Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to add my comments in support of this amendment that Senator Harkin has put forward. I think it is a good way of doing it. Here is a program that puts money directly back to the States for law enforcement; lets them decide. We take this out of travel and office supplies over the rest of the bill. I think it is much better we spend the money back in Iowa, in Kansas, in our various States, rather than on travel and printing here in Washington. That is a good trade. That is a good way to go. That is why I supported this amendment, and I am glad to hear the managers are willing to accept it.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution submitted by Senator Shelby commemorating the 30th anniversary of the first lunar landing, an event that will be remembered as one of the most important events of our country and century. Americans remember the landing on the lunar surface not only with a sense of historical significance, but also with one of honor and pride in the accomplishment of the crew of Apollo 11 and the men and women of NASA who made it possible. This mission was conducted during a tumultuous time in our country's history. Sending a man to the moon forced us to marshal our country's vast talent and technological resources and to drive our creative energies to the breaking point. Apollo proved that necessity is the mother of invention. The Apollo mission required us to make quantum leaps in propulsion systems, airframe materials, electronics, and other scientific areas in an impossible amount of time. I congratulate Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, the late Michael Collins, and NASA for their courage to lead our country to the new world of space. While our accomplishments in space have continued, space still offers us a vast and unexplored frontier. America has been, and should remain a world leader in space research, technology, and exploration. It is on this 30th anniversary of the first lunar landing that America should renew its support for our space program and challenge ourselves once again as we begin a new century.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately proceed to a period of morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Patients' Bill of Rights. Debate will resume on the pending second-degree amendment regarding emergency medical care coverage. Further amendments are expected to be offered and debated during today's session, with votes to be scheduled for this afternoon. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conference meetings. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15 p.m., Senator Smith of New Hampshire will be recognized for up to 45 minutes. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could go ahead and proceed this morning, Senator John Ashcroft, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and myself have reserved 20 minutes to discuss Chairman Roth's tax package and the marriage penalty in particular. So I will begin that initial discussion in morning business.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the chairman of the Finance Committee will be coming out with his mark on tax cuts, and this is a critically important issue. It is an important one for the country. It is important, now that we are looking forward to having some surplus, that we say to the American people: You have been overpaying your taxes, and we want to give some of that back to you. This is over and above Social Security, the amount of the payroll tax that is going to Social Security. So we are setting aside the Social Security trust funds--a lockbox is what we call it, a lockbox for the Social Security surplus-- and with the remainder talking about tax cuts, serious tax cuts. One issue we want to discuss this morning is doing away with the marriage penalty. It seems extraordinary to me that we would have a tax policy in this country that actually penalizes people for getting married. With all the problems we have with families in our society, it seems, if anything, we would want to do just the opposite--we would want to give people a benefit for being married rather than taxing them for being married. And yet the way the code has evolved, today 21 million American married couples pay an average of $1,400 more in taxes just for the privilege of being married. I think that is wrong. The Government should not use the coercive power of the Tax Code to erode one of the foundational units of our society, that of marriage. We should stop the taxation. We should put a stop to the marriage penalty tax. This year we can change that. I am encouraged that the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and his committee have put forward efforts to alleviate the marriage penalty. We have a unique opportunity to put that issue behind us. I want to draw Senators' attention to another issue under the marriage penalty area which has not been talked about that much. That is the earned-income tax credit bias against married couples. A significant share of the marriage penalty occurs to low-income couples. It is caused by the loss of the earned-income tax credit when individuals' incomes are combined. What happens is, you have two-wage-earner families that, if they were not married, if they were single and filing separately, would qualify for the earned-income tax credit. But if they get married and they earn over this mark, they get penalized again for being married. Estimates by the CBO indicate that what we can do is double, for two- wage-earner families, the amount of income that can be received and still qualify for the earned-income tax credit. Virtually all the benefits of this adjustment in the earned-income tax credit would go to couples with incomes below $50,000. There are nearly 