Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President and colleagues, this amendment goes at a critical problem in the world and one we hold the key to answering. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on disease treatment and drug development. Unfortunately, what we have seen taking place is that the cost of developing a pharmaceutical product to treat particular diseases continues to go up and up and up into, in some cases, billions of dollars to develop a particular drug for a treatment for individuals. When you are looking at disease categories, now that we are getting into finer and finer groups, you may have a group of, say, 50,000 people who have a particular disease, or for a neglected disease that is in a Third World country, you can have millions, even more than that, who are affected by a disease, but there is not a large marketplace to support the research that is necessary to develop a cure. What we have put forward in this amendment is a review process to try to establish a new system for neglected and rare diseases so that drug delivery can proceed, and it can proceed on an expedited basis and reduce the cost of doing it, so we can start to develop drug treatments for rare diseases and neglected diseases that happen in poorer parts of the world where the economy does not support that level of research. The amendment establishes two review groups within the Food and Drug Administration that would recommend solutions for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of both rare diseases and neglected diseases of the developing world. According to the World Health Organization, more than 1 billion people--nearly one of every six people worldwide--are affected by at least one neglected disease. We have a billion people who are in this category of having a disease for which there is little to no research being done. Examples of well-known neglected diseases include malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera. Africa certainly bears the brunt of this, as nearly 90 percent of the world's neglected diseases afflict people in this continent. While this is the target category, it is my hope that what this will lead to is us developing systems and ways where we can reduce the cost and the time for drug delivery and development so we can use that in this country. We can use that on rare diseases where you do not have the population pool to support as much of the research. Neglected diseases claim roughly 500,000 lives each year. They disproportionately affect very low-income populations in developing countries. Unfortunately, less than 1 percent of the roughly 1,400 drugs registered between 1975 and 1999 treated such diseases--1 percent of them. Streamlining the FDA review process to treat these diseases is not only in our country's national interest, but it is consistent with our longstanding tradition of caring for those who are less fortunate around the world. I might point out that as to the public opinion standing of the United States, the continent where we have the highest public opinion standing of the population is not even North America, it is Africa, where we are helping people with the PEPFAR program, with malaria, with food, and people like you if you are helping them stay alive. This continues in that, so it is good foreign policy as well and also helps us in drug delivery and development for our rare diseases. This amendment also addresses rare diseases or those diseases for which little market exists since so few patients are affected. If this happens to be a person in your family, you do not care how many people are affected, you are affected, and you want somebody to be developing cures for it. Rare diseases can be especially lethal since few treatments may exist for individual patients and time is not on their side. For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment No. 2229, which would allow experts to identify ways we can improve the Food and Drug Administration's ability to review treatments for rare and neglected diseases. We worked carefully on this proposal with a number of individuals, including Dr. Francis Collins, who is nominated to be the head of NIH and who had the Human Genome Project, one of the great scientific breakthroughs of the last 25 years; as well as with former FDA officials and a number of people interested and concerned about what is taking place here; about the expanded cost of developing drugs and the smaller economic category that they have to hit in. I think this is in the best traditions of the United States and is very helpful to us as a country to address. I and my colleagues have traveled to some of the Third World areas. We know malaria hits 60 percent of the children in Sub-Saharan Africa-- 60 percent. Tuberculosis as well is rampant. We have other diseases that we haven't thought of here for a long time--sleeping sickness, river blindness--that affect a large cross-section of individuals with little to no effort going into it. To the degree we can help will be a massive good that we do. It is my fundamental belief that we are blessed to be a blessing, and this country has been blessed. We certainly have our difficulties; no question about that, but here is an area where we can help and it helps us too. I hope my colleagues will see fit to support this amendment. I will ask at the proper time that it be supported and that we vote on it. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, while we are waiting on Members to come and present their amendments, I want to talk about something associated with agriculture in my State. It is an issue that will probably come up after the August break, and that is energy legislation. Energy, in our State, is inextricably linked to agriculture, where it is a big energy- using industry but also one that derives a lot of income for agriculture. The industry itself moved from a food and fiber industry to a food, fiber, and fuels industry, with ethanol and biodiesel and increasingly--this is a bit of a sidebar but a connection--wind energy. Wind energy, in many of the rural areas of our State, is providing income to those regions. I want to talk about the energy policy of this country, particularly as it is associated with agriculture. We need to look at the agricultural industry and what it can produce for a domestic fuel need. I am hopeful we can, over time, up the ethanol standard from 10 percent to a higher mixed blend. I would like to see us get to 15, 20 percent in the current vehicle fleet. I think this is doable and the technology is there and it is not harmful to anybody or any of the automobiles in the automobile industry. A number of us signed a letter asking that fuel blend be upped and also that the refineries be held harmless in any up mixture of blending that might be considered. A number of refineries are sensitive about the MTBE problem, when they were pushed by Congress to put in MTBE, and later were held responsible for difficulties associated with that. I think we ought to hold the refinery industry harmless but allow the mixture to go up from 10 percent. In my State, a number of ethanol plants have been built. They are cost effective and they continue to operate well. It is a dual- commodity business, where we are looking at the commodity price of oil and the commodity price of corn. We can do very well financially, but if they move against us, we can do poorly. We have the capacity to move the blend up to the 15 or 20 percent level. It is my hope that down the road that will be something of consideration. That has been a big piece of the agricultural policy in this country--something that has been supported in the Agriculture appropriations bill, to increase research on ethanol and make the next generation out of cellulose or make everything a cellulosic stream, along with a grain stream of ethanol in the same ethanol plant, so we can mix those methods of making ethanol. That is an important endeavor that we can do. On the Energy bill, there is a renewable energy standard put in it and not the cap-and-trade bill. I urge my colleagues, let's work on renewable energy where we can get good, strong bipartisan support and not a cap-and-trade system where it is going to hurt a number of States that are high energy using and producing States--particularly like my own State or others in the Midwest that are very dependent upon energy. This is a major tax on us. It taxes our electrical production that is coal based. Our State is in the 60 to 70 percent electric production. If we are taxing that, we are taxing people's utility bills. If we go with a renewable energy standard, we can seed and develop the growth of the wind energy business throughout a lot of the country, or biomass, which is helpful to agriculture, and not raise utility rates and not do it by taxing and regulating but, rather, by innovation and investment. Earlier this week, I met with a number of people from the wind energy business, and they were saying we have had a good run, but it is not going very well now with this economy and without a renewable energy standard. The one we put forward in the Energy Committee has a 15- percent renewable energy standard; 4 percent of that can be met by conservation and 11 percent by renewable production, biomass, wind, and even things such as algae biofuel production, which is very much in the experimental stage, but it is a developing technology. If we can consider that and do the renewable energy standard portfolio, separate and distinct, and not blend it with cap and trade, I think we can come forward with a good, bipartisan bill that moves us forward off of our energy reliance on foreign fuels and into a cleaner environment. The tax and regulatory structure of a cap-and-trade system would be very harmful on a State such as mine. Senator Bingaman chairs the Energy Committee. He did a markup over a period of 4 weeks that was one of the most impressive markups I have seen, where he worked with everybody to get this bill together on a renewable energy standard. We came out with a bipartisan energy bill on a renewable energy standard. Not everybody got what they wanted; nobody ever does, but it was bipartisan, and it wasn't a cap-and-trade bill, which really sends the bells off for a lot of high energy using States. That is doable, and it is what we ought to do rather than what the House did on cap-and-trade legislation, which passed by the thinnest of margins. It was basically done completely on Democratic votes, without Republican votes; whereas, the renewable energy standard we passed had a mixture of Republican and Democratic votes and even some Democrats voted against the bill in committee. It is a bipartisan process and one that we can move forward with--not to mention other things. I just met with a refinery group doing petroleum products--pavement and other things--in the United States. They look to get hit with cap- and-trade legislation--to the point they will be driven out of business. But we are still going to need asphalt in this country. They are saying: Do you know where it is going to come from? It will come from China and India; they will make the asphalt. Big plants are being planned and built there in anticipation that we will do cap-and- trade legislation and they won't. Their CO2 emissions are not counted and ours will be and they will sell us the product. That completely defeats the purpose of any type of CO2 mitigation--just driving the industry overseas. It is going to be more polluting there than here, and the CO2 emissions that go into the atmosphere affect everybody. It is a bad idea for us to cause that to happen in our own legislation. Industries are planning on doing that now, just building and moving the industries to China and importing the products back to the United States. That hurts us. That hurts our people, our job formation, and it doesn't help the environment. We have another way. We have a way, through this renewable energy standard, that can actually work. I ask, as we consider the Agriculture bill and others, that we keep an eye on energy because it is one of the key cost drivers within the industry. It is also one of the key possibilities for us to grow it in the future and grow it for our country. That is why we put some provisions in this Agriculture appropriations bill that are supporting the energy industry in agriculture. But personally--and I know others have different opinions on this--I ask that we don't then hurt it with legislation later on that is not complementary toward it. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, while we have time waiting to clear some amendments, I am also ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee. Today is the last day serving on that committee staff of Dr. Robert Keleher. I rise to recognize him briefly. He is retiring after many years of valuable service in the Congress. Congressman Jim Saxton, when he was chairman, persuaded Bob to join the committee staff back in 1996, as chief macroeconomist after an already distinguished career. Bob's insightful mind, high standard, and extensive knowledge of economics made him a critical component of the staff for many years. Before joining the committee staff, Bob's career, including serving as the senior macroeconomist of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers in 1985 and 1986, The head of Macro and International Economics at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, and as a special monetary and economic adviser to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors Vice Chairman Manuel Johnson. I think under anybody's standard, that is a very successful career as an economist. Bob's contribution to the committee was broad based and valuable. In particular, his early and prolific work on the issue of inflation targeting represents almost the entire body of congressional analysis in this area from 1997 to 2006. During his career, Bob also conducted research applying the classical principles of economics to tax policy. His research emphasized the important effects that marginal tax rates have on economic behavior, in particular the positive effects that reducing personal marginal rates have on creating incentives for healthy economic growth. We would be wise to take Bob's research findings to heart. Yet a person's work career is not the only thing that defines him. Bob's work was first rate, relevant, and valuable to members of the committee. But Bob's character as a man, his judgement, and integrity only add to the reasons he will be missed. Mr. President, I know my colleagues on the committee, from both the Senate and the House, join me in extending a heartfelt thanks to Bob for his years of service and in congratulating him upon his retirement. Thank you, Bob. We wish you and your family the best. You have earned it. Godspeed. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Melanie Benning from my office be granted floor privileges during consideration of H.R. 2997.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to first thank my colleague for the work he has done on this bill. Senator Kohl and his staff have done an excellent job in putting together a responsible, good, and important bill, and I am delighted to be a part of it and a part of the process. It has been a great group to work with. The Appropriations Committee, unlike a lot of other committees in the Congress, most of the time has to work in a bipartisan fashion, and that is a good thing. Senator Kohl and his staff have been very good for us to work with, and I think because of that we have what I believe is a solid bill and one for which we are going to be able to get strong and broad support. Mr. President, this is the first time the agriculture appropriations bill has been on the floor of the Senate for a number of years. I think that is too bad, but I think it is also good we are finally getting it here. The 2006 Ag appropriations bill was the last Ag appropriations bill to be on the floor of the Senate. I think it is a good development that it is here, that it will be pending. I think it also bodes well for us to be able to consider this as a separate and stand-alone bill in the final process so we don't have to put it together with a whole bunch of other appropriations bills, which, to me, is the way the process should work. It is a good way to work, and it is my hope we will be able to have a separate agriculture appropriations bill that will make it the whole way through the process. I look forward to the debate, and I wish to encourage Members now, this evening, to come to the floor and offer amendments so we can consider this expeditiously but fully. I understand from the majority leader that we want to consider a travel and tourism bill and then the Sotomayor vote and consideration next week. I hope we could get through this bill in an expeditious manner so we could get to the Sotomayor discussion; I believe most of our colleagues will want to speak about Judge Sotomayor being considered for the Supreme Court. Whether you are for or against her, people want to be heard. To have as much time as possible for that next week, it will be important we be expeditious on this Ag appropriations bill. Overall, the budget for food aid in the bill has increased to levels that will allow us to depend less on emergency supplemental appropriations bills that are not scored, and I think it is important we have a regular scoring process and not just do this on an emergency basis. I think that is an important improvement in this bill. By funding food aid at historical levels in the regular appropriations process, USDA and USAID will have more certainty about program resources so they can make better decisions about which situations they are able and need to commit food to. A number of my colleagues have been to refugee camps in different parts of the world, and they have seen this food in action. It is