Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. We do not need a recorded vote. I will agree to a voice vote. First, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Coburn as a cosponsor of my amendment.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is an amendment brought up at the very outset of this debate. I understand there has been an agreement that we can move forward with this amendment. So I have worked with the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, and the modifications have been made. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order and call up my amendment No. 3893. I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Florida raising the issue of people whom we hope to get out alive and also appreciate the poetry of my colleague from West Virginia. I, too, am amazed and quite a bit envious that he has so many poems memorized and he can deliver them so well. It is a lost art, more of his generation than mine, but maybe it will come back in the next.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I join my colleagues, particularly my colleague from Texas and my colleague from Missouri, in supporting this bill and in opposition to the Leahy amendment. My colleague from Texas identified a number of the issues that are in the amendment. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. It is a great committee. Senator Leahy does an excellent job leading the committee. But on this particular issue it is my belief, as a Judiciary Committee member, that we should recede to what the Intelligence Committee has put forward on a bipartisan basis and move forward with this bipartisan bill we have rather than going with, essentially, the substitute that the Judiciary Committee came up with, which was put forward on a partisan basis. My colleague from Texas noted we have 9 days until this legislation expires. If we go with the Leahy substitute--as much as I respect Senator Leahy--the President is going to veto this bill and we are going to be in a nonfunctional position for a period of time while we get things put back together. There is no reason to do that. We have a bipartisan bill. The Intelligence Committee bill passed with only two dissenting votes. The Judiciary Committee substitute, in essence, that is being put forward--it has been modified and changed, but, in essence, it is what came forward from the Judiciary Committee--came out on a strictly partisan party-line basis. Why wouldn't we go with the bipartisan bill that passed, I believe, 13 to 2 rather than go with the partisan bill that will be vetoed and then we will just be back here? We are not going to have the votes for a veto override. We would then go without this needed law provision so we can provide for the security of the country, as well as protect the civil liberties and rights of individuals within America. I want to note in particular on this issue of telecommunications companies and the information they provide, I think we need to provide some level of immunity for companies to participate and work with the Federal Government on information that the Federal Government has legitimately requested. In case people think, ``Well, OK, you are just giving a pass to the telecommunications companies,'' I want to read what the requirements are within the Intelligence Committee bill toward the telecommunications companies. The telecommunications carriers face a series of threats and lawsuits presently over their complying with what the Federal Government required. But the Senate Intelligence Committee immunity provisions do not just simply dismiss the cases outright. Instead, the bill sets forth a process for the Attorney General to submit a certification to the court that the telecom carriers either, one, did not provide the Government the alleged assistance in the first place, or, two, provided assistance pursuant to a valid request, directive, or order indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful. The court would then separately review the Attorney General's certification for an abuse of discretion. This multilevel certification and review process will ensure an underlying assessment by the Government and the courts of the genesis of the carriers' role, if any. The immunity provisions would not apply to the Government or Government officials. Cases against the Government regarding the alleged programs would continue. And the provisions would apply only to civil and not criminal cases. All in all, I think the Intelligence Committee bill strikes the right balance between intelligence gathering and protections for civil liberties. My point in bringing this out is that this is not some blanket waiver toward telecommunications companies. It goes through a multilevel court and administrative review procedure that has to pass through both in order for the telecommunications company to be able to get this immunity from liability exposure. It is not just the Attorney General; it is also the court that is involved with this as well. I would hope my colleagues who have concerns about civil liberties would look at that and say: Well, this is going to be reviewed in both places. This should be sufficient to require them--the telecommunications companies--to participate in this program, and to give them the immunity from liability, if they do this according to the law as determined by both the Attorney General and as determined by the court. That seems to me to be a good level and a good balance of our intelligence needs, which are significant, and our civil liberties guarantees and requirements, which are required--that we guarantee civil liberties for the individual and that I want to see protected. But at the same time I want to see our citizens protected as well. And we have to be able to have some access to information of these communications--with intelligence, with terrorist organizations, individuals--that may be taking place. All in all, I think the Intelligence Committee has done an excellent job of striking that balance between providing for our security needs and guaranteeing civil liberties of the individual. It has provided a multilayered process for this immunity to be able to be granted by different entities within the Government. It has done so in a balanced fashion. It has done so in a bipartisan fashion. I don't know why, for the life of me, we would want to go with something on a partisan basis that is not going to get through the process, when we need the bill now and we have a good bill put forward by the Intelligence Committee. So as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I would urge us to support the Intelligence Committee and not support the Leahy substitute. As much respect as I have for the chairman, I do not think that is the way for us to go in bringing this bill forward to closure for the good of the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside and that my amendment, No. 3893, be called up.