3.7 million couples in America today that do not receive the earned-income tax credit that would, if we double the amount that they can make, still qualify for the earned-income tax credit. I point this out because people struggle mightily to raise families, and the notion that we would tax and then tax again low-income families, keeping them from receiving a benefit because they are married, makes absolutely no policy sense at all. I don't see how on Earth anybody can argue this is a good idea or this is the right thing to do. I am hopeful the chairman of the Finance Committee has focused on this. We can do this. I hope the President will be willing to work with Members of Congress in both the House and the Senate in crafting a tax package we can all agree with, so the American people can stop overpaying their taxes--which they are currently doing. The CBO is now projecting an onbudget surplus of $14 billion in fiscal year 2000, with the surplus growing to $996 billion over the 10- year period beginning in fiscal year 2000. We have this opportunity to eliminate the marriage penalty tax and to do away with paying the marriage penalty tax on upper-income levels and for those not being given the earned-income tax credit on the lower-income level. Of course, the surging surplus I was discussing is as a result of payroll tax receipts. I continue to emphasize that. The majority side wants to put a lockbox around any Social Security surplus and have that maintained only for Social Security. We can do these things. We need to work across the aisle. We need to work with the President. I hope he will be willing to work with Members as we move forward in dealing with the marriage penalty tax, which is a terrible signal to send across society, to send to people across America. We will be working with the chairman of the Finance Committee. I hope this is one tax that can find its death in this round of tax cuts. We will hopefully be going to reconciliation and discussing tax cuts this month. It is a very important topic we will discuss. I encourage people paying a marriage penalty tax to contact Members regarding how the marriage penalty tax has directly impacted your lives. I have had any number of couples write saying: We wanted to get married but we found out we were going to pay this huge tax for getting married and we could not afford to do that; this is money we wanted to use for a downpayment of a house or to get a car that would work. They were not able to do it because of the pernicious fiscal effect of the marriage penalty tax. It is a terrible signal we are sending across our society. Senator Hutchison from Texas has been a leader on this issue of dealing with the marriage penalty tax. She has come to the floor, as well, to discuss what we can do. Now is the time to eliminate this marriage penalty tax. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have discussed this with Senator Frist, who chairs the subcommittee, who also has traveled to Sudan and knows of the situation taking place in that region. That is why this is an important issue for us to take up now. This is the appropriate vehicle. It is providing aid to the southern resistance movement. Actually now it is not just southern, it is all over the country. We can move the vote to a later point, but I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1170.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is an amendment we have been negotiating back and forth. I indicated briefly that we wanted to bring it up if we could not get a negotiated agreement. We are proceeding later on in the day. I know the people in charge of the bill want to move this amendment, so I called this amendment up to get it as the pending business so people can discuss it. I have discussed this earlier. I do not seek to take up an extraordinary amount of time to discuss it. It would make available international disaster assistance, humanitarian assistance, and development assistance in the opposition-controlled areas of the Sudan. I recently led a congressional delegation to the region. The government in Khartoum is a terrorist regime. That is according to the U.S. State Department. They have in their country the worst humanitarian situation in the world. That is according to Brian Atwood, head of USAID--the worst in the world. There were nearly 2 million people killed in 10 years, over 4 million internally displaced. This is through forced, manmade famine and starvation. This is by bombing, indiscriminate civilian bombing by the government in Khartoum. It is exporting terrorism. It has housed Osama bin Laden until 1997. They house a number of terrorist groups in Khartoum. They are supporting terrorism and spreading throughout the region a sort of militant terrorism--in the Congo, Eritrea, Uganda, and other places. They seem to seek to be the African edge of the militant terrorism. The people attempting to kill President Mubarak in Egypt were given housing and aid and abetting in Sudan by this government. This is a bad regime. This amendment simply seeks to provide humanitarian assistance to those opposition-controlled areas and the opposition groups. Here, again, is the list of items the government in Khartoum, the Sudan Government, is doing today. I have talked about these. Most recently, last year, 100,000 people, according to the U.S. Committee on Refugees, were killed by a man-induced famine, induced by the Khartoum government. They would not let our disaster relief planes fly into the region. They said no. It is time we allowed aid to go to the resistance groups that are fighting just for dignity and for their own lives. This is a simple amendment. It is a modification to the one we previously called up. I do not know of any objection to this, and as soon as the manager of the amendment