important and it saves people's lives, and these are important food aid programs. While I believe this is a valuable step, I am even more encouraged by the creation of two pilot programs that we have initiated in this bill. The chairman has worked on it and we have worked on it in our office. Specifically, in the area of food aid, we have created two pilot programs. The first is a nutrition fortification pilot program to develop and field test new and improved micronutrient fortified food products designed to meet the energy and nutritional needs of school- aged children, pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants, and children under 5 who are served by the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program. This is a program where we supply food to a number of very difficult situations in countries with poor economies around the world that is given as a school lunch. So it draws students in to go to school, and then it is a lunch for them. It has been a very successful program in both getting nutritional requirements met for children and in getting the educational needs met. What we are talking about in this pilot program is a narrower section of it where a number of scientists around the world have said the most important thing we could fund--that any country actually could fund--to improve the health of the most people would be micronutrients in the Third World and developing countries that are having difficulty, so the children develop their mental capacity, better eyesight, and their overall health capacity. This is a relatively low-cost, high-yield, high-benefit program. It saves lives, makes lives more productive, and it makes the United States a lot more popular around the world when we are helping people and saving lives. That is one of the pilot programs. The second is a new food aid product development pilot program. It has been nearly 30 years since the last type of food aid was developed. Thirty years ago, we developed a corn soy blend that is used in many refugee camps and in difficult situations for individuals around the world who can't get enough food. Thirty years ago, we developed an innovative product called corn soy blend, but nutritional understanding has changed in that period of time. What we are looking at is a new wave of food aid products and can we do it better. That is in this pilot program. A number of people working on AIDS around the world, PEPFAR funding particularly in Africa, are saying the big problem with AIDS recipients is they are getting the antiretroviral drugs, and they are using those, but their body is weakened because they do not have their nutritional needs being met. This is to target in on what can we do to make sure those vulnerable populations are getting the nutritional needs they have. I am excited about this because I think these are the sorts of things we can do that don't cost much. Indeed, my view would be that we don't, in the future, add to the food aid program but we make it a higher nutrient program and we target it in better ways so we can get more out of this. That is the way we should be working. If young children have access to proper nutrition, the benefits will follow them the rest of their lives. We all know that. That is what we are trying to do with these pilot programs. Finally, the bill requires the USDA and USAID to scrutinize how the food aid programs function without seeking to change the basic structure of the Food for Peace or McGovern-Dole Food Aid. We will use the data the Secretary and the administrator provide to the subcommittee to make sure these programs are operating as effectively as possible. I would have preferred a hard upper limit on transportation costs myself, but I recognize there are many strongly held opinions on this matter. My hope is that all parties can agree we should strive to make these programs more efficient because greater efficiency means more people will be fed. I have cited, for several of my colleagues, an area of great concern to me, in that 60 percent of our food aid dollar presently goes for transportation or administration. Over a majority of it goes for transportation and administration. It seems to me we ought to be able to get that to a tighter position. We have worked with the chairman on this. Everybody is concerned that we try to stretch our food aid dollars and get as much food to starving people as possible. I greatly appreciate the courtesies Chairman Kohl and his staff have shown me in my first year as ranking member. Chairman Kohl has been at this for several years and he has done a very good job. Specifically, I thank Galen Fountain, Jessica Frederick, Dianne Nellor, and Bob Ross for their efforts on this bill and the consideration they have shown my staff. I look forward to working through the process on the floor and moving to conference. I would urge my colleagues, again, to start getting their amendments pending because I think the more expeditious we can be, the more time we will have to consider the amendments and then also to get to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, which I anticipate most of the body will want to speak on, and that is going to take a long time to get through. It is a good bill, and I am looking forward to us working through the amendments to make it a better bill through the process. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2230 to Amendment No. 1908

