Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Presiding Officer, the other distinguished Senator from Kansas. I appreciate his recognition. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes on the Ag appropriations conference report which is before the Senate.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of what my colleague from Missouri just spoke about. As he was speaking, I was thinking where I was when the embargo happened. In the late seventies, I was a farm broadcaster in Manhattan, KS, when President Carter put the embargo on the Soviet Union. My dad was farming, as he is today. We were both long in wheat. Wheat went down lock limit for 3 days in a row with that embargo. The markets did not recover when that big of a sale was taken out of the system. We lost a lot of money. Senator Ashcroft was talking about how much we lost as a nation and how much our farmers lost. I remember what we lost as a family in that embargo, not that it should be any deciding factor, but it galvanized in my mind what happens when we do these sorts of things. That is, we lose markets, we lose money, our farmers are penalized, punished--and the Soviet Union got cheaper grain out of the deal. It was bad for us all the way around. One of my great disappointments with the Ag appropriations conference report is that we had a chance to end once and for all the use of food and medicine as a foreign policy tool. We did not take that chance, and we are poorer for it. We should have gotten this monkey off the back of U.S. farmers. I rise to state my strong disappointment with this conference report, even though my colleague from Mississippi, who chairs this subcommittee, has done everything he possibly can. There is a lot of good in this appropriations conference report, but we missed a chance to lift these unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. As you have already heard several times, the Ashcroft amendment was adopted overwhelmingly in this body by a vote of 70-28. It is important to keep mentioning that fact because it is astonishing to me that such a clear message from the Senate could be so easily ignored. In a place as diverse as America and as compact as Congress, there are bound to be honest disagreements about any number of issues, including sanctions. These disagreements were given a thorough and extensive airing in the Senate, and the result was an overwhelming majority decided it was not an effective policy tool to use food and medicine in foreign policy. This is a conclusion that a vast majority of the American public has already recognized for some time and certainly the farming public has recognized this for a long period of time. What has occurred with the Agriculture appropriations bill is an attempt to avoid this important policy issue. I am delighted we are going to bring it back up next week and discuss it, but it is an unfortunate tactic that has moved us to next week rather than now in deciding this critical policy issue for U.S. agriculture and for America's foreign policy. Compounding this wrong is the fact that U.S. agriculture is in the midst of an economic struggle, and sanctions serve to limit U.S. markets for no real policy effect. Unilaterally using food and medicine as foreign policy weapons fails to take into account that the U.S. has competition in agriculture. If we do not sell it, somebody else will, and that is what has taken place in the past. It is time we limit the possibility of this happening again in the future to the United States. Even if the U.S. denies trade with another nation, other countries will, and do eagerly, sell these products. We know this for a fact. The only one who gets hurt in this process is truly the U.S. farmer, the farmers across Kansas who do not get to make these sales. While it is difficult to calculate the actual gain that lifting sanctions would bring in the short term it is easy to see the long-term benefits of sanctions reform. These benefits include the increased sales to new markets because we tell that new market we will be a reliable supplier; we will not just step in willy-nilly on this; we will be reliable in our supplying. Perhaps even more profound, this policy serves to reassure all our trading partners that the U.S. will continue and will always be that constant and reliable supplier of agricultural goods. This assurance is necessary in a competitive market. Efforts to reinstate this important sanctions relief language or find a compromise have certainly been valiantly put forward by Senator Ashcroft, Senator Dorgan, and a number of others, including the Chair. I commend my neighbors in this principled fight and their persistence on this issue. Still the few who oppose sanctions reform have blocked any progress. Reluctantly, I will vote for this bill because farmers and producers are depending on the emergency aid funding contained in this bill. But I truly believe the future of U.S. agriculture depends on the long-term reforms such as this Senate-passed amendment lifting unilateral sanctions. I will continue to fight on this issue and insist that the will of the majority be followed. In conclusion, we had a chance to once and for all remove the use of food and medicine as a foreign policy tool, and we missed it. We could do something good, something right, morally on the high ground, the right thing for U.S. farmers, the right thing for those consumers in places around the world who need and should have this good, high quality food product we have. We missed that opportunity. We are poorer for it, and so is the rest of the world. We will have this fight again next week. I hope we can still move this bill this session of Congress. I lament we did not do it on this piece of legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am willing to yield to Senator Sarbanes if he wishes to speak.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 10 minutes to speak on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Mr. President, there have been a number of arguments put forward against and for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We have heard, most recently, arguments for ratification of the treaty. I join my colleague from Maryland in noting that I think there would be a wide basis of support saying we should not bring it up at this time. But neither should we bring it up next year. I know a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle would say it would be a good thing if we could agree not to go ahead and go forward with a vote now, but not to do that during this session of Congress, either the rest of this year or next year, so we won't constantly be going back and visiting this issue during this Congress. We have it on the floor and it is time to discuss it. I think people can agree that we won't hear it again this Congress, and we can move forward with that discussion and have this debate and not proceed to a vote if people think that would do more harm than good. I want to address a number of arguments put forward by the President and by others on this Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I