceedingly troubling, along with Senator Grassley, to hear the recent news reports that the office of the United States Trade Representative plans to pursue a trans-Atlantic trade pact that would not address agricultural issues. The barriers to U.S. agricultural exports represent some of the most significant market access problems that the United States currently faces in Europe. Furthermore, the U.S. is currently engaged in a number of outstanding trade disputes with the EU regarding agricultural matters, and these are among the most intractable issues between our two continents. It is incomprehensible to me that the U.S. would consider entering negotiations that would overlook these crucial issues. Today I am joining with Senator Grassley in submitting a Senate Concurrent Resolution, which expresses the sense of the Congress that the EU is unfairly restricting the importation of United States agriculture products and that the elimination of such restrictions should be a top priority in trade negotiations with the European Union. Mr. President, quite simply, it would be foolhardy for the United States to proceed with negotiations that avoid some of the issues that it has been seeking most desperately to advance. Without the leverage that is gained by simultaneously negotiating access in areas where the U.S. seeks greater access with the areas in which the EU would like greater access, the U.S. is positioning itself to hand over the keys to the bank. While leaving out the touchy issues in agriculture may allow the U.S. to quickly conclude an agreement, it is a strategy that would undermine the long-run economic interests of this country. I hope my colleagues will join with me in sending a message to this Administration that the agriculture industry is not willing to be sold out for the sake of an chance to culminate a quick trade deal. We will not support any new trade negotiations unless agriculture issues are advanced on the same time frame as issues involving other sectors of the economy.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this bill designating Washington National airport as the ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.'' Mr. President, I am honored to participate in renaming this airport after such a distinguished American. Ronald Reagan presided over an era of tumultuous change and great challenge. His policies helped reverse stagflation and high interest rates, and unleashed the longest economic recovery in recent history. His courage extended freedom around the world. Ronald Reagan knew that weakness is provocative. He not only restored America's military strength, but challenged the tyrants who would shed American blood and deny freedom to others. He confronted terrorists boldly and decisively--with or without the assistance of other nations. He defied conventional wisdom to challenge Mr. Gorbachev to ``tear down [this] wall.'' And the wall fell. He demonstrated that America would stand strong--even when she stood alone. But perhaps most importantly, Ronald Reagan helped restore faith in the American dream. When Reagan took office, America, is was said, was suffering from ``malaise.'' Reagan reaffirmed the vision of a ``shining city on a hill.'' He spoke to the hopes and dreams of ordinary citizens for opportunity, achievement, and growth. He helped dispel the public cynicism that had darkened politics for years, and celebrating the dawning of ``morning in America.'' President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said that ``the presidency is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership.'' It was in this area that Reagan's leadership was the most significant. Reagan was always more simple than subtle. The American people knew where he stood, and what he stood for. In times of economic or international crisis, Americans knew that Reagan's word was true, and that his resolve would not waver. It is for these reasons that I offer my support for S. 1575, to honor a man who honored America.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I appreciate the recognition and the statement of the Senator from Wyoming, with which I associate myself. I rise to make a few remarks on the President's $1.7 trillion budget proposal. Most people can't even recognize exactly what $1.7 trillion is, as a size, a quantity of money. I believe one of the biggest challenges facing this second session of the 105th Congress is to maintain the fiscal discipline that we exercised during consideration of the historic bipartisan budget agreement. Unfortunately, after reviewing the budget it appears that the administration wants to walk away from that challenge, and that is truly regrettable for Americans today, for Americans born in the future, and certainly for the baby boomers soon to be retiring--in less than 15 years. In this budget the President pretends to be fiscally responsible while at the same time calling for massive new spending programs, new programs in many areas that he says were directed towards helping families. But if the President really wants to help families, why doesn't he propose ending the marriage penalty that penalizes people for being married? Why doesn't he ask for marginal tax rate reduction? But, instead, it's just proposing more of the same tax-and-spend policies that have given us the era of big Government, which was supposedly over. It appears as if the era of big Government is back with a vengeance. In contrast to the President, I believe that we must hold the line on the size of the Government and reject attempts by this administration to bolster spending in violation of our bipartisan budget agreement. Remember, this bipartisan budget agreement was not just the product of last year. It was something we have been struggling for 3 years, to get an agreement on the budget. For 3 years we have been fighting about how can we restrain Federal spending, get it in line with receipts so we could get to a balanced