Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object, I have one unanimous consent request I would like to make regarding an immigration bill before, if possible, the Senator from West Virginia speaks.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I believe I have 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I want to read from the Governor's letter: I continue to support the rights of the four existing residential Native American tribes to conduct gaming in Kansas in accordance with approved compacts. Efforts to side- step IGRA negatively impact the rights of our residential tribes as well as the rights of the State of Kansas. This is a quote from the Indian Nations of Kansas, the four tribes-- the Kickapoo, Sac and Fox, Prairie Band, and Iowa Tribe: The four Indian Nations in Kansas have unanimously supported the governor of the State of Kansas in opposition to out-of-state Tribes attempting to gain land holdings in the state of Kansas for purposes of establishing gaming enterprises. They are all united and opposed to what was stealthily slipped in the dark of night by staff in a handwritten note, and it is wrong for this to take place. I put my colleagues on notice, I put the House on notice, and I put the Wyandotte Tribe in Oklahoma on notice: This is going to be back next year. You have bought the land, and you may have won this round, but we will be back at this next year. The way this happened is not fair. I think it is a sacrilege for them to desecrate this sacred site for their own gaming purposes, their own income purposes, their own purposes of making money that they would take this upon this sacred site. In all traditions, burial grounds are treated as a sacred site. This is wrong. It should not happen, and it was slipped in the wrong way. Madam President, I thank you for your understanding of this situation. I hope we can correct this next year. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate that being raised by my colleague from Nevada--his assurance that we get this dealt with next year. We have talked off the floor about that. He agrees this is not the right way for this to come in. I point out that this is something we are going to have to deal with next year because this matter will still be under construction, or starting to be constructed at that point in time. It needs to be changed back in the Department of the Interior appropriations bill. I am very pleased that the Senator from Nevada recognizes that as well. I point this out because I think this is such an abuse of the process. It is just wrong for this to take place. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Governor of the State of Kansas regarding this matter and also one from the four Indian nations in Kansas, the four recognized tribes, all opposed to the expansion of the Oklahoma Indian tribe into Kansas to build a casino.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I have an issue I want to explain to my colleagues before the Labor-HHS conference report comes before the body. In that conference report, there was an item that was going to address a wrong that had been placed in an earlier appropriations bill and that was not the Interior appropriations bill. This body passed a particular piece of legislation, a very small paragraph, that dealt with a situation in Kansas that was then taken out of the conference report. That is why I am objecting to the Labor-HHS conference report until I get some assurances that we are going to have this issue dealt with next year. It has to do with a cemetery in Kansas. The pictures I have here are of a beautiful site in Kansas City, KS, that is called the Huron Indian Cemetery. The area overlooks the Kansas River. It is up on a bluff. It is in downtown Kansas City, KS. It is where a number of Native Americans are buried who lived in this area--the Wyandotte Tribe who lived in this area, before a number of them moved to Oklahoma, before the tribe moved to Oklahoma. You can see the pictures we have of a peaceful site in Kansas City, KS. It is virtually a park for a lot of people, a very solemn cemetery that is maintained quite nicely in this area. We have Indian gaming in Kansas, and four tribes are recognized in Kansas. Each has a casino in the State. There is a tribe in Oklahoma, the Wyandotte Tribe, that wants to build a casino in Kansas, even though they are now located in Oklahoma. Initially, they wanted to build it on top of the cemetery. Local people protested, saying: Why are you ruining this sacred site to put in a casino? They said: OK, we will put stilts on it and you will still have the cemetery, but this will sit on top of it. Next they said: We want to build it right next to it. We are going to buy property next to the cemetery and we want to put in a casino, even though we are not a Kansas tribe and we are from out of State; some of our ancestors from the Wyandotte Indians were buried here 200 years ago, so we want to be able to claim this as an Indian reservation in Kansas, even though we are an Oklahoma tribe; we want to be able to claim it in Kansas so we can build a casino in Kansas. That is what they desired to do. The four recognized tribes in Kansas opposed it and said: Look, you left the State, and we stayed here; we have the appropriate authorization to build casinos; we don't want another one in the State; we don't want you coming here. The unofficial Wyandottes who stayed in Kansas said: We don't want you to have a casino next to our graveyard. It is a sacrilege to put a casino on it, on top of it, or next to it. We oppose that. The Governor of Kansas opposed them doing that, saying this isn't fair to our tribes in the State. It isn't fair to the Wyandotte Indians and their ancestors who stayed in the area for an Oklahoma tribe to come in. They fought them on doing that. This matter was litigated first in Federal court, lower court, and in the Tenth Circuit Court. In each case, Kansas, and the tribes in Kansas, the local people who stayed in Kansas, won against the Oklahoma tribe. They won at all levels--lower court, district court, and Tenth Circuit Court. So they could not declare this land adjacent to the cemetery as part of the Oklahoma Wyandotte Reservation in Kansas. That is what they were trying to do. The court said they disagreed with that. Let me take you to the Department of the Interior Appropriations bill. In that appropriations bill, nothing was passed regarding this issue on either side, the House side or Senate side. In the conference committee that met, there was a handwritten sentence that was written in by a staff member that overruled the court ruling and allowed for the creation of a casino next to this