Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have a lot of sympathy for the comments made by the Senator from Arizona. I think he has accurate points. My colleague from Wisconsin makes points, as well, about the program overall.

My point in rising is to say that the system is very difficult to change and to get things pulled out. That is why we have to change the system. What I have put forward for years is a proposal to take a BRAC- type process--the military base closing process--and have it looked at and make a recommendation to the Congress and then one vote on the entire package. That is a way we found to eliminate military bases.

When a program like this is started, or others, there are people who say: Wait a minute. This works for my district even if it doesn't work for somebody else. This is a high-priority project, even if it is not for somebody else. That system is such that it is built to spend, not built to cull, where you can cull things out and say this one doesn't look good, but this does, in trying to get it through a body of 100 people. We are trying to get an Agriculture appropriations bill through that we have not been able to get done in 3 years. We haven't had floor time for an Agriculture appropriations bill. We are trying to move this forward.

I think the Senator has some excellent points. We need to pass this sort of BRAC process for the rest of government so we actually do go at a culling process that everybody has faith in, which has worked before on military bases and we now can apply to the rest of government. That is a system where we can eliminate things, which we need to do in a number of areas. It is not going to happen on a one-shot-by-one-shot basis because some people say: This is a program that really works for my area. Then we get hung up on the floor with lengthy battles, and then we are never able to get the bill through.

I urge my colleagues--and I hope some on the majority side will look at this CARFA bill, we call it, to see about putting that in place so we can get at these in a systematic way that everybody is agreeable to.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I inform my colleagues, we are trying to get to a final conclusion on this bill. It is an important bill, but also a number of Members want to speak on the Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court. The attempt is to get this bill moving forward. I think we are close to a final UC to get to passage of this bill.

I wish to comment before we move into that sequence about the importance of the agriculture industry. It is a key issue in my State, and it is a key issue in Wisconsin, the State of the leader of this subcommittee. It is an industry that has done better than a number of others have been doing during this recessionary time period. It is one that is a good performer for us on exports. We have one of the best exporting models, as far as business in agriculture, in this country. Because it is very competitive, it has a lot of capital intensity to it, a lot of intellectual brain power put behind it, both at the public and private level.

It is one of those models in which we compete and do well globally. We are also aggressive in our trade policy to push for free trade, but if other countries are going to subsidize, we will back up our guys and say: If you subsidize your agricultural industry, then we are going to do it to fight you back on it. We don't take any guff around the world. We want a free-trade world, but if you are going to attack us, we are going to respond. If you have missiles, we have missiles, and we are going to do it. That model has worked well to create a very competitive, very growth-oriented, very export-oriented business that is globally competitive, high technology, and one I think that is moving well into the future.

We have a lot of things going on in agriculture, and a number of them are funded in this bill. We want to see the industry expand in the energy business. A lot of us are very supportive of ethanol. Some are saying: I am for it, but I want the next generation of ethanol. We are funding that, as far as getting into cellulosic ethanol.

We are looking at other types of fuels. One that is interesting for some people is on algae production into a diesel type of fuel. We are doing something on wind because wind is what generally blows across the Plains in your State, Mr. President, my State and a number of others and harvesting that in such a way that we can get it to other markets-- the electric markets--and add a cost-competitive rate so it is not one that drives it up.

All of this does take a lot of effort. I want to acknowledge that some colleagues on my side are saying: I am not satisfied with this bill; I don't like some of the items in this bill. I say to them: I agree. There are provisions in this bill I don't like. But it is part of us getting a process to move an Agriculture appropriations bill through, something we have not been able to get

through on the floor for over 3 years in a stand-alone type of bill, on a very important industry that is globally competitive, that has been a good one for us in this recessionary time period we are in.

I note we have a lot of problems with this bill, but I also say I think we have a lot we are doing right with it and looking forward into the future of what we can do to be very supportive.

I note a couple of things that are going on that are important for us as a country in agriculture on which we can get some crosscurrents.

Norman Borlaug, an agronomist from Texas A&M, is known as the father of the green revolution that brought a lot of the new technology to feed the world. This has been over a career. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contributions to the green revolution.

I mention him because he is a key person in looking to the future of how the world is fed and fed at a good level. He notes it is important for us to do things in an environmentally sensitive and environmentally sound way but that we also need to fund high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties. We need to be able to use plant genetics that are in some places around the world. Some are saying: We don't like your alterations on plant genetics. We need to be able to do this. To feed a hungry world, we are going to have to use agricultural pesticides, insecticides, and fertilizer, and that gets into crosscurrents. They say: I want all the agricultural production, but I don't want these inputs brought into it. We don't have a model for that to work yet.

It is important we support organic food markets and organic food production, but we cannot go that way fully. It is the sort of thing we cannot feed a hungry world on on a cost-competitive basis, a globally competitive industry, if you say we are going to pull out all these tools that have made the green revolution work.

