Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4864, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address something about which the occupant of the chair has a great deal of concern. A bill was introduced recently by Senator Grassley from Iowa. I support his bill, the Packers and Stockyards Enforcement Improvement Act of 2000. I think this is a commonsense approach to a very difficult agricultural antitrust concern taking place. I applaud Senator Grassley's approach and endorse his Stockyards Enforcement Act of 2000. Concerns about concentration and market monopolization have risen in recent years, with the remaining low prices that farmers have received and the struggle that we have had to adopt and adapt to the globalized commerce that we see taking place. I was visiting yesterday with my dad, who farms full time in Kansas, and my brother who farms with him, about concerns regarding the concentration and the low prices taking place and what is happening around them. What Senator Grassley has done is request a GAO study, and he found that the USDA has not adequately put forward efforts of enforcement in the packers and stockyards field, and that needs to take place. He is taking the GAO study and putting it into legislative language. I believe it would be prudent and wise for this Congress to pass that language. Senator Grassley's bill spells out specific reforms that will make a direct difference in the way antitrust issues and anticompetitive practices are dealt with. Specifically, the bill will require USDA to formulate and improve investigation and case methods for competition- related allegations in consultation with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission; integrate attorney and economist teams, with attorney input from the very beginning of an investigation, rather than merely signing off at the end of the inquiry. It turns out that the GAO study reports that the economists are looking at the cases early on but the attorneys are not. The attorneys need to be involved at the very outset. By the nature of these charges, they are legal issues and should be looked at by attorneys at the very outset. It would establish specific training programs for attorneys and investigators involved in antitrust investigations. It would require a report to Congress on the state of the market and concerns about anticompetitive practices. Senator Grassley, today, chaired a hearing that further illuminated the problems, needs, and solutions. Senator Grassley's bill comes after a thorough examination of USDA's enforcement of the Packer's and Stockyards Act by the GAO. That report, released last week, found numerous problems in the way the agency approaches these investigations. I have to say, as somebody whose family is directly involved in farming, who has been secretary of agriculture for the State of Kansas, it troubles me when the Department is having difficulties enforcing this very important area of the law. This bill simply puts into law these GAO recommendations for USDA reform. This bill is necessary because USDA has been struggling to address many of these concerns raised by the GAO in terms of antitrust enforcement over the past 3 years. This issue has been raised in the Kansas State Legislature this last session with a great deal of concern about really who is watching. Are they properly prepared and adequately staffed to look into these antitrust investigations and allegations? This bill gets reforms done within a year and ensures that the law is being enforced. Today's agricultural markets are in tough shape. Prices are too low. We cannot, however, make assumptions about concentration as the cause without having accurate information and thorough investigations. Under Senator Grassley's bill, this process will be greatly improved because it requires USDA to retool and devote more resources to the area of antitrust enforcement. This bill avoids the pitfalls of lumping the innocent in with the guilty and instead sorts out anticompetitive practices where they occur. These reforms are necessary to restore producer confidence in the Packers and Stockyards Act and USDA's ability to police this increasingly concentrated industry. Again, I thank Senator Grassley for his wise approach on this tough issue and his continued sincere concern for the farmers of this Nation. This has been an excellent effort to move forward by Senator Grassley.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Alabama in noting that what the President is doing on SPR, in my view, is a diversion. It is not solving the fundamental problem we have with the energy supply in this country--either the refining capacity that has been limited, as the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, has spoken of, or the supply of the raw resource, about which the Senator from Alaska and others have spoken. We need to be able to get access to that, and this administration has stopped that from taking place. They stopped it from taking place on our shores and stopped an expansion of biomass, biofuels, and ethanol production. They have not been supportive of expansion there as well. They stopped expansion in places such as in Central Asia, in which I have done a fair amount of work. There are large reserves of hydrocarbons and oil and gas there. They have done nothing to bring this on-line. Yet countries in that region of the world--many of which most people haven't heard of--have, I believe, the third largest pool of hydrocarbons in the world. They are seeking ways to get it out to the West in an oil and gas pipeline. This administration hasn't done anything to get that started. So here we are today with high fuel prices, with no end in sight. Despite the President's diversion by using SPR and the misuse of this program--the way it was set up at least, the fundamental problem remains. We have to deal with the supply issue, and this administration hasn't done that. I applaud my colleague from Alabama for addressing that issue.