Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the House amendment to the text with a further amendment which is at the desk. Amendment No. 3165 (Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 777) to require the Department of Agriculture to establish an electronic filing and retrieval system to enable the public to file all required paperwork electronically with the Department and to have access to public information on farm programs, quarterly trade, economic, and production reports, and other similar information. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 777) entitled ``An Act to require the Department of Agriculture to establish an electronic filing and retrieval system to enable the public to file all required paperwork electronically with the Department and to have access to public information on farm programs, quarterly trade, economic, and production reports, and other similar information'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague for mentioning that. It is important that we are getting this bill passed. It is right to bring attention to this matter. These are people who have done great things for us and for our country. It should be taken care of. I am glad it cleared through committee so well.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following Department of Defense nominations reported by the Armed Services Committee: Nos. 474 and 475. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record, that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 11. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume debate on the conference report to accompany H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I further ask unanimous consent that the scheduled cloture vote occur at 10 a.m. on Thursday, with the time until 10 a.m. equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I think is going to be a significant issue for U.S. agriculture and the environment both. It's the Domestic Carbon Storage Incentive Act of 2000. I am putting forward a concept that is being talked about more and more, a concept called carbon farming, where we encourage the agriculture industry to farm in such a way that the plant life pulls CO2 out of the air, fixes carbon in the ground, releases oxygen in an ever-increasing amount. There are farming techniques that can fix or sequester more carbon in the ground. What we are doing with this bill is encouraging more of that carbon sequestration, pulling more of the CO2 out of the air thus reducing some of the greenhouse gases that are in the air, whether they are there by natural or man-made sources. It is a win for the environment and it is a win for agriculture, I think it is a very positive thing we can do in encouraging good agricultural stewardship and good environmentalism. With this bill we are providing financial incentives to landowners who increase conservation practices which, as I describe, help pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it as carbon in the soil. This bill seeks to encourage the positive contributions to the environment made by the agriculture industry. I am joined in this bill by my friend, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and Senator Murkowski of Alaska along with a number of others. For some time now I have been looking at a way for a way to approach environmental issues from an incentive-based proactive stance. I think it is important we break away from the regulatory model we have been in on the environment. We have basically said all sticks on this: If you do this we are going to do this to you on environmental rules and issues. It has all been a regulatory approach. I think it is important we engage the markets and create an incentive approach, and that is what this bill does. I believe we are on the verge of seeing agriculture come into a whole new market with this type of approach, an environmental market where producers will benefit rather than be burdened by environmental concerns. U.S. agriculture has long been appreciated for its ability to feed the world. As any good farmer knows, in order to grow good crops you must take care of the land, be a steward of the land. Farmers take this role very seriously. My family farms. My dad and my brother are both full-time farmers. But sometimes markets and economic stress make conservation very difficult to pursue. This bill would help offset some of the costs to expand conservation practices. It is this sort of eco-agriculture that we should encourage and enhance to deal with environmental concerns, rather than resorting to governmental regulations and mandates to solve our problems. Farmers want to do the right thing. They have more reason than anybody else to preserve and protect the land, the land and the water and the air--but Government and markets do not always make that job very easy. I applaud my colleague, Senator Roberts, for all the work he has done in this area. His bill that he has to enhance carbon sequestration research has called needed attention to a very important area, the research work that we need to do about what practices fix the most carbon into the ground and what ones are the most helpful to the atmosphere. These two approaches, working together, the research on how we can do it better and more of it, along with more incentives to put that research into practice, I think are a good tandem. Why do we do this? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas believed to contribute to global warming. While there is debate over the role 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. The Kyoto treaty also favored exempting developing nations from emissions 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 because they are exempting several countries already. Instead, the approach I am putting forward encourages offsetting greenhouse gases through improved land management and conservation. As a result, these practices will also lead to better water quality, less runoff pollution, better wildlife habitat, and an additional revenue source for farmers. It truly is one of those win-win propositions for the environment and for agriculture. Specifically, my bill will allow landowners to submit plans detailing practices they would be willing to undertake to store additional carbon in the soil. These plans would then compete for entrance into the program, with the best plans achieving funding. Verification of this program would be similar to current conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program where farmers need only comply with the practices they set forth in the contract. The program is limited to 5 million acres and is not a setaside. Rather, this bill encourages conservation practices such as no-till farming, buffer strips, and biomass production, to name a few, which are known to enhance the soil's ability to store carbon. Under this program, contracts will be for a minimum of 10 years and USDA will be required, in conjunction with other agencies and land grant universities, to finalize criteria for measuring the carbon- storing ability of various conservation practices. This objective will be greatly enhanced by the organizations such as Kansas State University in my home State, which have conducted significant research already on ways that various carbon-storing practices occur in agriculture. Agriculture can play a substantial role in protecting the environment if we put these incentives forward. One might ask, is there benefit to carbon storage? Are we talking about significant numbers? Listen to some of these numbers. The total carbon sequestration and fossil fuel offset potential of U.S. croplands is currently estimated at 154 million metric tons of carbon per year, or 133 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions by all these activities. In other words, even current agricultural croplands have the ability to store carbon in the soil. Imagine how much more this process can be enhanced if a focused effort is made. Early estimates indicate that the potential for a carbon market for U.S. agriculture could reach $5 billion per year for the next 30 to 40 years. Carbon markets are already emerging in the private sector with farmers selling their carbon-storing practices to utilities. There is a Consortium for Agriculture Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases that is marketing this already. Farmers are already beginning to look toward carbon sequestration or carbon farming practices as a potential new market. Between 1998 and 1999, Iowa farmers grew and harvested 4,000 tons of switchgrass for use by a utility. These farmers not only benefit from the sale of the biomass commodity itself but are able to sell the additional benefit they are providing in growing the switchgrass, which is carbon sequestration. This bill will allow all farmers to progress toward verification and potential sale of carbon benefits to third parties. The estimated amount of carbon stored in world soils is more than twice the carbon living in vegetation or in the atmosphere. Approximately 50 percent of the soil organic carbon has been lost from the soil over a period of 50 to 100 years of cultivation. This loss represents the potential for storage of carbon in the soil. In the tall grass prairie located in Kansas, Kansas State University researchers have demonstrated an increase of approximately 2 tons of carbon per acre through increased conservation practices--2 tons additional carbon pulled out of the air and put into the ground per acre. That demonstrates the potential in rangeland soils, and there are already a number of agricultural practices which enhance carbon sequestration. Obviously, carbon sequestration has a lot to offer as an environmental and agricultural policy. It is something that can provide a win-win situation for the environment and agriculture as we look forward to an era of another income source and a good way the environment and agriculture can work together. Mr. President, I introduce the bill on behalf of myself, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Murkowski, and a number of other cosponsors.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S. 2540 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 4386, which has just been received from the House, is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I think is going to be a significant issue for U.S. agriculture and the environment both. It's the Domestic Carbon Storage Incentive Act of 2000. I am putting forward a concept that is being talked about more and more, a concept called carbon farming, where we encourage the agriculture industry to farm in such a way that the plant life pulls CO2 out of the air, fixes carbon in the ground, releases oxygen in an ever-increasing amount. There are farming techniques that can fix or sequester more carbon in the ground. What we are doing with this bill is encouraging more of that carbon sequestration, pulling more of the CO2 out of the air thus reducing some of the greenhouse gases that are in the air, whether they are there by natural or man-made sources. It is a win for the environment and it is a win for agriculture, I think it is a very positive thing we can do in encouraging good agricultural stewardship and good environmentalism. With this bill we are providing financial incentives to landowners who increase conservation practices which, as I describe, help pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it as carbon in the soil. This bill seeks to encourage the positive contributions to the environment made by the agriculture industry. I am joined in this bill by my friend, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and Senator Murkowski of Alaska along with a number of others. For some time now I have been looking at a way for a way to approach environmental issues from an incentive-based proactive stance. I think it is important we break away from the regulatory model we have been in on the environment. We have basically said all sticks on this: If you do this we are going to do