I think it is also important that we fund into the next generation of genetics and technology in this area. I was interested in one of my travels across Kansas. Last year, we had a time where some of my corn farmers could not plant for a couple days, and it was not because it was wet. It was because the satellite went down. Their global positioning system on their corn planter would not work, so they could not plant their corn because the satellite was down. I am going: Well, that is an interesting excuse. I haven't heard that one before. But it wasn't an excuse. It was a fact of life. To plant these crops and do the best job--and they apply just the right amount of fertilizer to that soil and that crop in that specific location will take--it takes a global positioning satellite that has had the data read into it and fed back. That is how high tech the industry is.

I don't want us to move away from that level of technology and input; otherwise, I think we are going to lose our edge.

We also have some developments in the environmental field that I think are interesting. We have people in Kansas and other places around the country who are working on things such as green concrete. You ask: What would that be? It is concrete that has soy oil brought into it to help it be an environmentally sound, renewable type of process. They already are making the foam matting in the seat in your car out of soybeans. So when you sit in a new Mustang--in particular, I know that car for sure--the foam rubber is made out of soybeans. I guess if you get caught in a Colorado blizzard and don't have anything to eat for a week or two, you can eat the seat.

I don't think it is edible.

But my point is, that, again, is an investment in the technology we are putting in this Agriculture appropriations bill to make new things that will work.

This bill is an increase in funding. I don't like that because I think we should not be doing those sorts of funding increases. A major portion of that is the WIC Program. When we get into a recession, we get more and more people needing food. They are not able to pay for it themselves, and the government steps up. That is the problem when we have a recession--government costs go up, government receipts go down, and you get caught in this trap.

One of the reasons why I think a program such as Cash for Clunkers is interesting is because it stimulates the economy, not the government. It gets that economy rolling, which is 80 percent of us balancing the budget. It is getting the economy moving. We have to restrain our spending and do a better job of that.

I think we also need to be a lot more targeting of our programs. Programs such as the WIC Program and this Agriculture appropriations bill are a consequence of a bad economy. I don't like it, but I think the key for us is to be an economic stimulus and not a government stimulus.

On the whole, while I think we have problems with this bill, I like the overall trend of what we are doing in the agricultural industry. I like what the chairman has focused on in this bill.

On top of these items, I note for my colleagues, we put a special effort on the food aid program and getting the food aid program updated. To me, the needs of those who are in very difficult circumstances in refugee camps and different places around the world-- we spend too much on transportation and administration on food aid. Nearly 60 percent goes into those two. That number has to come down. But we need to get more food on the target because, in many cases, we are what stands between that person and starvation and death. It is the food aid, the generous food aid of the American people, that flows through this appropriations bill that does that.

The Food and Drug Administration is also in this bill, and that is part of the increase. The development and the increasing need for different types of drugs are addressed in this bill as well.

We have to get more innovative on FDA. I would like to see us in the neglected disease categories find more truncated procedures that approve drugs that have narrower, smaller marketplaces. That is in this bill.

While I believe there are a number of things negative about this bill, I think the chairman has put together an overall good bill. I am glad we are getting to the point where we can move this one on through, conference it, and bring it back separately, as well so we can recognize this very important industry. It is important in my State and it is important in the States of all the Members, and we should do this separately instead of rolling it together in some sort of omnibus bill like we too often have done.

I believe we are getting close to getting to a final UC. That would be my hope so we can move this bill forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the next item of business?

Mr. President, with the Sanders amendment being the issue now, I will raise to my colleagues a point of order.

I understand the difficulty the dairy industry is in. We have dairy industry in Kansas, and it is an important business. Certainly, prices are difficult and they are having trouble.

However, the Sanders amendment would provide the Farm Service Agency with an additional $350 million. Unfortunately, even if we could agree that additional funding was necessary, the amendment was put in such a way that it cannot work; it is not drafted appropriately. There is no mechanism to move the funding from the FSA salaries and expenses account to the Dairy Product Price Support Program.

For these reasons, regrettably, I cannot support the amendment. The pending amendment, No. 2276, offered by the Senator from Vermont, increases spending by $350 million. This additional spending would cause the underlying bill to exceed the subcommittee's section 302(b) allocation.

Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to also thank the Senator from Iowa for his comments. I agree with Chairman Kohl and Senator Harkin on this need and will work hard towards accomplishing this goal in conference. The recent H1N1 scare also illustrates the dangers of zoonotic diseases to the human and animal populations. If we know how to stop these diseases soon after they are diagnosed, we can help stop the spread of the disease in animals, and possibly the transmission to humans. The reverse is also true; the H1N1 scare also taught us that humans can also pass diseases to the animals. The more knowledge that can be discovered about emerging animal diseases, the more likely it is that we can address them before they become a significant problem. Ongoing funding provided for the NADC will be vitally important in protecting human and animal health.

Emerging animal diseases, like the H1N1 virus, can have a devastating impact on animal agriculture in the form of reduced exports and slaughter of infected herds and flocks. Additional ongoing resources provided in this bill will make sure the livestock industry is in a safe and secure place.

