Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I call up amendment 3446 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member for the consideration of this amendment. This amendment is particularly important in light of what has taken place recently in this country and around the world. The attack on September 11 has been an issue that is front and center of our minds since that date. I came from a secure briefing where we were talking about what was known prior to that time period. This week, the President of the United States heads to Russia to work with the Russians on several issues. One is reduction of nuclear weaponry. A two thirds reduction of missiles announced last week was an incredible reduction of nuclear missile material and nuclear missile capacity. There are United States troops in regions of the former Soviet Union that prior to September 11 we probably would not have dreamed of having present, in places such as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Georgia. the United States has troops there, training or on missions, dealing with the war on terrorism. We have had a great deal of cooperation from these countries in the war on terrorism. It is an important point. It is an incredible point of safety for our people in the United States, and it is an incredible moment for the United States and the world that are seeing taking place post-cold war when you consider where we are with Russia. Even last week in the NATO meeting, Russia said, OK, we will come closer to joining in with NATO. This is something that 5 years ago could not have even been contemplated. Yet we are seeing that growing closeness taking place between the United States and Russia. We see a growing cooperation on terrorism taking place there and in central Asia. We are seeing the United States troops in this region. We need to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. A key part of that is what is taking place in Russia and central Asia. Our Nation was brutally and callously attacked September 11, 2001. We continue to mobilize with diplomatic and military action abroad, as well as bolstering defenses at home. We are facing a sustained war effort against international terrorism and a sustained readiness at home not seen since World War II. Let there be no doubt those individuals and organizations responsible for terrorism against the United States will be found and brought to justice and America's shores will be safe again. As America continues to mobilize military, intelligence, and law enforcement assets to confront our enemy, there is one asset we have yet to mobilize which can be just as valuable as a bomb or a bullet. I believe that is trade. Trade with America can be an effective catalyst for the long-term viability of the institutions of democracy, the economic strength that bolsters them and our friends abroad. Economic prosperity, civil rights, and liberties are an extension of the democratic society, which, in turn, ameliorate internal strife and dissatisfaction that can lead to extremism, evil, and terror. By reaching out to our friends and struggling nations, by opening our markets to their products and vice versa, we can deploy the entrepreneurship of America as a weapon to help solidify the foundations of democracy, civil liberty, human right and economic prosperity abroad. As we continue to debate trade promotion authority, it is also important we take this opportunity and ensure the nations seeking the benefits of increased and improved economic relations with the United States also benefit from certainty in their trading relationship with us; certainty that we will remain committed to their continued development, and certainty that, while the path of democratic and market reforms will not always be smooth, our commitment to their efforts will remain unwavering. Today I offer an amendment that would make such a clear, strong, and principled statement. My amendment would extend permanent normal trade relations to Russia and the nations of Central Asia and the South Caucasus: Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, which will join Georgia and Kyrgystan in this regard. Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, the Jackson-Vanik provision, denies unconditional normal trade relations to certain countries, Russia and the former Soviet Republics in particular, that had non- market economies and that restricted immigration rights. Given the importance of strengthening our economic relationships, and encouraging continued democratic and market reforms, I believe that now is the time to permanently waive Jackson-Vanik for Russia and all of the nations of Central Asia and the South Caucasus. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. Currently, the United States and Russia are engaged in a poultry trade dispute. Earlier this year Russia implemented a comprehensive ban on U.S. poultry imports, apparently in an effort to protect its developing domestic poultry industry. Some are concerned that Russia is contemplating similar actions on other products. Russia should have strong domestic industries. However, we have learned the hard lesson throughout the first half of the twentieth century that nations cannot build lasting economic strength through protectionism. I am pleased to have signed letters along with many of my colleagues in support of the U.S. poultry industry on this issue. The statement inherent in those letters is that nations cannot make unilateral, anti-trade decisions as if they operate in a vacuum. Unilateralism, or more specifically bypassing unilateralism in favor of open markets and cooperation, is the very reason that we are debating trade promotion authority today. Theoretically we have come to recognize that open markets, not protectionism, best serves the common good. Even though, in practice, our debate over trade promotion authority demonstrates even an American interest in at least some forms of protectionism, I hope that my colleagues who have also opposed Russia's actions on poultry keep these important principles in mind as we finish our debate on trade promotion authority. Some are also concerned that Russia, Central Asia, and the South Caucasus are not yet ready to graduate from Jackson-Vanik. Jackson- Vanik was intended to ensure that Soviet Jews could freely emigrate, but has also come to symbolize human rights more generally. The process of graduation from Jackson-Vanik has come to include several steps that nations operating under Jackson-Vanik must take to protect human rights, religious freedom, and equality for ethnic and religious minority groups. Jackson-Vanik graduation also includes the return of communal property confiscated from national and religious minorities during the Soviet period, which is intended to facilitate the reemergence of those communities in the national life of each such country, as well as the establishment of a legal framework for the completion of this process in the future. Finally, graduation has come to require an exchange of letters between nations under Jackson-Vanik and U.S. representatives