this to you on environmental rules and issues. It has all been a regulatory approach. I think it is important we engage the markets and create an incentive approach, and that is what this bill does. I believe we are on the verge of seeing agriculture come into a whole new market with this type of approach, an environmental market where producers will benefit rather than be burdened by environmental concerns. U.S. agriculture has long been appreciated for its ability to feed the world. As any good farmer knows, in order to grow good crops you must take care of the land, be a steward of the land. Farmers take this role very seriously. My family farms. My dad and my brother are both full-time farmers. But sometimes markets and economic stress make conservation very difficult to pursue. This bill would help offset some of the costs to expand conservation practices. It is this sort of eco-agriculture that we should encourage and enhance to deal with environmental concerns, rather than resorting to governmental regulations and mandates to solve our problems. Farmers want to do the right thing. They have more reason than anybody else to preserve and protect the land, the land and the water and the air--but Government and markets do not always make that job very easy. I applaud my colleague, Senator Roberts, for all the work he has done in this area. His bill that he has to enhance carbon sequestration research has called needed attention to a very important area, the research work that we need to do about what practices fix the most carbon into the ground and what ones are the most helpful to the atmosphere. These two approaches, working together, the research on how we can do it better and more of it, along with more incentives to put that research into practice, I think are a good tandem. Why do we do this? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas believed to contribute to global warming. While there is debate over the role 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. The Kyoto treaty also favored exempting developing nations from emissions 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 because they are exempting several countries already. Instead, the approach I am putting forward encourages offsetting greenhouse gases through improved land management and conservation. As a result, these practices will also lead to better water quality, less runoff pollution, better wildlife habitat, and an additional revenue source for farmers. It truly is one of those win-win propositions for the environment and for agriculture. Specifically, my bill will allow landowners to submit plans detailing practices they would be willing to undertake to store additional carbon in the soil. These plans would then compete for entrance into the program, with the best plans achieving funding. Verification of this program would be similar to current conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program where farmers need only comply with the practices they set forth in the contract. The program is limited to 5 million acres and is not a setaside. Rather, this bill encourages conservation practices such as no-till farming, buffer strips, and biomass production, to name a few, which are known to enhance the soil's ability to store carbon. Under this program, contracts will be for a minimum of 10 years and USDA will be required, in conjunction with other agencies and land grant universities, to finalize criteria for measuring the carbon- storing ability of various conservation practices. This objective will be greatly enhanced by the organizations such as Kansas State University in my home State, which have conducted significant research already on ways that various carbon-storing practices occur in agriculture. Agriculture can play a substantial role in protecting the environment if we put these incentives forward. One might ask, is there benefit to carbon storage? Are we talking about significant numbers? Listen to some of these numbers. The total carbon sequestration and fossil fuel offset potential of U.S. croplands is currently estimated at 154 million metric tons of carbon per year, or 133 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions by all these activities. In other words, even current agricultural croplands have the ability to store carbon in the soil. Imagine how much more this process can be enhanced if a focused effort is made. Early estimates indicate that the potential for a carbon market for U.S. agriculture could reach $5 billion per year for the next 30 to 40 years. Carbon markets are already emerging in the private sector with farmers selling their carbon-storing practices to utilities. There is a Consortium for Agriculture Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases that is marketing this already. Farmers are already beginning to look toward carbon sequestration or carbon farming practices as a potential new market. Between 1998 and 1999, Iowa farmers grew and harvested 4,000 tons of switchgrass for use by a utility. These farmers not only benefit from the sale of the biomass commodity itself but are able to sell the additional benefit they are providing in growing the switchgrass, which is carbon sequestration. This bill will allow all farmers to progress toward verification and potential sale of carbon benefits to third parties. The estimated amount of carbon stored in world soils is more than twice the carbon living in vegetation or in the atmosphere. Approximately 50 percent of the soil organic carbon has been lost from the soil over a period of 50 to 100 years of cultivation. This loss represents the potential for storage of carbon in the soil. In the tall grass prairie located in Kansas, Kansas State University researchers have demonstrated an increase of approximately 2 tons of carbon per acre through increased conservation practices--2 tons additional carbon pulled out of the air and put into the ground per acre. That demonstrates the potential in rangeland soils, and there are already a number of agricultural practices which enhance carbon sequestration. Obviously, carbon sequestration has a lot to offer as an environmental and agricultural policy. It is something that can provide a win-win situation for the environment and agriculture as we look forward to an era of another income source and a good way the environment and agriculture can work together. Mr. President, I introduce the bill on behalf of myself, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Murkowski, and a number of other cosponsors.