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 4444, the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000. This bill is the most significant foreign policy-related legislation that we have debated during the 106th Congress. H.R. 4444 presents tremendous new export opportunities for our manufacturers, farmers, and service providers. While China has had excellent access to the U.S. market for 20 years, U.S. access to China's enormous market has been limited. With the enactment of this legislation, and China's accession to the WTO, that situation is about to change. The United States is finally going to enjoy virtually unfettered access to China's vast market. The impact on my State of Kansas will be substantial. China agreed to end corn export subsidies, increase import quotas for wheat and corn, and reduce soybean tariffs. China agreed to lower its tariff on beef from 45 to 12 percent and on pork from 20 to 12 percent. China agreed to accept USDA safety certification for meat and pork exports. And agriculture is not the only sector in my State that will benefit from China's accession to the WTO. Black & Veatch will see lower tariffs on imported equipment, which will reduce the contract cost of projects won in China. Boeing will have a more stable economic environment in which to sell airplanes to China's airlines. Granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations status to China will increase our exports to the world's most populous country. But, more importantly, bringing China into the WTO will put the PRC on a collision course with economic and political liberalization. Mr. President, China has been ruled by the Communist Party with an iron grip for more than 50 years. But WTO accession comes with a price. WTO accession will usher the forces of globalization into China in a very permanent way. Globalization will be good for China's economy because it will integrate China's economy into the world's economy. Globalization will also force the systemic reform of China's inefficient state-owned enterprises and banking system. But globalization will also have a much more profound effect on China. Globalization will force upon China the infrastructure necessary for greater political liberalization. Globalization will require China to have a stronger adherence to the rule of law and property rights. Globalization will create a stronger middle class in China that will demand greater freedom with which to enjoy their new position. Globalization will bring the internet into tens of millions of Chinese homes, exposing the Chinese people to Western standards of political and religious freedom, and human rights. I ardently believe that PNTR and human rights must go hand in hand. It is important to note that my positive position on PNTR gives me a door to walk through to raise a number of human rights issues with the Chinese Government, including religious liberty and the development of the rule of law. Somehow, an intellectual myth has been adopted, dictating only two ways to deal with China. Either grant PNTR status but never raise these issues, which gives an unfortunate, unbridled affirmation regarding known abuses. Or the second method which mandates a complete isolation from any relationship other than that of repeatedly dunning this government with ill will and no positive incentives. Such vitriol does not work with people and it does not work with governments, and ultimately, nothing changes for those who suffer. I propose a third way which calls for a relationship where we genuinely raise these issues in a serious, sustained dialogue. I do, in fact, raise these issues continuously. This way, will in the end, get religious prisoners free, and create an independent judiciary not ruled by Communist dogma, and give China pause the next time another Tiananmen Square breaks out. Ultimately, this way engenders freedom and human rights better than either of those other two methods. After all, isn't that what this is all about? One final note: I hope that the Chinese Government does not think that the tabling of the Thompson amendment is the end of the proliferation debate in the Senate. China must stop engaging in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Clinton administration has failed miserably to curb such proliferation. That is why there has been support to legislate antiproliferation policy in the absence of an executive proliferation policy. Mr. President, China must stop making weapons of mass destruction available to rogue nations around the world. We need to open up trade with China to increase our exports and to increase the exposure of the Chinese people to economic and political liberalization. But trade must not come at the expense of national security. Ignoring China's proliferation activities while we increase our trade ties with China would be a grave mistake. We must be vigilant and enforce current U.S. law as it pertains to proliferation. The Clinton administration's failure to do so has jeopardized national security. Congress must not permit future administrations to make the same mistake. