Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Vermont, for allowing me to bring forward this amendment. At this time, I rise to offer an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, and I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could just reclaim my time, I want to correct one assertion that this is just about oil. I hope we would look at the people who live in this area of the world which is affected by this Silk Road Strategy Act. It is interrelated. It does all tie together to create this Eurasian corridor. If you pull Azerbaijan out of it and you say, okay, we will work with everybody but not with them, the corridor and its work towards lifting all of their economies in their countries doesn't work, we are talking a total of nearly 72 million people in this region. If you look at a map of it, you need to work on this together. They have a lot of pressure on them from various areas. You really need to have this all hooked in together. We need to replace 907 with a national interest waiver that the President can put, and then have a coherent U.S. policy so that we meet our interests in the region. It is clearly to have this engaged, not fall in the hands of the Iranians or back to the Russians, so we can build and grow with them and not force them to become militant fundamentalist countries. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, not to delay this extraordinarily, because I think we should move to a vote, we have had an extended debate. We have had extended hearings on this. It is time to go ahead and move forward to a vote.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could reclaim my time, my colleague from Texas is here and desires to address this overall issue. I yield to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Would you dispute who is occupying whose territory?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Armenia.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes. And then I would like to yield to Senator Hutchison of Texas.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have noted in my opening statement, and I have noted later, the human rights issues that exist throughout the region. There is no doubt that they exist. I think the same standards should be applied to Azerbaijan as apply to the other countries in the region. And those do stay in place. This is talk of a major shift in U.S. foreign policy. I, again, remind people that we are simply providing the President with waiver authority. If he determines that human rights abuses are such that any of the sanctions should not be lifted, they will not be lifted. The administration is given that authority. We do not lift those sanctions. The President maintains that. I also note, in the human rights area--because this is an area of key concern, as it should be an area of key concern to everybody--we recently had a coffee for the Israeli Minister of Trade and Industry, Natan Sharansky. That name should be familiar to some Members. He is one of the leading human rights voices in the world. This is a person who understands the connection between the U.S. position and human rights problems. He was here specifically to support the Silk Road Strategy Act of the bill. He said this: 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 to continue to encourage a positive process and the way to do this is to strengthen the role we are playing in the region. Strengthen the U.S. role played in the region. Sharansky is clearly a person who understands the importance of tying legislation to human rights. He is a clear beneficiary of that having been done in the past. This is one of the clearest voices in the world. That is not to deny that human rights abuses have occurred. But we are not lifting the standards of human rights. We are not saying that Azerbaijan has a lower standard than everybody else. We are saying everybody has the same standard. And we provide the President the national waiver authority. This does not shift U.S. policy if the President determines it is not in our national interest, which is the same standard we put to all countries. I plead with my colleagues to look seriously at this because while we can get down here in the weeds of some particular issues, we are talking about a region of the world that the Iranians are aggressively playing in now. All these Silk Road countries that I am talking about, the Iranians are there. They are providing aid, they are providing hate, and they are trying to overturn these governments. They can say that the authors of the amendment are saying: OK, let's just pull this 907 provision out. The rest is fine. Azerbaijan is a key part of this Eurasian connection of connecting this region together for democracy, for a growing competitive economy that can stand against the threat of the Iranians and the militant fundamentalists expanding in this region that is taking place now. The notion that we have not looked at this enough--I bet we have had nearly 10 hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee between this Congress and last Congress on this issue. It passed the Foreign Relations Committee last Congress and this Congress. We have looked at it and looked at it. I wish we studied most issues as much as we have studied this one. We have. This one has been around. People have looked at it. This 907 provision has been in place for a number of years and it has not helped Armenia. My final point here is, I am seeking, by this, to help all the countries in this region and U.S. policy. I am seeking, by this, to help Armenia as well. I realize that the