Mr. President, I would like to raise an issue that has been brought to my attention by the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson. The Senator was mistakenly credited with having requested funding for the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute in Senate Report 111-39. I want to assure him that this will be corrected during the conference negotiations on the Agriculture appropriations bill.

I appreciate working with the Senator from Oklahoma on various agriculture issues, and can address this issue in the conference report.

Office of Advocacy and Outreach

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I, too, want to take a moment to thank my colleague Senator Kohl who has worked on this for some period of time. I thought this was one of the smoothest appropriations bill we have had flow through the floor. I congratulate our colleague and particularly his work and that of the staff to make this happen: Galen Fountain, Jessica Frederick on his staff, Bob Ross, Dianne Nellor; on mine, Fitz Elder, Stacy McBride, Katie Toskey, and then Riley Scott and Melanie Benning were also key on it.

There is an item about which I have some consternation at the end where we broke the 302(b) allocation. My hope is in conference we can get that worked back down because clearly we have a huge budget crisis on our hands and we have to hit these numbers. I know it was an important issue to the chairman on dairy funding and that is an important issue; particularly if you are from Wisconsin, that is an important issue. It is my hope we can work that down.

I do think it shows a lot of support and strength when you have a major bipartisan vote on this bill at the end. My hope is that is the way we will operate in the body, in a bipartisan way so we can move things through for the good of the country.

We are in the minority, obviously, but there is no reason we cannot work these issues together as much as we possibly can. Senator Kohl was excellent to work with. I appreciate that chance to do it.

I look forward to us getting this through on a stand-alone basis, not rolled together in an omnibus package if at all possible. I think it is an important package, one we should be able to do that with. I think we have the ability to get that done.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, if people have amendments, that they come down to the floor now and start working on these. It would be my hope we can move through this bill as fast as possible so that we can get to the debate on Judge Sotomayor and have as much time as possible to deal with that. I urge colleagues to start working with us on these issues. By unanimous consent, the cloture vote has been scheduled for 5:30 today. There are things we need to get resolved; they should be taken care of now.

Amendment No. 2229, as Modified

This is an amendment that has been cleared by both sides. It is on neglected and rare diseases. Senator Brown has asked to be a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that this be considered the pending amendment and that it be passed.

What we are trying to do is to work through the amendments to the degree we can. We certainly want to. I ask our colleagues to bring those to the floor as soon as they possibly can.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Madam President, the reason I ask that on this bill-- and I do urge my colleagues to come forward to speak on the Agriculture appropriations bill. We have already cleared some amendments, and we need to move forward.

Something happened yesterday that affected my State directly, and that was the statement by the administration--or leak from the administration--that they are considering moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to my State, associated with Fort Leavenworth. This has riled up everybody. I was just there this morning, and we had 100 people who came out after very short notice. It is virtually unanimous in their opinions--not everybody but close to everybody is opposed to this idea for a multiple set of reasons.

Moving the Guantanamo Bay detainees to Fort Leavenworth and the Fort Leavenworth area would not work, to start off with, and will significantly hurt the core educational and international mission of the fort. On top of that it is totally unnecessary. I hope the administration will start to rethink this idea of moving the Guantanamo Bay detainees. I think it is a bad idea that we replicate the facility we already have at Guantanamo Bay somewhere in the United States because we already have a facility to hold the detainees. We already have a facility to try the detainees. It is all set up. I was there. I led a congressional delegation a couple of months ago. They are being humanely treated, and if they are not, and if there are credible reports that they are not, then let's work on fixing Guantanamo Bay rather than moving the detainees to the United States.

If there are problems, let's fix them rather than just say we are going to change the name of the place and we are going to move the detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Leavenworth. We are not going to change the opinion of the world of the United States one iota by substituting the name ``Leavenworth'' for the name ``Guantanamo Bay,'' creating a replica of what we already have at Guantanamo Bay, only somewhere else. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have when we already have an $11 trillion debt, and it is growing at a rate of nearly $2 trillion a year. So why would we spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing something that is not going to change world opinion, replicating a facility that we already have, that slows the process? This doesn't make any sense.

On top of that, what is being considered at Leavenworth would not work. The fort at Leavenworth--if I could just talk to my colleagues about this, and I hope they will look at the factual setting. Fort Leavenworth is one of the smallest Army bases we have around the world. It is 8 square miles. It butts up in and is a part of an urban area of Kansas City. It has on its border a river and a train that goes through about every 25 minutes. It is not the secure facility one would need to have for these detainees. We don't have any setbacks like we have in a number of other facilities, and it has one of the highest population densities per square mile or square foot of any of our military bases because it houses the Command and General Staff College of the military.

If I could just point out that facility to my colleagues--and I hope some of them come and attend and address the Command and General Staff College. We get students from around the world on a regular basis at that facility. Generally, some 90 countries at any one point in time have students at the Command and General Staff College. Of these 90 countries that send students for their Army training for their military, half of those students will become general flag officers before their career is done. A number of them will become civilian leaders in their own country as well. So you get the cream of the crop from around the world. They come here. They also meet with our future military leaders, and this is the training center they have. It is the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth.