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 14, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on S. 2749, a bill to establish the California Trail Interpretive Center in Elko, Nevada, to facilitate the interpretation of the history of development and use of trails in the settling of the western portion of the United States; S. 2885, a bill to establish the Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission, and for other purposes; S. 2950, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site in the State of Colorado; S. 2959, a bill to amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992, and for other purposes; and S. 3000, a bill to authorize the exchange of land between the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the George Washington Memorial Parkway in McLean, Virginia, and for other purposes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 14, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 14, 2000, at 1:00 p.m. to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on the Draft Biological Opinions by the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and the Federal Caucus draft Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 14, 2000, beginning at 1:00 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled ``Slotting Fees: Are Family Farmers Fighting to Stay on the Farm and in the Grocery Store?''

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 14, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. on air traffic control.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 14 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing. The committee will receive testimony on the transportation of Alaska North Slope natural gas to market and to investigate the cost, environmental aspects and energy security implications to Alaska and the rest of the nation for alternative routes and projects.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 14, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an informational hearing on the nomination of Major General Robert B. Flowers, nominated by the President to be Chief of Engineers, the Department of the Army.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to mark up the following bills in a business meeting to be held directly following the hearing on S. 2899, a bill to express the policy of the United States regarding the United States' relationship with Native Hawaiians, on September 14, 2000, at 3:30 p.m. in room 485 Senate Russell Office Building: S. 1840, the California Indian Land Transfer Act, and S. 2665, a bill to establish a streamlined process to enable the Navajo Nation to lease trust lands without having to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Interior of individual leases, except leases for exploration, development, or extraction of any mineral resources. These two bills for mark-up are in addition to the others previously announced which were: S. 2920, a bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, S. 2688, a bill to amend the Native American Languages Act, and S. 2899, a bill to express the policy of the United States regarding the United States' relationship with Native Hawaiians.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10:00 a.m. on Friday, September 15. I further ask consent that on Friday, Monday, and Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and on Friday the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 4444, the China PNTR bill, as under the previous order.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I further ask consent that the Senate convene on Monday at 12 noon, with the time until 2 p.m. designated for morning business, with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Thomas or his designee, 1 to 2 o'clock; Senator Graham of Florida, or his designee, 12 to 1 p.m.

Mr. BROWNBACK. On Tuesday, September 19, I ask that the Senate convene at 9:30 a.m., as under the previous order, and the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet and, upon reconvening, there be a vote on final passage of H.R. 4444, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I object to further proceeding on this bill at this time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand S. 3046 has been introduced by the majority leader and it is at the desk, and I now ask for its first reading.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, for his role in this matter. As a former attorney general, he brought up some excellent points about what these do when you put a child and a video game in a first person shooter role and you reward them for mass killings. You give them points. Particularly at the end, some of these games give a reward which is a particularly grisly killing scene. He pointed out that when you train children in this type of situation, this is harmful to them psychologically, and it is something to which we should be limiting their access. He also brought a lot of personal insight from his background as an attorney general, and that was really helpful. I hope we are going to be able to draw more attention to parents in the country about these products because it has a harmful effect. Some of our military actually buy the same products and train our military personnel on the video games. They use it as a simulator. They do it as a way of trying to get people to react and also to get them up on what is called their ``kill ratio.'' In World Wars I and II, we had problems with soldiers who would not shoot to kill because it