cemetery. That was done in the Interior Appropriations bill. Both Senator Roberts and I are opposed to doing this. This was not brought to the Senate floor, not handled here. This was a handwritten sentence that was inserted. They declared: We are going to overrule the court case, overrule what the Kansas Senators want to do. They are going to allow them to build a casino next to the cemetery, regardless of what the local tribes and the Governor and what the people in the State of Kansas or what the two Senators say. It is an egregious abuse of the appropriations process to do this-- and in my State where people don't want this to take place--just for the financial advantage of an Oklahoma tribe. If they want to do this in Oklahoma, build casinos there. That is up to them. Fine. But in Kansas this is not appropriate. Yet they slipped in that handwritten note to the Interior conference report. This body, the Senate, corrected that in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. We said this is not appropriate to take place in Kansas. That was the amendment that was on the floor and was accepted. That was the position of this body. In the conference meeting that took place last night, the House would not agree with the Senate position, so the Senate position was taken out and now we are left with the Oklahoma Wyandottes being allowed to build a casino right next to this cemetery in Kansas City, KS, and overrule a court ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, one of the most important chapters in our national story of human freedom and dignity is the history and legacy of the African American march toward freedom, legal equality and full participation in American society. Yet in our Nation's front yard, the national mall, there is no museum set aside to honor this legacy. Yesterday, the Senate began the very important step toward establishing a national museum in Washington, DC to honor the rich history of African Americans. With the passage of H.R. 3442, a bill that creates a Presidential commission that will develop a plan to establish and maintain the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the Senate has taken a tremendous step closer to honoring those African Americans who not only fought for their own freedom but fought for the freedoms in this country that we enjoy today. I thank my colleague Senator Max Cleland for his leadership in the Senate on this issue. Senator Cleland worked diligently with me to draft a bill that would properly honor the history of African Americans. This legislation will enable our Nation to start the process that will honor this important aspect of American history. Specifically, the legislation creates a 19-member commission made up of individuals who specialize in African American history, education and museum professionals. The commission has 9 months to present its recommendations to the President and Congress regarding an action plan for creating a national museum honoring African Americans. The commission will decide the structure and makeup of the museum, devise a governing board for the museum, and among other action items, will consider planning the museum within the Smithsonian's arts and industries building, which is the last existing space on the national mall. As a Kansan, I feel a special connection to honoring the legacy of African Americans. The State of Kansas not only played a significant role in the civil war but also was chosen by many African American families as a place to begin their new life of freedom and prosperity in the ``exodus'' to Kansas. I believe that it is long over due that we properly honor African American history by establishing a world class museum that showcases the achievements of African Americans in this country. I look forward to the commission's recommendations for establishing this museum on the national mall in Washington, DC, where African American history belongs. I do not pretend that this legislation is a cure-all for the problem of racial division, it is, however, an important and productive step toward healing our nation's racial wounds. This museum will both celebrate African American achievement and serve as a landmark of national conscience on the historical facts of slavery, the reconstruction, the civil rights struggle and beyond. Dr. King expressed his hope for national reconciliation. I too hope ``That the dark clouds of [misconceptions] will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.'' Today, we are one step closer to fulfilling this goal. I am proud to be a part of honoring this magnificent history. As a nation we have an extraordinary opportunity before us--a chance to learn, understand and remember together our nation's history and to honor the significant contribution of African Americans to our history and culture.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today for two purposes: first, to support the amendment from my friend and colleague from Kansas, and second to briefly discuss an important priority of mine, carbon sequestration. Shortly, we will vote on the Cochran-Roberts amendment, which is in essence, a substitute farm bill, with the main difference lying in the commodity title. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for a variety of reasons: this proposal helps farmers during hard times by retaining loan rates and increasing the fixed, decoupled payments that farmers now get, but in place of the target price programs, Cochran- Roberts adds a farm savings account. These savings accounts will be available to all producers to help with the risks of production and market risks. These savings accounts give farmers the tools they need to manage their finances and provides up to $1.2 billion in matching funds annually. The Cochran-Roberts proposal provides market-oriented loan rates and promotes dependable policy. This proposal provides farmers a consistent, predictable income safety net and maintains flexibility in market-oriented planting. The current Marketing Loan Program is continued for traditional program crops under this legislation. Overproduction is minimized by ensuring more market-oriented loan rates. In times of low prices farmers are protected through counter-cyclical income protection. The reason these changes are so important is that we must guard against locking into place policies that guarantee overproduction and low prices while also providing adequate protection against market lows. This is a very difficult balance to achieve, but it is curious that the same opponents of freedom to farm, who chided the policy as guaranteeing overproduction, are now advocating policies which will do far more to increase overproduction