Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, I am very familiar with that. The Patent Office has continued to articulate that position. That is why I stated that there is a question on this, because the Patent Office is stating that issue based upon the 13th amendment of the Constitution, which is against slavery. But they are being challenged by attorneys, and they have been challenged in the court often about whether they can deny a patent. What I am providing by this amendment is clarity by the legislative body acting and saying that we will not allow the patentability of this issue. I ask my colleague if he agrees with that and maybe with my amendment and would agree to support this amendment. It is just a clarification of what the Patent Office has currently stated.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I do have the floor, I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I am willing to yield for a question on this issue.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to have the Senator from Pennsylvania respond, but if it is his speech, I would like to finish up my comments and then yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. All I am doing is asking unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer this amendment sometime during the pendency of this bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I must object.

Mr. BROWNBACK. It is patenting of human beings. It is the issue of patenting of humans which I would like to put forward at this time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have an amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If the Senator will yield, I think I have perhaps a solution.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask the amendment I have be considered after the Allen amendment tonight. I am prepared to put it forward this evening, if it would be acceptable to the leader to do that.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have had difficulty at times being able to get the floor, as people maybe would say, well, we do not want to consider this at this particular time. I want to make sure we can. Unfortunately for me, I will not be present tomorrow. As many of my colleagues know, we have had in the Philippines the death of a Kansan who is being buried tomorrow, Mr. Burnham, and I will be at that funeral tomorrow morning. But I want to make sure this issue can come up and can be heard before the end of this bill. I do not think that is an inappropriate request. I renew the request that I be allowed to bring up this amendment sometime during the pendency of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to do so.

Mr. BROWNBACK. We will then be able to dispose of the Allen amendment tomorrow morning. So I have no reservations or objections to doing that if our colleagues would be interested in taking that approach.

Mr. BROWNBACK. It is an issue on patenting, and it is an issue that I think is a very important one for us to consider. I want to bring it up and press it. It is a narrow one. I think we ought to consider it. I would like to offer it.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, will be here momentarily and will ask to set aside the pending amendment in order to offer an amendment on terrorism to obtain judgments from frozen assets of terrorists, terrorist organizations, and state-sponsored terrorism, and others. I thought since we had a moment I would address this issue. As I understand it, the majority leader will be coming out shortly to make announcements, and I will be happy to yield the floor at that time. I am hopeful we can take up this issue on the floor and that it can be considered before the body, allowing people to be able to consider this. There are a number of people who have been harmed greatly, and family members have been killed by terrorist organizations. We need to provide a means for satisfaction. This is one way that it could be taken care of. If I may reply to those who say this particular bill is not the appropriate vehicle, we have a limited number of vehicles left in front of this body. This is the appropriate point in time for us to be able to bring this forward. I understand the Senator from Virginia will be bringing it forward so it can be worked out, and the administration and Congress is coming forward with other ways and means of dealing with it. Yet I am still hopeful that we can get this taken care of on this particular bill. I note there has been a lot of pressure to get this bill wrapped up. I understand the Senator from Virginia has been caught in traffic and is trying to get here to offer his amendment. I would like to see us take up this amendment and have it considered and moved forward. He asked me, through his staff, if I would bring up this amendment. If we could consider this important piece of legislation in front of this body, I think this would be very valuable. If we could allow this to take place, I think it would be a positive note. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I appreciate my colleague from Nevada bringing this forward. I hope we can work out a reasonable and prudent way to address what I consider to be a critical issue--many people consider to be a critical issue in front of the country. I say we still may be able to get to an agreement that would get ample time and opportunity for the Senate to speak on this timely legislation. I therefore ask unanimous consent for the following modifications to this pending request. I ask unanimous consent that on Friday, June 14, the Senate proceed to the bill just mentioned, introduced by Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, and others, and that Senator Landrieu, myself, and Senator Hutchison be permitted to offer up to four relevant amendments to the bill; further, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be in order notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, and that no other amendments be in order to the bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Then I am afraid I must object and I do object.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a sad and incredibly important situation that happened last week involving citizens from my State. The war on terrorism claimed another victim. This past week brought about the sorrowful conclusion to a long and harrowing ordeal for three inspiring people, two of whom are from my home state of Kansas. Gracia and Martin Burnham, and their fellow hostage, Filipino nurse Ediborah Yap, had endured more than a year in captivity at the brutal hands of the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf that has had links to the al-Qaida organization. We all know the news reports, some of them almost by heart, of the attempted rescue by the Filipino military, who, based on the details that I have, demonstrated heroism and bravery in the encounter. And the heart-rending deaths of Martin and Ediborah and the wounding of Gracia. But today I want to remind all of us that while this may have been the end of their ordeal, it is not the end of their struggle, nor of ours. The poet John Donne once wrote, ``No man is an island, entire of it selfe; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.'' September 11 was a wakeup call, but the bell still tolls. We must not let it go unanswered. Some people have proclaimed that terrorism is simply a symptom of poverty and despair. That it is, if you can believe this, the logical response to a life of misery. I have one question then: Why kill those who are there to alleviate poverty, to lift despair, and to eliminate misery? Terrorism is not a symptom of poverty, despair and misery. It is a cause. It is the root cause. These men and women do not just attack the concept of freedom and freedom-loving people everywhere, they terrorize their own people, they ravage their own country. That is not logic, that is not strategy; that is evil. Yet, in the face of evil, people such as the Burnhams do not flinch. They have never flinched. When the governments have left, the missionaries are there. When the NGOs have left, the missionaries are there. When the charitable organizations have left, the missionaries are there. There are some goals too great, some missions really just too precious, and so the missionaries are there. They keep going. They are always there. And they accept the sacrifices of their work in order to stay true to their calling. Even Gracia Burnham,on the day she arrived home to her children and her friends and family, seeing them for the first time in over 375 days, forcefully said, ``A very bad thing happened to Martin and I when we were taken hostage, but we want everyone to know that God was good to us every single day of our captivity.'' It is a statement emblematic of the strength, courage and, most of all, faith of both of them, and of all missionaries worldwide, who every day risk their lives to help others. In fact, the Burnham's story started out much like many others. Martin first arrived in the Philippines in 1969 with his missionary parents. He returned to the United States after high school, met Gracia, graduated from Calvary Bible College and the Wichita Aviation Education Center, and then completed the New Tribes Mission training program, the New Tribes group out of Florida. Not surprisingly, he and Gracia then returned to the Philippines, remaining there ever since. In fact, their three children, Jeff, Mindy, and Zach, were all born in the Philippines. And then, on May 27, 2001, while celebrating their 18th wedding anniversary, they were kidnapped. It was not the marker of celebration they wanted--that of their love for each other and for God--but rather that of the beginning of this incredible, horrible journey. The blame for the year of suffering that Martin, Gracia, and Ediborah Yap endured rests squarely upon the shoulders of the terrorist Abu Sayyaf Group. They were offered peaceful means to resolve this situation, multiple peaceful options. Yet this group insisted upon terror, murder, and rampage. They attacked Americans, and they attacked their own people. And they never hesitated to kill without compunction, without compassion, and without logic. Executing several prisoners, including another American that was taken hostage at the time as the Burnhams. Guillermo Sabero, a Californian, was beheaded by this same Abu Sayyaf Group. Terrorists must understand every single U.S. citizen is important, that an attack on an American anywhere in the world is an attack on America itself. Most of all, though, terrorists