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I wished to thank my colleague from North Dakota, and I would ask the amendment be referred to as the Brownback-Dorgan amendment, if that would be acceptable to my colleague. We will put it forward that way because he has been lead sponsor of this for the past several Congresses, and I appreciate his hard work. I appreciate his heart and his practicality on the current situation. We do have to get better health care on the reservations and for the Native tribes. I appreciate the effort to get that done, and I think that is an important effort for us and a very practical and necessary thing, so the examples he talks about, and unfortunately so many others, don't continue to happen across this country. The amendment put forward by my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, is also important, his view about codifying a situation regarding abortions with Native Americans. I would hope that would be something we could see passed as something that is a hopeful sign in pushing to the future, rather than a sign of despair and the killing of children, which I think is completely wrong for us to see taking place and for us to be funding it as well. I am delighted this bill is coming up. I think this is an important issue for us to debate, and I am glad to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota, the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, who has been a sponsor of this bill that I put in amendment form and am calling up now as an amendment, as an official apology to Native Americans in the United States for past issues. It is an amendment with a lot of history to it. The bill has been brought up this Congress, the last Congress, and it has passed the Indian Affairs Committee both Congresses. It is an amendment with an issue of a lot of history to it. The chairman and myself are from Plains States where there is a lot of Native American history, as there is throughout the United States. It is a history that is both beautiful, difficult, and sad at the same time. I have four tribal lands in my State, four areas where there are tribal lands, some that are tribal but don't have a resident tribe in the State. This has been an issue that has been around for some time-- the relationship between the Federal Government and the tribes. What we have crafted in this amendment, a previous bill that is now in amendment form, is an official apology. It does not deal with property issues whatsoever, but it recognizes some of the past difficulty in the relationship. It says that for those times the Federal Government was wrong, we acknowledge that and apologize for it. Apologies are difficult and tough to do, but I think this one is meritorious and, as I present my case, I hope my colleagues will agree and support this amendment. I rise today to speak about this issue that I believe is important to the well-being of all who reside in the United States. It is an issue that has lain unresolved for far too long, an issue of the United States Government's relationship with the Native peoples of this land. Native Americans have a vast and proud legacy on this continent. Long before 1776 and the establishment of the United States of America, Native peoples inhabited this land and maintained a powerful physical and spiritual connection to it. In service to the Creator, Native peoples sowed the land, journeyed it, and protected it. The people from my State of Kansas have a similar strong attachment to the land. Like many in my State, I was raised on the land. I grew up farming and caring for the land. I and many in my State established a connection to this land as well. We care for our Nation and the land of our forefathers so greatly that we too are willing to serve and protect it, as faithful stewards of the creation with which God has blessed us. I believe without a doubt citizens across this great Nation share this sentiment and know its unifying power. Americans have stood side by side for centuries to defend this land we love. Both the Founding Fathers of the United States and the indigenous tribes that lived here were attached to this land. Both sought to steward and protect it. There were several instances of collegiality and cooperation between our forbears--for example, in Jamestown, VA, Plymouth, MA, and in aid to explorers Lewis and Clark. Yet, sadly, since the formation of the American Republic, numerous conflicts have ensued between our Government, the Federal Government, and many of these tribes, conflicts in which warriors on all sides fought courageously and which all sides suffered. Even from the earliest days of our Republic there existed a sentiment that honorable dealings and a peaceful coexistence were clearly preferable to bloodshed. Indeed, our predecessors in Congress in 1787 stated in the Northwest Ordinance: The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians. Many treaties were made between the U.S. Government and Native peoples, but treaties are far more than just words on a page. Treaties represent our word, and they represent our bond. Treaties with other governments are not to be regarded lightly. Unfortunately, again, too often the United States did not uphold its responsibilities as stated in its covenants with Native tribes. I have read all of the treaties in my State between the tribes and