because they distort the market forces that would otherwise instruct farmers to pull back. I understand the desire to complete action on a farm bill before the end of this year, of the concern that there won't be as much money available in next year's farm bill. But I say to my colleagues, this bill is too important to rush through and do poorly merely for the sake of time. I am pleased to join my colleague from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, in supporting this legislation. This is responsible farm legislation that will help the hard working farmers of my State. The President and Secretary Veneman have stated their support for this legislation and I encourage my colleagues in Senate to pass this responsible farm legislation. Last week, this body adopted an amendment from Senator Wyden and my self to establish a carbon trading pilot program through farmer owned cooperatives. This will allow our farmers an opportunity to explore the market realities of this promising process that reduces carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to climate change, while also improving water and soil quality. Co-ops will now be able to aggregate sequestered soil carbon into tons and market it to utilities and other industries eager to offset their emissions. This is all still an experimental idea, which is exactly why we need to pilot program to explore the numerous questions surrounding this issue. This pilot program will help us measure both the environmental gain and the economic potential for a carbon market farmers can participate in. Although I have concerns about much of the existing farm bill, I applaud the leadership of Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar on the subject of conservation in this farm bill and specifically, the research and grant money for carbon sequestration contained in their bill. This is a critically important new market opportunity for farmers and the energy title of Senator Harkin's bill moves us to great deal forward on a number of important fronts. I am pleased that the Cochran-Roberts amendment recognizes this strength and keeps this title largely in tact. In closing, I urge my colleague to vote for the Cochran-Roberts amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. The comments I want to make will take about 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. We can probably do it in 15 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be happy to enter into a time agreement on the carbon sequestration amendment. It can be a short time period. I do not think it is a particularly controversial amendment. We will be happy to enter into a time agreement.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I join with Senator Wyden to bring an amendment to the floor on the farm bill which will establish a pilot program for farmer owned cooperatives to measure, verify and trade sequestered soil carbon through agriculture conservation practices. This amendment will authorize $5 million over 5 years to establish a program that will allow our nation's farmers to implement the promise offered by carbon sequestration--a process where crops and trees convert carbon dioxide into stored carbon in the soil. At the same time, this project will provide the Congress with important information about how effective soil carbon sequestration will be in addressing the issue of climate change. As we set farm policy for the next five years, there are several important areas we have an opportunity to expand. One promising example is in a potential environmental market for farmers--where producers are paid by utilities and other greenhouse gas producers to offset carbon dioxide emissions to ease into CO2 reductions more cost effectively. Such a market is already being looked at in many sectors, but more information and applied research is needed to answer policy questions surrounding the effectiveness and permanence of carbon sequestration as part of the global climate change solution. I have introduced 3 bills involving carbon sequestration in this last year. I am pleased that many of these ideas have been embraced by the new farm bill currently on the Senate floor. Many farm conservation practices have been sequestering carbon for years--but we have not adequately been able to measure and capitalize on this promising process. The new farm bill will contain $225 million over 5 years for carbon sequestration grants to producers and research uninversities to do pilot projects to measure and verify carbon gains. In addition, USDA will become more engaged in measuring and verifying which farm conservation practices store carbon. There will also be continued funding for research through land grant universities--being led prominently by Kansas State University. In addition, the farm bill contains a grant program of $500 million over 5 years for private enterprise conservation--which includes carbon sequestration activities. Despite my concerns about many provisions in this farm bill--I am very pleased to see these provisions included. This will build a new market for farmers--one that pays for how they produce, not just what they produce. The Wyden-Brownback amendment builds on this promise and expands it to help us explore how carbon trading might work by using one of the most trusted friends of the farmer--cooperatives. Carbon sequestration is a largely untapped resource that can buy us the one thing we need most in the climate debate time. The Department of Energy estimates that 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 real difference that could be made by encouraging a carbon sink approach. Carbon sequestration alone can not solve the climate change dilemma, but as we search for technological advancement that allow us to create energy with less pollution, and as we continue to research the cause and potential effects of climate change, it only makes sense that we enhance a natural process we already know has the benefit of reducing existing concentrations of greenhouse gases--particularly when this process also improves water quality, soil fertility and wildlife habitat. This is a no-regrets policy--much like taking out insurance on your house or car. We should do no less for the protection of the Planet. Carbon sequestration can only be one tool in the fight to reduce greenhouse gases in a cost effective way, but it is something we can be doing right now for the benefit of our atmosphere, our water, our soil and our farmers and foresters. There is no downside to supporting this amendment. We advance important conservation goals and begin taking concrete action on one of o ur toughtest environmental challenges. Not only does this amendment