must understand--must be made to understand--that terrorism is never justifiable. Wanton violence that harms blameless men, women and children, unpredictable violence that strikes fear into innocent hearts and minds is not, and never will be justifiable. As Philippines President Gloria Arroyo said, ``The fight against terrorism is our fight. It is the fight of all of mankind against evil.'' The bell tolls for all of us. Duty beckons all of us. And the call is simple. We must continue to support the effort to eradicate the Abu Sayyaf Group and other terrorist organizations that threaten the security of the Philippines and other peaceful nations. Already, U.S. assistance to the Philippines has produced results. Civil action and humanitarian projects are improving living conditions, and specialized training has resulted in a more capable military. Even Gracia Burnham noted, ``We especially want to thank the military men, the Fillipinos and the Americans, who risk, and even gave their lives, in order to rescue us.'' As seen by this rescue, the Abu Sayyaf Group is on the run, but it needs to be completely eliminated as a threat. I personally will continue to encourage any U.S. support requested by the Phillippine Government to assist them in their fight against terrorism and its causes, and to urge my colleagues to do so as well. After all, the struggle is not over, only this ordeal. Just this morning, elements of the AFP, the Filipino military, were involved in a fierce battle with a group that calls itself the Pentagon. It is a splinter group from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. This group has held a south Korean businessman captive since February 6, 2001. While defending their country from the scourge of terrorism, two Philipino soldiers were killed, and nine members of this extremist organization died. That was in this most recent firefight. More deaths, and for what? Let me be clear. The deplorable actions of the Abu Sayyaf Group caused the deaths of Martin, Ediborah, and Guillermo. Let there be no equivocation on this point, the Abu Sayyaf Group is criminally culpable and must be brought to justice. As we all know, terror begets terror, but justice produces justice. And a nation founded upon the rule of law has a special responsibility to share and enforce that vision. This Friday, the Burnham family will be holding a memorial service for Martin, not to mourn, but to celebrate his life. Today, I ask all of us to do so, to celebrate Martin, to remember his family, and to recall our shared duty to ``provide for the common Defense'' and to ``define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.'' These may seem to be the worst of times, but, like the Burnhams, we are a strong, resilient, and, most of all, hopeful people, and we will prevail. As it says in the Beatitudes: Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemaker, For they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. God bless you, Martin Burnham. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as you know, on December 31, 2000, former President Clinton signed the UN's Rome Statute that would obligate the United States to comply with the International Criminal Court. I was disappointed in this action, and until President Bush formally notified the United Nations on May 6 that the U.S. would not become a party to the Rome Statute, I was prepared to fight the ratification of this treaty if it was brought before the United States Senate. The ICC contains fundamental flaws that we cannot ignore and jeopardizes our service and diplomatic personnel. Whether conducting engagement activities, support operations, stability operations or combat operations, we must ensure the protection of our servicemembers and officials of the United States involved in such matters as responding to acts of terrorism, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and deterring aggression. Many of these issues and the official actions taken by servicemembers and others involve protection of the national interests of the United States. We should have every right to pursue those interests as a sovereign Nation. In order to accomplish this, we must pass the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, ASPA, which has been offered as an amendment to the pending bill by the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner. I would like to commend my colleague for his initiative and leadership on this issue. As he and others would agree, failure to pass this Act will have a chilling effect on our ongoing commitments to peace, democracy and prosperity throughout the world. This amendment is necessary because U.S. withdrawal from the treaty, which we have already done, is not enough. Other countries may still attempt to force the United States to comply with the treaty's provisions. As you may know, the treaty will go into effect on July 1 because the requisite number of countries have ratified the Rome Statute, notwithstanding our withdrawal from the treaty. What this means is that the International Criminal Court could exercise jurisdiction over action crimes committed in the territory of a state party, including those by citizens and servicemen of non-parties. Thus, under Article 12 of the Rome Statute, the court would have