budget agreement. We have been struggling for 3 years on that, yet now, less than 7 months after the agreement, the President is walking away. This is in gross violation of this agreement. We cannot let the administration mortgage away our children's future in order to help satisfy this insatiable appetite for big Government spending. We must be able to deal with these problems within the framework that we have already agreed to. I just want to point out a few things, and I know some people have already done this but in case we get carried with away with the idea that now we have these surpluses and everything is rosy, we can spend to our heart's content, I don't know how many people realize, I hope most do, that once we get to a balanced budget it has nothing to do with the mortgage we already have on the country, which is $5.4 trillion, over $20,000 per American. It has nothing to do with the unfunded obligations that we are on the hook for when the baby boomers and others start retiring, that extend to about $14 trillion in addition to the $5.4 trillion. Here we are talking about being responsible for Medicare payments for when the baby boomers start retiring. We are talking about other entitlement programs that people have paid into, that there is an obligation by the Government, but we do not have funds set aside to take care of these obligations. So you are looking at taxing future generations more and more and more to be able to meet those obligations at a time when, if we would exercise a minimum amount of fiscal discipline, just do the budget agreement we have already agreed to, we can start to deal with some of these unfunded obligations. In case people think this is a long way off in the future, the baby boomers start retiring in less than 15 years, and they are going to be, instead of pulling the wagon, in the wagon saying, ``You obligated yourself, I paid into these funds, now I am calling on these.'' The percentage of the Federal Government, as a percentage of the overall economy, is at historically high levels, nearly 20 percent of the economy. If the President wants all these new spending programs, why doesn't he propose equal cuts to other Government programs? Does anybody in this body allege that we don't have significant amounts of Government waste in spending? Let's cut those programs if he wants the new spending programs, rather than adding more and more taxes and fees and burdens on the American public. That would be the way to deal with this, is to try to get at some of the wasteful spending programs that we already have. I look forward to working with the administration on this budget, but we cannot break this hard-fought bipartisan budget agreement on the altar of just more and more taxing and spending that keeps driving up the cost of Government, keeps taking more and more from taxpayers, keeps making it harder and harder for the average family to make a living and to be able to support their own children like they would like to do. So I have great disappointment with what the administration has put forward in growing and in getting back to the era of bigger Government. I am afraid we are just going to have to push to maintain what our agreement was this past year. I think it is regretful that we are at that point. Madam President, it seems as if we are. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of Senate Resolution 172, which commemorates the 50th Anniversary of independence of Sri Lanka. I believe it is appropriate that we so mark this occasion by offering our congratulations to her excellency, President Kumaratunga and the people of Sri Lanka. In the first five decades since Sri Lanka gained its independence from British colonial rule, Sri Lanka has held regular national elections as well as provincial and local government elections. The most recent parliamentary elections were held in August 1994, and the third presidential election was held in November 1994. Sri Lanka has prospered economically since 1977, when it introduced economic liberalization policies which shifted the economy away from state controls, subsidies and public sector involvement to a market- oriented system in which private entrepreneurship flourishes. The U.S. is Sri Lanka's largest trading partner, accounting for 30% of the latter's exports, and over 90 U.S. companies have invested in Sri Lanka, with a heavy concentration in mining and textiles. U.S. official relations with Sri Lanka date back to 1850 when John Black, an American merchant residing in Colombo was appointed the first American commercial agent in GALLE. Fifty years later the agency moved to Colombo and became a consulate. It subsequently became an embassy in 1948 after Sri Lanka became independent. The exchange of bilateral visits has played an important role in strengthening the cordial relations between our two nations. Then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles visited Sri Lanka soon after its independence, and since that time members of this body as well as our colleagues in the House have regularly visited this lovely country. Despite its prosperity and commitment to democratic principles, Sri Lanka has been plagued for many years by two domestic insurgencies, one mainly Tamil in the North, and the other mainly Sinhalese, in the South. The result has been the loss of many lives and heavy damage to property. The government has reiterated its commitment to addressing grievances articulated by these groups through dialog and the process of negotiation. Four rounds of unconditional talks with the Tamil Tiger separatists were held following the President's election in November 1994, and a cease fire was subsequently reached. This however, was breached by the separatists after 3\1/2\ months when they resumed their terrorist activity. As a result of these terrorist actions at home, Sri Lanka has placed counter terrorism at the forefront of its foreign policy. Sri Lanka was the Vice Chair of the United Nations Ad hoc Committee on Terrorism and played an important role in the drafting of the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing, being the first to sign the Convention at United Nations Headquarters on January 12, 1998. I am therefore, Mr. President, pleased to introduce this Senate Resolution. I want to commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Helms and the ranking member, Mr. Biden for their support. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yea'' on this Senate Resolution.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, last Friday, January 23rd, was the birthday of President Eduard Shevardnadze. This is a man whose active and courageous involvement helped bring the cold war to a peaceful end and who is now rebuilding Georgia from a ruinous civil war. He has taken a courageous position, even in the face of assassination attempts, to bring about and maintain the independence of freedom of his native country, Georgia. Mr. Shevardnadze is working hard to bring about difficult economic reform and to build an independent legislative branch. He has introduced some remarkable changes in Georgia: he introduced a new currency, adopted and implemented a new constitution, removed mafia leaders from powerful positions, secured the transportation of Caspian oil through Georgia and has worked hard at establishing regional cooperation with other leaders in the Caucasus and Central Asia. His dedication to furthering independence, economic prosperity and harmony in the region places him as a historic world figure. Mr. Shevardnadze's achievements should be noted and recognized on the occasion of his 70th birthday. I ask that my letter to President Shevardnadze be printed in the Record. The letter follows: Washington, DC, January 23, 1998. His Excellency President Shevardnadze, President of Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia. Dear President Shevardnadze, I am writing to congratulate you on the occasion of your 70th birthday and to take this opportunity to acknowledge your courageous work in building a free and independent Georgia. Your initiatives in promoting and advancing the economic and political freedom of your country are well noted by your friends and admirers throughout the world and place you as a historic world figure. Please count me as one of those who acknowledges your great contributions to the creation of a better world. As Georgia continues to develop and improve, let us hope that our nations will share the fruits of our labors through peace and security for all the newly independent states. The challenges to this are real, but with men of vision such as yourself, it is my belief that this can be accomplished. I hope our paths will cross on the ``Silk Road'' before your next birthday and I can extend to you personally my best wishes and regards. Again my sincere congratulations on your birthday, please accept my heartfelt wishes for your continued vigor and commitment to your native land which now has the honor and privilege of your full attention. May this year be your most fulfilling and productive yet. Sincerely, Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that S. Con. Res. 71, submitted earlier by Senators Lott and Daschle be placed on the calendar.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, tomorrow morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12 noon. At 12 noon, it is hoped that the Senate will be able to proceed to the consideration of either the Ronald Reagan airport legislation or a resolution regarding Iraq. Rollcall votes are therefore expected during Thursday's session of the Senate. As always, the Senate may also consider any other legislative or executive items cleared for action.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Thursday, January 29. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate immediately begin a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 12 noon with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Coats for 5 minutes, Senator Hutchison for 30 minutes, Senator Hagel for 20 minutes, Senator Byrd for 45 minutes, and Senator Gramm for 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on January 28, 1998, by the President of the United States: Extradition Treaty with Zimbabwe, Treaty Document No. 105-33; Treaty with Latvia on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, Treaty Document No. 105-34. I further ask that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time; that they be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, yesterday Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Kerrey joined me in introducing the Federal Statistical System Act of 1997. This legislation will also be introduced in the House by Representatives Horn and Maloney. This commonsense piece of legislation will improve the quality of an important function of the Federal Government while reducing its cost. The current Federal statistical system is in disarray. There are more than 70 Federal agencies responsible for gathering and analyzing statistics. Many of these agencies expend resources attempting to gather the same information from the same sources. This duplication is unnecessarily burdensome on both taxpayers and respondents. Although a small group of people in the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] is nominally responsible for coordinating Federal efforts, no one in the Federal Government is held accountable for maintaining the quality of the Government statistics or overseeing the modernization of the statistical system. The Federal Government spends $2.6 billion each year to finance this thicket of Federal statistical programs. Yet, in spite of the resources we dedicate to gathering and analyzing statistics, Americans have lost confidence in the quality of Government data. For example, over the past several years, a debate has raged over the accuracy of the Consumer Price