The primary mission of Fort Leavenworth is that training as well as that relationship and integration between our U.S. Army forces and forces of militaries, Army forces from around the world, which is critically important when you go into places such as Pakistan or Afghanistan or you are working with the Jordanians or the Egyptians, just to name a few. They send leaders from all of those countries, future flag officers to Fort Leavenworth to be trained. We have already heard in canvassing students from Jordan, Egypt, and Pakistan that they will pull their students from Fort Leavenworth if the detainees are moved there. They don't want to have their military leaders, their future military leaders at the same place that the detainees are being held in the United States, and they have already stated that to us.

So we are going to hurt the core mission of Fort Leavenworth in a facility that doesn't have setbacks to safely handle this for no gain. I would point out that I spoke with the commanding general at Fort Leavenworth yesterday. I called him after I heard about this report on MS-NBC. That was how I got the news of it. My wife was on the Internet, and she was on MSNBC's Web site and she sees that they are thinking about moving the Gitmo detainees to either Leavenworth or Michigan. That didn't set very well with me, that that is how I learned about this to start off with.

As I started calling around, I called the commanding general, and he said he learned about it pretty late as well and has difficulties, although he is a military man. He will salute and take orders and do what he is directed to do, but he is not--he needs to be asked and brought in to testify about what his opinion would be about this issue. I talked to the Governor in Kansas last night. The Governor, a Democratic Governor, has issued a statement previously opposed to this move taking place to Fort Leavenworth. The Congresswoman from the area was there this morning opposed to this move. The mayor of Leavenworth was there opposed to this move.

We have voted in this body virtually unanimously--close to a unanimous vote--that you have to work with local officials before the Gitmo detainees can be moved anywhere into the United States. Well, the local officials are uniformly opposed to this at Leavenworth, and we wake up and it is in the morning paper and nobody has been consulted about it.

I wish to say the detainees in my estimation deserve appropriate humane treatment. They deserve to be treated under our international obligations. If they are not getting that, then that needs to be changed, and it needs to be changed at Guantanamo Bay. I hope we would have international investigations to tell us what is not being met that we are required to do, that is not being done. I have not seen any credible international reports that say there are things we are not doing that we should do at Guantanamo Bay. There is a gray category that is involved where you have enemy combatants who don't represent a foreign country, and that is a big part of our problem. There is also a very tough area, and that is--I saw this when I was at Guantanamo Bay-- a number of the detainees are continuing the fight

today. While in prison, at Gitmo, they continue the fight. So whoever gets these or takes these detainees is going to have to be prepared to have the continuation of the war on terrorism happening near them and happening in the prison facility. That is not everybody, but some of them continue to fight in prison. That is going to be a difficult situation for whoever is to handle it.

On top of that, our folks at Leavenworth--we have prisoners in there, and the town is proud of their ability to handle various prisoners. Their concern is not keeping the detainees in, because you can staff up for that, but it is keeping out people who seek to get in or make a statement in that area. Plus, they would have to scale up their facilities.

We have a medium-security Bureau of Prisons facility. It is not maximum security. We have a dominated medium-security disciplinary barracks there, and we have space for 25 maximum-security prisoners-- only 25. You would have to move out all of the current military personnel convicted in military courts who are held in the disciplinary barracks. We are not situated to handle this. It would cost a huge amount of money, and it would not be safe to do it at Leavenworth. It is a bad idea for us to do that there.

I ask the President to come to Leavenworth. He was invited by the mayor this morning. He can look at the facility and examine it himself. The Attorney General can come and examine the facility, look at it, and see what estimation they come up with after examining and looking at the facility. I understand they are looking at some sort of hybrid facility. We don't have the situation to be able to house it in Kansas.

On top of that, I ask the President to really listen to the American people. The American people don't want these detainees moved to the United States. They don't want to hurry up artificial timelines set for moving the detainees to the United States, and they feel the President should be listening to them and not to European leaders or somebody around the world who doesn't like the Guantanamo Bay facility and thinks it has a bad name. Listen to the American people on this issue.

I ask that the President come and talk to the Members of Congress who may be impacted by this and ask our opinions and look at what is taking place. This is being rushed. It is on an artificial time deadline. It doesn't need to happen. It is replicating a facility we have, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, and it will slow the process down. It is a bad idea chasing a bad idea with an artificial time limit. I ask that the President not do that.

My colleague and I from Kansas will fight every step of the way to keep this facility from being moved to Kansas. We are representing our constituents, who don't want these detainees moved to Kansas. We are going to fight it every step of the way.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, we are attempting to work through some amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 2253 on behalf of Senator Chambliss, and the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

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

Madam President, it is my understanding this amendment has been cleared on both sides, so I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I have been asked by Senator Barrasso to ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 2240 on behalf of Senator Barrasso.