note the President stated in his weekly radio address that every President since Eisenhower--a Kansan--has supported this treaty. The reality of this is actually that no previous administration, either Republican or Democrat, has ever supported the zero-yield test ban now in this treaty before the Senate. Eisenhower insisted that nuclear tests with a seismic magnitude of less than 4.75 be permitted. Kennedy terminated a 3-year moratorium on nuclear tests, declaring that ``never again'' would the United States make such a mistake. He then embarked upon the most aggressive series of nuclear tests in the history of the weapons program. Carter, Reagan, and Bush all opposed a zero-yield test ban while in office. Even the present administration initially opposed a permanent zero-yield test ban before signing onto the CTBT. It has been claimed that the CTBT hasn't been given enough Senate floor time. The unanimous-consent agreement provides for 22 hours of debate on the CTBT. By contrast, the START treaty had 9.5 hours; START II had 6 hours; the Chemical Weapons Convention had 18 hours. We are going to put a lot of time in on this. The White House insisted for 2 years that the Senate vote on the CTBT, using terms such as ``now,'' ``immediately,'' ``right away.'' Now when we are ready to vote, they don't seem to be willing to enter into that debate and vote. Another thing the President said in his news conference in Canada was this was being ``politically motivated.'' I reject that, Mr. President. You do not consider items such as this with any consideration for political motivation. This is nuclear testing we are talking about. This is a critical issue to the world--to my four children. That is something you don't interject any bit of politics into. I reject that notion altogether. There are a couple of other arguments bantered about quite a bit--one that I have taken most note of because it causes me the most pause to think is what would other countries think if we voted down the treaty? Would that cause more proliferation? I cannot read the minds of the leaders in China, Russia, Pakistan, or India, but there are people with a great deal of wisdom and experience who did hazard a guess in that area and have put forward thoughtful statements. One was put forward by former Secretaries of Defense Weinberger, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Laird, Carlucci, and Schlesinger. All of them signed this quote: We also do not believe the CTBT will do much to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Now, you have six former Secretaries of Defense saying that. The motivation of rogue nations like North Korea and Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons will not be affected by whether the U.S. tests. Similarly, the possession of nuclear weapons by nations like India, Pakistan, and Israel depends on the security environment in their region, not by whether or not the U.S. tests. If confidence in the U.S. nuclear deterrent were to decline, countries that have relied on our protection could well feel compelled to seek nuclear capabilities of their own. Thus, ironically, the CTBT might cause additional nations to seek nuclear weapons. That was a quote from the six former Defense Secretaries--Weinberger, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Laird, Carlucci, and Schlesinger. This is a quote from General Vessey, former Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff: Supporters of the CTBT argue that it reduces the chances for nuclear proliferation. I applaud efforts to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but I do not believe that the test ban will reduce the ability of rogue states to acquire nuclear weapons in sufficient quantities to upset regional security in various parts of the world. ``Gun-type'' nuclear weapons can be built with assurance they'll work without testing. The Indian and Pakistani ``tests'' apparently show that there is adequate knowledge available to build implosion type weapons with reasonable assurance that they will work. The India/Pakistan explosions have been called ``tests,'' but I believe it to be more accurate to call them ``demonstrations,'' more for political purposes than for scientific testing. A letter signed by John Deutch, Henry Kissinger, and Brent Scowcroft says: Supporters of the CTBT claim that it will make a major contribution to limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. It is the same argument we hear time and time again, which I wish to be true because I want this to be a nuclear-free world. They say: This cannot be true if key countries of proliferation concern do not agree to accede to the treaty. To date, several of these countries, including India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, have not signed and ratified the treaty. Many of these countries may never join the CTBT regime, and ratification by the United States, early or late, is unlikely to have any impact on their decisions in this regard. For example, no serious person should believe that rogue nations like Iran or Iraq will give up efforts to acquire nuclear weapons if only the U.S. signs the CTBT. If you think about that, they are not going to respond to what we do. This is a letter from Edward Teller to Senator Helms. He says this in the letter, dated February 4, 1998: The point I must make is that, in the long run, knowledge and ability to produce nuclear weapons will be widely available. To believe that, in the long run, proliferation of nuclear weapons is avoidable is wishful thinking and dangerous. It is the more dangerous because it is a point of view that the public is eager to accept. Thus, politicians are tempted to gain popularity by supporting false hopes. This is a former Assistant Director, ACDA, Fred Eimer. He says this: In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the proposed treaty will put our nuclear deterrent at risk without significant arms control or nonproliferation benefits. Other nations will be able to conduct militarily significant nuclear tests well below the verification threshold of the Treaty's monitoring system, and our own unilateral capability. I make these statements simply because this is a big issue. It is an important issue, and a lot of people have thought a great deal about it. I think it to be an inappropriate time to enter into such a treaty that would so limit the United States, given all the great concerns and testing and things going on around the world. I want to give some final quotes of former Directors of the National Weapons Laboratories. They also oppose the CTBT. Roger Batzel, Director Emeritus, sent this letter on October 5: I urge you to oppose the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. No previous administration, either Democrat or Republican, ever supported the unverifiable, zero yield, indefinite duration CTBT now before the Senate. The reason for this is simple. Under a long-duration test ban, confidence in the nuclear stockpile will erode for a variety of reasons. I don't think it can be put forward any clearer than