help the environment, it also helps to flesh out the details behind a very promising and potentially lucrative market for farmers and foresters--a market where they would be paid for how they produce, in addition to what they produce. Early estimates from the Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases indicate that the potential for a carbon market for U.S. agriculture could reach $5 billion per year for the next 30-40 years. Mr. President--this is a common sense amendment--which is good for our farmers, good for the environment and could provide a bridge to begin dealing with one of our most challenging environmental problems by applying the market principles to reduce climate change. This is an important first step--which opens the door to a new bi-partisan alliance that will help make real progress on the issue. I urge my colleagues to support the Wyden-Brownback amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, Julie Robinson is extraordinarily well qualified. She is the right person for the job. She has served as a bankruptcy judge. I have known of her and her work for a long period of time. Her family even years ago came to Kansas as Exodusters, freed slaves. So she really has had an extraordinary life. She is going to be an extraordinary judge. I urge all my colleagues to support her nomination. Thank you.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. For 2 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded in order for me to speak for 2 minutes on an earlier discussion about the tanker fleet.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will not be long. I wish to speak about the leasing of 100 aircraft tankers, many of which will be remodeled in the State of Kansas. I have great respect for the Senator from Arizona and the issue he is raising about the lack of review, but I also wish to be very specific about what is taking place. The current tanker fleet is 40 years old, some of it 45 years old. That is my age. Some days I feel very old. A lot of these tankers are spending a great deal of time in depot. They are spending up to 60 percent of their time being repaired. If we do not go through this lease arrangement, we are not going to have the tanker fleet to conduct our current long-range bombing missions. While I have great respect as to how this has come up--the lack of hearings--the fact is we cannot conduct campaigns, such as we are in Afghanistan, unless we do something like this. I also think this lease arrangement is going to allow us to do something we could not do if we were on a straight purchase basis. It is something we need to do now. For those reasons, I want to be clear on my support, even though I have great admiration for the Senator from Arizona and the legitimate issues he is bringing up. We simply cannot do this any other way. This will get us 100 aircraft that we need to replace some that are 40 to 45 years old. This legislation will get this going now while we have the operational capacity to build them. Because of the lack of construction that is taking place at Boeing and the rest of its fleet construction, we are going to be laying people off. Instead of laying them off, we can put them to work. It has come up in a questionable fashion. For that I have respect for those who are challenging this provision. Still, these are extraordinary times. If we do this, we can get something of value at a time when we can construct the aircraft. And it can be scored such that we can afford to pay for this at this point in time. For all those reasons, I think this is a legitimate and a proper thing for us to do. I add my voice to that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for a period of 2 minutes regarding the issue of tanker replacements.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I am please to join Senator McCain today in introducing the Emission Reductions Incentive Act of 2001. This bill will put into place a voluntary registry for greenhouse gas, GHG, reductions house in the Department of Commerce. Furthermore, the bill establishes structure for the independent measurement and verification of GHG reductions. This is an important step in providing an incentive for companies who wish to reduce their emissions, and it will provide assurance that companies who take positive action on climate change today will be rewarded in the future. All this can be accomplished with barely any cost to the government, since it will be private, third party groups that undertake the burden to measure, verify and prove actual greenhouse gas emission reductions. There are those who wonder why such a measure is needed, given the fact that there is an existing registry in the Department of Energy and the uncertainty on the climate change issue. First, the new registry will only hold information that has been independently verified. Like the current registry, this new registry would be completely voluntary. However, unlike the DOE program, this registry will focus on keeping track of proven greenhouse gas reductions, and will therefore, encourage more companies to undertake measures to reduce emissions since they will have the ability to defend these reductions as real if future regulations are put in to place. Also, since this registry will be housed in the Department of Commerce and verified by independent parties, it treats the issue as an investment or transaction between companies to limit risk, rather than an environmental regulation. Several utilities and other companies who emit high levels of carbon dioxide have expressed real concern that they need certainty to be able to plan for the life of new power plants and investment decisions which will last for 20 years or more. Currently, there is no certainty with regard to how the climate change issue will be handled. This means companies must plan for an uncertain future which leads to undue expense. This bill will allow companies to decide for themselves how much action they need to take, and provide a way of taking out an insurance policy, of sorts, on the climate change issue. This is important because we need more investment in energy infrastructure, more clean coal plants and natural gas plants. Yet these new plants won't move forward if they fear being hit with a high carbon tad in the next 5-10 years. This bill offers industry a way to make investments in GHG reductions or carbon sequestration offsets gradually, building up credits that could be used down the road if regulations are put into place. While there is no ``one-for-one'' trade in on these credits, there would be a government certified stamp of approval on early actions to reduce greenhouse gases--which any future regulations