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow from 9:30 a.m. until 10 a.m., the Senate will debate the conference report to accompany the African trade/Caribbean trade initiative. At 10 a.m., the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on that legislation. If cloture is invoked, it is hoped a short time agreement can be made so a final passage vote can take place at a reasonable time. On Thursday, the Senate is also expected to begin consideration of the military construction appropriations bill. Therefore, additional votes will occur during tomorrow's session of the Senate.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Daschle and Senator Edwards.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 10. I further ask consent that 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 the Senate immediately proceed to a vote on the motion to proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 434, the African Trade-Caribbean Basin Initiative, as under the order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Senator McConnell has a technical amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to, the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, the title amendment be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar 424, S. 1198.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Senator McConnell has a technical amendment at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 277, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, May 9, is the 200th anniversary of the birth of a famous American who remains probably the most controversial figure in U.S. history. On May 9, 1800, John Brown was born. It is his birth and his life and the institution of slavery that I will speak about this evening for a few minutes. I grew up in eastern Kansas. As a child, I played on the ground where John Brown stayed most often while he was in Osawatomie, KS. He was known as Osawatomie Brown for his fighting during the early phases of what led to be the Civil War. He stayed at the Adaire cabin. His brother-in-law was a minister in Osawatomie. It was on property which my grandparents owned that the cabin was later moved, to the park where the Battle of Osawatomie took place. That park was dedicated by Teddy Roosevelt. Such was the importance of what took place there in the epic struggle in this country to end the institution of slavery. John Brown, the renowned abolitionist, was hanged for his attempt to incite a slave rebellion at Harper's Ferry, VA. Yet even though everyone objects to his tactics, his death has become ``the symbol of every element opposed to slavery.'' His contemporary, Frederick Douglass, the great African American abolitionist, acknowledged that ``John Brown began the war that ended American slavery and made this a free Republic.'' This 200th anniversary is a reminder of the heartache wrought by slavery in America. It is a humble tribute to the suffering of millions of African Americans who lived and died under dehumanizing bondage. John Brown is a part of that story. He was born in Litchfield County, CT, on May 9, 1800, and absorbed a deep hatred of the pervasive institution of chattel slavery early in his life. Once, while herding his father's cattle to market a long distance, he watched as a slave boy his age, whom Brown had befriended, was violently beaten with an iron shovel. He was acquainted with the common forms of punishment wherein ``slaves were stripped of their clothing, faced against a tree or wall, tied down or made to hang from a beam, their legs roped together with a rail or board between them, and severely beaten.'' Such things surely motivated his increasing disdain. He internalized a passage from the Bible, Hebrews 13:3, which says: Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body. The English Parliamentarian, William Wilberforce, and other people of courage, had ended slavery in Great Britain by 1807. Yet in John Brown's America, slavery thrived and grew as the American cotton trade boomed from 1815 until 1860, aggressively capturing the European market. By 1860, there were 4 million slaves in America. No one knows the total number of slaves from the time of the first settlers in 1619 to the end of the Civil War in 1865, but the number is staggering--in the several millions. Particularly during the 17th and 18th centuries, multitudes of people had been abducted from Africa to America. Their month-long passage epitomized the degradation to follow: Segregated by gender, the blacks were chained together and packed so tightly that they often were forced to lie on their sides in spoon fashion. Clearances and ships' holds often were only two to four feet high. In bad weather or because of some perceived threat, they had to remain below, chained to one another, lying in their own filth. ``The floor of the rooms,'' one 18th-century ship observer wrote, ``was so covered with blood and mucus which had proceeded from them in consequence of dysentery, that it resembled a slaughter house.'' Slave ships were smelled before they were seen, as they entered the harbor in heinous conditions. It is said that slavery contemporary to this time was the largest manifestation of human bondage in the history of mankind. I ask, how could this great nation, birthed in freedom, systematically and shamelessly reap great fortunes, in part, on the backs of abducted, brutalized people? How could human beings be branded like cattle, bought and sold at will in the middle of a busy market