the Federal Government that apply to Kansas. They generally came in tranches of three. First, there would be a big land grant to the tribe. Then there would be a much smaller one associated with some equipment and livestock, and then a much smaller one after that. Too often, our Government broke its solemn oath to Native Americans. For too long, relations between the United States and Native people of this land have been in disrepair. For too much of our history, Federal tribal relations have been marked by broken treaties, mistreatment, and dishonorable dealings. I believe it is time to work to restore these relationships to good health. While the record of the past cannot be erased, I am confident the United States can acknowledge its past failures, express sincere regrets, and work toward establishing a brighter future for all Americans. It is in this spirit of hope for our land that I am offering Senate Joint Resolution 4, the Native American Apology Resolution, as an amendment to the bill currently before us. This resolution will extend a formal apology from the United States to tribal governments and Native peoples nationwide--something we have never done; something we should have done years and years ago. I want my fellow Senators to note this resolution does not--does not--dismiss the valiance of our American soldiers who fought bravely for their families in wars between the United States and a number of the Indian tribes, nor does this resolution cast all the blame for the various battles on one side or another. Further, this resolution will not resolve the many challenges still facing Native Americans, nor will it authorize, support or settle any claims against the United States. It doesn't have anything to do with any property claims against the United States. That is specifically set aside and not in this bill. What this resolution does do is recognize and honor the importance of Native Americans to this land and to the United States in the past and today and offers an official apology for the poor and painful choices the U.S. Government sometimes made to disregard its solemn word to Native peoples. It recognizes the negative impact of numerous destructive Federal acts and policies on Native Americans and their culture, and it begins--begins--the effort of reconciliation. President Ronald Reagan spoke of the importance of reconciliation many times throughout his Presidency. In a 1984 speech to mark the 40th anniversary of the day when the Allied armies joined in battle to free the European Continent from the grip of the Axis powers, Reagan implored the United States and Europe to ``prepare to reach out in the spirit of reconciliation.'' Martin Luther King, whom we recognized and celebrated yesterday, who was a true reconciler, once said: The end is reconciliation, the end is redemption, the end is the creation of the beloved community. This resolution is not the end, but perhaps it signals the beginning of the end of division and a faint first light and first fruits of the creation of beloved community. This is a resolution of apology and a resolution of reconciliation. It is a step toward healing the wounds that have divided our country for so long--a potential foundation for a new era of positive relations between tribal governments and the Federal Government. It is time--as I have stated, it is way past time--for us to heal our land of division, all divisions, and bring us together. There is perhaps no better place than in the midst of the Senate's consideration of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act reauthorization to do this. With this in mind, I hope my Senate colleagues will support this amendment. I would ask their consideration on it. I would ask for their positive vote for it. I hope a number of my colleagues in the Senate will join me as a cosponsor of the amendment itself so we can show a united front and that it is time for us to heal. I ask they give us that consideration. I simply ask my colleagues to look for this, and I hope they can vote for it as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments this morning to pay tribute to my departing colleague, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi. Senator Lott has been a trusted friend, a hardworking legislator, and a skilled party leader on issue after issue in his 35 years of distinguished service in the House and Senate. He has been a tireless champion of conservative values over the year, but it is a testament to his unfailing courtesy and affability that he has been so popular and effective with his colleagues over the years, without ever surrendering those core values. This Senate will miss his presence and example, and his state and his Nation will miss his principled leadership. I often think about what an incredible country this is where the son of a Kansas farmer and the son of a Mississippi shipyard worker can work together on the great issues of our day in the world's greatest deliberative body. I know that this country is better for the fact that Trent Lott, with all of his talents and abilities, was given that opportunity. Senator Lott was instrumental in the great political realignment that took place in the South throughout the 70s and 80s; in fact he was only the second Republican elected to Congress from Mississippi since Reconstruction. He went on to become one of the most effective political leaders of his day, perhaps one of the most effective leaders this body has every seen. Trent has been amazingly effective, in building coalitions, in working across the aisle, and in leading his party. Those of us on both sides of the aisle who have worked with him over the years know that Trent Lott is a man of his word. In large part, that has accounted for his political effectiveness, both with the voters and with his colleagues. With Senator Lott, there is never any question about where he stands and who he is, and that kind of integrity gains people's respect and admiration. His integrity was never more apparent than when he stayed in the Senate out of a sense of duty to his state to see his people through the terrible natural disaster that was Hurricane