was not a natural reaction. They would tend to shoot around. So they had to figure out how to get that ratio up in the military. The problem is when you do that with a child in an unsupervised game--the same game being used by military personnel as a simulator of combat conditions--that can be very harmful. We found out yesterday at the hearing that it is not only rated for a mature audience, it is not supposed to be used by a child. The industry itself rates it ``mature,'' but they market it to the child. They are target marketing it to children, according to a Federal Trade Commission study. I will speak about the Federal Trade Commission report that was aired in the Commerce Committee yesterday on marketing of violent entertainment products to our children. I want to talk about what that report brought forward, what we saw at the hearing yesterday, and some conclusion and things I think we can move forward on in dealing with this problem. At the outset, I recognize the work of one of my staff members, Cherie Harder, who has done outstanding work in the time she has been with me in the Senate in raising the visibility of this issue. It has been said that every good idea goes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is bitterly opposed; last, it is accepted as obvious. Over the past 2 years, I have chaired three hearings in the Commerce Committee on the effectiveness of labels and ratings, the impact of violent entertainment products on children. The first hearing on whether violent products are being marketed to our children happened about a month after the Columbine killings took place in Colorado. When we started out in these hearings, these ideas I put forward were ridiculed, bitterly opposed shortly afterwards; but now, in reviewing the FTC report, the fact that harmful, violent entertainment is being marketed to kids is now being accepted as clear and obvious. We have come a long way. This is an important Federal Trade Commission report. When I introduced the legislation last year to authorize the FTC report, which was cosponsored by several of my colleagues, I did so because of overwhelming anecdotal evidence that violent adult-rated entertainment was being marketed to children by the entertainment industry. It has been said that much of modern research is corroboration of the obvious by obscure methods. This study corroborates what many of us have long suspected, and it does so unambiguously and conclusively. It shows, as Chairman Pitofsky of the FTC noted, that the marketing is ``pervasive and aggressive.'' It shows that entertainment companies are literally making a killing off of marketing violence to kids. The problem is not one industry. It can be found in virtually every form of entertainment--music, movies, video games. Together they take up the majority of a child's leisure hours. The message they get and the images they see often glamorize brutality and trivialize cruelty. Take, for example, popular music. The FTC report notes that 100 percent of sticker music--that is music that has been rated by the industry rating board itself as not appropriate for the audience under the age of 18. The survey by the FTC was of the entertainment industry target-marketing to kids. This is both troubling and fairly predictable--troubling in that the lyrics you see that we previously discussed are target-marketed to young kids--mostly young boys--whose characters, attitudes, assumptions, and values are still being formed and vulnerable to being warped, and predictable in that there are few fans for such music who are over the age of 20. Movies are equally blatantly marketed to kids, and they are appalling in their content. Movies have great power because stories have great power; they can move us; they can change our minds, our hearts, and even our hopes. The movie industry wields enormous influence. When used responsibly, their work can edify, uplift, and inspire us. But all too often that power is used to exploit. I have seen some movies that are basically 2-hour long commercials for the misuse of guns. The movie industry has the gall to target-market teen slasher movies to child audiences and then insist that the R ratings somehow protect the movie industry. From reading the FTC report, it seems clear that the ratings protect the industry from the consumers rather than the consumers from the industry. Take video games. When kids play violent video games, they do not merely witness slaughter; they engage in virtual murder. Indeed, the point of what are called the first-person shooter games--that is virtually all of the M-rated games, sticker games that the industry itself says are inappropriate for an under-age-18 audience--the object is to kill as many characters as possible. The higher the body count, the higher your score. Often bonus points are given for finishing off your enemy in a particularly grisly way. Common sense should tell us positively that reinforcing sadistic behavior is a bad idea, and that in itself cannot be good for children. We cannot expect that the hours spent in school will mold and instruct the child's mind but that hours spent immersed in violent entertainment will not. We cannot expect that if we raise our children on violence, they are going to somehow love peace. This is not only common sense, it is a public health concern. In late July, I convened a Public Health Summit on Entertainment Violence. At the summit, we released a joint statement signed by some of the most prominent associations in the public health community. These