that. This is a key part of our deterrence. We simply cannot go ahead and enter into this treaty at this time at our own great loss and our own great peril. I note again for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that a number of us are very willing and interested that this not go forward for a vote. We don't want it to go forward for a vote in this session of Congress, either this year or next year. The notion that it would be pulled down now, then somehow come back next year during the middle of a Presidential election, and be used as some sort of political tool at that time seems to many of us to be far more frightening, with what might happen in the political debate, with the atmosphere and the use of this treaty in its discussions for political purposes. That is why we continue to support not voting on this now. Let's also agree that we will not do it during this session of Congress. I have used up my allotted period of time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Pennsylvania accommodating our desires tonight. The reason we offer this amendment is to discuss it briefly and then withdraw it as being subject to a point of order on this particular bill. I rise to explain the amendment. What this amendment regards is the establishment of a 1-year, actually less than 1-year, Senate task force to study the state of American society. There has been a lot of discussion going on about this. I want to spend a little bit of time discussing what this is and what it isn't because I think both are important. We are proposing this task force, Senator Lieberman, Senator Moynihan, and myself, the Presiding Officer, a number of others, because we believe there is a deep and pressing need to examine in a manner that is bipartisan, intellectual, rigorous, dispassionate, and publicly accessible, the cultural and social health of our society. It is a simple and undeniable fact that our families and children, schools, and communities have been subjected to seismic shifts over the last 30 years. These changes have had consequences--consequences which deeply impact the public, including the formation of public policy, which deserve a public forum in which to study and address them. First, if we take a quick look at what is happening across America, in the last 2 years, we have seen one school shooting after another: Conyers, GA; Littleton, CO; Richmond, VA; Paducah, KY; Springfield, OR; Edinboro, PA; Pearl, MS; and Jonesboro, AR. Unfortunately, the list goes tragically on. We just wonder where next. There are other warning signs. The number and percentages of the children who live in broken homes continues to increase, regrettably. Reports of domestic abuse and child abuse are at shocking levels. One of our colleagues and cosponsors of this bill, Senator Moynihan, once coined a memorable phrase. He talked about our society in terms of ``defining deviancy down.'' What he meant--and, Senator Moynihan, correct me, if I am incorrect--is that when behavior that was once considered deviant or outrageous becomes more ordinary and commonplace, societies tend to redefine deviancy. This is such a classic and clear example. For example, in 1929, four gangsters killed seven unarmed bootleggers. The slaughter was considered so horrific that the event was dubbed the ``St. Valentine's Day Massacre.'' Remember that one? It was 1929; seven unarmed bootleggers were slaughtered. It was so horrifying it got its own name, shows, everything, and made news around the world. It so shocked and horrified the Nation that it has become a well-known historical event. It is even in most encyclopedias--seven people, 1929. In sharp contrast, let's look to just 2 weeks ago, when a gunman strode into a church in Fort Worth, TX, puffing a cigarette, and slaughtered six defenseless people, including several children, before turning the gun on himself--just as many people, one less, killed in that Fort Worth church as in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Yet that story, so far from making it into an encyclopedia, didn't even get a headline in the Washington Post. Why? Why is it that we no longer consider outrageous what is truly outrageous? Perhaps it has become too commonplace. It has become common on our streets and airwaves. It is both the reality in which many live, and it makes up the entertainment into which many escape. Over the past 30 years, there are many ways we have made progress as a country and as a people. Our economy has grown tremendously. Technological advances have been unprecedented. New doors of opportunity have been opened to people previously denied access. The opportunities available to women and minorities have increased, and they need to increase even further. But in the midst of unprecedented prosperity, there is a widespread belief that we live in a mean society where families are breaking down, children are more prone to crime, violence, alienation, drug use and suicide, and our civic fabric is fraying. In fact, not only does the United States lead the world in material wealth, it also leads the industrialized world in rates of murder, violent juvenile crime, abortion, divorce, cocaine consumption, pornography production, and consumption of pornography. These facts have not been lost on the American people--far from it. Poll after poll shows they recognize it. I draw the attention of the body to some of the polls that have recently come out. Here is one: What poses the greatest threat to the United States? You can look through here: recession at 30-plus percent; decline of moral values, much higher; military, don't know. That was October 30 of last year. Here is one from May 3 of this year: Where does the country face the most serious problems today? Moral values area, 56 percent; next closest, environment at 12 percent. Fifty-six percent of the public considering that. That was by a different research group than did the last one. Here is one done by the Princeton Survey Research Group, July 22 of this year: What priority should be given to dealing with the moral breakdown of the United States? Fifty-five percent say top priority should be given. My only point in showing these polls is that this is something the American public considers important, indeed, vital for us to be considering. We need to address it in this body. This is not to say that all societal changes have been negative. Far from it. As I noted earlier, there are many causes for hope, even celebration. But there are causes for concern taking place as well. Even where our challenges remain stark, I am personally optimistic. I believe for every problem in America, there is a solution already in place, usually by an individual or family or community with the heart to make it happen. I hope this task force will encourage the replication of those solutions, but first and foremost, my hope is that by working together we can begin to better understand where we are as a society and where we are headed. Senator Moynihan, again, made a point that I think is true: You can't change a problem until you can figure out how to measure it. You