Katrina. After three decades serving the people of his State and serving his country in the U.S. Congress, we now say farewell to our valued colleague. He has served his country with resolve, honor, and energy. As he leaves us in order to spend more time with his beloved family, I join my colleagues in thanking Trent and his wife Patricia for their service to their country, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Omnibus appropriations bill that is before us today. Although I am supportive of a number of important items in the bill, I have serious concerns and reservations about how this voluminous package was put together and how it has reached this point. As we are all aware, none of the 11 bills in this package have ever been considered on the floor of this chamber. I believe this is a travesty and entirely contrary to our democratic process. I, for one, believe that next year we must make it a priority to consider all of the appropriations bills in regular order so that all Members can participate in the process. We are appropriating nearly $933 billion through this bill and only a select few Members in both Chambers have participated in the allocation of those dollars. Despite my deep concerns about the process of putting this bill together, I have chosen to support it because it is within the President's budget request, it provides bridge-funding to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it contains a number of other items that I support. I am pleased that the bill contains funds to continue Marriage Development Accounts in the District of Columbia. We began this program in fiscal year 2006 as a way to stem the erosion of marriage in DC. Sadly, marriage is all but disappearing in low-income communities in this city and across the country because couples lose important benefits such as food stamps, low-income housing credits, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and Medicaid merely for taking a wedding vow. In addition, these couples often have to pay higher taxes when they choose to marry. For most low-income couples, the welfare system has made marriage a bad economic decision. MDAs are one way we are making marriage a good economic decision. With an MDA, a low-income couple can save for a house, for higher education, or to start a small business and we will match those funds 3-to-1 with two Federal dollars and one private matching dollar. In just its second year of operation, over 100 DC residents have opened MDAs and 7 have already bought houses with their matched savings. I am also pleased that we were able to include language in this bill requiring the U.S. Mint to return the words ``In God We Trust'' to the face of the $1 Presidential coins and the $1 Sacagawea coins. ``In God We Trust'' is our national motto and since the beginning of our Nation, America's citizens have acknowledged how God is very much a part of the founding principles and traditions of our democracy. I would like to note that in 1861, Secretary of the Treasury Samuel P. Chase ordered that coins bear a motto expressing the American people's trust in God. The first coins with the phrase ``In God We Trust'' were minted in 1864. In 1955, the phrase was required for all new coins, and in 1956 Congress officially endorsed ``In God We Trust'' as the national motto. Therefore, I was troubled to learn that the words ``In God We Trust'' do not appear on the face of the new Presidential coins. These words are barely visible and almost hidden on the edge of the new coins. To rectify this situation, we have included language in this bill that will require the U.S. Mint to return our national motto to the front of the coin. I would like to note that we have provided $80 million for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an increase of $17 million over the fiscal year 2007 level. I believe that this increase is important and necessary because it will allow the CPSC to hire additional inspectors to ensure that toys and other consumer products entering our country are safe. We have all been deeply concerned over the flood of shoddy and dangerous products entering our ports. Most troubling is that many of these products are designed for our smallest and most vulnerable consumers: everything from baby cribs and strollers to children's toys and baby teethers have been recalled just this past year. I believe these additional funds will help CPSC address this growing problem. I am supportive of the $60 million available in this bill to support democracy in Iran. Although I am pleased that this money is in the bill, I would have hoped we could have come up with an additional amount for this important and essential work. I am also concerned about oversight of these funds. In my view, this money is a crucial part of our overall policy on Iran, and I will closely monitor how it is spent. Finally, I would not be able to vote for this bill if it did not contain the necessary funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment that Senator McConnell has offered today contains those important and necessary funds. We are making progress in the war in Iraq and we must continue to provide our brave servicemen and servicewomen all the armor and ammunition and support they need to continue to secure a peace in that region of the world. I reiterate my deep concerns and consternation with how this omnibus bill was put together. To say that this behemoth bill was cobbled together in the dead of night among just a few Members is no exaggeration. Such an approach is undemocratic and dangerous. Although I will vote for the bill, I must insist that we abandon this undemocratic process and return to regular order when we take up next year's appropriations bills.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the good Senator from Iowa and a couple of his comments about the amendment. But first I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record after my statement a letter from the Department of Justice opposing the bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK. It is on the amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If my colleague will yield, my letter is dated today, December 13. It is a subsequent letter to the letter the Senator is quoting from.