would have to account for Second, there are those who argue that the science is still unsettled with regard to the climate change issue, and that we should not move toward costly measures which will punish industry for a problem that is still not fully understood. Actually, this is the very reason why we should establish a voluntary, but measured and verified registry now. This bill given industry the opportunity to experiment and get credit for pro-active measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without unduly burdening energy consumers. New and better technology is the key to solving this issue, but why would a company employ such technology now with the uncertainty surrounding how this issue will be addressed? They could in fact, be punished for such actions if later regulations are put into place which do not account for reductions that were already taken. This is a free-market approach to reward and encourage responsible industry to continue and even make a market out of reducing greenhouse gases. This registery will help establish and encourage the most cost-effective ways to tackle this problem while also finding where difficulties may lie. We can not shrink from difficult challenges, nor should we overreact. When there is the opportunity to allow market force to work on a problem, we should most definitely encourage that process. I am pleased to be joining my friend from Arizona in introducing this legislation and look forward to pursuing this policy during the upcoming energy debate.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I am please to join Senator McCain today in introducing the Emission Reductions Incentive Act of 2001. This bill will put into place a voluntary registry for greenhouse gas, GHG, reductions house in the Department of Commerce. Furthermore, the bill establishes structure for the independent measurement and verification of GHG reductions. This is an important step in providing an incentive for companies who wish to reduce their emissions, and it will provide assurance that companies who take positive action on climate change today will be rewarded in the future. All this can be accomplished with barely any cost to the government, since it will be private, third party groups that undertake the burden to measure, verify and prove actual greenhouse gas emission reductions. There are those who wonder why such a measure is needed, given the fact that there is an existing registry in the Department of Energy and the uncertainty on the climate change issue. First, the new registry will only hold information that has been independently verified. Like the current registry, this new registry would be completely voluntary. However, unlike the DOE program, this registry will focus on keeping track of proven greenhouse gas reductions, and will therefore, encourage more companies to undertake measures to reduce emissions since they will have the ability to defend these reductions as real if future regulations are put in to place. Also, since this registry will be housed in the Department of Commerce and verified by independent parties, it treats the issue as an investment or transaction between companies to limit risk, rather than an environmental regulation. Several utilities and other companies who emit high levels of carbon dioxide have expressed real concern that they need certainty to be able to plan for the life of new power plants and investment decisions which will last for 20 years or more. Currently, there is no certainty with regard to how the climate change issue will be handled. This means companies must plan for an uncertain future which leads to undue expense. This bill will allow companies to decide for themselves how much action they need to take, and provide a way of taking out an insurance policy, of sorts, on the climate change issue. This is important because we need more investment in energy infrastructure, more clean coal plants and natural gas plants. Yet these new plants won't move forward if they fear being hit with a high carbon tad in the next 5-10 years. This bill offers industry a way to make investments in GHG reductions or carbon sequestration offsets gradually, building up credits that could be used down the road if regulations are put into place. While there is no ``one-for-one'' trade in on these credits, there would be a government certified stamp of approval on early actions to reduce greenhouse gases--which any future regulations would have to account for Second, there are those who argue that the science is still unsettled with regard to the climate change issue, and that we should not move toward costly measures which will punish industry for a problem that is still not fully understood. Actually, this is the very reason why we should establish a voluntary, but measured and verified registry now. This bill given industry the opportunity to experiment and get credit for pro-active measures that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without unduly burdening energy consumers. New and better technology is the key to solving this issue, but why would a company employ such technology now with the uncertainty surrounding how this issue will be addressed? They could in fact, be punished for such actions if later regulations are put into place which do not account for reductions that were already taken. This is a free-market approach to reward and encourage responsible industry to continue and even make a market out of reducing greenhouse gases. This registery will help establish and encourage the most cost-effective ways to tackle this problem while also finding where difficulties may lie. We can not shrink from difficult challenges, nor should we overreact. When there is the opportunity to allow market force to work on a problem, we should most definitely encourage that process. I am pleased to be joining my friend from Arizona in introducing this legislation and look forward to pursuing this policy during the upcoming energy debate.