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

I wanted to get this for Senator Barrasso. We will be handling that at a later point in time.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2243 to Amendment No. 1908

I move to lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2254 and 2255 to Amendment No. 1908

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2254 on behalf of Senator Chambliss and 2255 on behalf of Senator Vitter en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

I understand these amendments have been cleared on both sides. I offer them for Senators Chambliss and Vitter. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to en bloc.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rachana Chhin of my office be granted the privileges of the floor during the remainder of debate on this bill.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, particularly on my side of the aisle, to get their amendments and bring them forward, bring them forward this morning. It would be my hope we could get this bill done on Monday, early evening, so we can move to the Sotomayor discussion and debate on the floor. I think most Members want to speak about Sotomayor, so it is going to take a lot of time next week, being the last week before we go on break. I hope we could start that as fast as possible and we could move through this bill expeditiously.

We worked very closely with the majority. I think we have a good bill. It certainly is not perfect; no bill is. But it is one for which we have done a lot of work, and I do not see the issues outstanding here to the degree that I think it would merit us putting off the discussion and debate on Sotomayor. So I am hopeful we can get those amendments coming forward.

Amendment No. 2229 To Amendment No. 1908

Mr. President, I have discussed with the majority about bringing up an amendment to deal with the issue of neglected and rare diseases. The FDA funding is in this bill, and we have negotiated an amendment with the proper authorizing committee. So with that, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, to call up amendment No. 2229, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

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.

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

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.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Bovine Tuberculosis

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

There is.

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.

I think they should.

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

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?

I am happy to yield for a question.

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

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. 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges for the remainder of this session be granted for an intern in my office, Lindy Brownback.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending Thune amendment and call up my amendment No. 1597.

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

Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment put forward by Senator Bayh and myself. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kyl and Inhofe be added as cosponsors.

This is a bipartisan resolution and sense of the Senate that the administration should relist North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. As my colleagues know, the Bush administration, through a great deal of hoopla, listed North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. They took them off the list in spite of such terrible and erratic behavior as nuclear weapons, missile technology, and now taking U.S. citizens hostage and holding them. Nonetheless, the Bush administration, as part of the six-party talks, did an agreement, a deal to delist them as a state sponsor of terrorism. All that got us was more nuclear weapons, more missiles being sent off, more provocative action by the North Koreans, and a dismal situation.

What we are asking with the amendment is that it is a sense of the Senate that North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism.

In that regard, I wish to enter a few items in the Record to be printed at the end of my presentation that are currently in the news. This is yesterday's front page of the Washington Post where it talks about ``[North] Korea's Hard-Labor Camps: On the Diplomatic Back Burner.''

I ask unanimous consent that this full article be printed in the Record.

That is an old story. Unfortunately, we know very well about the gulags that exist in North Korea and the 200,000 people we believe are in those. Here is today's Washington Post. This was new information I found shocking: North Korea building mysterious military ties with the military junta in Burma now taking place and the possibility of them giving military equipment and supplies, I suppose possibly even nuclear arms and missile technology, to the military government in Burma.

I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

If that is not enough to relist them as a state sponsor of terrorism, I don't know what is. But there is a full record we can go forward with on relisting North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. At the outset, I think we ought to look at this and say this is an extremely tough situation for the United States. It is one on which we need to take aggressive action to confront them on what they are doing to militarize some of the worst places and worst actors around the world and what North Korea is doing to threaten interests of the United States.

All this is taking place while Kim Jong Il is ill. To what degree, we don't know for sure. A succession is being discussed. Of what nature, we are not sure. But clearly North Korea is doing the most provocative things they have probably done in the history of that provocative nation. It is taking place right now. We should notice it and recognize these are terrorist actions. We should clearly call for them to be relisted.

I have, many times, spoken before regarding the long and outrageous list of crimes of the Kim regime. I will not go through those again at great length. But I will say the crimes committed by the North Korean regime include not only those external and diplomatic of nature-- violating agreements, treaties, conventions, and proliferating dangerous technologies to the world's worst actors--but the regime has also committed massive and unspeakable crimes against the North Korean people themselves who for decades have been beaten, tortured, raped, trafficked, starved, used as medical experiments, subjected to collective familial punishment, and executed in the most brutal and painful ways. If you want further details on that, read yesterday's Washington Post article.

Hundreds of thousands languish in the gulag and concentration camps spread out over the entire country. All the while, the world watches and wrings its collective hands. As we pledged never again, we watch as yet again another criminal regime commits a genocide. Never again becomes yet again.

I have introduced legislation to address these issues. I hope the Foreign Relations Committee can find time to take it up.

The amendment before us today deals with another aspect of the North Korean criminal state, its longstanding and robust sponsorship of international terrorism. The amendment would place the Senate on record as standing for the proposition that North Korea's hostile and provocative actions will not be ignored. Indeed, they will have meaningful consequences under the law. This amendment, of which Senator Bayh is the lead cosponsor, expresses the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of State should redesignate North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism based on its nuclear and missile

proliferation, abductions, and material support for terrorist groups.

On October 11, 2008, the State Department removed North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism on which it had been placed since 1988. At the time, this is what President Bush said to the North Korean regime upon announcing that North Korea would be removed. He said:

We will trust you only to the extent that you fulfill your

promises. If North Korea makes the wrong choices, the United

States will act accordingly.