need to be able to measure to know when you are making progress on what is happening. That is the stage at which we find ourselves. We know something is happening in our society, but we don't know yet how to accurately measure it. We are still struggling with asking the right questions. My hope and intention is that this task force would begin the important and necessary work of measuring these issues and asking the right questions. I want to talk about some of the specifics of the task force, what it is and what it isn't. There have been a lot of rumors spreading around about this. First, this task force will conduct the important business of investigating and analyzing and examining the state of our culture the causes and consequences of our societal difficulties, and possible solutions. It will hold hearings on such topics as civic participation, the state of the family structure, the impact of popular culture on young people, the causes of youth violence, and innovative and effective initiatives that have reduced various social problems that we have. It will look at these issues in a holistic and a broad manner and-- let me emphasize this--a bipartisan manner. It will not hold legislative jurisdiction. It will not report out or mark up legislation. It will not intrude on people's personal lives or seek to impose a set of values on anyone. It aims to achieve a better description of what is going on in our society, not a prescription of morals. It seeks to inform and investigate, rather than to legislate. I know there were concerns among some of my colleagues about provisions regarding subpoena power. Let me assure all of them, those have been taken out. This endeavor will be a task force of concerned Members working together to get a better sense of the condition of our society. The task force is bipartisan in purpose, process, and structure, as bipartisan as possible. It is composed of eight members: four Republicans, four Democrats. You can't get much more bipartisan than that. Together, I hope we can take a good look at what is going on in our society, at the state of the cultural environment in which we currently reside. While these are not legislative issues, they are important public issues with profound consequences, both in terms of public policy and in our daily lives. This is an important task. I look forward to the counsel and support of my colleagues in getting to this important work. We have tried to bend over backwards to work in a bipartisan way to get this moving forward. We are still working to get this pulled together. I hope my colleagues will continue to talk with us about this, about how we can do this and how we can work together to address this very important problem. Amendment No. 1833, Withdrawn Mr. President, as I stated at the outset, as the Senator from Pennsylvania noted, I realize this will be subjected to a point of order. I wanted to bring it up and discuss it. With this discussion, I withdraw my amendment at this time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I call up an amendment at the desk numbered 1833 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to stand with concerned colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, as well as concerned citizens, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs among many other faiths. We come together in support of a simple proposition. America is distinguished internationally as a land of religious freedom. It should be a place where no person is forced to choose between keeping their faith and keeping their job. That is why I am joining with Senators Kerry, Hutchinson, Lieberman and Mikulski in introducing the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. This legislation provides a skilled reconciling of religion in the workplace. It recognizes that work and religion can be reconciled without undue hardship. Americans continue to be a religious people, with a deep personal faith commitment. With this commitment comes personal religious standards which govern personal activity. For example, some Americans don't work on Saturdays, while others don't work on Sundays. Not because they're lazy or frivolous, but because their faith convictions call for a Sabbath day, requiring a day to be set aside as holy. Similarly, some Americans need to wear a skullcap to work, or a head covering, or a turban. As a nation whose great strength rests in diversity, surely we can protect such diverse yet simple and unobtrusive expressions of personal faith. Surely we're still generous enough, and God-respecting enough as a nation, to support others in the genuine expressions of their faith. I am particularly anxious for the religious minorities, for the Muslims and the Jews and the others who are very small in number but great in conviction. In our increasingly secular society, many remain among us who still hold by ancient, heart- felt principles governed by a deep personal belief. I submit to you they deserve the decency of respect which includes our protection in preserving their peaceful religious expressions. This is a core principle which cannot be compromised, because it speaks to the essence of who we are as a people committed to preserving freedom. In this land of religious freedom, one would hope that employers would spontaneously accommodate the religious needs of their employees whenever reasonable. That is, after all, what we do here in Congress. For example, we don't conduct votes or hearings on certain holidays so that Members and staff can observe their religious holy days. While most private employers also extend this simple but important decency to their workers, others unfortunately do not. Historically, title VII of the Civil Rights Act was meant to address conflicts between religion and work. On its face it requires employers to ``reasonably accommodate'' the religious needs of their employees as long as this does not impose an ``undue hardship'' on the employer. The problem is that our federal courts have essentially read these lines out of the law by ruling that any hardship is an undue hardship. This is not right, nor does it hold with the spirit of this great nation which was founded as a refuge for religious freedom. Thus, a Maryland trucking company can try to force a devout Christian truck driver to take a Sunday shift. A local sheriff's department in Nevada can tell a Seventh Day Adventist that she must work a Saturday shift if she wants to continue with them. The Workplace Religious Freedom Act will re-establish the principle that employers must reasonably accommodate the religious needs of employees such as these. This legislation is carefully crafted and strikes an appropriate balance between religious accommodation, while ensuring that an undue burden is not forced upon American businesses. It is flexible and case-oriented on an individual basis. Thus, a smaller business with less resources and personnel would not be asked to accommodate religious employees in exactly the same fashion as would a large manufacturing concern. I am proud of the fact that this is a bi-partisan effort, I am proud that this legislation is supported by such a broad spectrum of groups ranging from the Christian Legal Society and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, to the Family Research Council, the National Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, and the American Jewish Committee. America is a great nation because we honor the free exercise of belief, which includes the very precious, fundamental freedom of religion. This liberty, known as the ``first freedom,'' is worthy of our continued vigilance. it properly demands support from all quarters, both the public and private sectors. It properly finds it here in this legislation which re-establishes the right balance between the competing concerns of business and faith.