Index. According to the General Accounting Office, the 1990 census was inaccurate and the 2000 census is a high-risk project that may produce unsatisfactory data again. And, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the Department of Treasury is unable to account for the source of billions of tax receipts this year. Mr. President, the Federal Statistical System Act of 1997 is a necessary first step to consolidate the Federal statistical system and improve the quality of Government data. This legislation would establish a Federal Commission on Statistical Policy to recommend how the Federal statistical system should be reorganized and streamlined, and to draft legislation to consolidate the three largest Federal statistical agencies--the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis--into a single Federal Statistical Service. After the Federal Statistical Service legislation is enacted, the commission shall then study and develop recommendations on which other Federal statistical organizations should be consolidated, eliminated or reorganized. The commission shall also make recommendations on issues regarding privacy of information collected by the Federal government, the use of statistical data in Federal funding formulas, and standards of accuracy of Federal data. Finally, Federal Statistical System Act of 1997 will allow the Federal Government to reduce further the cost and improve the accuracy of statistical programs while reducing the reporting burden on respondents. This will be achieved by certain agencies to share nonidentifiable statistical information, exclusively for statistical purposes. This provision will also ensure that existing avenues and limitations for public access to Government information under the Privacy Act of Freedom of Information Act are retained without change. Mr. President, we cannot improve the effectiveness and reduce the cost of Government programs unless we have a firm grasp on the measures we use to implement and judge them. We cannot make an accurate assessment of our economic progress unless our relevant activity in today's economy is measured. Finally, we cannot make informed assessments on the state of our urban or rural areas and communities unless we have accurate and meaningful economic and social indicators. I believe Federal Statistical System Act of 1997 is an important first step in streamlining Government and improving the quality of Government information, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to submit for the record an address delivered by my colleague, Senator Abraham from Michigan, to Legatus, a group of Catholic business leaders concerned to bring their faith into their economic and public lives. We live in an era, Mr. President, in which religious Americans are faced with a number of obstacles as they seek to live their faith in our public square. I believe that Senator Abraham well states the dilemma faced by people of faith and I hope our citizens, and Members of this body in particular, will heed his call for greater understanding and accommodation for religious principles and beliefs. As we face a continuing breakdown of our families and communities, I believe it is essential that we return to the fundamental institutions, beliefs and practices on which our society was founded. And to do that we must recognize the central role religion has and must continue to play in shaping our character and our community. The address follows:

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to highlight an article from the October 2 issue of the Wall Street Journal written by Tucker Carlson. It is important to recognize the valuable contributions that immigrants make to this country. Groups that refuse to recognize that legal immigration makes a positive contribution to the productivity and vitality of our country ignore the history of our Nation and exploit irrational fears. Mr. Carlson has done an exemplary job of exploring the initiatives and history of such anti-immigration organizations. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I, again, thank my colleague from Wyoming and others for allowing me this opportunity to introduce this bill. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for yielding a couple minutes. I will be very brief about this and pointed. (The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S. 1334 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am introducing the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1977. This is an overarching policy between the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia, which includes the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Those are not common names to most Americans, but the area of the world that they are around, the Caspian Sea, I think, is going to become far more common knowledge to many Americans, as there is 4 trillion dollars worth of known oil and gas in the region. The region is reaching out to us. They are seeking to put off the Russian imperialism that has been in the region for years and seeking to get away from Iranian influence in the area. Thus, we are putting forward this Silk Road strategy as an active and positive role in reviving the economies of this region of the world and to building them as major forces. I think the United States has a vital political, social and economic interest in the region, and we need to act now rather than later. I don't think our window of opportunity in working with these countries as they seek freedom and yearn to be free and build opportunity for their people is long. Probably within the next 3 years, they are going to be making courses and decisions that will decide the long-term fate of the people of this region. They seek to be united with the United States. I ask, overall, that my colleagues look at this potential opportunity, at this bill and support the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1997. It is a key