They have made the wrong choices. We should act accordingly.

At the same time, then Candidate Obama said:

Sanctions are a critical part of our leverage to pressure

North Korea to act. They should only be lifted based on North

Korean performance. If the North Koreans do not meet their

obligations, we should move quickly to reimpose sanctions

that have been waived and consider new restrictions going

forward.

They have not lived up to their obligations. They have continued provocative actions. They should be relisted.

Let's examine how well the North Korean regime has lived up to its commitment since being removed from the list. Since removal last October, the North Korean regime has done the following: launched a multistage ballistic missile over Japan in violation of U.N. Security Council sanctions; kidnapped and imprisoned two American journalists and sentenced them to 12 years of hard labor in a North Korean prison camp; pulled out of the six-party talks vowing never to return; kicked out international nuclear inspectors and American monitors; restarted its nuclear facilities; renounced the 50-year armistice with South Korea; detonated a second illegal nuclear weapon; launched additional short-range missiles; is preparing to launch long-range missiles capable of reaching the United States; and today news accounts are reporting about North Korean proliferation to the Burmese junta, including perhaps nuclear proliferation.

Add to this a long history of other ongoing illicit operations that finance the North Korean regime's budget, including the following: extensive drug smuggling; massive and complex operations to counterfeit U.S. currency, many of which are believed to be in wide circulation; money laundering; terrorist threats by the regime against the United States, Japanese, and South Korean civilians. That is what this regime and group has done and is doing. That is some of what they have done since they were delisted from the terrorist list.

What have we done in response? The U.N. Security Council has passed another sanctions resolution similar to the same resolution North Korea has brazenly violated to get us to this point. In 2006, the State Department, in its terrorism report, said this about keeping North Korea on the list: North Korea ``continued to maintain their ties to terrorist groups.''

They said:

Most worrisome is that some of these countries [including

North Korea] also have the capability to manufacture [weapons

of mass destruction] and other destabilizing technologies

that can get into the hands of terrorists.

If that was the justification for the terror list in 2006, certainly North Korea's actions today fit that standard--perhaps even more so than back then, and I believe it is more so.

We cannot have it both ways. If we removed North Korea from the terrorism list last year as a reward for its dubious cooperation on nuclear weapons, we would only be reversing that step by adding it back after the regime betrayed its commitments and followed up with hostile and provocative actions.

I would also like to address this issue: It often has been raised with me--and the Secretary of State herself has raised this indirectly with me--that the multiple statutes that control the list of state sponsors of terrorism do not provide the legal ability for the Secretary of State to redesignate. I think this argument is flawed, and I would like to summarize that by reading the relevant portions of each of these acts, because here is the key point on it, that they are saying: Well, we have to find factual basis that is different from the first round for us to do that. We are going through a legal review of doing this. But here the state sponsor of terrorism list is controlled under two different acts: the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act.

As to countries covered by the prohibition, it says this. This is quoting from the Arms Export Control Act:

The prohibitions contained in this section apply with

respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines

that the government of that country has repeatedly provided

support for acts of international terrorism.

That is what it says in the Arms Export Control Act. The list I have just read goes through what has taken place, and they are clearly and repeatedly providing support for acts of international terrorism. It does not say anything about they cannot be relisted or we have to go through some elaborate finding process, that it cannot be based on actions they have done. These are the actions they have done in the last 6 months that are of public record. And it says the Secretary of State makes this determination and has fairly wide discretion to be able to do it.

Under section 628 of the Foreign Assistance Act, it says: The United States shall not provide any assistance to any country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.

Again, the statute is very broad in its statement. It does not say anything about they cannot relist them. It says they can do this on the discretion of the Secretary of State.

I do not know why we need to wait any longer, with the actions this government has taken and even with these most recent ones reported today of working with Burma or of the publicly done ones we know about of nuclear weapons detonation or the ones of missile technology being launched. Why do we need to wait longer?

I recognize this is a sense of the Senate, so it is just a sense of this body. But this body has had a strong impact in prior actions when we took a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to list the Revolutionary Guard in Iran, that we believed they should be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. The administration acted not long after that to list them as a state sponsor of terrorism.

I believe if this body took strong action here now and said we believe North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism, it would send a very strong and proper signal to the administration-- not that we are doing your job, but we believe this is the case and this is something that is meritorious toward North Korea and its actions.

That is why I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Bayh- Brownback amendment and vote for this amendment to the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, July 20, 2009]

N. Korea's Hard-Labor Camps: On the Diplomatic Back Burner

(By Blaine Harden)

Seoul.--Images and accounts of the North Korean gulag

become sharper, more harrowing and more accessible with each

passing year.

A distillation of testimony from survivors and former

guards, newly published by the Korean Bar Association,

details the daily lives of 200,000 political prisoners

estimated to be in the camps: Eating a diet of mostly corn

and salt, they lose their teeth, their gums turn black, their

bones weaken and, as they age, they hunch over at the waist.