at the most senior levels, which underscore the importance of human rights and religious freedom. I have worked closely with organizations such as the National Council on Soviet Jewry, B'nai B'rith, and others, organizations I have the utmost respect for, to help bring this region into the Western community. I believe these important steps towards supporting human rights and religious freedom should be pursued by all nations, and I will continue to work towards that end. Progress has been made in the nations we are discussing here today. In February of this year, Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones secured the commitment from Uzbek President Islam Karimov that his government would allow the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, to view the conditions of detainees. This is an important step that will allow the international community to identify potential human rights violations. In Kazakhstan prison conditions are harsh, however, the Government is taking an active role in efforts to improve prison conditions and the treatment of prisoners, and observers have noted significant improvements in prison conditions. In Azerbaijan, though the Government largely controls radio and television, the primary source of information for most of the population, the Government took significant steps towards improving the media. These steps include the announcement that five private television stations would be granted long sought-after operating licenses by the frequencies committee. In Armenia, prison conditions are Spartan and medical treatment is inadequate, however, according to domestic human rights organizations, conditions continue to improve. I do not rise today in support of permanent normal trade relations with Central Asia and the South Caucasus because they are perfect--far from it. I do so because they continue to demonstrate a commitment to improving human rights and religious freedom, and the extension of permanent normal trade relations will only create an impetus for further reforms through increased economic and political association with the United States. By continuing to grow our relations with these countries, together we are going to improve their human rights and religious freedom conditions. For years Congress went through the process of debating the merits of extending normal trade relations to the Peoples Republic of China, and just last year the Congress approved China's accession to the World trade Organization. Trade with China has always been conditioned on the premise that increasing trade with China would increase China's contact and acceptance of the values, liberties, and fundamental beliefs that make our nation great. I do not believe anyone in the Senate is prepared to suggest China has a commendable record on human rights. Certainly not this Member, particularly in view of what is taking place even today in their dealing with the North Koreans entering China, to be forced back, sometimes with bounties. If trade can achieve these goals in regard to China, the positive impact of trade on Russia, Central Asia, and the South Caucasus is no less than a foregone conclusion. If a trading relationship with China will improve their human rights record, the same will hold true for Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and Russia as well. In addition to improvements over human rights and religious freedom, we must also be mindful of the remarkable developments that have taken place in this region of the world since September 11. This week President Bush travels to Moscow and will sign an historic agreement between our nations to eliminate two thirds of our nuclear weapons stockpiles. Five years ago that would have been world news for a month. Today it is hardly passing news for a day. Just last week the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance and Russia announced the formation of the NATO-Russia council, a decision-making body to counter terrorism and other security threats to our common interests. Think, where would we be today if we didn't have the bases and the operations that took place out of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, bases to be able to land in Azerbaijan, troops right now working on counterterrorism in Georgia? Today in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, multiple nations are seeking to embrace democracy, make market reforms, and build a closer relationship with the United States. Our friends in this region have been instrumental in our ability to bring the war effort directly to enemy al-Queda forces in Afghanistan. These nations represent immediate targets for increased economic ties with the U.S., and are representative of the types of nations that must have strong economic ties to the U.S. to help address internal difficulties. Plus, if they are not building ties with the U.S. they will be building them with nations in the region, some much less friendly towards the U.S., some of which have significant internal militant Islamic forces that want to move forward in these countries today. Clearly, we don't want that to take place. In light of these crucial developments, I continue to believe that now is the right time to send the strong message to Russia, Central Asia, and the South Caucasus that they are on the right path, that we recognize the importance of the steps they have taken, and we are committed to continue working with them to strengthen democracy within their borders and open their markets to the world around them. I continue to feel that extending permanent normal trade relations with these important nations is the right way to make such a statement, and it is in the best interests of the United States that we do so now. Permanently waiving Jackson-Vanik for these important allies would cost us nothing. Yet we have much to gain from the certainty created in our economic relationship with these nations to permanent normal trade status. Particularly, if we can do this with China, given their human rights record, we can do that in this region. Russia itself owns immense fossil fuel reserves which could reduce our reliance on oil from the volatile Middle East. Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan are also valuable sources of oil. Kyrgyzstan has made impressive progress in making market reforms since its days as a Soviet Republic, which can provide fertile ground for American investment. Georgia is making significant progress towards market reforms as well. It is also the case that several of these Central Asian and south Caucasus nations are suffering from internal strife caused by corruption and extremist Islamic fundamentalists. Kyrgyzstan's and Uzbekistan's Governments are currently targets of the terrorist organization, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which seeks to create Islamic states in the region. Tajikistan is especially vulnerable in this regard as the flow of narcotics and refugees from Afghanistan, its neighbor to the south, have weakened that nation. These nations are in dire need of American influence. They need access to our markets, as well as investment from American industry. By providing them with permanent normal trade relations, we will send a clear signal that the United States is prepared to engage this region permanently through trade and help bolster the democratic, market- opening reforms that are currently underway. As strong as I believe that on balance extended permanent normal trade relations to these nations is the right thing to do today, I again recognize the difference of opinion held by some of my colleagues. It seems clear to me that however appropriate such action might be, permanent normal trade status will not be approved by this Senate today. Senator Grassley has filed a second-degree amendment to mine, which expresses the sense of the Senate supporting the President's trip to Russia to meet with President Putin and deepen the friendship between our nations. I certainly thank Senator Grassley for offering this amendment, and I endorse it. I suggest, however, that some additions might be made to this sense of the Senate, if possible. I think it is fully appropriate, as well as consistent with the provision, that we include language recognizing the considerable efforts the nations of central Asia and the south Caucasus have made in assisting our antiterrorism efforts. I remind my colleagues that we have troops based in some of these nations. Finally, I also encourage my colleagues to support including language supporting the extension of permanent normal trade relations to our friends at the appropriate time. I think this is an important and significant geopolitical issue for the United States. This goes beyond trade. It is an important trade issue, but it is important geopolitically for us to do this. While I recognize the votes are not here today, I hope in the near future the votes will be there for us to extend PNTR to the countries which I have identified. They are on the front lines of our war on terrorism. They will be countries that will fight terrorism internally, and they will increasingly do so in the future. If the United States is not dramatically engaged in this region, you can pay me now or pay me later. They are going to be involved in this fight, and we are going to have more difficulty doing it in the future if we don't engage these nations now. Their populations are hungry for us to say: Yes, the United States wants to help. Work with us. Work with us in a positive way so we can have jobs and some opportunities and not be pulled by a militant Islamic group that says: Look, the West doesn't care for you. The West is opposed to you. The West doesn't like you. They do not believe in you. We shouldn't be saying that. We should be engaging them as rapidly as we possibly can. Certainly, in the case of the former Soviet Union, we would be welcoming them with open arms as fast as we possibly could. They have already taken action. Do not quibble about that. Instead, let us engage these countries that seek our engagement, and let us do it in a constructive manner so we can help them. We will be helping ourselves as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak a few minutes ahead of the Republican time. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to an issue Senator Kennedy and I are working on together and that is increasing in importance and focus. And that is what is taking place in North Korea and its border with China. We have in that area approximately 150,000 to 300,000 North Korean refugees who have fled North Korea and the very oppressive regime there and are now being hunted down and sent back to North Korea to prison camps, to, in some cases, death and other circumstances that are horrible that may be just short of death in North Korea. I want to outline what is taking place and a couple of action items this body can take up. If a picture is worth 1,000 words, this picture says it all. On May 9, eight North Koreans were rushed inside the United States and Japanese consulates in Shenyang in northeastern China some 125 miles from the North Korean border. Five of those sought refuge in the Japanese consulate, including this 2-year-old girl who has the beautiful pigtails and in any other sitting you might think is cute-- she is cute in this one as well--sought refuge in the Japanese consulate. They were forcibly removed from inside the consulate compound by the Chinese paramilitary security forces--two of whom you see arresting this girl's mother and why she is crying--and placed in Chinese police detention. This morning's news came out that a Korean-American pastor had been detained by Chinese authorities for protecting 14 North Korean orphans in this same area. Pastor Joseph Choi, 47, an American citizen, was detained in Yanbian, northeastern China, on May 9 along with 14 North Korean children. He was protecting these 14 orphans and providing them food and shelter. He was arrested, and that news came out this morning. As you may know, the facts regarding this particular child and her family are at dispute, although the videotape of the incident, which I have reviewed, leaves no doubt that the Chinese authorities trespassed on the Japanese consulate compound. Chinese authorities allege that these five persons in Shenyang never made it inside the Japanese consulate compound. Once inside that compound, this is Japanese sovereign territory. They said the consulate had requested that the Chinese security forces remove the asylum seekers. Japanese consulate officials deny these allegations. A videotape filmed by a Japanese journalist documents their entry into the Japanese consulate compound and the forcible removal that took place. Tokyo has demanded that Beijing apologize, release the detainees, and assure safe passage for these asylum-seekers and a promise that such intrusions won't happen again. As of this morning, China continues to detain the five individuals including the 2-year-old child, including the pastor and 14 other orphans. A large-scale problem exists of North Koreans fleeing political and religious oppression and starvation and seeking refuge in northeastern China. There are an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 North Korean refugees living illegally in China. China has a treaty with North Korea under which China agrees to view these individuals as illegal immigrants or ``economic migrants'' and to send them back, without consideration of the persecution they may face upon their return. The Chinese Government refuses to permit the UNHCR to screen fleeing North Koreans to determine whether they deserve political asylum. Furthermore, under Chinese law, anyone aiding a fleeing North Korean is subject to a fine, and bounties are paid to Chinese citizens who turn in North Koreans to the Chinese authorities--bounty hunting. Since the end of April, Chinese authorities have increased the use of the People's Armed Police, a paramilitary security force guarding foreign diplomatic properties, in order to thwart further asylum attempts. An estimated 312 North Koreans have defected to South Korea to date. 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. 