interest area for us and our future. This bill is aimed at focusing the attention of U.S. policy on the need to play an active and positive role in reviving the economies of these parts of the ancient Silk Road which was once the economic lifeline of Central Asia and the South Caucasus and the main transportation corridor to Europe and the West. The United States has vital political, social, and economic interests there and they need to be acted on now, before it is too late. These countries are at an historic crossroad: They are independent for the first time in almost a century, located at the juncture of many of today's major world forces and they are all rich in natural resources. They are emerging from almost a century of plunder by a Communist regime which, while it actively drained their resources, put little back. They now find themselves free to govern themselves, and they are looking west. The very fact that they have little experience of independence and that their economies are essentially starting from scratch, leaves them in a precarious situation, which is all the more precarious because of their geographic location: consider this: They are placed between the Empire from which they recently declared independence and an extremist Islamic regime to the south--both of which have a strong interest in exerting economic and political pressure upon them. These countries are very important to us: They are a major force in containing the spread northward of anti- western Iranian extremism. Though Iranian activity in the region has been less blatant than elsewhere in the world, they are working very hard to bring the region into their sphere of influence and economic control. The Caspian Sea basin contains proven oil and gas reserves which, potentially, could rank third in the world after the Middle East and Russia and exceed $4 trillion in value. Investment in this region could ultimately reduce United States dependence on oil imports from the volatile Persian Gulf and could provide regional supplies as an alternative to Iranian sources. Strong market economies near Russia and China can only help to positively influence these two countries on their rocky path toward freedom. Finally, this region offers us a historic opportunity to spread freedom and democratic ideals. After years of fighting communism in this region, the doors are open to promote institutions of democratic government and to create the conditions for the growth of pluralistic societies, including religious tolerance. The single best way to consolidate our goals in the region is to promote regional cooperation and policies which will strengthen the sovereignty of each nation. Each of these countries has its own individual needs; however, many of the problems in the region overlap and are shared, and a number of common solutions and approaches can apply. This bill encourages this goal. All of the Silk Road countries are currently seeking U.S. investment and encouragement, and they are looking to us to assist them in working out regional political, economic and strategic cooperation. This bill authorizes assistance in all these areas. Given the correct infrastructure development, this region is and will continue to become, a key transit point that will ultimately link Central Asia with the West--as it did in the time when caravans traveled along these same routes in the Middle Ages. Opportunities to assist this infrastructure development abound-- taking advantage of these opportunities could not only cement political ties, but commercial and economic ones as well. The United States should do everything possible to promote this sovereignty and independence, as well as encourage solid diplomatic and economic cooperation between these nations. In order to do this we need to take a number of positive steps: We should be strong and active in helping to resolve local conflicts; we should be providing economic assistance to provide positive incentives for international private investments and increased trade; we should be assisting in the development of infrastructure necessary for communities, transportation, and energy and trade on an East-West axis; we should be providing security assistance to help fight the scourge of narcotics trafficking, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the spread or organized crime; and--perhaps the most important of all-- we should be supplying all the assistance possible to strengthen democracy, tolerance and the development of civil society. These are the best ways to insure these countries remain independent and strong and that they move toward open and free government. Mr. President, the time to focus and act in this region is now. We have the opportunity to help these countries rebuild from the ground up and to encourage them to continue their strong independent stances, especially in relation to Iran and the spread of extremist, anti- Western fundamentalism, which is one of the most clear and present dangers facing the United States today. I hope my colleagues will join me and support his bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am introducing the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1977. This is an overarching policy between the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia, which includes the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Those are not common names to most Americans, but the area of the world that they are around, the Caspian Sea, I think, is going to become far more common knowledge to many Americans, as there is 4 trillion dollars worth of known oil and gas in the region. The region is reaching out to us. They are seeking to put off the Russian imperialism that has been in the region for years and seeking to get away from Iranian influence in the area. Thus, we are putting forward this Silk Road strategy as an active and positive role in reviving the economies of this region of the world and to building