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the Grassley amendment. I am certainly willing to yield to the Senator from Iowa, if he wants to have his colleague from Wisconsin speak right with him or if he wants to go afterwards.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to speak in opposition to the Grassley amendment. I appreciate the heart of the Senator from Iowa, and his intent. He has been consistent. He has been longstanding and heartfelt on this issue. I have been in the meetings he has called with the head of packing and stockyard compensation about concerns of concentration in the agricultural industry. I have seen him press on this issue. I agree with his heart on this amendment and his effort and his desire. I absolutely disagree with this amendment. I agree with the sentiment, what he is trying to get done. This is not the way. I would like to express to this body what I believe, clearly, will take place in my State were this amendment to pass. The cattle industry is a major industry in my State. We are third in the number of cattle on ranches and feed yards--6.4 million. There are more than twice as many cattle than people in my State. It is big business. It is a feed yard business where a lot of cattle from all over the country come to be fed out and processed. It is a very big business. It is $6.25 billion in cash receipts a year in my State, my rural State. This is a business where there are a lot of contractual engagements and obligations back and forth. A man may have cattle from Alabama, and he puts them on a feed yard near Dodge City, KS. The processing plant is near Dodge City and the feed yard may have a contractual arrangement with the processor, saying: I am going to deliver you a thousand head of cattle a day for every working day. That keeps your processing plant orderly and organized. In exchange for that, I am going to get a higher value of cattle that he then passes on to that Alabama cattleman who owns the cattle there. It is an arrangement that has worked to produce a very highly effective system. Some people do not like the scale of it. In many respects I do not. I would rather it be dispersed to a huge number of family farms across the country the way it used to be, like the farm where I grew up where we had chickens and pigs and cattle. Instead, we have much more integrated operating units. But this would go right at the heart of this industry, as far as changing the burden of proof and changing it on one specific industry. It will not have the intended effect of recreating the family farm system. That is not what is going to be the spill-out of this. What will end up taking place is the Alabama cattleman is going to end up getting less money for his cattle, and the consumer is going to get less of a directed product they want. I want to develop that for the body, to explain why I like the heart of the people proposing this, but this will not produce the results they want. The amendment creates an Agricultural Competition Task Force with the stated purpose to examine problems in agricultural competition. The task force has virtually unlimited authority to investigate transactions and business arrangements in the livestock industry--read special counsel for agriculture. It puts in several millions of dollars in that area. The task force is unaccountable to anyone. It is not required to hold public meetings nor abide by the Administrative Procedure Act nor acquire evidence from all parties. Under this amendment, the livestock industry and entire agricultural industry could be subject to limitless reviews of transactions. I think the biggest piece I have concern about--and I have concerns about this as a lawyer, and as an agricultural lawyer I have concerns about this. This is the area that I taught in. This is the area I have written in. I have written on the Packers and Stockyards Act. It is an important piece of legislation that this Government passed in the 1920s, when we had a very diffuse agriculture with a very monopolistic packing industry. We said this is not fair, so we are creating the Packers and Stockyards Act to oversee this structure. That is what they have been charged with doing. In this particular amendment they would shift the burden of proof in the justice system and say this is a guilty transaction, monopolistic in nature, and then you prove your way out of it. To support that, I want to quote from the Department of Justice letter they wrote on the particular provisions. I understand my colleague from Iowa has changed some of the provisions but not this piece of it. This would change the standards of certain mergers, acquisitions, and actions under the Clayton Act. That is the base bill. In particular, in all agricultural merger cases brought by the Government, Federal and State, and all private cases where the merging parties' combined market share is 20 percent or more--this is the DOJ letter--it puts the burden of proof on the defendant to show the transaction would not substantially impact or lessen competition or tend to create problems in the marketplace. I am paraphrasing monopoly in the marketplace at the end. The current setting is, no, we have to prove that against the individual or the group. To date, the Federal antitrust laws apply unaltered to mergers across virtually all industries, with the overriding objective to protect competition to the benefit of consumers because the Department has not been prevented from challenging anticompetitive mergers. They can challenge, and do now, in agriculture under the current legal standards. Shifting the burden of proof is unnecessary. This is a big deal, to shift the burden of proof on one particular industry, and then also to put in industry-specific guidelines. Let me tell you what is taking place now. I described the situation of an Alabama cattle producer who puts cattle on feed in Kansas, who gets more money for his cattle because they are on feed there and because that feed yard guarantees a certain flow of cattle. If you put this in place, it has