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. 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. More importantly, 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 or worse. And we should demand of the Chinese government to let these people go--let them go to a third country. The Government of Korea is one of the most repressive regimes in the world and was identified by the President as one of three countries forming an ``axis of evil.'' It is also an economic disaster in which a centralized agricultural system has led to millions starving to death. Yet it is flanked on all sides by some of the most successful economies in the world. This picture and the video tape that has been played continuously in Japan, Korea, and around the world has shocked the conscience of people everywhere. Yet, we should be reminded it was not so long ago that the world at times ignored similar pictures and stories--during World War II, Cambodia, and Kosovo, to mention just a few. In North Korea today, we are facing a similar evil. I am reminded of a story during World War II about a church along a railroad track that routinely carried people in trains on their way to the Nazi concentration camps. When members of the congregation could no longer ignore the cries for help from those trains, some insisted that they sing louder. I hope we will listen, learn and act. What we should be afraid of is not the deeds of ``evil'' but the conscience of the world. This child is watching us, judging us. I hope China does the right thing. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to submit a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, along with Senator Kennedy, my colleague and chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, where I serve as the ranking member. The purpose of this resolution is simple and direct: under both international laws and on humanitarian grounds, China should release this girl and her family as well as the Korean American pastor and 14 orphans immediately and provide them safe passage to a third country. I encourage my colleagues in joining Senator Kennedy and myself in supporting this resolution and getting quick passage so that we can send a strong message to China to let these people go.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the past year's judicial nominations, which is something on which several people have spoken today. I just came from a meeting with the President where he was talking about his frustration in getting judicial nominees considered. He was quite animated and discouraged that we have not been getting more judicial nominees through the system--particularly circuit court judges. That is what he was stating. That is what the meeting was about. He wants to see more happening and more of them occurring, and we need to do so. People have been pretty clear on the information of what technically and specifically has happened. Since May 9 of last year, we have had 11 judicial nominees for the U.S. circuit courts of appeal. Those eleven were nominated 1 year ago. Since that time, only 3--including 2 Democrats--have been confirmed. Of the remaining 8, not one has even been scheduled for a hearing. We have not held hearings on these individuals. We need to get this done and start to move them forward. It is an issue that is engaging the country, and I think increasingly so, as we move into the fall. We have a number of pieces of legislation that I think, in the post 9-11 environment, will be considered and looked at by the courts and need to be reviewed. We need to have a fully staffed court. Right now we have a 20-percent vacancy on the circuit court; and within some of the circuits, it is even a much larger one. In the Sixth Circuit there are 16 positions and only half of those are filled. What is even more troubling is that we have had a long and established tradition of giving the President--regardless of his political affiliation--a good deal of deference on his nominees who might be unfairly targeted as being extremists. However, as we found out during the Charles Pickering nomination and subsequent hearings, the real extremism is being employed by those people who are artfully using the terms ``balance'' and ``moderation'' to set the stage for ending deference to the President and excluding perfectly qualified judges. Judge Pickering was an individual nominated to go on the circuit court. He served on the Federal bench for over 10 years. This practice does not bode well for the future of this committee when it may have to deal with Supreme Court nominees in the near future. To highlight just how bad it can be, it might be helpful to see how many Supreme Court Justices of the past would fare under the ideological litmus test that is now plainly evident and used on the committee. Would some of our great Justices of the past survive the litmus test being put forward by the committee now? John Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of some of the most important legal decisions for this Nation, would likely be rejected today by the Judiciary Committee because his view on interstate commerce in the Gibbons v. Odgen would be seen as too pro-federalism. Oliver Wendell Holmes, perhaps the greatest Supreme Court justice, would have trouble because he affirmed a state law providing for the sterilization of the mentally ill in Buck v. Bell. Felix Frankfurter, an ACLU member and a ``liberal'' Roosevelt appointee, would be rejected because he did not believe that the fourth amendment required the exclusion of evidence seized by State police officers without a warrant in the 1961 Mapp v. Ohio case. Nor would his argument in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette that the first amendment prohibited schools from requiring students to salute the American flag pass muster with the committee today. Even Earl Warren, the most liberal chief justice ever and author of Brown v. Board of Education, would have a tough confirmation battle under the committee's new standard. After all, he took the reactionary position of not supporting extension of the first amendment protection to flag burning. Louis Brandeis, the great liberal craftsman, would no doubt be rejected because he supported federalism against New Deal legislation and voted to strike down legislation in the Schecter case as being beyond the power of Congress. Byron White, President Kennedy's nominee, whose recent passing was mourned and elegantly eulogized around the Nation, would of course be rejected today because he committed the unpardonable sin of disagreeing with Roe v. Wade. The question facing the President on this anniversary date is what he can do to move judges to the floor for swift confirmation. Given the extremist tactics of outside interest groups and their influence over committee members, the President could consider compromising on his philosophy of nominating judges, men and women of experience who meet the highest standards of legal training, temperament, and judgement. As history has shown, however, it would mean overlooking the kind of judges who have made our judiciary a model for the world. Unlike some issues, the integrity of the law and the qualifications of judges who will interpret and uphold them cannot be compromised. I join my colleagues in urging Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee and Majority Leader Daschle in scheduling hearings and floor votes as soon as possible. I believe we have had ample time to make our points. It's now time to act. I think if we do not act, this is going to continue to fester across the country, and that will embroil us even greater this fall, with the President leading the charge on this issue of why the Senate isn't acting. Why isn't the Senate moving these judges through--particularly circuit court judges? It will be a much more engaged and animated issue this fall, with the President leading the charge. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am from Parker, KS, a town of 250 people. I grew up in the suburbs, a mile and a half out of town, on a family farm. My parents still farm on it. Mom and dad are full-time farmers. My brother is a full-time farmer with my dad. My other brother is a veterinarian--large and small animals--near Lyndon, KS. Farm bills are important to Kansas. They are important to my family. I have been secretary of agriculture in the State of Kansas for 6 years. My degree is in agriculture economics. I have been a farm broadcaster; State president of the Future Farmers of America in Kansas; national vice president of the Future Farmers of America, Central Region; traveled the country for the FFA. I have been in 4-H. I have farmed. I love it. It is a great place to have been raised, a great place for the family. It is a tough place to make a living. It is difficult and has been for the generations in my family who have been on the farm and struggled. My grandfather is a farmer who started my dad in farming. My dad started my brother. That is pretty typical. Farm bills are important for my State. They are important to my family. They are important to this country. That is why I rise today with a great deal of disappointment about this farm bill, and I am not going to be able to support the conference committee's farm bill. While I am deeply grateful to the conference committee and their efforts, their work, the hours they worked, their earnest desire to find a workable compromise--I truly believe they had a deep desire to find what is right and what is best for agriculture in this country and for the family farmer--it is now clear to me that the conference committee did not learn some of the lessons from past farm bills, ones I have worked on, working closely with agriculture. It seems to me we are repeating some of the worst mistakes of past farm bills. While opposing a farm bill for some may be an easy issue based upon cost or complexities of the issue, it certainly is a different case for me and a different case for somebody representing a great State such as mine, Kansas. Many hundreds of Federal programs affect American agriculture more than any arcane debate between beltway policy types. This farm bill is important to Kansas. It is important to our State. Our State is heavily involved in agriculture. My vote against the conference report is a result of a careful and thoughtful analysis of what it will do. As Senator Roberts, my colleague from Kansas, has already laid out, this farm bill just is not good for Kansas's family farmers. While I think these deficiencies have been outlined ably in nearly every editorial page in the country, I want to highlight a few of the problems that are of most concern to Kansas. First, the farm bill program raises loan rates. First and foremost, I wanted to cite that. This has historically and consistently led to overproduction and lower prices. It is a fundamental issue of economics. When you raise the price, where supply and demand cross is where the price is set; you raise your price or you raise your guarantee under that, you stimulate production, your production goes up, your demand does not go up in an equal amount, and your price falls on the world market. We should not be content to relearn this lesson. We have done this in past farm bills where we have artificially raised the loan rate, increased production, and when we increased production and demand did not equal it, the price on the world market fell. We lower the overall price. Let me give one example: the current soybean loan rate. Since the enactment of the 1996 farm bill, soybean acreage has risen steadily. In 1996, we were at 64.2 million acres; in 2001, 76.7 million acres. These increases are hardly because of increased demand for soybeans. More likely they are attributable to an unusually high soybean loan rate of $5.26 relative to corn at $1.89, which is a price ratio of 2.78 to 1. Do we want these Government signals not market signals to determine acreage? As we increase these loan rates significantly in many of the crops across the board, we are going to raise the production, and we raise production, we lower the overall price, unless there is an equivalent demand increase. This perverse incentive laid down by the Federal Government seems at cross-purposes with many other Federal programs intended to bring prices up, not down. How is it we can be simultaneously providing what amounts to a subsidy to increase production while at the same time subsidizing the market price? This is working at cross-purposes. Not only are we tinkering with these price controls and hoping the Government gets it right this time, but we are taking a huge step backwards in complexity and ease of use. I do not need to remind my colleagues of the horror stories from farmers using farm services in the years before Freedom to Farm. Government bureaucrats with confusing and conflicting rules were the bane of a farmer's existence. Many of us heard of waiting in lines at the Farm Service Agency or its precursor agency as well. This bill will put more bureaucratic elements into the farm operations again, something we tried to get away from. To the farmers' pleasure, we were getting away from these lines at the Farm Service Agency. This cannot be a good development. We have tried this route before, only to abandon it for something better. My dad and brothers do not like waiting in line at the Farm Service Agency, and they are not going to like it under this proposal. As we debate this measure in the Senate, an apparent fait accompli, our most important trading partners are preparing to challenge this initiative before the World Trade Organization. Just as our Nation's commitment to the free trade agenda has been brought into question, we have renewed concerns that we are unwilling or unable to compete on the world stage, and we can compete on the world stage. Our U.S. trade agreements limit domestic farm supports most likely to distort production and trade to no more than $19.1 billion per year. There is little doubt under this bill we will exceed these limits. In my past, I worked in the Trade Representative's office. These are contentious issues and will be challenged by our trading partners. Mr. President, 96 percent of the world's consumers live outside the United States. Kansas farmers and my family are dependent on these world markets for their livelihood. This bill will surely spur our partners to retaliate. If you want evidence of how this compromise will be greeted by our friends around the world, just look at how our trading partners are reacting to the proposal. Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, and the European Union have all expressed serious concerns about these new ``amber box'' programs. It is perhaps most telling that our friend, Australia, a country committed to free trade as is the United States, has pledged to lead the challenge to this initiative before WTO. This is a troubling development for Kansas farmers much of whose acreage is dedicated to international trade. There is the matter of the supplemental AMTA payments on which many farmers in my State are counting. As my colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, has pointed out, earlier this year we supported a supplemental assistance package for the 2002 crop and told our constituents any new farm bill would apply to the 2003 crop. For 2002 crops, the compromise I supported would have provided an additional payment of 59 cents for wheat, 33.4 cents for corn, and 40 cents for sorghum. Instead, producers will now receive an additional fixed payment of 5.9 cents for wheat, 1.9 cents for corn, and 3.6 cents for sorghum. Producers will then be eligible for maximum--it could be less-- countercyclical payments on the 2002 crop of 54 cents for wheat, 34 cents for corn, and 21 cents for sorghum. But the producers will get a check for 35 percent of the payment in October, 35 percent of it in February, and the last payment at the end of the 12-month marketing year for the crop in 2003. This is simply not what we promised and what will prove to be a serious burden for Kansas farmers this fall. They would have gotten the lump sum come this fall. Now it is going to be broken out over a 12-month period. This is something a number of farmers were counting on and need this year. Despite my concerns about many provisions in the farm bill, I do not want to indicate all is lost with it. I am pleased to see some of the conservation provisions in the bill which I think are positive. Something I and others have worked on--carbon sequestration--is in the bill. The pilot program for carbon sequestration will help us build a new market for farmers--one that pays them for how they produce, not just what they produce. Carbon sequestration is a largely untapped resource that can buy us the one thing we need most in the debate on climate change, and that is time. The Department of Energy estimates over the next 50 to 100 years agricultural lands alone could have the potential to remove anywhere from 40 to 80 billion metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere. If we expand this to include forests, the number will be far greater, indicating there is a difference that could be made by encouraging a carbon sink approach. I am pleased with the work the conferees have made. I am not pleased with the product. I believe we are taking a step backwards for farmers in our country, for freedom, for markets, and for what is best for my family and for what is best for Kansas farmers. This is an overly complex bill. It is not going to be helpful this year. In future years, we are going to be looking at it and saying: Why are we going back to something we knew did not work in the past? For those reasons, I oppose the conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the attacks of September 11 exposed the weaknesses in how we protect our borders. Terrorists exploited the shortcomings in our immigration system and the lack of communication between the respective agencies that might have detected and deterred the events of that horrible day. At the same time, however, September 11 has also brought out the best of this great Nation. As a people and as a government, we have united and stood firm in support of our freedom and our principles. Significantly, September 11 has reaffirmed our Nation's pride in its immigrant roots. We have not lapsed into xenophobia, nor have we let terrorism cloud our judgment about the value of our immigrant neighbors or our visitors. We can take great pride in the fact that the Border Security bill which this body passed just two weeks ago, was intelligent and balanced. We were true both to our responsibility to protect our great Nation from those that mean us harm and our responsibility to keep our country open to those who mean us well. We need an agency that is likewise true to both these missions, an agency that can effectively enforce the immigration laws and provide timely and competent immigration services. Sadly, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has failed to perform either mission well, and restructuring INS has long been on the legislative agenda. While I deeply respect the hard work that Commissioner Ziglar has put into reforming that agency, the fact is that the INS requires more fixes than can be done administratively. The fundamental problems with the INS compel legislative intervention. That is why I am honored to join Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, and my other colleagues in introducing the Immigration Reform, Accountability, and Security Enhancement Act of 2002. I would like to point out that, as with the border security bill, we have a bipartisan, balanced, and intelligent bill that will deal effectively with the challenges that face our Nation. I am proud to be a part of it.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the attacks of September 11 exposed the weaknesses in how we protect our borders. Terrorists exploited the shortcomings in our immigration system and the lack of communication between the respective agencies that might have detected and deterred the events of that horrible day. At the same time, however, September 11 has also brought out the best of this great Nation. As a people and as a government, we have united and stood firm in support of our freedom and our principles. Significantly, September 11 has reaffirmed our Nation's pride in its immigrant roots. We have not lapsed into xenophobia, nor have we let terrorism cloud our judgment about the value of our immigrant neighbors or our visitors. We can take great pride in the fact that the Border Security bill which this body passed just two weeks ago, was intelligent and balanced. We were true both to our responsibility to protect our great Nation from those that mean us harm and our responsibility to keep our country open to those who mean us well. We need an agency that is likewise true to both these missions, an agency that can effectively enforce the immigration laws and provide timely and competent immigration services. Sadly, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has failed to perform either mission well, and restructuring INS has long been on the legislative agenda. While I deeply respect the hard work that Commissioner Ziglar has put into reforming that agency, the fact is that the INS requires more fixes than can be done administratively. The fundamental problems with the INS compel legislative intervention. That is why I am honored to join Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, and my other colleagues in introducing the Immigration Reform, Accountability, and Security Enhancement Act of 2002. I would like to point out that, as with the border security bill, we have a bipartisan, balanced, and intelligent bill that will deal effectively with the challenges that face our Nation. I am proud to be a part of it.