Most work 12- to 15-hour days until they die of malnutrition-

related illnesses, usually around the age of 50. Allowed just

one set of clothes, they live and die in rags, without soap,

socks, underclothes or sanitary napkins.

The camps have never been visited by outsiders, so these

accounts cannot be independently verified. But high-

resolution satellite photographs, now accessible to anyone

with an Internet connection, reveal vast labor camps in the

mountains of North Korea. The photographs corroborate

survivors' stories, showing entrances to mines where former

prisoners said they worked as slaves, in-camp detention

centers where former guards said uncooperative prisoners were

tortured to death and parade grounds where former prisoners

said they were forced to watch executions. Guard towers and

electrified fences surround the camps, photographs show.

``We have this system of slavery right under our nose,''

said An Myeong Chul, a camp guard who defected to South

Korea. ``Human rights groups can't stop it. South Korea can't

stop it. The United States will have to take up this issue at

the negotiating table.''

But the camps have not been discussed in meetings between

U.S. diplomats and North Korean officials. By exploding

nuclear bombs, launching missiles and cultivating a

reputation for hair-trigger belligerence, the government of

Kim Jong Il has created a permanent security flash point on

the Korean Peninsula--and effectively shoved the issue of

human rights off the negotiating table.

``Talking to them about the camps is something that has not

been possible,'' said David Straub, a senior official in the

State Department's office of Korean affairs during the Bush

and Clinton years. There have been no such meetings since

President Obama took office.

``They go nuts when you talk about it,'' said Straub, who

is now associate director of Korean studies at Stanford

University.

Nor have the camps become much of an issue for the American

public, even though annotated images of them can be quickly

called up on Google Earth and even though they have existed

for half a century, 12 times as long as the Nazi

concentration camps and twice as long as the Soviet Gulag.

Although precise numbers are impossible to obtain, Western

governments and human groups estimate that hundreds of

thousands of people have died in the North Korean camps.

North Korea officially says the camps do not exist. It

restricts movements of the few foreigners it allows into the

country and severely punishes those who sneak in. U.S.

reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee were sentenced last month

to 12 years of hard labor, after being convicted in a closed

trial on charges of entering the country illegally.

North Korea's gulag also lacks the bright light of

celebrity attention. No high-profile, internationally

recognized figure has emerged to coax Americans into

understanding or investing emotionally in the issue, said

Suzanne Scholte, a Washington-based activist who brings camp

survivors to the United States for speeches and marches.

``Tibetans have the Dalai Lama and Richard Gere, Burmese

have Aung San Suu Kyi, Darfurians have Mia Farrow and George

Clooney,'' she said. ``North Koreans have no one like that.''

Executions as Lessons

Before guards shoot prisoners who have tried to escape,

they turn each execution into a teachable moment, according

to interviews with five North Koreans who said they have

witnessed such killings.

Prisoners older than 16 are required to attend, and they

are forced to stand as close as 15 feet to the condemned,

according to the interviews. A prison official usually gives

a lecture, explaining how the Dear Leader, as Kim Jong Il is

known, had offered a ``chance at redemption'' through hard

labor.

The condemned are hooded, and their mouths are stuffed with

pebbles. Three guards fire three times each, as onlookers see

blood spray and bodies crumple, those interviewed said.

``We almost experience the executions ourselves,'' said

Jung Gwang Il, 47, adding that he witnessed two executions as

an inmate at Camp 15. After three years there, Jung said, he

was allowed to leave in 2003. He fled to China and now lives

in Seoul.

Like several former prisoners, Jung said the most arduous

part of his imprisonment was his pre-camp interrogation at

the hands of the Bowibu, the National Security Agency. After

eight years in a government office that handled trade with

China, a fellow worker accused him of being a South Korean

agent.

``They wanted me to admit to being a spy,'' Jung said.

``They knocked out my front teeth with a baseball bat. They

fractured my skull a couple of times. I was not a spy, but I

admitted to being a spy after nine months of torture.''

When he was arrested, Jung said, he weighed 167 pounds.

When his interrogation was finished, he said, he weighed 80

pounds. ``When I finally got to the camp, I actually gained

weight,'' said Jung, who worked summers in cornfields and

spent winters in the mountains felling trees.

``Most people die of malnutrition, accidents at work, and

during interrogation,'' said Jung, who has become a human

rights advocate in Seoul. ``It is people with perseverance

who survive. The ones who think about food all the time go

crazy. I worked hard, so guards selected me to be a leader in

my barracks. Then I didn't have to expend so much energy, and

I could get by on corn.''

Defectors' Accounts

Human rights groups, lawyers committees and South Korean-

funded think tanks have detailed what goes on in the camps

based on in-depth interviews with survivors and former guards

who trickle out of North Korea into China and find their way

to South Korea.

The motives and credibility of North Korean defectors in

the South are not without question. They are desperate to

make a living. Many refuse to talk unless they are paid.

South Korean psychologists who debrief defectors describe

them as angry, distrustful and confused. But in hundreds of

separate interviews conducted over two decades, defectors

have told similar stories that paint a consistent portrait of

life, work, torment and death in the camps.