are some of them: The American Medical Association; the American Academy of Pediatricians; the American Psychological Association; the Academy of Family Physicians; the American Psychiatric Association, and the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychologists. All of them signed the same document. I will only read a portion of that document to you. This portion of it reads this way: ``Well over 1,000 studies point overwhelmingly to a causal connection''--not correlation, causal connection--``between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children. The conclusion of the public health community based on over 30 years of research is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children.'' There is no longer a question as to whether disclosing children to violent entertainment is a public health risk. It is just as surely as tobacco or alcohol. The question is, What are we going to do about it? What does it take for the entertainment industry and its licensees and retailers to stop exposing children to poison? There is an additional element that this generally excellent FTC study fails to cover. That is the cross-marketing of violence to kids. There is ample proof that the entertainment industry not only directly targets children with advertising and other forms of promotion but also markets to them via toys and products that the entertainment industry itself rates as inappropriate for children. Walk into any toy store in America and you will find dolls, action figures, hand-held games, Halloween costumes based on characters in R- rated movies, musicians noted for their violent lyrics, and M-rated video games. Maybe I am particularly sensitive to this because I have five children. But I know this is accurate. There is an equally egregious aspect of marketing violence to children and cross-marketing of violent products to kids--one that has not yet adequately been investigated. We need to do so. I look forward to working with the FTC to ensure that this is done as well. Another media step we need to take is to ensure that these industries enter into a code of conduct. Consumers and parents need to know what their standards are for these industries; how high they aim; or how low they will go. I have introduced legislation--S. 2127--that would provide a very limited antitrust exemption that would enable but not require entertainment companies to enter into a voluntary code of conduct--have them set a floor, a base below which they won't go to get products out to children. We had a very telling exchange yesterday in committee. We had two executives from the movie industry and two from the video game industry. I asked them several times, Is there any word, is there any image so grisly, so bad, is there any example so horrible that you wouldn't put it in music or into a video game? Is there anything, any word, any image? We have some music that is very hateful toward women and harmful. Is there anything that you wouldn't include, that you could say here today you wouldn't put in music or in a video game? They wouldn't state anything that they wouldn't put in--nothing at all. We need them to set an industry code of conduct where they would set the standard below which they wouldn't go because many of them are saying if you don't do it, somebody else will. They will chase it. These billion-dollar industries think they don't have to go this low. But why not engage them in setting a voluntary code of conduct? They need to do so, and we need to pass this legislation to allow them to do it. There are other steps we should consider, but a rush to legislate is not one of them. Frankly, imposing 6-month deadlines on an industry that is actively fleecing money is unlikely to bring about lasting reform such as that suggested by the Vice President. We need to encourage responsibility and self-regulation. We need a greater cooperation from the corporations regarding their view of what they can do to help our children morally, physically, and emotionally--for the well-being of our children rather than harming them. This FTC report is an important step in that direction because although it concentrates on the tip of the iceberg, it does shed light on the magnitude of the problem that we have with the entertainment industry. It shows kids are being exploited for profit and exposes a cultural externality in this market. Ultimately, we asked the entertainment executives to come in front of the Commerce Committee yesterday--and in 2 weeks the movie industry--to work with us and to appeal to their sense of corporate responsibility and citizenship. Our appeal is this: Please just do the right thing. Stop marketing violence to our kids. If you believe a product is inappropriate for somebody under the age of 18, then don't target- market to that child that same product that you yourselves rate inappropriate for a child under the age of 18. Just stop it. Just do not do it. If the industry persists, the FTC has stated that they are going to do an investigation into whether or not some members of the industry who are doing this are liable to charges of false and deceptive advertising of these products. As I mentioned, a code of conduct would be an appropriate step forward for the industry to take. Yesterday, we discussed the music industry making widely acceptable and available to parents the lyrics that are in the music because, right now, those are not readily accessible or available to parents. But ultimately, we all protect the first amendment, and nobody is for censorship. I state that again. Nobody is for censorship. But we need to appeal to this industry to just do the right thing and stop target- marketing their products to our children. It is just wrong, and they need to stop it.