can perhaps come to the floor, I would simply like to ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment and have us vote on it because I think it is a worthwhile amendment. While that is being taken care of, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Then I will not have to ask the pending business be set aside. We are still on that. I wanted to address several of the issues my colleagues have raised, that the negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan that are taking place in the so-called Minsk Group are at a very delicate time period and the repeal of section 907, as addressed in the McConnell-Abraham amendment, would upset the delicate negotiations at this point in time. Frankly, it is just not true that these negotiations are at a delicate point in time now and this amendment would do that. The present conflict has been going on since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and a cease-fire has been in effect since 1994. The U.S. Government is one of the peace group cochairs, along with Russia and France, and they all--the U.S. Government, the Clinton administration-- favor repeal or waiver of section 907. The amendment I put forward prevents our Government from being an honest broker in the peace process. We have letters from Secretary Albright and the administration on this. Russia is involved, and not in a helpful way. Their handiwork in retaining influences in the Caucasus is only slightly less obvious than their efforts to help out in Kosovo--in some situations where they were not helpful at all. Russian military troops are still based in Armenia and were providing military support and munitions supplies to Armenia during the war with Azerbaijan. The argument in support of the status quo has nothing to do with the sensitivities of the ongoing peace talks. The last real peace initiative where there was a real push was in 1997, calling for Armenia's withdrawal from the occupied territories in exchange for normalization of trade with Azerbaijan. This was rejected by Armenia. The continued status quo in Armenia's favor is nothing less than the Armenian Government's attempt to influence U.S. foreign policy and preserve an undue advantage. It really is that simple. Azerbaijan is the only country in the former Soviet Union that has unilateral sanctions from the United States. Again, we do not lift them; we just provide waiver authority for section 907. So those arguments being raised by my colleagues are simply not accurate. Also, they talk about the issue of the blockade: Somehow Azerbaijan is blockading Armenia. I want to show a map on this point so people can get a look, again, at the region and what this so-called blockade is about. Here is Azerbaijan. Here is Armenia. Here is the area in dispute. Armenia is occupying 20 percent of the landmass of Azerbaijan. The United Nations has condemned this action by Armenia. OSCE, the group much involved in negotiation, condemns the action by Armenia. You can see Armenia has outlets they can use through Iran or through Georgia, which is up here. So there is not a blockade on Armenia. What the so-called blockade is, and has been for a long period of time, is a mutual border closing caused by Armenia's continued illegal occupation of Azerbaijan. I hope my colleagues will look at the map, look at the situation, read the U.N. resolutions, the OSCE resolutions about Armenia occupying 20 percent of Azerbaijan, and quickly and clearly conclude that this blockade is really a mutual border closing caused by Armenia and its illegal occupation of Azerbaijan. That, plus the difficulties caused by Armenia's mining of some of the overland routes through the buffer zone surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, are probably some of the most serious logistical obstacles in the blockade. So I point these out to my colleagues, those who are saying this is a sensitive time. We had a cease-fire for 5 years. It is not that the government is involved in trying to negotiate a true peace and wants 907 to be repealed so the United States can be an honest broker in this peace process and not one-sided on it. The Clinton administration, and Bush administration prior to that, opposed section 907. And the blockade is really not a blockade at all. Mr. President, I ask at this time to set aside the pending amendment, Senator McConnell's amendment, so I can call up an amendment. I will call up amendment No. 1170. This is an amendment I talked about previously on Sudan. I would like to have that considered. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment so I can call up amendment No. 1170.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wanted to address the body on several of the discussion points that were raised today regarding an amendment I filed. I inquire first of the President, what is the pending business?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I hope we can get a time agreement so we know when we will actually vote on this particular issue. Reasonable people may differ, and will differ, on what the U.S. policy should be. Azerbaijan--section 907--is the only country from the former Soviet Union that we have unilateral sanctions against. We are not lifting those sanctions by this amendment. We are allowing a national interest waiver to the President which is the same as the rest of the Freedom Support Act. In that sense, we will put Azerbaijan--which is at the gateway to much of the Eurasian platform as far as connecting the countries together--on an equal footing with all of the countries that came from the rubble of the former Soviet Union. We seek peace in this region. It is important that we have a settlement in this region. This particular set of unilateral sanctions on Azerbaijan has been the United States policy