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to stand with concerned colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, as well as concerned citizens, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs among many other faiths. We come together in support of a simple proposition. America is distinguished internationally as a land of religious freedom. It should be a place where no person is forced to choose between keeping their faith and keeping their job. That is why I am joining with Senators Kerry, Hutchinson, Lieberman and Mikulski in introducing the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. This legislation provides a skilled reconciling of religion in the workplace. It recognizes that work and religion can be reconciled without undue hardship. Americans continue to be a religious people, with a deep personal faith commitment. With this commitment comes personal religious standards which govern personal activity. For example, some Americans don't work on Saturdays, while others don't work on Sundays. Not because they're lazy or frivolous, but because their faith convictions call for a Sabbath day, requiring a day to be set aside as holy. Similarly, some Americans need to wear a skullcap to work, or a head covering, or a turban. As a nation whose great strength rests in diversity, surely we can protect such diverse yet simple and unobtrusive expressions of personal faith. Surely we're still generous enough, and God-respecting enough as a nation, to support others in the genuine expressions of their faith. I am particularly anxious for the religious minorities, for the Muslims and the Jews and the others who are very small in number but great in conviction. In our increasingly secular society, many remain among us who still hold by ancient, heart- felt principles governed by a deep personal belief. I submit to you they deserve the decency of respect which includes our protection in preserving their peaceful religious expressions. This is a core principle which cannot be compromised, because it speaks to the essence of who we are as a people committed to preserving freedom. In this land of religious freedom, one would hope that employers would spontaneously accommodate the religious needs of their employees whenever reasonable. That is, after all, what we do here in Congress. For example, we don't conduct votes or hearings on certain holidays so that Members and staff can observe their religious holy days. While most private employers also extend this simple but important decency to their workers, others unfortunately do not. Historically, title VII of the Civil Rights Act was meant to address conflicts between religion and work. On its face it requires employers to ``reasonably accommodate'' the religious needs of their employees as long as this does not impose an ``undue hardship'' on the employer. The problem is that our federal courts have essentially read these lines out of the law by ruling that any hardship is an undue hardship. This is not right, nor does it hold with the spirit of this great nation which was founded as a refuge for religious freedom. Thus, a Maryland trucking company can try to force a devout Christian truck driver to take a Sunday shift. A local sheriff's department in Nevada can tell a Seventh Day Adventist that she must work a Saturday shift if she wants to continue with them. The Workplace Religious Freedom Act will re-establish the principle that employers must reasonably accommodate the religious needs of employees such as these. This legislation is carefully crafted and strikes an appropriate balance between religious accommodation, while ensuring that an undue burden is not forced upon American businesses. It is flexible and case-oriented on an individual basis. Thus, a smaller business with less resources and personnel would not be asked to accommodate religious employees in exactly the same fashion as would a large manufacturing concern. I am proud of the fact that this is a bi-partisan effort, I am proud that this legislation is supported by such a broad spectrum of groups ranging from the Christian Legal Society and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, to the Family Research Council, the National Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, and the American Jewish Committee. America is a great nation because we honor the free exercise of belief, which includes the very precious, fundamental freedom of religion. This liberty, known as the ``first freedom,'' is worthy of our continued vigilance. it properly demands support from all quarters, both the public and private sectors. It properly finds it here in this legislation which re-establishes the right balance between the competing concerns of business and faith.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I was able to listen to the comments that the Senator from Missouri made regarding the efforts, that have been now stalled, to lift sanctions against agricultural producers and agricultural exports from America. It is very disconcerting that this is happening at this point in time in our Nation's history. My family farms. My dad is a full-time farmer, my brother is a full- time farmer, and prices for agricultural products are at rock bottom levels. Compound that with bad weather conditions for some places in America, and farmers believe they are getting a one-two punch. To stack on top of the two punches they are already taking an outdated sanctions policy, which was voted down in the Senate, is beyond unfair. We should not use food and medicine as a political weapon--now we find that these sanctions are not going to be lifted. On top of low prices, on top of bad weather, a farmer is going to say: Is everybody against me? Isn't my own Government going to help me out? We have been telling people for a long period of time, that for Freedom to Farm to work, you have to have freedom to market. We were moving in that direction. It was aggressively going forward in that direction, and all of a sudden out comes a conference report that pulls something that was passed, as the Senator from Missouri noted, by a large percentage of people in this body. A farmer has to wonder what is going on here. I ask people who are part of this process, what is going on? Let's look at getting this back in. It passed with large and overwhelming