people that are in opposition on this would not see that as such. But has our past policy helped Armenia? Has that been of any help? I talked with the Foreign Minister 3 or 4 months ago, and he talked about how terrible the situation was in Armenia. And I agree, it probably is. But that is suffering under the law we put in place. Let's try something that can lift the whole region up and build stakeholders who can say: We ought to cooperate and work together. Let's try something that can work instead of this failed policy that is a unilateral sanction. Let's provide to the President the authority to be able to do that, to move that peace process forward. This is the time to do that. I hope we can get to a vote here quickly. I inquire of my colleague from Kentucky, I know he would like to move this bill, it would seem to me that probably we have had sufficient time. If there is a chance to move forward and vote, I think we are probably getting to that point.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Azerbaijan. I think the Senator and I talked about this earlier today. The Senator will agree that Armenia has taken about 20 percent of the territory of Azerbaijan. The U.N. has condemned that. And what effectively you have in place is a mutual battle line that has existed between those two. The U.N. has condemned this action and told Armenia: Let's hold this back.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I don't know that I can answer that, but I know this administration would appreciate that. But it is not just that. They also say here the administration strongly supports passage of the Silk Road Strategy Act, which may be added to the bill as an amendment. They appreciate the committee's continued efforts to reduce restrictions in section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. There is very specific and very clear support.

Mr. BROWNBACK. People can look at that. As far as this being a sensitive time in the negotiations, I support peace in the region, but this battle, this fight between the sides, has been going on since 1992. We have had a ceasefire for the last 5 years. There has not been significant movement in the peace process or a significant proposal since 1997. If the administration thought it was such a sensitive time, I think they would be here saying don't offer this amendment rather than supporting my position. So I hope my colleagues will look at all these issues and determine the administration is probably right. This is something we should do. We should put everybody on an equal footing so we can work with all the people in this region, and I think that would be an important thing to do. With that, I will be happy to yield for a question from my colleague.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could just go ahead and finish my statement. You have had a good chance. The Clinton administration supports my position on this. They think it would help the United States in being an evenhanded negotiator so we do not have a set of unilateral sanctions, sanctions on one of the parties. They think that is important. They have supported it. We have letters to that effect. I will submit those for the Record for all my colleagues. Mr. President, we are not lifting the sanctions. We are providing the administration with the same national interest waiver, the same one that applies to all the former Soviet Union countries. It has in it requirements that if human rights abuses are taking place, we cannot provide aid from the United States. I noted in my statement I made here earlier, I think all these countries are having human rights issues being brought forward, including Armenia, including Azerbaijan. Those are things that should be taken into consideration. But we do not lift the human rights requirements. All we do in this amendment is to provide the administration with national interest waivers. We don't lift them. We provide the administration national interest waivers. They can leave every sanction in and put more on if they deem it wise and prudent and the right thing to do. They seem to me to be in the right position to consider whether or not sanctions should be lifted, whether or not human rights violations are taking place at the hands of the Azeris, the hands of the Armenians. I think there are enough human rights abuses to go around in this region. I think most of the reports will cite that as well. I think the administration should have the authority to determine that and move this process forward. I want to make sure it is clear to our colleagues. This is providing the administration the national interest waiver. It does not lift the sanctions. The administration can put those in place. The administration supports the position. In that regard, I have a letter from the President stating support for the amendment. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If you will let me finish my statement. I have listened for a long period of time to the Senator from Maryland, so I want to just make sure this is clear.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I realize I have spoken on this a couple of times, but I have heard arguments put forward that I want to clarify my response to so it is in the Record. No. 1 is that the administration, the U.S. administration, the U.S. Government, is part of the Minsk Group. It is part of the group trying to negotiate a peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The Clinton administration, they support my amendment. They supported it in committee this year. They supported it last year in the Congress. They think this is a good idea. This is the administration that is negotiating, part of the three outside members--France, Russia, and the United States--part of the overall Minsk Group, along with Azerbaijan and Armenia, that is negotiating this peace. So if this is ill timed, maybe we ought to tell the administration that, because they support my amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. At the appropriate time, when we can get a sufficient second, I will be asking for the yeas and nays on this amendment so we can have a vote on this amendment. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank our distinguished colleague from Minnesota for all his work in this field. As long as I have been in this body--I have not been in it that long; I am in my third year--I have known that Senator Grams has been really working on the issue of tax cuts. He has pushed forward. He has prodded people on it. He has done a beautiful job of getting us to the point of people saying let's have a tax cut, a serious tax cut, not one where we just issue a bunch of press releases and the press releases cost more than the tax cut but a real tax cut that stimulates the economy and helps people. I am delighted the President is now apparently willing to work with the Congress in order to provide the American people with the tax cut they need and deserve. Part of the reason the President is now willing to consider a tax cut is the strength of the American economy, which is precisely one of the reasons we should consider a tax cut at this time. We are at this point of a budget surplus because of some fiscal discipline in Washington but mostly because of the strength of our economy. We need to keep that economy going and growing strong. That is the key to having budget surpluses in the future--a strong economy. We can help with tax cuts. The bottom line, as has been mentioned before, is that growth works. When we have growth, we have more resources to pay down the debt, to do the programs needed for the American public, and now to cut taxes. If we are going to continue to experience a growing economy, we need to take steps to enhance and sustain our current record of economic expansion in order to pave the way for the next century. We need another ``American century.'' Providing the American people with broad- based progrowth tax relief is one of the ways to help achieve it. In America there is an emerging class of investors who are more aware of what tax policy means for individuals and for the ability of our economy to perform. This class of investors is citizens who have been able to take part in the American dream through 401(k) programs and expanded IRAs that have been offered as part of a retirement package or encouraged through our Tax Code. They are not wealthy--- not yet anyway--but they are increasingly concerned about our Tax Code and what it means to them. We need to work with the family farmers, cab drivers, construction workers, and small businessmen to allow them to participate in this free market system and have it continue its expansion. They know the best thing Congress can do in order to spur growth is to cut taxes. There are a variety of options for cutting America's taxes. We can use a budget surplus after accounting for Social Security. We need the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and we need to lock it down, lock it out--create a lockbox for it. With the budget surplus over and above Social Security, we could widen the 15-percent tax bracket in order to help ``flatten" the tax structure and provide the American people with tax relief. An expansion of the 15-percent tax bracket has another desirous effect of alleviating the impact of the marriage penalty. Currently, nearly 21 million families are forced to carry an average of $1,400 more a year in taxes simply for being married. We must bring this institutionalized discrimination against the family to an end. Now is the time to do that. We could also take steps to encourage savings and investment by cutting the capital gains tax rate, which could stimulate the economy and give back further revenues to the Federal Government. Americans need a higher rate of national savings to continue to grow into the next century. Cutting capital gains tax rates will help. We can look at the possibility of further reductions in the death tax area. I think we need to do this, particularly for small businesses and family farmers who frequently spend a lot of time reorganizing their business, creating trusts and other corporations to get around paying death taxes that would have the impact of killing their business, or of killing their farm, and not allowing them to pass it on to the next generation. We need to do those things. I congratulate the Senator from Minnesota for his work on this tax- cutting agenda and getting the President to agree that we can and should do a tax cut. For the President to say he isn't opposed to a tax cut is a positive step. Now it is time for the President to deal with the Congress in providing real tax relief to the American public. It stimulates the economy, it keeps us growing, and it supports the American public. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, might I inquire, where are we parliamentary-wise?