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am caught in a position similar to that of the Senator from Alaska. I support what he put forward on the energy bill. It is of utmost urgency. We are so dependent upon unreliable sources of energy that we will look back and say we wish we had done something when we had a chance to do it. We are not doing it. I have put forward the moratorium on cloning. To clarify, where some have said this is about stem cells, it is not about stem cells. It is about cloning--taking a human individual and creating them by cloning technology, similar to what was used with Dolly the sheep. That is not stem cells. That is about cloning. It is a moratorium on cloning--a 6- month timeout. Let's wait a little bit and think about what we are actually getting into as the world contemplates this matter. Yet technology is diving into it in the United States, as we saw announced a week ago the first human clone ever in the world by a Massachusetts company. Let's think about this. That is why we brought up this issue on this procedural vehicle, saying lets get a clear vote on a 6-month moratorium. It is not an outright ban on everything for all time. It is 6 months where we hold hearings, do a thoughtful process. The House already has voted on the issue by over a 100-vote margin. They voted to ban cloning altogether. The President is pleading for a bill on banning cloning altogether. We weren't even going that far. We are saying a 6- month moratorium while we think about it, instead of letting private companies basically decide a huge issue for humanity. Right now we are letting private companies decide if they think it is OK to clone humans or not by their own privately hired ethics board. Do they think it is fine we clone humans or not. They are making the decision when this is something that should be in the public purview and public domain after thoughtful conversation. We are pleading for the time to do that. That is why I put the amendment together with the energy bill. We are getting toward the end of the session, and we need some discussion and clarity on this issue. Where the House has acted and the President is seeking a bill, we are in difficulty getting the bill done. We are going to look for other vehicles and other ways and means to get this moratorium so we can have that pause, that thoughtful bit of time when we can contemplate this issue of human cloning. It seems to me far superior to say right now: Let's wait for a little bit, rather than wait until there are more clones out there and then say: OK, I guess it is too late; the decision has already been made for us. That is not the way a responsible, deliberative body should act. I point out to my colleagues as well that this is a broad-based issue. In the House, the vote was broad based. Republicans and Democrats voted for the bill. We have sponsors from the left and the right of various groups--environmental groups, technology groups--that are questioning where some of the technology is taking us. We have sponsors forming conservative groups. There is a broad-based group supporting a moratorium or even an outright ban on human cloning. I know a number of my colleagues have questions and difficulties about the issue of genetically modified organisms. I count 12 of my colleagues who are opposed to GMOs, genetically modified organisms. That is where one takes two different species and crosses them to get a hybrid of sorts. They are taking a bit of genetic material from one and inserting it into the other. Some of my colleagues have real questions about where this is going. If some of my colleagues have questions about genetically modified organisms in plants and animals, what do they think about a genetically modified human? Is that something we want to let drift out there? We put a huge number of regulations on agricultural biotech companies that are developing genetically modified organisms. Yet if someone wants to do that to the human species, fine, go ahead, there is no regulation on it. Is that a thoughtful way for a deliberative body to work? We put limits on what one can do to eggs in other species. One cannot destroy a bald eagle egg. There is a Federal penalty for doing that. In this legislation, we are talking about creating and destroying. We are saying: Fine, go ahead. Do we give less weight to the human species than we do an eagle? Is that a way for a thoughtful, deliberative body to work? When we have this technology rushing, should we not be saying let's really consider what this technology is doing and what it means to us and what it means to the future of our country and our species? This 6-month moratorium seems to me to be a very modest step. I pleaded with the Democratic leadership: Let us bring this up on a separate stand-alone vote. They have not been willing to do so. This body now stands in the way of speaking on this as a country, when many other countries, 28 other countries have put forward laws and rules on human cloning. That is what we are talking about. Others may call it stem cells, but this is about human cloning. The issue of stem cells has been dealt with by the administration and they have put forward rules and regulations. This is about human cloning. That is why I sought to put this issue of human cloning on this particular amendment because we will not have any other vehicle to bring this forward. I am a sponsor of the railroad retirement bill. I have signed on to that bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill. I have heard from a number of my colleagues and constituents about it. I support the bill, but I also think we are at a unique point in human history where we need to consider what we are doing about cloning. For that reason, I put forward this particular amendment, and I ask my colleagues to consider it. I still want to find the time for us to consider this issue. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the time to be able to address the body on a key issue we will be taking up for a vote on Monday. Before I do that, I would like to make an announcement of an activity in which the Presiding Officer and I have been directly involved. On December 4, Tuesday this next week, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., it is going to be a day of reconciliation, a time period in the Rotunda for Members of both the House and Senate sides. This is going to be a time for the leaders of the country to get together and pray for the Nation. It is going to be December 4, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., just the leaders of the House, Senate, and administration. It will not be open to the public. I do hope Members can attend and be a part of that process and that ceremony. It is something the country used to do frequently and hasn't for a number of years. That will be December 4, 5 to 7 p.m., in the Rotunda.