them as major forces. I think the United States has a vital political, social and economic interest in the region, and we need to act now rather than later. I don't think our window of opportunity in working with these countries as they seek freedom and yearn to be free and build opportunity for their people is long. Probably within the next 3 years, they are going to be making courses and decisions that will decide the long-term fate of the people of this region. They seek to be united with the United States. I ask, overall, that my colleagues look at this potential opportunity, at this bill and support the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1997. It is a key interest area for us and our future. This bill is aimed at focusing the attention of U.S. policy on the need to play an active and positive role in reviving the economies of these parts of the ancient Silk Road which was once the economic lifeline of Central Asia and the South Caucasus and the main transportation corridor to Europe and the West. The United States has vital political, social, and economic interests there and they need to be acted on now, before it is too late. These countries are at an historic crossroad: They are independent for the first time in almost a century, located at the juncture of many of today's major world forces and they are all rich in natural resources. They are emerging from almost a century of plunder by a Communist regime which, while it actively drained their resources, put little back. They now find themselves free to govern themselves, and they are looking west. The very fact that they have little experience of independence and that their economies are essentially starting from scratch, leaves them in a precarious situation, which is all the more precarious because of their geographic location: consider this: They are placed between the Empire from which they recently declared independence and an extremist Islamic regime to the south--both of which have a strong interest in exerting economic and political pressure upon them. These countries are very important to us: They are a major force in containing the spread northward of anti- western Iranian extremism. Though Iranian activity in the region has been less blatant than elsewhere in the world, they are working very hard to bring the region into their sphere of influence and economic control. The Caspian Sea basin contains proven oil and gas reserves which, potentially, could rank third in the world after the Middle East and Russia and exceed $4 trillion in value. Investment in this region could ultimately reduce United States dependence on oil imports from the volatile Persian Gulf and could provide regional supplies as an alternative to Iranian sources. Strong market economies near Russia and China can only help to positively influence these two countries on their rocky path toward freedom. Finally, this region offers us a historic opportunity to spread freedom and democratic ideals. After years of fighting communism in this region, the doors are open to promote institutions of democratic government and to create the conditions for the growth of pluralistic societies, including religious tolerance. The single best way to consolidate our goals in the region is to promote regional cooperation and policies which will strengthen the sovereignty of each nation. Each of these countries has its own individual needs; however, many of the problems in the region overlap and are shared, and a number of common solutions and approaches can apply. This bill encourages this goal. All of the Silk Road countries are currently seeking U.S. investment and encouragement, and they are looking to us to assist them in working out regional political, economic and strategic cooperation. This bill authorizes assistance in all these areas. Given the correct infrastructure development, this region is and will continue to become, a key transit point that will ultimately link Central Asia with the West--as it did in the time when caravans traveled along these same routes in the Middle Ages. Opportunities to assist this infrastructure development abound-- taking advantage of these opportunities could not only cement political ties, but commercial and economic ones as well. The United States should do everything possible to promote this sovereignty and independence, as well as encourage solid diplomatic and economic cooperation between these nations. In order to do this we need to take a number of positive steps: We should be strong and active in helping to resolve local conflicts; we should be providing economic assistance to provide positive incentives for international private investments and increased trade; we should be assisting in the development of infrastructure necessary for communities, transportation, and energy and trade on an East-West axis; we should be providing security assistance to help fight the scourge of narcotics trafficking, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the spread or organized crime; and--perhaps the most important of all-- we should be supplying all the assistance possible to strengthen democracy, tolerance and the development of civil society. These are the best ways to insure these countries remain independent and strong and that they move toward open and free government. Mr. President, the time to focus and act in this region is now. We have the opportunity to help these countries rebuild from the ground up and to encourage them to continue their strong independent stances, especially in relation to Iran and the spread of extremist, anti- Western fundamentalism, which is one of the most clear and present dangers facing the United States today. I hope my colleagues will join me and support his bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I take the Senate floor today to mark the anniversary of a noble and courageous effort made on behalf of our Nation by some of the brave residents, of