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the Senate on an issue regarding an amendment which we have recently passed on this floor: U.S. policy toward India and Pakistan. I want to address the Senate on that issue. We passed an amendment on a defense appropriations bill that would allow the President to waive certain sanctions we have against India and Pakistan and also suspend economic sanctions we have against India and Pakistan. That passed this body and has gone over to the House. This is something the House is going to be considering, and it is important U.S. policy in a number of regards. Our relationship toward India has been one where we have been willing to sanction them rapidly and readily, in spite of the fact that they are a democracy and we share a number of institutional values and we have worked together sometimes in the past. But it seems as if we are very willing to sanction them. Yet, at the same time, we are willing to go toward China and say: China, you may steal our weapons technology, you may have human rights abuses, you may be shipping weapons of mass destruction to countries that are opposed to our interests; you have forced-abortion policies in place. Yet we are going to overlook all of those things because we want to have a good, open relationship with you, a good trade relationship. But, India, you tested here and you broke into these areas, so we are going to put economic sanctions on you, put these other sanctions on you, and we are going to hit you hard. It is the same with Pakistan. I think we have the wrong policies in place, and I don't understand it. I want to draw that to the attention of my colleagues because it appears as if we are putting these on with different balances, that we are saying in the case of China we are going to overlook the problems, overlook the situation, all these abuses, and with India we are going to smack you no matter what you do. They have a democracy, a vibrant democracy and a free press. The same with Pakistan, as far as their issues go, but we are willing to hit them so hard. So I don't understand why we are doing that, why the Clinton Presidency looks at the two countries differently, and lets China get away with virtually anything, if you look at the record that has built up over a period of time. Toward India, we say we are going to smack you. Senator Roberts and I have put forward an amendment that has passed this body and is going to the House. It would suspend these sanctions, the economic sanctions, toward India and Pakistan. I think it is high time that the United States aggressively build its relationship with India and aggressively build its relationship with Pakistan. We need to do this. We need to have a broad-based relationship and not one that just has very narrow sanctions associated with it. For instance, as well, the administration is pushing that to lift these sanctions on India, they are telling the Indian Government, basically, they have to agree to CTBT, the Conventional Test Ban Treaty, in spite of the fact that the Senate may never pick this up. They are saying unless they agree to this, we are not going to lift these sanctions. It is a very narrow discussion point that they have with India, instead of having this broad-based discussion about how can we expand trade relationships, expand diplomatic relationships, and work together on issues of key concern. We should be asking: How can we expand relationships in the broad set of fields that we have? Instead, it is they have to agree to the CTBT, or we are not going to lift these economic sanctions on them, period. That is too narrow of a relationship for us to build with a great nation. India will be the largest nation in the world in the next 10 years, population-wise. It has an extraordinarily large middle class. It has a number of people in a very poor situation, as well, but it has a large middle class. Look also at Pakistan. It is in the amendment where we suspend economic sanctions for 5 years and have a waiver on others. Pakistan sits in a difficult spot, right next to Afghanistan. They have had a lot of problems with Afghanistan. Pakistan seeks to be a friend of the United States. It is partly, obviously, an Islamic country and has been a key ally of ours in defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. After Afghanistan, the Soviets backed off and we pulled out altogether. We not only sanctioned them under the Glenn amendment, we also had the Pressler amendment that basically removed our relationship with Pakistan, an Islamic country that seeks to be our friend, and we just nail them. It makes no sense to me why we do these sorts of things, and why the President, the Clinton administration, seeks to sanction a country that seeks to work with us, and closely with us, while with China we have had all this theft of technology, shipment of weapons of mass destruction, all the human rights abuses, and we are willing to look the other way. I think we ought to have trade relationships with China. I think it is important that we have a broad-based relationship with China. But at the same time we need to be expanding our relationships with India and Pakistan. These are countries--particularly in India's case--that share a lot of our traditions. I think it is wrong for us to have a double standard, particularly against a country that should be a very valuable future partner. I chair the Foreign Relations subcommittee that deals with both India and Pakistan, and it has been beyond me to understand the difference in U.S. policy toward these giant Asian countries. I think it is wrong of the administration to have this different policy. I think we really need to be much more aggressive and engaged and be a vibrant, broad- based partner with India. I think it can be a good future relationship. It is something we can use as an offset toward China, in some respects, and our large dependency on China. I think it can be a future