place, ripped from their families, raped with impunity resulting in children who were then also enslaved, lashed with bullwhips, murdered without consequence, worked to death, their very humanity mocked in every possible way? One American commenting on our slave trade overseas remarked, ``We are a byword among the nations.'' It was in this evil time that John Brown began to champion political and social equality for African-Americans, as did a growing number of abolitionist societies which mushroomed in the 1830's. In 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed by Congress whereby harboring people escaping from slavery, even to the free states, became a Federal crime. This crime carried a penalty of up to 6 months of incarceration and a $1,000 fine, which was a substantial sum considering that the average daily wage was $1.50. Moreover, the act provided that Federal agents would not be charged in tracking escapees, even in the North, forcing slaves back to their masters. Consider that American taxes were paying for this wretched service of slave catching, in a country whose revolution was synonymous worldwide with a renowned liberty. In protest, John Brown, like many abolitionists of his day, provided assistance to fugitive slaves seeking freedom in the northern United States and Canada. Also, fugitive slaves lived with him and his family, despite the threatened penalties. At one point, he moved his family to North Elba, NY, to live with a community of escaped and redeemed slaves, to teach reading and faming. Another blow occurred in 1854 when the Kansas and Nebraska Act was passed by Congress, repealing earlier legislation which had outlawed slavery in the territory from which Kansas was created. This new act allowed residents to vote on whether or not slavery would be adopted by the new state, making it an option for the first time. so Kansas and Nebraska could be slave States. It was the common thinking of the time that actually what would happen was Nebraska would become a free State and Kansas a slave State; that Iowans would pour over into Nebraska, making it a free State; Missourians would pour over into Kansas, and Kansas would become a slave State; thus, the balance would be maintained. In response, John Brown and family members moved to Kansas in 1855 to oppose the expansion of slavery into the western territories, as did a flood of Free Soilers, as free state advocates were called, from the East. The free state epicenter was the city of Lawrence, which attracted many Eastern anti-slavery people and became a target for destruction by the Border Ruffians. During this time, pro-slavery forces terrorized Kansan free state settlers with beatings, shootings, looting, and ballot stuffing. An English traveler observed that ``murder and cold-blooded assassination were of almost daily occurrence . . . Murderers, if only they have murdered in behalf of slavery, have gone unpunished; whilst hundreds have been made to suffer for no other crime than the suspicion of entertaining free-state sentiments.'' Numerous Kansas conflicts included the Wakarusa War, the sacking of Lawrence, and the battles of Black Jack, Osawatomie, and the Spurs. In this brutal period, Brown became a national symbol of ``Bleeding Kansas'' and the free state struggle. During his 3 years of activity in the Kansas Territory, he orchestrated offensives against the Border Ruffians, and helped to liberate dozens of enslaved African-Americans by force from Missouri farms. Sadly, he participated, tacitly or overtly, in the killing of 5 men at Pottawatomie Creek in a shameful incident which still haunts his legacy today. These were dangerous times generating extreme responses from both sides. During the presidential elections of 1856, the conflict crescendoed, and the central debate was slavery in Kansas. That year, the new Republican party ``emerged with a single plank in its platform: Stop the bloody struggle in Kansas; stop the spread of slavery in the territories.'' Finally, Kansas was birthed a free state in 1861. Her motto, Ad Astra Per Aspera--To the Stars Through Difficulty, is an historic truth, reflecting a people whose freedom had been won through unusual hardship and conflict. This is the extraordinary heritage of Kansas, and it is linked with John Brown. His actions in Kansas, followed by his attempt to incite a slave insurrection at Harper's Ferry, Virginia on October 16, 1859 forced a renewed examination of the institution of slavery and strengthened the resolve of the North to resist further expansion. President Abraham Lincoln, condemned the tactics of John Brown at the time of his death as we all do now and did not object to his execution on December 2, 1859 for treason against the state. Nevertheless, Lincoln told an Atchison, Kansas audience that Brown had ``shown great courage, rare unselfishness'' and ``agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong.'' On that December day of his execution, his words rang prophetically true, foretelling the coming Civil War, when he stated, ``I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.'' Those were his words on the way to the gallows. In this fight for which he had sacrificed everything, John Brown's excesses were as extreme as his hatred of slavery. His willingness to shed blood is wrong, should not be romanticized, nor justified, no matter the cruelty of the circumstances. Yet we should remember the sacrifices that he, and others like him, both black and white, made to procure the freedom of an entire people. A contemporary, Franklin Sanborn, summarized this best: ``We saw this lonely and obscure old man choosing poverty before wealth, renouncing the ties of affection, throwing away his ease, his reputation, and his life for the sake of a despised race and for zeal in the defense of his country's ancient liberties.'' Therefore, let us remember this 200th anniversary of John Brown and the crooked path we walked as a nation towards freedom for all.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.