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Landon Fulmer, Andrew Lustig, Rachana Chhin, Sara Foley, Carrie Pennewell, Luis Chimbo, May Davis, and Hannah Robinow be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the assistance of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services last week in clearing an amendment I offered to the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act dealing with irregular warfare aircraft. As the conference committee prepares to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the NDAA, I want to provide in the Record some context for this provision. Years of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that insurgents take refuge among regular civilians to complicate our ability to find them and increase the chances of civilian casualties that inflame local populations. We also have learned that fighting insurgencies requires an enormous amount of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, ISR, data. Our highly advanced tactical aircraft can perform close air support, light strike, and ISR missions, but repeatedly using such fighters for these missions shortens their lifespan without ever employing their most advanced capabilities. It is like buying a laptop computer to use as a calculator. Indeed, smaller, lighter planes designed for counterinsurgency missions can provide the firepower and intelligence data the warfighter needs at a fraction of the cost to purchase and operate bigger, faster aircraft. Moreover, such aircraft would allow us to provide ideal platforms to partner nations struggling to develop their own air forces and deal with local insurgencies. Secretary Gates, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Schwartz, and other officials from the Air Force, Navy, and special operations forces have commented recently that the Department of Defense needs to consider developing a light strike, light reconnaissance aircraft specifically designed for irregular warfare. And to their credit, the Air Force and Navy are beginning to explore the utility of such aircraft in detail. I want to ensure, however, that the Department of Defense makes the best possible use of money Congress has already spent in this area. Over the past 2 fiscal years, Congress has appropriated $8.4 million to the Air National Guard for a project to demonstrate the capabilities of a light strike, light reconnaissance aircraft. In fact, the demonstrator aircraft in that project made its first flight yesterday and will demonstrate its capabilities over the course of the rest of this year. The knowledge gained in this demonstration program should be incorporated into the Air Force, Navy, and special operations discussions of manned irregular warfare aircraft. My amendment, then, simply declares it the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should include the reserve components when establishing requirements for manned airborne irregular warfare platforms. Congress has led the way in examining the concept of a light attack, light reconnaissance aircraft. In this era of constrained defense budgets, it is vital to make every dollar count. I am pleased that in this amendment the Senate signaled the importance of reserve component work on this concept, and I hope that the language is retained in conference so the House can send a similar signal. It is increasingly clear that the Nation needs this capability, and the combined efforts of all components at the Defense Department will bring these aircraft to the warfighter sooner rather than later.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to debate this issue with my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I find it very interesting to hear the statement that the sanctions are working. I am trying to think of how they are working at all. They are working to prevent North Korea from detonating another nuclear weapon? That did not quite work. We got another one of those. They are working to prevent them from launching more missiles? Well, that one did not quite work. They are working to prevent North Korea from taking Americans hostage? Well, that one did not quite work. I am trying to think how these sanctions are working. And if they are so great on an international basis, why aren't we doing them on a domestic basis, for us toward North Korea? I am having difficulty. Maybe they are working for us to prevent North Korea from associating with the military junta in Myanmar. Wait a minute, that was in the news yesterday, that North Korea is working to provide the military junta in Myanmar with weapons and possibly nuclear weapons that the Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton, is talking about now happening. Well, maybe it prevented--well, I guess it did not quite prevent that. I am trying to figure out how the sanctions have worked at all. I thought it was a mistake when the Bush administration delisted them from the terrorist list in a negotiation of the six-party talks and said: OK, we will do this, and they do that, and then ended up doing nothing and, indeed, stepped up what they are doing more and more. It seems to me very strange to suggest that the sanctions are working. I respect my colleague from Massachusetts. He is a strong chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I do not see where they have worked at all. I would ask my colleagues to examine: Do they believe that the sanctions to date have worked toward North Korea from the United States? And when you examine the factual setting here, you have to go: I don't think so. I don't think these have happened. Plus, I am very concerned that the administration now is taking the tack of discussing an additional set of incentives to the North Korean regime to try to get them from proliferating further. This is an interesting, hot-off-the-press article from yesterday: ``Obama Administration Preparing Incentives Package for North Korea.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record after my full statement.