since 1992. It has not led to peace since 1992. We are seeking to create an abundance of activity, on a multilateral basis, of all the countries in the region, causing them to work together, to lift each other up economically, democratically, and regarding human rights, as an area, an entire region, that is developing on those principles of a free democracy--free, independent status, and human rights. To pull this one out--it is a key corridor--the concept of the countries working together falls apart. It will not happen. It will not happen if we do that. That has been the U.S. policy since 1992. It has not led to peace yet between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I don't think it will now. If we get these countries to work together, to say, together we can support each other, we can grow economically in other ways, I think we create the atmosphere for peace to take place. Everybody has an interest in peace occurring. We are talking about a large set of resources in this area. They do have the economic wherewithal to be able to grow and grow together. But we have to have them all. You can't pull one of them out and say it will not happen. I think the proposal I put forward leads to peace and peaceful opportunities in the region. That is why I support it. I am happy to talk further about this at a later date if we get a time agreement. With all due respect, I disagree with my colleagues from Kentucky and Michigan. I think we have the national interest waiver on section 907. At the proper time, I will want a recorded vote on this so we can have a determination by this body of U.S. policy here. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, while we are waiting for other Senators to come up with amendments, I want to draw attention to an amendment I intend to offer if it is not accepted overall. It is an amendment entitled ``Humanitarian Assistance for the Sudanese Opposition Groups.'' This is a very simple amendment that would allow us to give food aid to the southern Sudanese resistance and also the northern Sudanese resistance efforts, food aid only. This is not other forms of aid. It is certainly not military aid. But it is food aid to the Sudanese resistance movement. The language says, and I will provide the amendment: The President is authorized to provide humanitarian assistance, including food, to the National Democratic Alliance [That is an overall alliance of the groups in opposition to the government in Khartoum] and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement, operating outside of the Operation Lifeline Sudan structure. That is the simple amendment we put forward. I recently led a congressional delegation. Congressman Don Payne from New Jersey, Congressman Tom Tancredo from Colorado, and I went to Sudan and traveled to southern Sudan and met with the embattled groups that have been fighting against the Khartoum government, which is a government that was not freely elected. They stood for election in 1988. They were defeated, got about 18 percent of the vote, and then took over the government in a coup in 1989 and have since then been operating a terrorist regime in Sudan. It is terrorist internally in Sudan and terrorist externally from Sudan. They have killed, according to the IS Committee on Refugees, internally in Sudan, in the last 10 years, 1.9 million people in a genocide and ethnic cleansing the likes of which the world has not seen in recent times. This is the worst humanitarian situation in the world. That is according to the director of USAID, Mr. Atwood, who testified on the issue, on the Sudan--the worst in the world--nearly 2 million killed, over 4 million internally displaced. That is the internal terrorism of this government. This is a government--and this is incredible--that actually allows slavery to exist. That is documented. The Baltimore Sun did a series of articles documenting this. Christian Solidarity International has bought back the freedom of over 6,000 slaves of northern people empowered by the Government to go south, kill the men in the village, take the women and children hostages, and make them slaves. This is a picture taken by one of my staff members at Christmas this past year when she was in Sudan. This little boy is probably 11 or 12 years old. He is holding his arm out in this picture. It actually has on it his slave brand--branded slave. What the Government in Khartoum does is, they allow people from the north to go down as raiders into these communities, and part of what they get paid for is the slaves they can take. This is a closer picture of the little boy's arm showing the brand mark. They are taken and made to be herders, they are taken into sexual concubinage. The slave trade exists in the world today at the hands of the Government in Khartoum. It is absolutely unfathomable that this continues to occur. That is on top of the genocide and the ethnic cleansing that is taking place. This is a picture of the civilian bombing that takes place within the country all the time. I was in Yei. The hospital in Yei has been bombed three times in the last year. They are taking old Soviet cargo planes, Antonovs, and they roll bombs out the back. They are indiscriminate. They are not militarily significant, but it kills a lot of people. It terrifies the people on the ground. This is a picture of the hospital that has been bombed. This photograph is, again, a civilian target. It has a big red X on the top of it, and that is part of the bombing that takes place. This picture shows people who are watching for the bombers. I put up a quick chart of the atrocities of the Government in the north. Remember, this amendment we are going to offer simply allows humanitarian aid to the resistance movement. It does not provide arms of any nature, but it does provide