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information of all Senators, at 10 a.m. tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 4444, the China trade bill. Those Senators who would like to make statements as in morning business may also come to the floor at any time during tomorrow's session. On Monday, the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 12 noon until 2 p.m. and then resume consideration of the China PNTR legislation. Also on Monday, the Senate may begin consideration of the water resources bill if an agreement can be reached. On Tuesday, under previous order, the two leaders will have from 9:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. for closing remarks on the PNTR bill. Following the weekly party conferences at 2:15 p.m., a vote will occur on final passage of the PNTR bill. Senators can expect the first vote of next week on Tuesday.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I are bringing this bill forward. I think the majority leader has proposed 2 hours of debate. I am willing to do that at any time, any place. We would do it now here on the floor, but we can go to the middle of the night if people would like to. This has cleared the Commerce Committee; 14-2 was the vote when this cleared through. There is a hue and cry across the country. Virtually every college in America has asked for this legislation because they are having problems on their college campuses dealing with betting on their athletes. This is affecting the moral values. It is giving a black eye to our college campuses. There is one place in the country that this goes on legally. It is in Nevada. It is a loophole that has been there, and it is time for us to deal with it. We only need 2 hours to deal with it. I think we can take care of this within the timeframe that is left. I applaud the leader and hope we can get to this yet during this session.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to clarify an additional provision of the legislation. It is my understanding that Section 60117(b)(3) is aimed at penalizing pipeline companies that either refuse to turn over records, reports, or information concerning an incident that is identified in a written request from the Secretary or refuse to produce the records, reports or information in a timely fashion. While it is critically important to ensure that companies actively aid the agency's investigative process by promptly providing information related to an incident, there may be situations where a company goes to great lengths to cooperate with an investigation, but for a variety of reasons falls short of fully satisfying the requirements of Section 60117(b)(3). For example, the information solicited in a written request may be unclear or otherwise subject to multiple interpretations. A company may promptly provide the information that it believes to be fully responsive to the request only to find out later that the information is somehow deficient either because it is incomplete, in a different form, or of a different character than that contemplated by the agency. In these situations, despite the best of intentions, a company may find out many days or weeks later that it is nonetheless subject to cumulative daily civil penalties. I am seeking clarification that Section 60117(b)(3) is intended only to cover those situations where the information that the Secretary seeks is clear, but the company refuses to provide the information at all or within the time prescribed in the written request--not situations where a company makes a good faith effort to meet the requirement but is deemed to have failed because of a written request for information this is subject to interpretation or ambiguously written.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Carbon Sequestration Incentive Act. I am joined by Senators Daschle, DeWine, Bob Kerrey, Grassley and Byrd. Environmental issues have traditionally been filled with controversy--pitting beneficial environmental measures against hard- working small business and state interests. It is unfortunate that the atmosphere surrounding environmental debate is filled with accusations of blame rather than basic problem-solving. From listening to the public discourse concerning environmental issues, one would thing there is no other choice but to handicap our booming economy in order to have a clean environment, despite the fact that pollution is often, unfortunately, an unavoidable consequence of meeting public needs. Mr. President, I stand here today to illustrate that there is a better way to deal with important environmental concerns. There is a way to encourage the best rather than expecting the worst. There is a way to create environmental incentives and environmental markets, rather than only environmental regulations. There is a way to chip away at environmental challenges, rather than demagoging an ``all or nothing'' stance. This bill--the International Carbon Sequestration Incentive Act, takes a pro-active, incentive-driven approach to one of the most difficult environmental issues of our time--global climate change. Specifically, this bill provides investment tax credits for groups who invest in international carbon sequestration projects--including investments which prevent rainforest destruction and projects which reforest abandoned native forest areas. These projects will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the air--helping to offset climate change since carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases. This bill achieves these environmental benefits by promoting carbon sequestration--the process of converting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into carbon which is stored in plants, trees and soils. Under this bill, eligible projects can receive funding at a rate of $2.50 per verified ton of carbon stored or sequestered--up to 50% of the total project cost. The minimum length of these projects is 30 years and the Implementing Panel can only approve $200 million in tax credits each year. Why do this? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas believed to contribute to global warming. While there is debate over the role in which human activity plays in speeding up the warming process, there is broad consensus that there are increased carbon levels in the atmosphere today. Until now, the only real approach seriously considered to address climate change was an international treaty which calls for emission limits on carbon dioxide--which would mean limiting the amount that comes from your car, your business and your farm. This treaty--the Kyoto treaty, also favored exempting developing nations from emission limits--putting the U.S. economy at a distinct disadvantage. Approaching the issue of climate change in this fashion would be very costly and would not respond to the global nature of this problem. Instead, my approach encourages offsetting greenhouse gases through improved land management and conservation--and by engaging developing nations rather than cutting them out of the process. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, sponsored projects under this bill will also help to preserve the irreplaceable biodiversity that flourishes in the Earth's tropical rain forests and other sensitive eco-systems. In addition to diverse plant life, these projects will be protecting countless endangered and rare species. This bill requires investors to work closely with foreign governments, non-governmental organizations and indigenous peoples to find the capital necessary to set aside some of the last great resources of the planet. Rain forests have been called the lungs of the Earth--helping to filter out pollution and provide sanctuary for numerous pharmaceutical finds which may one day cure many of our human diseases. This bill rewards the partnership and pro-active vision of companies that want to be part of the solution to climate change. We are lucky in the fact that private industry is already looking at this issue and working to find a way to contribute. An example of what this bill would promote can be seen by looking at the Noel Kempff Mercado National Park in Bolivia. As you can see by looking at these photos [DISPLAY FOREST SCENES], Noel Kempff is a beautiful, biodiverse part of the world. This park spans nearly 4 million acres in Bolivia, hosts several hundred species of rare and endangered wildlife--including 130 species of mammals, 620 species of birds and 70 species of reptiles--not to mention 110 different species of orchids and grasses. This park was in direct danger of deforestation. The land would have been cleared and eventually turned into large commercial farming operations. The loss of this park would have led to carbon dioxide emissions of between 25-36 million tons as well as increased commercial agricultural competition. Instead, the Bolivian government came together with The Nature Conservancy, American Electric Power and other investors to preserve the park and conduct extensive verification of the carbon being stored in trees and soils of the now protected area. Companies like American Electric Power, BP Amoco and PacifiCorp want to invest in projects like Noel Kempff because they want to promote the role of carbon sequestration as a means to combat climate change. These companies have taken a big step in contributing to the solution--think how much more good they, and other companies, could do if there were incentives to encourage this activity. In the U.S., we are lucky enough to have programs like the Conservation Reserve Program and federal parks--which help preserve some of the natural resources of this great nation. Unfortunately, developing countries do not have access to the kind of capital it takes to make similar investments in their own countries. It is therefore, a worthy investment in the world environment--since climate change is a global problem, to chip away at this problem by doing what we know helps reduce pollution and greenhouse gases: planting and preserving trees. This bill is designed to encourage more participation in projects like the Noel Kempff Park. By using limited and very targeted tax credits, we have an opportunity as a nation--to take a leadership role on climate change without crushing our own economy. This bill also furthers the goal of including developing countries in the climate change issue--since any agreement to reduce greenhouse gases must ultimately include these areas which will become the largest emitters. Mr. President, I do not pretend that this bill will resolve the climate change issue. That is not my intent. Rather, this bill takes the view that where we do agree that good can be achieved--we should move forward. It is my hope that this bill will contribute to the solution on climate change and help to re-shape the way we view environmental problems.