lawyers paid for by the Government to go out and examine any contract that is taking place. It can go, pick a feed yard, a Kansas feed yard, and it can go out and say: You have a contractual arrangement with this packer, and we are going to examine that. Now, you pay for lawyers to say this is not a noncompetitive transaction--and they are going to have to hire lawyers to do that. They are going to end up having a big legal bill on a shifted burden, where the guilt is assumed, not innocence is assumed. It is going to be different from any other industry around. You are going to then have people driving down the price of the commodity. And you have a number of groups that are in these innovative market mechanisms. I described one earlier, a group of people at the Knight Feedyard that have certified hormone-free, antibiotic-free beef. It is a group of producers. They formed an association. They go to a big packer and say: Will you process our cattle and deliver it to the shelves in Connecticut and New York as hormone-free, additive-free, antibiotic- free beef? The packer agrees to do so. That is a contractual arrangement that will be subject to investigation, that will be presumed guilty under this. My Kansas producers, under this innovative marketing approach that they initiated, get a substantial benefit by being able to market this sort of product that the consumer wants, and they have to go to a major packer to do it because he is the person--that is the group that can process cattle and get it to the shelf in a good quality state. But my guys are the ones who get the money out of the system. They will be presumed guilty. It will be presumed to violate this. It will be subject to a great deal of legal investigation taking place, and my belief is it will not happen. Then my producers get less money for their cattle, and the consumers do not get the product they want. This is a specialty product that people want. It costs more to produce this type of beef and the consumer is not going to get that product and my cattlemen are going to get less money for their product. I appreciate the heart of the proposal. What it is going to end up doing is getting less money to cattlemen in particular. I can't speak for other agricultural or livestock industries as well as I can for business that is in my State. The National Cattleman's Beef Association is strongly opposed to this amendment. The Department of Justice is opposed to this amendment for reasons of shifting standards for one industry but not for any others; for having different standards for that industry. The cattlemen believe it is going to hurt them substantially, subject them to a number of legal costs that they do not currently have and that they cannot afford to deal with. It is going to hurt the consumer as well. While I appreciate the intent, I appreciate the presentation of it-- my family farms. My brother is a farmer. This is not going to take us in the right direction. I believe the route to go is what we have been doing in the Packers and Stockyards Administration and having industry standards that are similar across all industries, and that we should support the Packers and Stockyards Administration, support the laws that are there, fund those entities--which I support doing--maintaining those standards but allowing these innovative approaches to take place for a major industry in my State and for my producers and cattle producers across the country. I know others want to speak on this issue. I may speak on it again in a while. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Presiding Officer. I appreciate that greatly. I always need to watch my junior Senator and make sure he is in his place. Mr. President, I note, properly, my junior Senator is the dean of the Kansas delegation, even if he is the junior Senator. I rise in support of the Craig amendment. I wish to make comments that I think are pertinent and germane to the farm bill because I believe this admendment is pertinent and germane to the farm bill. I know colleagues are looking at this amendment saying it is a private property rights issue, it belongs in the Judiciary Committee and this is an issue we should track through that committee. This is an issue involving agricultural lands, which I think is wholly appropriate for the farm bill. Also, private property issues are so key and central to farming in the United States. It is in many places dominantly private property issues. In the West, there are a lot of public lands and agricultural use in public lands areas. But private rights dominates throughout the agricultural system of our country. There was a shock sent out with the Kelo case when the Court said you now don't have to have this justification of a public use for private property to be taken and can condemn it. Many were shocked on all sides of the aisle--right, left, middle, people in urban areas, people in rural areas. I wish to say specifically people from rural areas were particularly struck by this decision because they all feel an attack frequently from people in governmental entities to take lands for power lines, parks, land that should go back to them in some cases, if it is a railroad line that has been abandoned and the deed said the land will revert to the farmland owner and then it is taken for a trail. People are saying wait a minute, I thought we had private property rights, basic in our constitution, basic in our philosophy, basic to agriculture. This is a narrow issue to get at the Kelo decision. It is well crafted by the Senator from Idaho to support those private property rights. The amendment will deter States and local governments from taking working agricultural land against the will of the landowner only to designate that same land as open space. Here I think you can look at that and say, well, obviously, that is something we should protect, that private property right. If there is to be eminent domain, it has to be listed on a public purpose, like we have had eminent domain laws for some period of time now, and not just taking it to keep an open space. If that is to take place, there needs to be a different set and a