food aid to the resistance movement in Sudan. This is what the Government in Khartoum has done. If people are going back and forth saying we are taking sides if we provide humanitarian aid to the resistance, I point out, the Government in Sudan is a terrorist regime as determined by the United States State Department. It is state-sponsored terrorism. They have housed Osama bin Laden since 1997. He stayed in Khartoum. Most of the terrorist groups operating in the world have a base of operation in Khartoum. The Government in Sudan is supporting terrorist movements in three adjacent countries--Congo, Eritrea, and Uganda. They are seeking to expand this militant fundamentalism. I pointed this out earlier: Dead, 1.9 million people. It is the worst humanitarian situation in the world. An internally displaced population of 4.3 million. Last year, they let famine alone kill 100,000 people. Mr. President, this is the most incredible thing. Food sat in the country, and the Government in Khartoum would not let us fly relief planes into the area where they needed it, and the people died. They died at the hands of the Khartoum Government because they would not let our planes deliver the food aid. Enslavement takes place, civilian bombings, forced religious conversions, terrorist threats throughout the region. This is the Government in Khartoum. This is the Government of Sudan. If Members are hesitant to support food aid to the resistance movement, this is against whom they are fighting. This is arguably one of the, if not the worst regimes in the world for the treatment of its own people and attempts to export a militant fundamentalism and spread it throughout Africa. They housed the terrorist who tried to kill President Mubarak of Egypt. I mentioned the Government in Sudan housed Osama bin Laden. This is a simple amendment. Rather than calling it up at the present time, I am making my colleagues aware, if it is not agreed to, I will be calling this amendment up and asking for a vote on this amendment. It is food aid to the opposition groups. It is not military aid. It is against the Government that supports the institutions of slavery, and it has the worst humanitarian situation in the world. Mr. President, 100,000 were killed last year. This is the least we can do. I see other Members in the Chamber. I do not want to take additional time for this. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. That is certainly acceptable to me. I suggest to the Senator from Kentucky, the manager of the bill, I have a second amendment dealing with the Sudan I am hopeful we can get worked out at some point in time, rather than calling it up. But if we cannot, I will seek recognition on that as well later on.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from Kentucky, what is his desire at this time on this particular amendment?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the underlying second-degree amendment and to talk about the overall amendment itself and the area of the world with which we are dealing. This amendment is an issue that has been heard in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee, both this Congress and last, and has passed this time by a voice vote of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It passed by a majority vote in the last Congress. It deals with an important region of the world, and it deals with a difficult policy issue for the Senate and for our Government to consider. The underlying bill itself is called the Silk Roads Strategy Act. It deals with eight countries, and it provides an overarching policy towards these countries in the south Caucasus and central Asia. Specifically the countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. I realize those are not common names of countries that people across the United States perhaps banter around, but I think they do know and recall with some knowledge the Silk Road, the old Silk Road made legendary many years ago, discovered and traversed by Marco Polo and many others who traveled throughout the region of central Asia. It was really at that point in time the bridge; the Eurasian bridge was developed and brought commerce from Asia to Europe and from Europe to Asia. We are seeking to reinitiate this Silk Road, a new Silk Road that would have an economic corridor along with a freedom corridor in central Asia and the south Caucasus. You can see this region of the world. I wish this map were a little clearer. I hope Members can see where this region of the world is caught. These are all countries in the former Soviet Union. They are in the south of the former Soviet Union; they are recently independent nations. They had some independence before, but these are just recently coming out from underneath the rubble of the fall of the Soviet empire. They are caught between world global forces that seek to have them under their control. The Russians continue the desire to have an unusual influence, would be the best way to put it. The Iranians sit right here and seek to have a greater influence in the region. They seek to dominate most of these nations that have a Muslim-based population. They seek, the Iranians, to radicalize and put governments in place that are militant fundamentalist governments. China then, off to this side of the region--what we are seeking to do is to create an area of democracy, an area of free enterprise, an area of independence free from these world powers that seek to dominate them, in a group of nations that seek to be united with the West, again, in a Eurasian corridor of commerce and freedom. That is the new Silk Road Strategy Act. That is what this bill is about. Lest we forget and just look at it as a geographic area, as important as this region is, I hope we will look at the people in this region. We are talking