our then very young State of Kansas. Mr. President, 135 years ago today in the year 1862, the first Kansas colored infantry were the first union black troops of the Civil War to engage in combat--October 28th and 29th at Island Mound, or Toothman's Mound, near the town of Butler in Bates County, MO, near my hometown. The intrepid first Kansas colored infantry's contribution at Toothman's Mound helped prompt President Abraham Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation barely 2 months later and inspired hundreds of thousands of other black soldiers to take up arms in the cause of Union and free soil--undoubtedly influencing the outcome of that war and perhaps proving decisive in preserving government of the people, by the people, and for the people in the world as we know it. Let me emphasize, the survival of our experiment in self-government was at stake, and these individuals paid the price to ensure that our Constitution would not perish from the Earth. One of the easy mistakes when reading history is to assume that the outcome of great struggles was inevitable. This is not so. History is contingent, dependent on the choices and actions of real people. Things might have been very different if a few brave people hadn't acted as they did. Without the sacrifice of our Founders we might never have known independence, certainly not in the form we now enjoy--and without the sacrifices of subsequent generations, most especially of people like those who served in the first Kansas colored infantry, our forebearers most precious gift--liberty under law--would be lost. Mr. President the example of service, dedication, and courage set by the first Kansas colored infantry at the very moment of our Nation's greatest need should be always with us as we carry on our work here in the crucible of liberty. Mr. President, those soldiers had reason to doubt America's promise of liberty and justice for all. But when freedom called they answered, and we are forever in their debt. In these often selfish and cynical times, we should pause and thankfully remember the first Kansas colored infantry. The blows they struck for freedom and Union, place us forever in their debt.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the previous consent agreement with respect to the Kennard nomination be modified to include 10 minutes for debate for Senator Torricelli and 30 minutes equally divided between the two managers.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ann Harris and her memory. The Harris family, who I have known for over 20 years, recently suffered the loss of their 17-year-old daughter, Ann. She was the innocent victim of a drive-by shooting. It is a gross understatement to say that that moment changed their lives forever, but it certainly did exactly that. Confronted with such an atrocity, many people would have used the occasion to question the existence of evil in our society and to ask why such a horrible event could have happened to such an innocent person, and to simply ask the question of ``Why? Why? Why? Why has our society become so crime- ridden? Why was such an innocent girl's life taken? Why Ann's life?'' Members have a picture of Ann at their desk. This is Ann's Campaign which they have launched. When their daughter was shot, the Harris family had an occasion to ask just those same questions that I asked, but they did not ask just those questions. They went further and asked the deeper questions. They realized that by turning this extraordinary incident, extraordinarily terrible incident--and also by us changing our ordinary incidents--events in our lives into true occasions of loving and of serving God, our communities, and one another, that we begin to change society, not to mention ourselves, for the better. And more importantly, we change them in a way that mitigates against the evil influences that have come to dominate many aspects of this culture. The Harris family could have used the horrors of this world as an excuse to turn away from God, but, you know, they didn't. Instead, they turned to God and asked quietly, asked humbly, not why--but what? ``What do you want us to do? What can we do to make the world a better place? What can we do to keep the memory of our daughter alive?'' Out of that question came a wonderful foundation dedicated to preserving the memory of the daughter the Harris family lost and to fighting the spread of violent crime in our society. Ann's Campaign for a Safer America--that is what this card is--was established by Jean and Coleman Harris following the brutal death of their daughter. Ann's Campaign for a Safer America seeks to encourage, motivate, educate, and help youth and adults alike to live the life radiated like their daughter did--a life that said every day and in every way: smile more, care more, love more and be more understanding. The Harris family is combating violence by combating the problems that often lead to violence. And I believe Ann's Campaign is a unique opportunity to help contribute to the restoration of our culture by directly combating the influences that denigrate and ultimately compromise our moral worth as a nation. The Harris family has turned a horrible event into an occasion of enriching the community and the country. We too can turn the events of our lives, the extraordinary, the terrible, and the good, along with the ordinary, into occasions of remembering to help others, to serve and to love, and to ask the question: Not why, but what? What? What should I be doing? How should I serve? So I am joined by my colleague, Senator Kempthorne, and several others, in this privilege of highlighting Ann's Campaign that we note here today. I have a tie on as well that has smiling faces of children from around the world. That was the Ann Harris who I knew. I even knew her while her mother was pregnant with her. She had just a delightful smile and was a joy of life that was taken brutally. I applaud