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise to speak on the pending business, the trade promotion authority bill. I will be brief. I believe I am the only Member of the Senate who has worked in the Trade Representative's office. In 1991, I had a wonderful experience as we were negotiating several major treaties at that time. Without qualification, for the United States to engage in more trade negotiations and more trade agreements is positive. There will be sectors in the United States that have difficulty. That is why we have trade assistance provisions, to make those transitions better. But overall, for the U.S. consumers and the U.S. economy, trade promotion, reducing barriers and tariffs--and tariffs amount to nothing more than taxes; tariffs are taxes--this is a positive action for U.S. producers and U.S. consumers. Not that it is uniform for everybody, but for the overall economy this is positive. It has been positive and remains positive. Narrowly for my State, the State of Kansas, where we have a lot of agricultural exports, where at least 1 out of 3 acres goes to the export market, the international market is a critical market for us. A lot of our livestock goes to the international marketplace. It is a very important part of our business. Aviation is a main part of our industry. Much of that goes into the international marketplace as well. This is positive. It is probably the best thing we can do at this time, on top of the tax cuts, to stimulate the U.S. economy, and expansion of our broad-band access is a third issue that can stimulate the overall economy. Trade is a key one. It is broadly supported in this body. It is not supported by everybody, but overall it has a strong base of support and that is because our economy is built on trade and so much of our opportunities to expand this economy are built on trade. The trade needs to be both free and fair. I hope we can get a strong vote for trade promotion authority to encourage the President to engage in substantial trade agreements with key trading partners of the United States so we can aggressively move our economy forward and out of the sluggish position and the negative growth we had last year and continue strong, positive growth. I wish to talk narrowly about a particular provision I would like to see us take up, and I will be putting forward an amendment with regard to this issue, and that is expansion of trade in central Asia. I am referring to those countries known as the ``stans,'' that were under the Soviet Union--Kazakhstan; Uzbekistan became more familiar to us in the war on terrorism; Turkmenistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan as well. We need to enter into permanent normal trade relations with these nations. As we seek to engage them, as we seek to work closer with them in the battle on terrorism, as we seek to engage them internationally, particularly Kazakhstan on expanded oil production and gas production so we are not as dependent on the Middle East for oil, it is very important that we engage them in the area of permanent normal trade relations; that we are able to give to them the same status we give to virtually every country trading with the United States around the world. They are key countries. They are key in the battle on terrorism, as we have already seen. They are key in our energy diversity. I am hoping we can get more of our energy production at home. That is what we debated over the last 5 weeks. We also need to diversify our source of energy. One of the key areas to which we can go is Kazakhstan and also Azerbaijan. We need to have permanent normal trade relations to expand that energy supply and expand that energy exchange. They want to grow with us. Some are trying to pull them into being a radicalized militant state against the United States. There are forces in several of these countries seeking to do that. One of the best things we can do with them is to broadly engage them economically. We have the opportunity, but we do not have PNTR with these nations in the central Asian region. We do with Georgia, we do with Kyrgyzstan, but not the other countries I named. I will be putting forward an amendment, hopefully with a number of cosponsors, that is going to be modeled after the Central Asian Trade Act of 2002. In this bill, we would like to bring up the issue of PNTR with these central Asian countries. I hope my colleagues will look at this carefully, critically, and with an eye to what is best for this region and what is best for the United States. In our battle on terrorism, it is best we be engaged with these countries. In our battle to diversify our energy sourcing, it is best we be engaged with these countries. For their stability in this region of the world long-term, it is best that we are engaged. One of the prerequisites for us being able to do that is PNTR. I am quite hopeful we can take this up; that it will be a noncontroversial amendment; that it can be accepted, passed, and that we can move this on through so we can get PNTR for central Asia and we can start working so we are not engaged in this region militarily, pull out of the area, then we see more militant activity buildup and we have to go back in. Rather, let's be engaged in this region on a long-term basis so we do not have to go in episodically, with billions of dollars, and try to clean up a problem that evolved over a period of time. This is one we can head off at the pass. We can deal with this, we should deal with this, and I am hopeful we are going to be able to take this amendment up on PNTR for central Asia during this debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object, and I will probably not object, but we have an amendment on climate change issues that I did not hear made mention of. I inquire of the assistant majority leader with regard to that amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could inquire, does that include, then, the amendment we have put forward?