about nearly 72 million people involved in these countries of the Silk Road. You can look at them: the Armenian population of 3.4 million; the Azeri population of 7.8 million; on down, Uzbekistan being the biggest with over 23 million people yearning to be free, yearning to be associated with the West, yearning not to go back under Russian dominance or to be put under Iranian dominance or Chinese dominance, but yearning to be free and associated with the West. That is what this bill is about. This is a sanctions lifting bill. It lifts a particular sanction, sanction section 907 that has a set of provisions limiting any sort of assistance, any sort of work of the United States with Azerbaijan, which is also a key country for this corridor, and it doesn't lift the sanctions. It merely provides a national interest waiver. So this doesn't lift it. The President still has to say it is in the national interest of the United States to waive this sanction, and then he has the authority. So it simply provides that authority to the administration, which is in line with the Freedom Support Act, which we originally passed to support these newly independent countries that came about from the Soviet empire falling. This act authorizes assistance for all these countries, specific economic assistance, development of infrastructure assistance, border control assistance, as well as assistance in strengthening democracy, tolerance in the development of civil society. Authority in this bill to provide assistance for these countries of the south Caucasus and central Asia is in addition to the authority to provide such assistance under the Freedom Support Act, but it does not provide any new resources. It simply allows us to offer these resources and assistance to these countries bilaterally and multilaterally. We can provide assistance programs to the entire region, working it in a package and saying to these countries: You are better off if you will work together and bond together to be able to stand before the forces that are seeking to dominate you once again. Mr. President, I think the window of opportunity for the United States to effect positive change in this region will only be open for a short period of time. I think that is the very critical part of this bill and why we need to have this debate and pass this issue now. The window is short. I want to show you some of the activity that is taking place in this region. I mentioned the militant fundamentalists' efforts taking place to seek domination of most of these countries that have a Muslim-based population. This is a chart of Iranian worldwide export of terrorism and fundamentalism that we are putting up here. I want to highlight this region that we are talking about. Of the eight countries we are talking about, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have Iranians operating in this region. Afghanistan is operating here, seeking to put these countries under militant fundamentalist control. They are doing this today. As recently as 2 months ago, the President of Uzbekistan had an assassination attempt that was put forward by militant fundamentalists who seek to have him removed. He provides mostly a secular Muslim government. They said we want him out and we want a militant fundamentalist government in here, and we are going to do what we can, including trying to assassinate him. They are trying to destabilize the Fergana Valley in this area. My point is, look at this map. It looks similar to the map I just put up here, the countries of the Silk Road. The Iranians are funding this effort. They are going into the camps here and funding the populations in this area. They are doing this today. Members can check this. This is happening. If we want to let these countries slip off and go into the militant fundamentalist camps so we have more places to fight terrorism and more countries we have to fight against that are willing to spawn hatred against the West, let's fail this bill, and with all due respect to the Senator from Kentucky, let's pass his amendment. We have a disagreement about this particular amendment, section 907. I think it is critical and important that we pass and eliminate this bilateral sanction that we have against Azerbaijan, which is much of the gateway for the flow of democracy and freedom throughout this region. Time is of the essence. In my view, the single best way to consolidate our goals in the region is to promote regional cooperation and policies that will strengthen the sovereignty of each nation. Each of these countries has its own individual needs. However, many of the problems in the region overlap and are shared, and a number of common solutions and approaches can apply. That is why we have put together this overarching Silk Road strategy. This region has generally taken a back seat to U.S. foreign policy. We have generally deferred to Russia and to Iranian policy and said we are going to let these drift along. The problem with the drift is that people are going to feel the power vacuum. It is being fueled by the Iranians and pushed by the Russians and other outside influences that don't seek for them to have their freedom. We have eight countries, as I noted earlier, most of which have secular Muslim governments, that are fighting to stave off the Iranian- style Islamic extremism, which are looking westward, and at great risk to themselves, they have considerable economic ties with the West--and I want to note as well, with Israel. Many of these countries in this region have historic and ancient Jewish populations existing there as well; living, surviving, thriving, but if you put in these anti-Western militant fundamentalist, those populations, Jewish populations are going to be run out and these countries are not going to be having good relationships