jurisdiction for enumerated crimes alleged to have been committed by U.S. citizens, including the U.S. servicemembers, in a country like Afghanistan. Clearly this is an important protection for our soldiers currently engaged in missions in that country. Additionally, Article 5 allows parties to the treaty to define vague crimes like ``aggression,'' but Article 121 also allows parties to the treaty to opt-out of certain crimes. Article 121 does not afford that same ``opt-out'' right to non-parties, including the United States. As a result, U.S. servicemen and diplomats as well as other U.S. citizens could be charged, tried, and jailed for crimes the U.S. had no part in defining and crimes that parties to the threaties themselves are not bound by. The American Servicemembers' Protection Act, ASPA seeks to protect the United States from these coercive elements of the treaty, and precludes cooperation with the International Criminal Court so long as the United States is not a Rome Statute party. ASPA still permits cooperation with ad hoc courts created through the UN Security Council, such as the Yugoslav and Rwanda tribunals, and prosecution of future war criminals. Such a tribunal created by the Security council at least provides the U.S. with a veto option where we have a say in its mandate and are therefore about to ensure that war criminals will not escape justice. From Sudan to China, Eastern Europe to South Asia, many of my colleagues and I have devoted considerable time in the Senate to protecting human right, democracy, and religious freedom. This treaty would undermine the U.S. ability to promote and protect the ideals that we have fought for: the values of democracy, freedom and open societies for the people of the world. While this treaty may be well-intentioned, its vague language gives UN officials unchecked authority, and it imposes an unbearable burden upon the U.S. This country's commitment to pursuing accountability for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity is an important part of our foreign policy objectives and one that serves as a model for others. It was through U.S. leadership that Nazi war crimes were prosecuted. It was through U.S. leadership that Balkan war criminals in Bosnia- Herzegovina and Kosovo were brought to justice. If my fellow members want to maintain America's ability to keep its international commitments abroad, then we must protect our soldiers and our civilian leaders by passing the American Servicemembers' Protection Act.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I concur with my colleague that NIST is the intended organization within the Department of Commerce that would primarily be responsible for carrying out the Department's role in implementing Title XI of the energy bill. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for joining me in this colloquy.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to engage the Senator from New Jersey in a colloquy regarding our amendment, Senate amendment number 3239, which was adopted by the Senate and became Title XI of the final Senate energy bill. In particular, I would like to clarify the intended role of the Department of Commerce in implementing the greenhouse gas reporting system and registry that our amendment would create.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask that the following article by Robert Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, regarding the humanitarian crisis in North Korea be printed in the Record. This article should have been referenced in my floor statement of May 20, 2002, also on North Korea. The article follows: [From the New York Times, May 16, 2002] Aid Meant for the Hungry (By Roberta Cohen) Washington.--Hunger still threatens millions in North Korea, and one symptom of the harsh conditions is the desperation of North Korean refugees trying in the past few days to elude Chinese police and seek asylum at American and Japanese consulates in China. As the Bush administration prepares to restart talks with North Korea, food, as well as weapons and troops, should be on the agenda. Despite the tense relationship between the two countries, the United States is the leading donor of food to North Korea, which cannot feed its 22 million people. American negotiators should insist on assurances that this aid is reaching those most in need. Since 1995, the United States has provided more than $500 million in food and other commodities to North Korea--up to 350,000 metric tons of food each year. This year this aid is down to 155,000 metric tons because of demands for aid in Afghanistan; other countries are also sending less to North Korea. But American deliveries of food and fuel remain critical to Pyongyang. Sending food aid has helped the United States persuade the North Koreans to engage in talks on military-strategic issues. The aid also shores up the Pyongyang regime, which Washington would rather see improve than collapse, since sudden disintegration could overwhelm South Korea with refugees and create political and economic turmoil. But there is also an overriding humanitarian imperative. More than 2 million North Koreans are reported to have died from starvation and related diseases between 1994 and 1998, and large pockets of hunger and starvation remain. At