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to particularly address the issue of human cloning and the part of the bill that puts forth a 6- month moratorium on human cloning. I brought up before this body several times this week a U.S. News & World Report cover story of this week about the first human clone. Advanced Cell Technology out of Massachusetts is now saying they have cloned the first human being. We have to address this issue now or we are going to have to expect more stories such as this about the further development of human cloning before this body has spoken. The House has spoken and said they don't want to have human clones. They put forth a complete ban, and passed it by a large bipartisan majority, a 100-vote margin. The President said: Let's ban human cloning. We don't want to create humans for destructive purposes or for reproductive purposes in this fashion. He has asked for banning that. This body has failed to act. That is why we are putting forward at this time this request for a 6- month moratorium: Time out; hold up, so we don't have moratoriums such as this while this body takes time to deliberate, hold the committee hearings, and do the things it needs to do to consider this issue. We are asking for a timeout moratorium for 6 months. I want to make several points and cite various groups that are supporting the moratorium or even the entire banning of human cloning. I want to read some important articles which they have put forward. I will make several points over the following days, weeks, and months. One point is that research cloning being sponsored by Advanced Cell Technology requires eggs to be harvested from a woman. Harvesting eggs is an invasive and dangerous procedure. Harvesting eggs from women means the use of super-ovulatory drugs, the use of which has been linked to higher risks of ovarian cancer. The risk is one, a woman can take for a variety of reasons; one of them being to help have children. However, women are being asked to incur this risk to ``donate'' their eggs solely for money. Women who sell their eggs to firms like Advanced Cell Technology will likely disproportionately be of women who are already somewhat disenfranchised, or of lower income. In fact, it is now known that Advanced Cell Technology paid $4,000 to each woman who ``donated'' her eggs. I would say that is probably more than a donation if you pay $4,000 for the egg. I suggest if this doesn't qualify as exploitation of the disenfranchised for profiteering motives, I am not sure what does. This is not just a pro-life or pro-choice debate. It is not that at all. In fact, pro-choice feminist Judy Norsigian and biologist Stuart Newman recently commented in a Boston Globe column, Because embryo cloning will compromise women's health, turn their eggs and wombs into commodities, compromise their reproductive autonomy and, with virtual certainty, lead to the production of ``experimental'' human beings, we are convinced that the line must be drawn here. That is strong language. Experimental human beings, eggs and wombs turned into commodities, and compromising women's health. Perhaps that is why this debate is not a debate, as someone suggested, on the issue of abortion. And perhaps that is why we have an interesting coalition forming of groups that are strongly opposed to abortion, groups that strongly support abortion, environmentalists, and others. The reason for the broad range of interest is that there is truly something about this issue which should concern all of us. I would like to read a few of the articles appearing in recent months for the benefit of some of my colleagues. The first article is by Sophia Kolehmainen of the Council for Responsible Genetics, a pro- choice group chaired by Claire Nader. Claire is the sister of Ralph Nader, the Presidential candidate. She was actively involved in the Presidential campaign. This is what their group had to say about human cloning. This is the article they put forward. It is entitled ``Human Cloning: Brave New Mistake.'' It would be a mistake to develop and use cloning as a technique to replicate human beings. It is questionable whether and what benefits would be gained from the successful creation of a cloned human being, and whether they would justify the radical impact cloning would have on our society. Cloning is not just another reproductive technology that should be made available to those who choose to use it, but is an unnecessary and dangerous departure from evolutionary processes and social practices that have developed over millions of years. As with many other developments in biotechnology, some scientists and commentators are asking us to accept cloning of humans just because it is technically possible, but there are few good reasons to develop the technology, and many reasons not to develop it. 1. safety concerns The most frequently stated argument against cloning is based on safety concerns. At this point in the process of experimenting with cloning, such concerns are important. The production of Dolly required at least 276 failed attempts. No one knows why most of these attempts failed and only one succeeded. From a technical viewpoint, cloning presents different obstacles in every species, since embryo implantation, development, and gestation differ among different species. Human cloning therefore could not become a reality without extensive human experimentation. Though 276 ``failed'' lambs may be acceptable losses, the ethical implications of any failed or only partially successful human experiments are unacceptable. Some of their article I don't necessarily agree with, but I am reading through their arguments. 2. commodification Cloning would encourage the commodification of humans. Though industrialized societies commodify human labor and human lives, the biological commodification involved in human cloning would be of a vastly different order. Cloning would turn procreation into a manufacturing process, where human characteristics become added options and children become objects of deliberate design. Such a process of commodification needs to be actively opposed. It produces no benefits and undermines the very basis of our established notions of human individuality and dignity. 3. diversity Cloning would also disrespect human diversity in ethnicity and ability. Though it is, in fact, not possible to produce exact copies of animals or people, inherent in cloning is the desire to do so. The process of cloning would necessarily contribute to genetic uniformity by decreasing genetic variety. A society that supported cloning as an acceptable procreative technique would imply that human diversity is not important. Especially in a multicultural nation like the United States, where diversity and difference are at the root of our cultural existence, any procedure that would reduce our acceptance of differences would be dangerous. It is clear from the tensions that exist in our society that we should encourage processes that increase our appreciation for diversity among individuals, not working to remove differences. Dr. Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, put forward a strong statement in opposition to human cloning. This is a pro-choice group which put forward a strong statement in opposition to cloning for many of the same reasons that I have put forward. There are other groups that are putting forward clear and convincing reasons why we should not do cloning. For those reasons and many others, I ask this body to take up the bill numbered 2505 on Monday, and vote for cloture on the moratorium prohibiting human cloning for 6 months. There is ample reason for us to have a moratorium for 6 months. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the terrorist attacks of September 11 have unsettled the public's confidence in our Nation's security and have raised concerns about whether our institutions are up to the task of intercepting and thwarting would-be terrorists. Given that the persons responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon came from abroad, our citizens understandably ask how these people entered the United States and what can be done to prevent their kind from doing so again. Clearly, our immigration laws and policies are instrumental to the war on terrorism. While the battle may be waged on several fronts, for the man or woman on the street, immigration is in many ways the front line of our defense. The immigration provisions in the anti-terrorist bill passed earlier this month, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, represent an excellent first step toward improving our border security, but we must not stop there. Our Nation receives millions of foreign nationals each year, persons who come to the United States to visit family, to do business, to tour our sites, to study and learn. Most of these people enter lawfully and mean us well. They are our relatives, our friends, and our business partners. They are good for our economy and, as witnesses to our democracy and our way of life, become our ambassadors of good will to their home countries. However, the unfortunate reality is that a fraction of these people mean us harm, and we must take intelligent measures to keep these people out. For that reason, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, and others, legislation that looks specifically toward strengthening our borders and better equipping the agencies that protect them. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001 represents an earnest, thoughtful, and bipartisan effort to refine our immigration laws and institutions to better combat the evil that threatens our Nation. This legislation recognizes that the war on terrorism is, in large part, a war of information. To be successful, we must improve our ability to collect, compile, and utilize information critical to our safety and national security. This bill requires that the agencies tasked with screening visa applicants and applicants for admission, namely the Department of State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, be provided with the necessary law enforcement and intelligence information that will enable these agencies to identify alien terrorists. By directing better coordination and access, this legislation will bring together the agencies that have the information and those that need it. With input from the Office of Homeland Security, this bill will make prompt and effective information-sharing between these agencies a reality. In complement to the USA PATRIOT Act, this legislation provides for necessary improvements in the technologies used by the State Department and the Service. It provides funding for the State Department to better interface with foreign intelligence information and to better staff its infrastructure. It also provides the Service with guidance on the implementation of the Integrated Entry and Exit Data System, pointing the Service to such tools as biometric identifiers in immigration documents, machine readable visas and passports, and arrival-departure and security databases. To the degree that we can realistically do so, we should attempt to intercept terrorists before they reach our borders. Accordingly, we must consider security measures not only at domestic ports of entry but also at foreign ports of departure. To that end, this legislation directs the State Department and the Service, in consultation with Office of Homeland Security, to examine, expand, and enhance screening procedures to take place outside the United States, such as preinspection and preclearance. It also requires international air carriers to transmit passenger manifests for pre-arrival review by the Service. Further, it eliminates the 45-minute statutory limit on airport inspections, which many feel compromises the Service's ability to screen arriving flights properly. Finally, since we should ultimately look to expand our security perimeter to include Canada and Mexico, this bill requires these agencies to work with our neighbors to create a collaborative North American Security Perimeter. While this legislation mandates certain technological improvements, it does not ignore the human element in the security equation. This bill requires that ``terrorist lookout committees'' be instituted at each consular post and that consular officers be given special training for identifying would-be terrorists. It also provides special training to border patrol agents, inspectors, and foreign service officers to better identify terrorists and security threats to the Unites States. Moreover, to help the Service retain its most experienced people on the borders, this bill provides the Service with increased flexibility in pay, certain benefit incentives, and the ability to hire necessary support staff. Finally, this legislation considers certain classes of aliens that raise security concerns for our country: nationals from states that sponsor terrorism and foreign students. With respect to the former, this bill expressly prohibits the State Department from issuing a nonimmigrant visa to any alien from a country that sponsors terrorism until it has been determined that the alien does not pose a threat to the safety or national security of the United States. With respect to the latter, this legislation would fill data and reporting gaps in our foreign student programs by requiring the Service to electronically monitor every stage in the student visa process. It would also require the school to report a foreign student's failure to enroll and the Service to monitor schools' compliance with this reporting requirement. While we must be careful not to compromise our values or our economy, we must take intelligent, immediate steps to enhance the security of our borders. This legislation would implement many changes that are vital to our war on terrorism. I therefore urge my colleagues to support it.