with Israel. These countries are recovering from 70 years of Soviet domination. They need our help in all spheres, including human rights. No one is suggesting that these are Jeffersonian democracies yet. There is a lot of pessimistic talk about the prospects for democracy in this region. All of these countries have human rights violations. At any given point in time, some of the human rights violations may seem worse than others. Here is our choice. Do we engage and try to make what difference we can? Or do we ignore and let the region drift without us, becoming either violently anti-Western, anti-American, or become, once again, an extension of Russia, China, or Iran? It is a pretty clear, simple choice. They seek our support. Now, on the point of human rights--because I think a lot of people will say there are human rights violations in this region and we really ought to watch out for that and we should not support these areas. Again, I point out that this is a waiver authority to the President. He still has to certify and it will have the same standards as other human rights issues. Recently, we had the Israeli Minister for Trade and Industry, Natan Sharansky, a well-known international figure on human rights, here in Washington, together with the Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan. Mr. Sharansky's reason for being here was to make one point, which I thank him for making. He said: Look at the human rights situation and weigh this against the importance of the threat that is facing us. It is very important to engage and continue to encourage a positive process and the way to do this is to strengthen the role we are playing in the region. He supported and endorsed this Silk Road Strategy Act in the region. I want to look particularly at the second-degree amendment that my colleague from Kentucky put forward. I have immense respect for the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. He did excellent work on the overall bill, but we have a difference of opinion on section 907. I want to go specifically at this issue. My overall amendment would provide a Silk Road Strategy Act for the entire region, providing a waiver authority in section 907. The second- degree amendment leaves the rest of the language but does not provide the national interest waiver on section 907. That is a key part of this bill, and that is why I oppose the second-degree amendment of my good colleague from Kentucky and my colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham, as well. We have a dispute on this. I want to go right at that issue of section 907. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Congress, in the fall of 1992, adopted the Freedom Support Act. This was designed to provide financial and technical assistance to the newly independent states, those of the former Soviet Union. I want to put that map back up here, if we could, so people can have that in mind. It was to aid them on a path toward democratic and market reforms. Because of the then ongoing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the enclave Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenian supporters were successful in including language in section 907 singling out Azerbaijan--the only former Soviet republic so treated--for sanctions. I will put up here a map of that region so you can see specifically what this area looks like. This is the Armenia and Azerbaijan area and the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which was in dispute, and this was in 1992, mid-1993, and late 1993. In 1992, at that point in time, we passed the Freedom Support Act and Armenian supporters got narrow, bilateral sanctions against Azerbaijan put in place, saying we think Azerbaijan is treating Armenia wrong, blockading it. Therefore, we want section 907, which removes the United States from providing any assistance to Azerbaijan. Bilateral sanctions, some of which have been lifted--the chairman of the committee has lifted portions of these, but not all have been lifted. We provide waiver authority for the lifting of these bilateral sanctions. That was 1992. The only former Soviet republic so treated was Azerbaijan. The 907 sanction prohibited the ability of the U.S. Government to provide direct bilateral assistance to Azerbaijan until the President determined that demonstrable steps had been taken in ceasing hostilities and lifting the embargo against Armenia. A cease- fire has been in place for the past 7 years since that time period. Peace negotiations under the auspices of the OSCE group are ongoing. To me, it makes no sense whatsoever to continue these 907 sanctions. Proponents of retaining 907 argue that the restrictions should remain in place until the Azerbaijan embargo against Armenia is lifted. In point of fact, however, it is Armenia's ongoing occupation of Nagorno- Karabakh and the surrounding territory. Armenia currently occupies about 20 percent of Azerbaijan in violation of international law. Both the OSCE and the U.N. have condemned this occupation. This is the region on the map they are occupying against the OSCE and U.N. ruling. They both have said this is an international law violation, that Armenia is occupying 20 percent of Azerbaijan. This functionally prevents the opening of the borders between the two countries. In an attempt to end the stalemate, the OSCE advanced a proposal calling for Armenia to withdraw from the occupied land in exchange for the reciprocal opening of rail and pipeline facilities by Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has accepted the proposal. Armenia has rejected it. This would be pulling back from a 20 percent of lands, and then opening up the rail and pipe corridors. Azerbaijan accepted it. Armenia has not. The imposition of 907, I think, was a bad idea in 1993. It