different system rather than what is being allowed or expanded after Kelo by local or State units of government. This narrows the decision of Kelo back to what it was prior to Kelo-- a protection of private property rights. I think that is important. I think it is a key issue and one that is a top priority to agriculture and landowners. Indeed, the President of the American Farm Bureau Federation said after Kelo: No one's home or farm and ranch land is safe from government seizure because of this ruling. Well, let's make sure their land is safe. We can do that, and this is an amendment that helps to do that. I think it is an important amendment to help to do that. If you voted in support of private property rights, I would hope you would support the Craig amendment, whichever side of the aisle you are on, and say there is an appropriate way and there is an inappropriate way and the appropriate way to make sure you have eminent domain is for a public purpose and not just taking agricultural lands to maintain open spaces and reducing the value of that land or its workability as agriculture. This is an important, good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back to the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I was called the junior Senator from Kansas.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Parliamentary inquiry as to whether this could be a voice vote so we can move on. We have a number of amendments. I inquire as to that issue. I will suggest the absence of a quorum to sort this issue through. We might be able to save the body some time. I wish to speak with people about it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to use 5 minutes of that time. I respect those who do farm. My dad does, and I have a lot of respect for him. I have a brother who farms as well, and it is tough. It is a hard life. I went to law school, and in my background I taught agricultural law. I have written two books on it, if anybody is interested. I don't think they are still for sale because they never sold very well. But my point in saying that is one of the key things which is always talked about in agriculture is the Packers and Stockyards Act. It was developed back in the 1920s and 1930s because of this imbalance that was developing and was really heightened at that point in time even more so than today between the packers and producers. There were a lot more producers that were a lot smaller at that point in time and taken advantage of by packers. It was a very unscrupulous setting, and they passed the Packers and Stockyards Act. It was a very important piece of legislation, particularly in farm country, and it did have a substantial impact and continues to have a substantial impact today. The situation today is different than it was back then. What you have now are a number of producers that are, in many cases, of a larger scale and trying to get closer to the consumer. You have small producers as well, such as my family, who are small producers and who often will link up with bigger sized producers and feed yards to try to get more money for their cattle. Everybody is trying to get more money for their cattle, and that is what I want to take place: more money for the producer for the cattle. Unfortunately, because of the way this is drafted and because of being a lawyer and being somebody in the agricultural industry--and you are taking away: regardless of any alleged business justification. So my family says we are going to try this hormone-free, antibiotic-free beef, but we have to pool together at a feed yard that is big enough to negotiate with the packers to do this, and so they do that. We have 1,000 head of cattle from everybody--all 20 or more people who are doing this--and then they are going to market it directly on forward. That is a business justification to pay my family more for their cattle. That is a business justification for them to do it. But we have taken it right out of here. We have said: regardless of any alleged business justification. So, now, while my family is trying to move with this packer group through the feed yard to get closer to the consumer to take advantage of this, which is a business justification, this says, no, you can't assume that in the Packers and Stockyards Act. So somebody on the other side of this, or somebody just wanting to be ornery about it says: Look, you can't do that. You can't do it. It is right here. I know the author's intent is not that intent. I also am a lawyer. This is something you can do under this draft of it. I appreciate the sentiment with which this is made. I appreciate the history of the Packers and Stockyards Act. It has been important. It remains important today. This isn't the way to get at this. This is going to cause people to have to go back to a generic marketplace for beef. You can say: Well, I am fine with a generic marketplace for beef--most people are-- but there are a lot of people who like specialty beef. That is where the producer gets in and gets a bigger slice of the pie is when he goes at the narrow marketplace for a specialty-type product and segments his marketplace. This, I honestly believe, is going to cut off these types of arrangements for farm families in my State, and I believe a lot of other places, to be able to get into them. I understand the intent. I look at it on the surface, and we could probably say good idea, but this is something whereby lawyers who practice in this field are going to see a real opportunity to shut something off, and I think there are plenty of people who are desirous of doing something like that. I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I retain the remainder of our time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time remains in opposition?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am the senior Senator from Kansas to Senator Roberts. I wanted to acknowledge that on the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. May I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe my colleague had 15 minutes yielded to him. I ask unanimous consent to use the remainder of his time to speak on the amendment.