support in this body. It is clearly something that the people across the country want. It is clearly something that the agricultural community needs. It is the right thing to do. Let's do it. Let's not let it be taken out in some deal that involves a handful of Members. Plus, as people have previously noted for some period of time, unilateral agricultural trade sanctions are generally ineffective. They are effective in punishing our farmers, but they are not effective in accomplishing sound foreign policy. At a time when we are already suffering low agricultural prices, sanctions add to this burden. This is truly adding insult to injury. Unilateral sanctions by major agricultural producing countries such as the U.S. tend to encourage production in other competitor countries. So, on top of hurting our prices here, hurting our markets here, it probably, and usually does, have the effect of stimulating production in other countries. Often the tyrants, which the U.S. intends to punish actually benefit financially from these sorts of embargoes. My only point in making these comments in addition to those of my colleague from Missouri is simply to say there is ample ground and reason for us to lift these agricultural sanctions. There is not a moral foundation or basis for us to use food and medicine as a political weapon. It is wrong for our farmers. It is wrong, period, to do that. Yet we are seeing that continuing to take place. Now, after we passed something out of this body, with overwhelming support, we find it pulled out. That is very disconcerting to this Member, and it should be and is, I am sure, very disconcerting to the agricultural community across this Nation. Please, please, let's reopen this issue and get that agenda item back in so we can offer hope and fulfill our promise to farmers. I am not standing here saying it is going to solve our farm crisis or going to solve the problems we have marketing all our products around the world, but clearly here is a positive step we can take and should take. It is a big agenda item in rural America. People in rural America know these sanctions exist, they know they are harmful, and they want them lifted. Now is the time to do this. I am very disappointed this provision, according to my colleague from Missouri, has been taken out. I call on all Members of this body, let's look at this and let's get this issue back in so we can lift these sanctions from the backs of our farmers. I hope a number of my colleagues will become aware of what is taking place here. This is a very important issue to many of our States. It is certainly an important issue to Kansas. I think we need to revisit this, if it has been taken out, so we can get it back in. We must lift these agricultural sanctions and we must do it now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment put forward by Senator Kerry, Senator Chafee, and myself and a number of other Senators. Also, I want to thank Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for accepting it. I think this is a great statement and a great amendment for us to push forward. It provides funding for the Montreal Protocol with the multilateral fund. The fund sponsors technical assistance to 110 developing nations to reduce the ozone-depleting substances. It is supported by 120 industrialized nations. I think it is an important way for the world to combat pollution cooperatively. It will help phase out ozone-depleting substances in developing countries. GAO's 1997 report says this was a good working solution. It was working well. The amendment is fiscally responsible as well. It provides $12 million for the fund, offset with a tiny reduction--less than .02 of a percent--in EPA's discretionary spending. Today's world is an international, interactive relationship, particularly on the environment. Here is a very commonsense, practical approach for us to be able to work cooperatively with other nations. Twelve million dollars is economically responsible, budget-wise, coming out of the EPA discretionary fund. This is a good way to work forward. I thank my colleagues for their leadership. I think this is an excellent way for us to work toward international environmental cooperation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hutchison amendment to continue the moratorium on the Minerals Management Service rule. I thank her for the courageous work she has been doing on this issue. I want to speak to this from the standpoint of a State that has a number of small, independent oil producers. That is what we have in Kansas. I want to address a couple issues: No. 1, the perspective of the small, independent oil producers. I guess the dominant debate has been about big oil. I want to talk about small, independent oil producers such as we have. The second issue is we not become more dependent on foreign oil. We get 60 percent, actually more than 60 percent, from foreign sources, and we do not want to drive more of that production overseas. A third issue is a matter of priority to this body, and that is that we not let our duty to legislate be overtaken by a nonlegislative body. I appreciate the Senator from Texas bringing these issues to the forefront so we could debate them and talk about them on the Senate floor and, hopefully, get some sanity in this system. Our oil producers are just recovering from some of the lowest prices in 30 years. That has cost the oil and gas industry more than 67,000 American jobs, a number of those in Kansas, and saw the closure of more than 200,000 oil and gas wells. That is the recent situation. A hike in the royalty rates will make a bad situation worse and could cause more domestic oil production to go overseas. At a time when we already are getting so much of it from overseas, to increase our dependency even more is a really ridiculous idea. It is up to Congress and not Federal agencies to establish public policies is my second point. The MMS clearly exceeded its authority by proposing to raise royalty rates without congressional authorization. No congressional committee or affected industry groups were notified before the final version of the rule was announced. The MMS has also tried to get around the congressional moratorium by changing Federal lease forms and taking other measures that are similar to the prohibited rule. These reckless actions have led me to believe that this agency is out of control, and it has led a number of our small, independent producers in Kansas not to trust this agency, or the sort of template they are setting up in the industry that is going to cost them more and cost more jobs and cost more oil production in this country and in Kansas. I do believe the current royalty rate valuations are fundamentally flawed and should be changed. The regulations proposed by the MMS will increase the amount of the royalties to be paid by assessing royalties on downstream values particularly, without full consideration of the costs on that small independent producer in Kansas who is just now digging out of some of the lowest prices in 30 years, all the jobs they have lost, and all