least 40 percent of children under 5 are malnourished, according to the World Food Program, a United Nations agency. No one really knows, however, how much donated food is diverted to the North Korean military, police, Communist Party officials, essential workers and those loyal to the regime. The World Food Program argues that food aid is not going to the military because the military has the first cut from national harvests. But the agency has no evidence because there is no independent monitoring of donated food. As the main conduit of American aid, the World Food Program has managed to increase the number of North Korean counties it can visit to 163, but its staff is barred from more than 40, and its visits everywhere are supervised. It cannot make random spot checks or bring its own Korean-language interpreters or visit farmers' markets where it could find out whether its food aid is being sold on the black market. At a Congressional hearing this month, the World Food Program claimed to have a ``reasonable degree of assurance'' that the food was getting to those who need it. But others at the hearing strongly disagreed. ``Anyone who has sat and talked to the North Korean refugees would find it really difficult to believe the assurances of the W.F.P.,'' Sophie Delaunay, North Korean project representative for Doctors Without Borders, told Congress. In interviews by humanitarian groups and journalists in the past few years, refugees among the 100,000 to 200,000 who fled to China in search of food have said that they never got any donated food in North Korea and that the regime has denied food aid to those whose loyalty it questions. It is time for the United States to set some standards. America must not be complicit in food distribution that favors some and discriminates against others. In the coming negotiations, the United States should insist upon unrestricted access to all areas of the country where food is delivered. It should require lists of the actual institutions to which food and medicines are going and uncontrolled access for the World Food Program. It should press the North Korean government to allow international aid groups to set up feeding stations of their own that are accessible to all hungry North Koreans. The precarious situation of the North Koreans who have crossed into China should also be on the table. These desperate people foraging for food are treated as illegal immigrants and hunted down. When forcibly returned to North Korea, they may face imprisonment. North Korea wants economic aid and investment, and it desperately needs machinery, fertilizer and technical assistance to improve its agriculture and reform its inefficient collective farms. Equitable distribution of food aid should be a prime condition for such assistance.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I rise to recognize the legacy of a true Kansan, Floyd Boldridge. Mr. Boldridge was a life-long farmer and family man. During his life, he was loved by not only his family but by the community of Atchison, Kansas as well. During his funeral, La Rochelle Young, of my staff read a tribute to her uncle, Floyd Boldridge. As we prepare to honor our loved ones during the upcoming Memorial Day holiday, I think it is a fitting tribute to Mr. Boldridge to enter his tribute into the record of the United States Senate. I join with La Rochelle and Mr. Boldridge's ten children, Gloria Wallingford, Virginia Carol Harvey, Shirley Gooch, Betty King, Thelma Hibler, Leonard Boldridge, Dennis Boldridge, Brenda Nettles, Annette Boldridge and Eric Harvey. I ask that Mr. Boldridge's tribute be printed in the Record. The tribute follows: The Legacy of Floyd Boldridge (By La Rochelle Murray, Niece of Floyd Boldridge) January 31, 2000 A legacy of love, of family, of commitment and of integrity can be said of the man who many called father, grandfather, uncle, cousin, brother, friend, bull and baby boy. Floyd Boldridge was the youngest of six rambunctious boys. And as the ``baby'' of the family, he was loved, protected and cherished in many ways. In fact, one of the brothers' favorite past times was bouncing ``baby boy'' on the bed and then lovingly watch him bounce off onto the floor. Perhaps, this is where Uncle Floyd developed his sparkling personality, his infectious laughter that could penetrate any person or situation, and the indescribable bond between his brothers and his fierce commitment to his family and friends. As a young man, Uncle Floyd grew up in a spiritual family that not only took pride in the teachings of Christ, honesty and hard work but also took extreme pride in the Boldridge name as well. This was shown throughout Uncle Floyd's life. Like most large families, each son possessed a special gift-- one that was different from the other brothers. However, instead of dwelling on the others' gift, each brother nurtured and cultivated his gift in order to combine their gifts with one another and sustain themselves. During an interview, Uncle Floyd was once asked about his thoughts concerning The Great Depression. His response was simplistic yet profound. He said that he did not recall feeling the effects of the depression because he and his brothers never wanted for anything. They pooled their resources together, which allowed