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Reading from this article: The Obama administration is consulting with allies on a new ``comprehensive package'' of incentives-- Not sanctions; incentives-- aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear programs, senior U.S. officials confirmed Tuesday. The officials, who were traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Thailand, told reporters that the package is only in its early stages and will not be offered to North Korea unless and until the allies sign off on it. Pyongyang would also have to first take specific, concrete and ``irreversible'' steps to begin destroying its arsenal of nuclear weapons. This is the third round of us giving incentives to North Korea not to develop nuclear weapons. It has not worked in the past. It is not going to work now. Why on Earth would we do something like this? The Kerry amendment calls for a study. Studies are fine. But it actually delays the study that the State Department has already promised to me: that by the end of this month they will have a study out as to whether they are proliferating further weapons, that they should be listed as a terrorist state. The Kerry amendment says: 30 days after the enactment of this bill. Even if the bill gets through the floor this week, it has to go to conference, and it has to come back in front of this body. You are looking, probably, at October, maybe early November, that this actually comes back--this law--and then 30 days after that the report has to be issued. So we are looking at somewhere, maybe November, December, for the report taking place, when the State Department has already told me they will have their report out by the end of July. So this is actually slowing down the process, if we adopt this amendment. And it calls for a report. I am sure Pyongyang is very concerned about this report. But I do not think it is going to change any of the behavior that is taking place. If we do not have a strong answer, as a matter of fact, it is probably going to urge them to do something even further. My colleagues are saying: Well, OK, you are being irresponsible in this statement on this narrow category of whether they are doing anything with Hezbollah. It is a bipartisan amendment that I put forward with Senator Bayh, who wanted that provision in it. There is a current CRS report that talks about North Korea supporting Hezbollah, building bunkers, and supporting and helping that out. That is a current factual setting, and my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Bayh, has asked and pushed that this be in the overall bill. I would ask my colleagues to look at this interesting definition of ``international terrorism,'' as shown on this chart. This is a definition that is in U.S. statute on international terrorism. It appears to be written for North Korea and North Korea in mind. It defines the term under (1)(A), and then under (B)--these are in the alternative--(B) ``appear to be intended''--the actions of ``international terrorism'' ``appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population''--that is what North Korea does and Kim Jong Il's regime does--``to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion''--that is the flying of missiles over Japan, that is the intimidation toward South Korea or the United States--``to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping''--they have done kidnappings of Japanese citizens--``to affect the conduct of a government''--clearly trying to affect our conduct--(C) ``occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'' This is what North Korea is doing. I would further point out to my colleagues that this is a sense of the Senate. As to the Kerry amendment, with all due respect toward Senator Kerry, this is asking the administration to do a report and asking and directing the administration to take some steps. Ours is a sense of the Senate as to what the Senate thinks, and it is saying that the Senate believes North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism. I would ask my colleagues, in a commonsense review of what North Korea has done recently: Don't you think they qualify or, if they do not, what country in the world would qualify as a state sponsor of terrorism if North Korea does not, with what it has done, what it has done personally, what it has conducted with other countries, with Syria, with Myanmar, with these other rogue groups? It is a sense of the Senate to state we believe North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism. It is bipartisan with Senator Bayh and myself. It has a number of cosponsors on it. It actually would be productive for us to say to North Korea, in a public way, we believe they are acting like state sponsors of terrorism. I believe it would be actually counterproductive if this body were to say we think it should be studied and a report issued. That is not going to be the sort of strong action that would be understood at all by the government in Pyongyang at this point in time. With that, I would urge my colleagues to look at the Brownback-Bayh amendment, to support it on its very sensible grounds--it is a sense of the Senate--and to vote for the amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time. Exhibit 1 [From FOXNews.com, July 21, 2009] Obama Administration Preparing Incentives Package for North Korea (By James Rosen) Bangkok.--The Obama administration is consulting with allies on a new ``comprehensive package'' of incentives aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear programs, senior U.S. officials confirmed Tuesday. The officials, who are traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Thailand, told reporters that the package is only in its early stages and will not be offered to North Korea unless and until the allies sign off on it. Pyongyang would also have to first take specific, concrete and ``irreversible'' steps to begin destroying its arsenal of nuclear weapons. The aides said that the administration needs to see concrete action. Mere assurances from North Korea that it will take action in the future would not be enough to trigger the presentation of the incentives package, they said. The United States, though, has not yet conveyed to the North Koreans what the ``irreversible'' steps might entail, as Washington continues discussions with its allies in the so-called Six Party Talks. The aides, who work on North Korea policy for three separate agencies in the U.S. government, portrayed the