the wells that have been plugged. And we are saying at this point in time: We really do not care for you; we want to just shove these additional costs on you and hurt you more, even though you are just now starting to climb out of the worst situation in 30 years. Goodness, we ought to think a little bit down the road ourselves and say: Is it wise that we do this on the small independent producer struggling to make a living, who wants to help support the United States and our energy needs of this country, and we do this now? I do not think that is wise at all. Finally, my point is, it is the responsibility of Congress to make policy decisions, not the MMS. Royalty rates are our responsibility. We, the Senate, have been elected by our constituents to make these difficult decisions, and we should not have our authority preempted by Federal bureaucrats. Some people may not like that conclusion, but that is the way it is. We are the policymakers. We are the people who should set these rates, not a Federal bureaucracy that is not elected, that is a nonlegislative body. That is what is taking place. In the short time I have, I thank my colleague from Texas for the great work she is doing on defending freedom, defending small independent oil and gas producers, defending us from becoming more dependent on foreign oil, and also defending the Senate's right to establish public policy, and not a nonlegislative body. I hope as well that people who are debating and tying notions of other considerations into this issue will step back and think for a second. Everybody I know in this body acts with integrity and honor, and that should not be attacked on some sort of unsubstantiated basis. People here do act with honor and with integrity. There are differences of opinion on this issue. Mine, from the perspective of Kansas, is that we need to be setting this, and not the MMS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield my hour under rule XXII to Senator Gorton.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to explain why I voted ``no'' on the Treasury Postal Appropriations conference report. First, I am concerned that the contraceptive mandate included in the Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill is a precedent setting attempt to mandate coverage of abortifacients that have been approved--or will be approved in the future--by the Federal Food and Drug Administration. Second, I am concerned that this mandate constitutes an attempt to eventually force providers who have either a moral or religious objection to abortion services to provide those services, or lose the ability to provide health care within the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. The FEHBP mandate does not have adequate conscience clause protection for sponsors of health plans and individual providers who are opposed to providing such drugs and devices. Conscience clause protection for individual providers needs to be clarified to protect any health care provider, including but not limited to physicians, nurses and physician assistants who object to providing these drugs or devices on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions. Third, this misnamed ``contraceptive'' mandate is being used to help ``mainstream'' abortifacient drugs to which many health professionals, pharmacies, and patients have serious objections. It reduces federal employees' freedom to choose the health benefits they want; ignores health plans' potential moral objections; and increases pressure on health professionals to ignore their own conscientious convictions. All of this, ironically, is done in the name of ``freedom of choice. Fourth, I do not believe that the federal government should issue healthcare mandates. Mandating the FEHBP providers cover contraceptives as part of their health plan constitutes the first time in the history of the FEHBP that Congress has issued a mandate on a coverage. Fifth, I am also concerned that this may be the first step by some in Congress to issue a similar mandate on private insurers. Such a mandate on private insurers will drive up costs and lead to uninsurance at the margins. Therefore, because of the inclusion of this provision in the conference report I voted ``no.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to talk about the business that is before the Senate because I think this is critically important. There were a number of allegations made in the last speech that I think deserve to be refuted, but what is presently before us, what has taken place, is something that needs to be addressed before the American public. I rise in support of the resolution condemning the President's actions in granting clemency to 16 terrorists. I want to be clear what I am talking about: 16 terrorists who were members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, FALN. The President's condition for releasing these men was that they would be willing to say they would not use violence anymore. This is a standard that I think would easily be met by almost everyone in prison in America today. The condition is a sham. The FBI, the Justice Department, and the Bureau of Prisons all recommended strongly that these terrorists not be released. Yet the President went ahead and released these terrorists. The sad part about this is this administration claims to understand that terrorism is one of the greatest threats facing America. And it is. We see that threat towards the United States being posed and acted upon in many places around the world. It is only because of our own abilities that we have been able to stop some of this. Yet some of it has still gotten through. This act of the administration of releasing these terrorists will have the effect of encouraging terrorism. They are repeatedly telling us they are bringing terrorists to justice and that is a high priority. How is this act of releasing terrorists compatible with fighting terrorism? By his actions, the President is sending a message that, in fact, he does not take terrorism seriously, that it is OK to kill and maim American people. After all, the President may pardon you even when there is no petition of clemency before him. This encourages terrorism. We should be very clear about that. At a time when terrorism is a great threat to our peace and prosperity, at a time when terrorism has touched everywhere in this Nation, at a time when Americans face terrorist threats all around the world, the last thing we should do is grant clemency to convicted terrorists. I believe Congress should be standing up to tell the President, as well as the Nation, that we strongly condemn pardoning terrorists who have killed and shown no remorse whatsoever. Whatever the reason the President took this action, it is clear the pardon was not based on the merits, and by carrying through with this he severely damaged our leadership in the world fight against terrorism. The FALN carried out more violence than any other terrorist group in the United States. They pose a direct threat to the safety of American citizens on American soil everywhere. Yes, these convicted terrorists have spent some time in jail, but the acts these people committed were the most heinous and should not seem less so simply because of the passage of time. A fair court system found them guilty and punished them accordingly. Nothing they have done or said since then can justify their unsolicited release. Making concessions to terrorists is wrong and it is very harmful to us as a country and as a people. In so doing, the President has made a mockery of all the administration's tough talk about terrorism and the need to combat it worldwide. This is an action that should be roundly condemned. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Hutchison's amendment to continue the moratorium on the Minerals Management Service (MMS) oil royalty valuation rule. I am concerned that the MMS proposed rules for determining federal royalty payments will increase compliance costs for small, independent oil producers. These producers have just begun to recover from some of the lowest oil prices in 30 years, which cost the oil and gas industry more than 67,000 American jobs and saw the closure of more than 200,000 oil and gas wells. A hike in the royalty rates will make a bad situation worse and could cause more domestic oil production to be replaced by foreign imports. It is up to Congress and not federal agencies to establish public policy. The MMS clearly exceeded its authority by proposing to raise royalty rates without congressional authorization. No congressional committee or affected industry groups were notified before the final version of the rule was announced. The MMS has also tried to get around the congressional moratorium by changing federal lease forms and taking other measures that are similar to the prohibited rule. These reckless actions have led me to believe that this is an agency out of control. I am also very concerned about the appearance of a quid pro quo with respect to payments that were made by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to officials at the Departments of Interior and Energy who were involved with the royalty rate valuation issue. I agree with Senator Hutchison that the Interior Department should not proceed with this rule until this matter has been resolved by the Justice Department. I do believe that the current royalty rate valuations are fundamentally flawed and should be changed. But the regulations proposed by the MMS would increase the amount of royalties to be paid by assessing royalties on downstream values without full consideration of costs. In a period of low oil prices, the government should be considering royalty rate reductions, not an increase. It is the responsibility of Congress to make policy decisions affecting royalty rates and the responsibility of the MMS to implement those policies. We, the United States Senate, have been elected by our constituents in order to make these difficult decisions and should not have our authority preempted by federal bureaucrats. I urge my colleagues to support the Hutchison royalty rate moratorium amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1547 be star printed with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the executive calendar: No. 176, the nomination of Judge Carlos Murguia to be U.S. district judge for the district of Kansas. I take this opportunity to inform my fellow Members a little bit about Judge Murguia. I went to school with Judge Murguia. I am delighted to see him join the bench in Kansas. I want to speak today for a few minutes and tell my colleagues about Judge Murguia, whose nomination to the Federal Judiciary I understand will be agreed to before the close of business today. The Federal Judiciary is a truly high honor and responsibility. Those nominated to serve must be men and women of the highest professional and personal qualifications. I am privileged and pleased today to commend to the Senate Judge Carlos Murguia of Kansas City, KS. A native of Kansas City, Carlos Murguia is part of a remarkable family. Every one of his four siblings have earned a law degree from the University of Kansas. One sister works as deputy director of legislative affairs at the White House. Another sister is an assistant U.S. attorney in Arizona. Judge Murguia has served as a Wyandotte County District judge since September of 1990. He is a graduate of the University of Kansas School of Journalism and a graduate of my alma mater, the University of Kansas School of Law. Judge Murguia took an unusual career path upon graduating from that institution of legal scholarship that has turned out so many outstanding attorneys. He chose to use his newly minted legal skills to help others in a generally lower-income area of Kansas city. He chose to help others in this area who ordinarily would not have access to legal representation in situations others often take for granted. Judge Murguia took his first step into the Judiciary while still in private practice, serving first as a part-time small claims judge for the Wyandotte County district court. Later in 1990, Kansas Republican Governor Mike Hayden appointed Mr. Murguia Wyandotte County District Judge, filling the reminder of a term of a judge who died in office. He was elected to his own 4-year terms in both 1992 and 1996. Judge Murguia served Wyandotte County with distinction in this office for 10 years. Madam President, I am confident that Judge Murguia will bring to the Federal bench the skills and knowledge of an outstanding jurist of personal integrity and with the dedication of a man who took his law degree to help his fellow citizens. On a personal note, when you see the demeanor of Judge Murguia and you are around his presence, you recognize and see the beauty of this person, the beauty of his soul, the beauty of the smile that goes on his face when he sees justice being done for others. And that smile mourns when he sees anyone treated unjustly. He lives in his heart for justice. I think he is probably one of the best embodiments of that frequently cited passage in Micah that reads, ``what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God''. Judge Murguia fulfills that passage in Micah. For all these reasons, I am especially pleased to wholeheartedly commend to the Senate Judge Carlos Murguia nomination to the Federal district court. Madam President, in that vein, I further ask unanimous consent that this nomination of Judge Murguia be confirmed, the motion to consider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on September 8, 1999, by the President of the United States: International Convention for the Expression of Terrorist Bombings (Treaty Document No. 106-6); and Treaty with Dominican Republic for Return of Stolen or Embezzled Vehicles, with Annexes, (Treaty Document No. 106-7). I further ask that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time, they be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Senators Rockefeller and Specter have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I understand that S.J. Res. 33, introduced earlier by Senator Lott, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.