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is a compromise approach on a very difficult issue. It involves taking out the underlying language on the CO2 registry. It will put in place a 5-year voluntary program on registering of CO2 emissions. After that period of time, if 60 percent are not reported, it does put in place a trigger mechanism, a mandatory reporting, unless there is an affirmative vote by this body which is required in the bill to remove that reporting requirement. It is a bipartisan approach. It is a compromise approach on a tough topic. It is voluntary. It is market oriented. It provides companies a way to limit their risk and exposure on CO2 issues of anything that might happen in the future and provides a registry for companies that want to voluntarily step forward and work to reduce those CO2 emissions. They may want to put in a new powerplant that is coal fired to protect themselves for CO2 exposures. This is a tough and complex topic. I think we have struck the right balance with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is correct.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, to remove the confusion, I withdraw my request at this time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I spoke with Senator Hagel and told him I would send it forward, then ask for the modification, and then set it aside. If we want to do those at the same time, that is fine. I just wanted to get the amendment and its modifications forward. It is not to get ahead of anybody. If they want to do the modifications at the same time, I will yield to the distinguished floor leader from Nevada.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I call up amendment No. 3239 and ask for its immediate consideration, and I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 3239.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like to send forward, modify, and set aside.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent floor privileges be granted to John Carter of the Immigration Subcommittee staff for the duration of this bill's consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be happy to yield for a question. I have yielded back the floor. If I could secure the floor, Mr. President, I would be happy to yield for a question from the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Kennedy, as ranking member on the Immigration Subcommittee to support this bill. This bill cleared the House of Representatives twice on a unanimous consent calendar. It is important. We still have problems at our borders. This bill deals with trying to get at the terrorists who seek to enter our land and not the legitimate people who are seeking to come here for reasons that are positive to the United States. This bill is a testament to the dedication of this body and in Congress. It is bipartisan. It has had the input of many Members. The bill reflects how truly united we as Americans stand before the threat of terrorism. The bill is the product of a lot of dedicated people, too many to name--elected officials from both sides of the aisle, from both Houses, and experts from both inside and outside of Government. The entire community in and around Washington and the country came together for this common goal of defending America. The bill is endorsed by the entire immigration spectrum. The groups that are the most impacted by it endorse it. They appreciate the hard decisions that have to be made after September 11 and see the wisdom in this legislation. We have legislation here that protects our borders without compromising our values or our economy. This legislation is a measured, intelligent response to an evil that we will defeat. I am proud to be a part of this bill. I will describe quickly, what we are trying to do--and we will get it done--is to get information sharing from the various governmental agencies--the INS, the State Department, but also the CIA, the FBI, the DIA, and, hopefully, even other intelligence sources--so that we will have information sharing so we can catch before they enter this country people who seek to do harm. That information sharing is not taking place to the degree it needs to be today. Senator Kennedy noted how many people yearly enter this country legally--over 300 million entries--and we are looking for those few who seek to come in here to do us harm. We are looking for a needle in a haystack, so we have to have that information sharing. We are trying to expand the perimeter around the United States. This would include working with Canada and Mexico to get our perimeter broader and more secure. I visited the El Paso INS detention facility 1 year ago. There at the detention center were people who had tried to enter our country illegally from 59 different countries, coming in through Central America, going up by land through Central America, through Mexico. We need to get the Mexican Government's support and help in protecting our perimeter. We require manifests from other countries before the flights leave so we can check those when they come in. We provide more monitoring of foreign students in this country once they come here. On September 11, unfortunately, some of those terrorists were here under student visas. We have to monitor the foreign students better in this country. This bill provides biometrics. It provides more information we can use in checking people at the border. We have a number of other provisions that are in the bill. It provides for more border security officials to be able to check to make sure we are getting our job done. In short, Mr. President, this bill has received a lot of work. We need to pass this legislation. I believe we will get it passed today. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as we are getting this matter wrapped up, I wish to recognize four key staff members who really helped shepherd this bill through. This is important safety legislation. I, first, recognize Senator Kennedy's lead staff on this, Esther Olavarria, who is a humble, diligent servant of the State and who does a wonderful job on these sorts of issues. She worked closely with my staff member, David Neal, who is relatively new to the process but has diligently worked to shepherd this legislation on through. Also, for Senator Feinstein and for Senator Kyl, two wonderful staff members who helped make the core nucleus in negotiating this through; Elizabeth Maier and LeVita Strickland are excellent people. I think at the end of the day when we look to strengthen the borders of this country to protect our people, these four great citizens really dedicated a lot of time and a lot of soul to be able to get this through. I want to note their tremendous activity in this regard.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the body for 1 minute.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I note a word of thanks to Senator Byrd. He has dealt with many of us for some period of time on this particular issue in some contentious situations. He has dealt with us privately, publicly, and in other forums. At the end of the day, we do come out with a better piece of legislation. For that I thank the Senator. At the time, going through it, I was not quite as thankful for that. He has done a service to the country. And at the end of the day, we will have a better piece of legislation. I thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Kyl, and Feinstein. Together we crafted a good piece of legislation. I am thankful to be a part of it. I think it will be a very positive move for our country. I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 3161