development of the new package as the second track of a two- track approach. The first track consists of continued aggressive enforcement, also in conjunction with other nations across the globe, of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874--which gives U.N. member states increased authority to interdict the flow of weapons and possible nuclear material in and out of North Korea. The aides made clear they expect the two-track approach to remain in place for the foreseeable future. ``This is not going to be resolved in a couple of weeks,'' one official said. ``This could be a sustained, substantial effort that could go on quite a long time.'' The package of incentives would include some elements that are ``familiar'' from the Six-Party talks, the officials said, as well as new ones and some that differ in their ``dimensions.'' The United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia are the other participants in the long-running--and long- stalled--Six-Party Talks aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear programs. The emphasis on consultation with these other countries derives, the officials said, from the perception among some of them that the Bush administration did not adequately confer with them prior to the removal of North Korea from Washington's list of state sponsors of terrorism last year. ``The Japanese do have anxieties about engagement of North Korea,'' one official said. The officials also echoed the ``growing concerns'' about reports of a military relationship between North Korea and Burma that Clinton voiced earlier Tuesday in a news conference with Thailand's deputy prime minister. ``It would be destabilizing for the region'' if such reports were true, Clinton said, adding, ``It would pose a direct threat to Burma's neighbors. And it is something, as a treaty ally of Thailand, that we are taking very seriously.'' Briefing reporters after Clinton's news conference, the senior officials said their concerns range from suspicions that North Korea is supplying small arms to Burma to reports of possible nuclear collaboration between the two countries. Pressed on the nuclear question, the officials refused to discuss classified intelligence data but noted North Korea's history of proliferation with Syria. One aide said the possibility of nuclear collaboration between Pyongyang and Burma is ``one of those areas that we would like to know more about.'' To that end, U.S. intelligence agencies are studying recently published photographs purporting to show an elaborate set of underground tunnels that North Korea has built along Burma's border with Thailand. The officials said they see ``some similarities'' between the tunnels in the photographs and a network of underground tunnels in North Korea, the existence of which the United States learned about in the 1990s. Both North Korea and Burma, a repressive military dictatorship whose leaders have renamed the country Myanmar, have been the target of broad sanctions by successive U.S. administrations over the last decade. Clinton said Tuesday she would like to see Washington develop a ``more productive'' relationship with Burma, starting with steps by the government to release political prisoners and dissidents jailed there. ``We are very much engaged with partners such as Thailand and others in assessing and determining not only what is going inside of Burma but also what we can do effectively to change the direction and behavior of the Burmese leadership,'' Clinton said.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes. They have taken more provocative actions rather than less provocative actions since the imposition of the U.S. sanctions, if not more.

Mr. BROWNBACK. It is a strange day they would pick, the Fourth of July, but they did.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Absolutely, abundant evidence, and it was amazing how quiet the world community was for a long period of time, because I guess they didn't want it known that the North Koreans did built that facility or that it was in Syria.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Published reports, and the missile technology the Iranians use is built off of the No-dong system of the North Koreans.

Mr. BROWNBACK. There is.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Myanmar has not cooperated with anything the United Nations has directed to date. I don't know why they would cooperate with anything such as that.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I think they should. Mr. President, I would point out, if I could, to my colleagues as well--if I could have the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am frustrated on this topic. I would presume the chairman--I know the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is frustrated, along with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I have worked too long with the refugees and the people in the gulag and people trying to get out of North Korea for us to now back up and say: OK, we want a report. These folks are dying. They are in a gulag the likes of which was in the Soviet era. This has been published and it is all available to us and we want a report. I understand people don't want to go this far, but this is very frustrating. If you were in one of those situations--and people track what comes out of the Senate, just as in the Soviet gulag they tracked what came out of here then--it would be like saying to them: Well, we are not that concerned about you; whereas, if we take strong action such as what I am saying, it does give them hope. That is what I am asking us to do. I think it is very responsible, and it is a sense of the Senate, what we are asking them to do. That is what is at the root of this. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee says: Well, they were delisted by the last administration. And they certainly were, but they were not removed from that list because they stopped sponsoring terrorism. The regime was delisted in order to entice them to dismantle their weapons of mass destruction program. It was a six-party talk negotiation, and that didn't work, just as the prior negotiations on weapons of mass destruction didn't work. Why should we continue the problem if that is the case?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. BROWNBACK. What I am suggesting is that this was part of a negotiation and that they have wide latitude. In fact, if I may continue my answer for my colleague who has asked a very pertinent question on this issue and who is very familiar with the six-party talks, as I am partially, somewhat familiar with the six-party talks, these have been talks going on for a long period of time. The North Koreans hate being listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. Their big push was to be delisted. The administration has broad authority. It has broad abilities to be able to interpret this, and they said: OK, we are going to be able to do this, and we will find some room in here to interpret it this way, in exchange for you guys stopping your weapons of mass destruction, which did not happen. I am saying that what we should do now is not continue with that mistake. What I am saying we should do now is, let's call a spade a spade in this situation. This is a terrorist nation. The Senator from Massachusetts knows that. He knows what is taking place and what they are doing. They are one of the lead sponsors of terrorist activities in arming, bad, rogue regimes around the world, and the Senator knows that. What we should do is call that what it is in this Senate and not call for just a report.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry, if I could. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on both amendments?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment even if people voted for the Kerry amendment. It was critically important during the Soviet gulag days that the people in the gulags knew we cared and that we were focused on them. If we vote to say we are going to issue a report, that is fine. But it doesn't say much to people in a gulag. If we vote to say it is the sense of the Senate that North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism, it is a strong message. It gives hope to people who don't have hope today. Who in this body doubts that North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism? With nuclear weapons, missiles being launched, a connection with Myanmar--with all these things taking place today, who can doubt that they are a terrorist country? I urge my colleagues, even those who supported the Kerry amendment, to also vote for this one to send the message that North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism and to send a message of hope to those in the North Korean gulags. I yield back my time.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am honored to recognize an exceptional group of women who served in World War II. When their country needed them, they answered the call and chartered a bold new course for women in the military. Sixty-seven years ago, over 1,000 courageous women became the first in United States history trained to fly an American military aircraft. These women are known as the Women Airforce Service Pilots, the WASPs. Today we offer them our sincere admiration and deepest thanks. These women came to be known as the ``Fly Girls.'' They were patriots, they were pioneers, but above all they were pilots. They flew the same planes as their male counterparts, learned the same skills, and served the same country. They were among the first to fly the B-26 Martin Marauder and the B-29 Super Fortress. The Fly Girls, however, served as civilians rather than as members of the Armed Forces. Civilian status prevented the Fly Girls from being recognized with their military counterparts. And the 38 brave women who died during their service were not honored with flag-draped caskets, nor could their families hang gold stars in their windows. Today we pause to recognize these women and their families with an honor that is long overdue and much deserved. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of S. 614, which authorized the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II. This bill sailed through Congress in 3 months and on July 1, 2009, President Barack Obama signed Public Law 111-40, granting the highest civilian award to this deserving group of women. I am particularly proud of the Kansas women who served in this unique military force. Today we honor all those Kansas WASPs who have gone before us and recognize the two surviving Kansas WASPs, Meriem Anderson of Eureka, KS, and Marjorie Rees of Prairie Village, KS. The WASPs have never asked for our praise. When Rees was asked how she felt about being overlooked for so many years she simply responded, ``We didn't resent that we were ignored so long. We've thought for years how very lucky we were to fly those wonderful airplanes.'' Her words express a quiet heroism, and remind us that the noblest act of sacrifice is the one that expects nothing in return. The accomplishments of these women, and the manner in which they have continued to conduct their lives, is a testament to their remarkable character. The thanks and recognition we offer them today pales in comparison to the gift they have given us--freedom. Their strength has inspired many other women to also look to the skies. MAJ Gina Sabric, an F-16 fighter pilot, voiced her appreciation to the WASPs when she said, ``Women in aviation has definitely been a stepping- stone progression, one that the WASPs started. Without them, it would have been a longer, tougher road. They set the stage for the rest of us to be able to continue what they started.'' On behalf of myself, the State of Kansas, and the people of this great country, I wish to express my sincerest thanks to all of the WASPs for their brave and patriotic service in World War II. We are truly a grateful Nation.