was adopted over the strong objections of the Bush administration, and its repeal is strongly supported by the Clinton administration. For the United States to continue unilateral imposition of sanctions against Azerbaijan--that is what we have--does not make sense from either a geostrategic-political point of view or an economic point of view. This is much of the corridor for the Eurasian bridge that is going through Azerbaijan. The energy potential of the Caspian is one facet of Azerbaijan's strategic significance to the West. The broader issue of the timing and development of the Iranian transit corridor and the sovereignty of the individual republics of the South Caucasus is also at stake. This provision--I might note, as well, the Silk Road strategy--is strongly supported by all the countries in the region outside of the Armenians. I think it would be a great benefit to Armenia as well. Continuing 907 is an impediment to the improved truce between the United States and Azerbaijan and the entire region. It undermines the ability of American companies to secure their substantial investments in the region, and prevents the U.S. Government from being a truly honest broker in the peace negotiations. Repealing of section 907 would allow for commercial and technical assistance to aid in the development of infrastructure, trade, pipeline projects, and to further development of democracy so they don't fall into the hands of the Iranians or the Russians. Further, with the ongoing political turmoil in Moscow, removal of 907 would allow Azerbaijan to participate in a partnership for peace and broader security programs, as well as market reform and democracy- building initiatives necessary to promote political stability in this potentially volatile region. Some may suggest this is not the time to do this on 907. I don't know of a better time other than 907 having not been put on in the first place. It doesn't lift the sanction. It provides a waiver authority for the President to do it. Some may say, well, this is at a particularly susceptible time in the peace process. I don't think that is accurate. The last real peace initiative was in 1997, calling for Armenia's withdrawal from the occupied territories in exchange for normalization of trade with Azerbaijan. This was rejected by Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Unlike other provisions of the Freedom Assistant Act, I want to point out that section 907 does not provide for a national interest waiver. What we are doing here is making section 907 be in line with the rest of the Freedom Assistance Act in providing a national interest waiver. The final point I want to make before yielding the floor for a discussion is, again, I point out my deep respect for my colleagues from Kentucky and Michigan who are opposed to the overall national interest waiver on section 907. We just have a differing point of view on this. But the issue is, we are talking about a region of the world--a Eurasian corridor--that has had historical roots in the old Silk Road. They know how to relate with one another, and they are in a tough neighborhood. They have the Russians bearing down on them with undue economic and other influence, and the President of Georgia has had several assassination attempts where the assassin fled to Russia. Georgia wants this bill very much. They have undue influence from the Iranians, who are providing aid to many of these terrorist groups operating in the region and fomenting discontent because they know they are inherently weak at this time. The Chinese have a certain amount of influence, but it is really between the Russians and the Iranians. And they seek to be connected with us. If you pull 907 out of this and its interest waiver, and you say, OK, we are going to do everything but 907, as the amendment provides, you block this part of the key corridor of providing economic trade, developmental assistance, and, through much of the region, its commerce and its activity will flow through Baku and Azerbaijan. This is a critical part of it. That is why, with all due respect, I oppose the second-degree amendment, ask my colleagues to vote against that and to support the underlying amendment without amendment, and pass this critical issue that we really need for U.S. foreign policy. I thank my colleague. I thank the President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment that has been cleared, I understand, by both sides. I would like to submit into the Record a clarification regarding the distribution of humanitarian assistance, including food, directly to the National Democratic Alliance participants operating outside of the Operation Lifeline Sudan structure. Namely, the intent and expectation of the Senate through this language is for the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement to be a recipient as a leading member participant in the National Democratic Alliance.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I think the relevant question is how we move forward in this region of the world. That is the issue that we debate.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I don't think that would necessarily be the case. I am not going to start to debate the origins of that war.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Reclaiming my time, I note this is the administration that is negotiating peace in this region. They want peace as I want peace in this region. They are saying: Look, this is an appropriate thing to bring up at this particular time, and it will help us in moving forward to peace in the region. They are in a better position to judge that, with all due respect to my colleague from Maryland. Mr. President, my colleague from Michigan was kind enough to yield me time to speak. I appreciate that. I yield the floor.