them to be self-sufficient and continued living comfortably during one of the darkest times in our nation's history. This lesson and the many other lessons that he learned from his brothers was what sculpted him into the energetic, fiercely loyal, loving man that his children--and all of us because to Uncle Floyd, we were all his family--remember today. During the early years of Uncle Floyd's life, his passion and zeal for life was transferred to his ever-growing family. Everyone who knew Uncle Floyd knew that he was very proud of his children. His love for his family surpassed everything in his life and will continue to live on in the lives of his children and grandchildren. There were many facets to Uncle Floyd's life but none compared to the love of his children. For example, when his daughter, Tammy, brought her husband, Don, to meet her father for the first time, Uncle Floyd positioned himself so that his five foot seven inch frame was on a hill and Don, who is six feet three inches tall, was on a flat portion of land. Once this was achieved, Don was eye level with Uncle Floyd. It wasn't until later that Don realized what had happened because he was so intimidated by Tammy's father. Uncle Floyd also had a passion for peace and happiness between everyone. He was never one to cause conflict or allow conflict to be in his presence. He had a vivacious personality that allowed him to realize that life was a series of challenges and having a negative or defeatist attitude would only make one's life miserable. Instead, he choose to look to God first for understanding and then actively engage in positive actions. Although Uncle Floyd was a peaceful and loving man, he was also known for his enormous strength, which earned him the nickname ``Bull.'' And like Sampson, everyone who tried to overpower him received an often surprising and sometimes painful result. For example, one of my Uncle Floyd's nephews, Marvin, decided to test his uncle's strength at work. Marvin made the bad decision to grab Uncle Floyd's arms. Not only did Marvin say that grabbing Uncle Floyd was like grabbing a hunk of steel, but remembers being turned upside down in the process. All Marvin recalls of that moment was his father yelling, ``Don't kill him Bull!!'' My father, Walter D. Murray, also remembers his first introduction to Uncle Floyd. He had heard many stories regarding Uncle Floyd's strength and though that he would show him what strength really was. So, when he shook Uncle Floyd's hand, he squeezed with all of his strength and found that not only did Uncle Floyd match his strength but surpassed his strength so much so that after almost falling to his knees, he had to ask Uncle Floyd to release his hand. Indeed Uncle Floyd loved life and lived his life to the fullest and in doing so blessed our lives immeasurably. So what can be said of his legacy? Uncle Floyd left us with a profound legacy of love for God, his Son, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, peace among ourselves and love for our fellow human. Like Christ, Uncle Floyd believed in treating others as we would treat ourselves. That is why he cherished his trips to the Holy Land. Uncle Floyd loved to share every aspect of his trips to the Holy Land including Jerusalem and Bethlehem. It was on one of these trips that he turned to his daughter, Betty, and said, ``I am seeing with these eyes what my father read to me from the Bible many years ago.'' Uncle Floyd was a steadfast, deeply religious man who loved Christ and the Church. In fact many nights, Uncle Floyd could be found in the kitchen of Campbell Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church, where he was a life-long faithful member, cooking his famous cabbage or my personal favorite, fried corn. And many of Uncle Floyd's friends will remember the dinners he would fix after a hunting trip or even if they just chose to drop in and visit him at his home. Uncle Floyd also left us with the legacy of the Port William Bridge. Uncle Floyd, along with his many friends, worked tirelessly on achieving the dedication of this historic bridge. Uncle Floyd knew the importance of remembering the past in order to bridge a pathway to the future. That is the reason I brought my fiance, Adrian K. Young, Jr., to meet Uncle Floyd in order to gain his approval. And Eric remembers when he was about to embark on his career as a professional soccer player that uncle Floyd said to him, ``You've now got your foot in the door--don't let that door close.'' Eric now uses this premise when he is coaching his soccer team. So we thank you Uncle Floyd for your gift of laughter, your loving manner in which you made everyone especially your children feel loved and appreciated, your dynamic and often times animated personality, and your legacy of love and peace. We will always love you and forever cherish the time we spent with you.