what the Harris family has done, taking that incident and turning it into something of: What can we say to our culture? How can we change? Not ``Why?'' But ``What?'' I applaud what they are doing. I ask and hope and encourage my colleagues to look at this as a campaign that they can help in as well as other people from around this Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, last week, a remarkable event took place while Congress was in recess. Two private citizens gave 1,000 low-income children in the District of Columbia a chance. On Monday, October 13, 1997, Ted Forstmann, the newly elected chairman of the Washington Scholarship Fund, and John Walton, director of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., each contributed $3 million for students in the District to receive a quality education. The Washington Scholarship Fund currently provides private school scholarships to 460 low-income District students. With the contributions from Mr. Forstmann and Mr. Walton, the Washington Scholarship Fund will be able to provide these needed scholarships to an additional 1,000 low-income students. Mr. Forstmann made it very clear that this initiative is not a political statement for or against public education in the District. This is simply a commitment to give children a chance to succeed. In describing the prospects of many of the District's children to William Raspberry of the Washington Post, Mr. Forstmann said, ``It's like being born already dead. There are too many children like that, and I just feel we have to do what we can for them.'' In praising this powerful gesture for children, my hope, Mr. President, is that corporate America will follow Mr. Forstmann and Mr. Walton's example. Responsible business investments include investing in human capital and the value-added impact of a quality education. There is no better investment than America's children.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I join with the distinguished Senators from Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in introducing a bill which addresses an injustice that has developed out of current law. Under current law, meat and poultry products that are processed in plants which are inspected by State departments of agriculture are not allowed to be shipped over State lines. This restriction is an unfair restraint on competition which is especially discriminatory toward small processing facilities. State inspection programs are required to maintain standards are ``at least equal to'' federal inspection standards. The U.S. Department of Agriculture periodically recertifies that State programs continue to meet that standard. meeting an ``equal to'' standard is the same requirement that foreign meat processors must meet in order to sell their product within U.S. borders. Not allowing State inspected facilities the freedom to sell their product throughout the country after having met the same standard that allows their foreign competitors to market their product unimpeded is, quite simply, unfair. This arbitrary restriction has been troublesome to me ever since I was Secretary of Agriculture for Kansas. I've seen firsthand that this restriction impedes competition. In fact, I would like to insert in the Record a letter that I received from a professional in the State of Kansas who operates a State inspected plant. My constituent presents a credible case for why her business is limited because of the restriction on interstate shipment. Proprietors of State-inspected plants are not the only advocates of changing the law. USDA's packer concentration panel recommended an immediate repeal of this prohibition as a way to slow packer concentration. The National Association of State Department of Agriculture, which represents the Secretaries and Commissioners of Agriculture which have responsibility for overseeing State programs, strongly endorses the repeal of interstate shipment restrictions. Based on public comment solicited in the Federal Register and public hearings that were held throughout the country, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced its support of lifting the ban on interstate shipment. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue of food safety in relation to my proposal. Food safety is paramount. This measure would not in any way undermine the consumer's access to a reliable and safe product. However, this bill is not about food safety. Rather, this bill addresses an issue of commerce and trade. In other words, food safety is an issue of enforcing the inspection standards that are in place, whether under State or Federal oversight. If State-inspected meat is safe to be distributed in Kansas, it is safe to be shipped to Missouri, or Oklahoma, or wherever else an entrepreneur finds a customer. Conversely, if the food is not safe to be shipped over State lines, it shouldn't be distributed with the State either. And, as both State and federally inspected plants implement the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system, we can be even more assured that plants throughout the country are conforming to a uniformly high set of standards. Now, more than ever, a focus on who does the inspecting has no relevance in determining where the product can be consumed safely. I would like to highlight the paper that the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently released in support of allowing the interstate shipment of State-inspected meat and poultry products. In this paper, the administration states its concept for legislative action and establishes certain recommendations for what that legislation should include. I believe that there is much common ground between the Secretary's guidelines and the bill that my colleagues and I are introducing today. I look forward to working with the USDA, as well as my colleagues here in the Senate, in order to pass and implement this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.