growth market for States such as mine and many others that have agricultural and aircraft products that we export. I think it can be a growing, vibrant market for us, one that shares a lot of our relationships and views and needs. I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues what is really happening in foreign policy. We also had a hearing yesterday on the issue of Iraq. I wanted to mention this tangentially because I think it is appropriate. We had people testifying from the Iraqi National Congress--a representative of the INC, Mr. Chalabi--and we had other witnesses testifying that Saddam Hussein is probably at his weakest point since the United States was engaged with Iraq. They are having daily reports of insurrection in the southern part of Iraq, and the northern part of the country is no longer in the control of Saddam Hussein. There are other factions that are controlling much of this Kurdish region. Yet the United States, in the Iraq liberation, provided $97 million of drawdown authority and support for the opposition movement, and all we are giving the opposition movement is file cabinets and fax machines. Why aren't we really supporting this opposition movement that seeks to meet inside Iraq to set up more of a civil society in the region that Saddam doesn't control? Why aren't we really supporting these guys? I asked the administration witness yesterday--Under Secretary Beth Jones, a bright and good person--Do you think Saddam Hussein is going to outlast another U.S. President? Is he going to outlast President Clinton? She says: I really don't know. I said we know how to aggressively push and prosecute these issues in Kosovo. Why is it that we can't do this in Iraq? Why can't we support the opposition groups and give them lethal and nonlethal assistance that we can find truly necessary? Why can't we help them have a meeting of the Iraqi National Congress inside Iraq where they want to meet? It would send a powerful statement across the world that the INC, a potential opposition government, is meeting within Iraq. Yet the administration is not willing to step forward and is saying they are not so sure about whether or not we should do this. We are willing to give the opposition file cabinets and fax machines, but we won't give them training and lethal technology or the ability to fight. This is an extraordinary situation. It is one on which the Congress needs to speak out more. We need to aggressively move forward now on Saddam Hussein. We need to do that by supporting the opposition. This isn't about sending in U.S. troops. This is about supporting an opposition that wants to fight with Saddam Hussein, that wants to put the parts together to have a democratic Iraq, that wants to be an ally--not just that but wants the Iraqi people to be proud of and pleased with their government, instead of constantly harassed and killed by their leadership. Why on earth are we not pushing this and stepping forward and being more aggressive? I fail to get adequate answers from the Clinton administration on why. We know how to push forward aggressively on Kosovo. Why can't we deal in such a manner with Iraq? We know how to build a relationship with China. Why can't we build relationships with India and Pakistan? I really don't understand what is taking place. I ask these questions, and we are going to continue to hold hearings on these issues. We need to move forward in building a better relationship with India and Pakistan and dealing with the situation in Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, it gives me extreme pleasure to have the honor of recognizing the Kansas recipients of the Scholastic Art & Writing Award. These nineteen students have excelled in the use of visual arts and the written word. This year's recipients are Matt Anderson, Ebony Blackmon, Mathew Calcara, Martha Clifford, Lisa Coogias, Audrey Dennis, Josephine Herr, Amy Kleinschmidt, Paris Levin, Angela Mai, Curtis Mourn, Nathan Novack, Cody Palmer, Hank Peltzer, Joanna Spaulding, Mattew Stewart, Adriene Swisher, Andrew Tanner, Sarah Wertzberger. To earn a Scholastic Art & Writing Award, these 19 students were chosen out of 250,000 applicants from across the United States, Canada, U.S. Territories, and U.S. sponsored schools abroad. Their talent illustrates some of the best work in student art and writing. These students should be commended, as should all those responsible for inspiring them and fostering their success. I congratulate all of the students on their success. As outstanding representatives of Kansas, their work well represents the youth of our State. Again, congratulations on your outstanding work and I wish you the best in all of your future endeavors.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Y2K Act. I commend Senator McCain for the leadership he has provided the Senate on an issue that is of critical importance to small businesses across this country. I do not know if we have highlighted enough the cost of the Y2K problem on small business. That is what I would like to briefly address. I also thank the Chamber of Commerce for the effort they have made to bring this problem to the attention of the Congress and to the public. I support protecting businesses from unnecessary and frivolous litigation that will arise from the Y2K problem. While businesses are hard at work trying to fix potential problems arising from the Year 2000, others are trying to exploit it through excessive and expensive litigation. It has been reported in that the cost of litigation in the U.S. arising from this problem will range from $200 billion to $1 trillion. It is just incredible. The Senate Commerce Committee has reported that up to 48 lawsuits relating to the Y2K problem have already been filed. What has been described as a ``tremendous new business opportunity'' for lawyers is done at the expense of the private business sector, in particularly small businesses. Small businesses are most at risk from Y2K failures because many have not begun to realize the potential problem and they do not have the capital to remedy any Y2K difficulties. This bill goes a long way toward preventing litigation from the Y2K problem by establishing punitive damage caps, alternative dispute resolution, and proportional liability. While this bill will limit the amount of frivolous litigation, it will not prevent those who are blatantly negligible in becoming Y2K compliant or have caused personal injuries as a result of their noncompliance from escaping their responsibilities. They will still be held responsible. Although I believe S. 96 will prevent and limit any litigation arising from the Y2K problem, I am still concerned that the greatest beneficiaries of the Year 2000 computer problem will be the trial lawyers. I am disheartened that there is no provision in this bill that places a reasonable cap on attorneys' fees. An attorney fees' cap will help prevent excessive litigation against small businesses by creating a financial disincentive for trial lawyers. Unlike the big corporations who have millions to spend on solving the Y2K problem and defending themselves in any Y2K civil action, the small businesses do not have the financial resources and are therefore the primary targets of any potential Y2K litigation. A reasonable and fair attorney fees' cap will decrease the amount of excessive and frivolous litigation arising from the Y2K problem. But without a reasonable cap, I am concerned that the Y2K problem could become a boondoggle for the trial lawyers at the expense of small businesses. However, in the interest of passing this legislation, I will not be offering an attorney's fee amendment at this time. I do hope that the Senate will be able to consider and debate this issue in the future. That having been said, I ask that the Senate move quickly to pass this legislation and protect small businesses from potential Y2K litigation. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, 189 Americans were killed in the bombing of Pan Am 103. Their families have known no peace for more than a decade. While it is true that Libya has labored under mild United Nations sanctions for much of that time, it is also true that the perpetrators of this hideous act of terrorism have lived a life of freedom with their families. For reasons best known to himself, Colonel Qadhafi has decided to turn over the two suspects in the Pan Am 103 bombing to a Scottish court constituted in The Hague. In return, the U.N. sanctions against Libya have been suspended. This measure, a sense of the Congress, highlights some of the inadequacies of the current arrangement. For example, Libya has only fulfilled one of four requirements set forth in the relevant Security Council resolutions. Qadhafi has yet to reassure us he will fully cooperate with the investigation and trial; he has yet to renounce his support for international terrorism; and he has failed to pay compensation to the victims' families. I have little confidence that no matter what the outcome of this trial, Qadhafi will not change his stripes. He is a dictator and a criminal. Indeed, the London Sunday Times of May 23, 1999, reported that British intelligence has information clearly linking Qadhafi himself to the bombing. This amendment states the sense of Congress that the President should use all means, including our veto in the Security Council, to preclude the lifting of sanctions on Libya until all conditions are fulfilled. I would go further. Until we know just who ordered this bombing, and until that person is duly punished, Libya must remain a pariah state, isolated not only by the United States but by all the decent nations of the world. I urge colleagues to support this amendment, and commend Senator Kennedy for his many efforts of the Pan Am 103 victims and families. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 3 minutes on the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to simply note again that we held a hearing yesterday on what is taking place in India and on military and political issues. The United States needs to broaden its relationship with India. We have a broad-based relationship with China which has been strained and stressed. China is an authoritarian country. India is a democracy. There are a number of places that we are sanctioning India where we don't sanction China at all. Yet these are comparable-sized countries. One has a democratic tradition, the other an authoritarian. There are a number of problems in China that we aren't experiencing with India. We need to broaden this relationship with India and with Pakistan. It is just that at the present time, given what has just taken place in the escalating of tension in this subcontinent by Indian military forces, I don't feel comfortable offering this amendment. I look forward to working in good faith with all of my colleagues to address the United States-South Asian relationship. I note to Members of the Senate that we will be holding hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee to look further into what we need to do in building this stronger relationship. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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