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly on the matter in front of the body, the Grassley substitute amendment on granting Russia and central Asian countries permanent normal trade relations. I am glad we have taken up the resolution itself, the sense of the Senate. It is a positive statement. We should take up PNTR. Otherwise, as I stated last night, I recognize that the votes are not here today to deal with that issue for Russia or some of the central Asian countries, but I want to take this opportunity to address the body on this particular point because we really need to recognize what has taken place and move with some speed in the near future to address this topic because of what is taking place in the world. I realize we are a body that takes time, and it takes some time and effort to move some of these issues. But look at what has taken place. The President of the United States is going to Russia this week. Last week Russia announced a two-thirds reduction in nuclear missile capacity, an enormous agreement. Last week Russia joined closer and closer to NATO, the very organization that previously had been structured to defend against the Soviet Union. Now the successor organization of Russia is joining closer to NATO. Jackson-Vanik, that is what PNTR is addressed toward--permanent normal trade relations is not granted until a Jackson-Vanik waiver is granted. Jackson-Vanik addresses the issue of whether you allow free immigration of religious minorities, particularly Jews, out of the former Soviet Union. That is what the particular bill was directed toward. That is taking place. There is no question but that is taking place in Russia. As we look to the future and as we seek to reduce dependence on Mideastern oil, Russia and central Asia are going to figure larger and larger into the picture, along with their own domestic production. I make the point as well that we have granted China PNTR after a long, extended debate about that. Yes, we have granted China permanent normal trade relations. If we look at their human rights record versus that taking place in Russia--you have a number of abuses, a number of people not being allowed to leave China--that is occurring in Russia. But the different standard we are putting forward here is striking. Even today, there are a number of North Koreans who have gone to China from North Korea, who don't want to go back to North Korea. Yet they are being forced to, by bounties given by the Chinese, to round them up and send them back to North Korea. That is not human rights and religious freedom in China. Yet we have granted permanent normal trade relations with them. I voted for it. I thought we should because the overall issue is about us engaging these places in the world, engaging China. Now, clearly, we should be engaging Russia. The President has developed a strong relationship with President Putin. President Putin is leaning forward a long way with his country in engaging the West in a remarkable fashion--a fashion that I think anybody here would have to say is nothing short of miraculous, about how far forward he is taking his country in a short period of time in working with the West. These are breathtaking results, really. The notion that we would hold up and be slow about an issue of permanent normal trade relations when we granted it to China, which has missiles pointed this way, has human rights abuses, and is selling weapons technology to rogue regimes around the world--it is striking that it would be different. As far as central Asia--and that is what else was in the base bill. In Uzbekistan, we have troops. In Kazakhstan, we have troops. In Azerbaijan, we have landing rights. In Armenia, Armenian Americans are seeking development. What we are talking about with PNTR is the ability of having normal trade relations with this country so they might grow with us. Realizing the votes are not here today to grant PNTR to these countries, I think it is time we pick up the pace on doing this because of the speed of events taking place, and it is so important that we engage these areas. Hopefully, in the near future, we will reduce our dependence on oil in the Middle East and have more coming from U.S. domestic sources and countries such as Kazakhstan and Russia. There will be a closer economic tie that should be basic in the relationship. We need to send a strong message of support from the United States to the Russian Duma and President Putin that we deeply appreciate and agree with the actions he has taken on behalf of Russia last week. He did incredible things last week. We are doing a sense of the Senate. It is a positive statement. We should do that. It is a right sort of statement for us to make to Russia. It pales in comparison to what the Russians have done themselves. All we are asking is that we put forward basically a normal trade relationship between the United States and Russia--a country that seeks to grow much closer to the United States. We should encourage that with a great deal of speed and effort on our part. So I rise in support of the Grassley substitute for Russia and central Asia. The central Asian and south Caucasus nations are a part of this. We should be granting PNTR and engaging as they are with us. They are frontline for us in the war on terrorism. They were in the Afghan conflict when our men were based out of Uzbekistan to go into Afghanistan. Without them, we would have a great deal of difficulty. This is a modest proposal for us to move forward. I support the Grassley substitute. I hope we can be more forward-leaning ourselves in engaging central Asia and Russia in this overall effort. I support the Grassley amendment. I yield the floor.