The number of camps has been consolidated from 14 to about

five large sites, according to former officials who worked in

the camps. Camp 22, near the Chinese border, is 31 miles long

and 25 miles wide, an area larger than the city of Los

Angeles. As many as 50,000 prisoners are held there, a former

guard said.

There is a broad consensus among researchers about how the

camps are run: Most North Koreans are sent there without any

judicial process. Many inmates die in the camps unaware of

the charges against them. Guilt by association is legal under

North Korean law, and up to three generations of a

wrongdoer's family are sometimes imprisoned, following a rule

from North Korea's founding dictator, Kim Il Sung: ``Enemies

of class, whoever they are, their seed must be eliminated

through three generations.''

Crimes that warrant punishment in political prison camps

include real or suspected opposition to the government. ``The

camp system in its entirety can be perceived as a massive and

elaborate system of persecution on political grounds,''

writes human rights investigator David Hawk, who has studied

the camps extensively. Common criminals serve time elsewhere.

Prisoners are denied any contact with the outside world,

according to the Korean Bar Association's 2008 white paper on

human rights in North Korea. The report also found that

suicide is punished with longer prison terms for surviving

relatives; guards can beat, rape and kill prisoners with

impunity; when female prisoners become pregnant without

permission, their babies are killed.

Most of the political camps are ``complete control

districts,'' which means that inmates work there until death.

There is, however, a ``revolutionizing district'' at Camp

15, where prisoners can receive remedial indoctrination in

socialism. After several years, if they memorize the writings

of Kim Jong Il, they are released but remain monitored by

security officials.

South's Changing Response

Since it offers a safe haven to defectors, South Korea is

home to scores of camp survivors. All of them have been

debriefed by the South Korean intelligence service, which

presumably knows more about the camps than any agency outside

of Pyongyang.

But for nearly a decade, despite revelations in scholarly

reports, TV documentaries and memoirs, South Korea avoided

public criticism of the North's gulag. It abstained from

voting on U.N. resolutions that criticized North Korea's

record on human rights and did not mention the camps during

leadership summits in 2000 or 2007. Meanwhile, under a

``sunshine policy'' of peaceful engagement, South Korea made

major economic investments in the North and gave huge,

unconditional annual gifts of food and fertilizer.

The public, too, has been largely silent. ``South Koreans,

who publicly cherish the virtue of brotherly love, have been

inexplicably stuck in a deep quagmire of indifference,''

according to the Korean Bar Association, which says it

publishes reports on human rights in North Korea to ``break

the stalemate.''

Government policy changed last year under President Lee

Myung-bak, who has halted unconditional aid, backed U.N.

resolutions that criticize the North and tried to put human

rights on the table in dealing with Pyongyang. In response,

North Korea has called Lee a ``traitor,'' squeezed inter-

Korean trade and threatened war.

An Enforcer's View

An Myeong Chul was allowed to work as a guard and driver in

political prison camps because, he said, he came from a

trustworthy family. His father was a North Korean

intelligence agent, as were the parents of many of his fellow

guards.

In his training to work in the camps, An said, he was

ordered, under penalty of becoming a prisoner himself, never

to show pity. It was permissible, he said, for bored guards

to beat or kill prisoners.

``We were taught to look at inmates as pigs,'' said An, 41,

adding that he worked in the camps for seven years before

escaping to China in 1994. He now works in a bank in Seoul.

The rules he enforced were simple. ``If you do not meet

your work quota, you do not eat much,'' he said. ``You are

not allowed to sleep until you finish your work. If you still

do not finish your work, you are sent to a little prison

inside the camp. After three months, you leave that prison

dead.''

An said the camps play a crucial role in the maintenance of

totalitarian rule. ``All high-ranking officials underneath

Kim Jong Il know that one misstep means you go to the camps,

along with your family,'' he said.

Partly to assuage his guilt, An has become an activist and

has been talking about the camps for more than a decade. He

was among the first to help investigators identify camp

buildings using satellite images. Still, he said, nothing

will change in camp operations without sustained diplomatic

pressure, especially from the United States.

Inconsistent U.S. Approach

The U.S. government has been a fickle advocate.

In the Clinton years, high-level diplomatic contacts

between Washington and Pyongyang focused almost exclusively

on preventing the North from developing nuclear weapons and

expanding its ballistic missile capability.

President George W. Bush's administration took a radically

different approach. It famously labeled North Korea as part

of an ``axis of evil,'' along with Iran and Iraq. Bush met

with camp survivors. For five years, U.S. diplomats refused

to have direct negotiations with North Korea.

After North Korea detonated a nuclear device in 2006, the

Bush administration decided

to talk. The negotiations, however, focused exclusively on

dismantling Pyongyang's expanded nuclear program.

In recent months, North Korea has reneged on its promise to

abandon nuclear weapons, kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors,

exploded a second nuclear device and created a major security

crisis in Northeast Asia.

Containing that crisis has monopolized the Obama

administration's dealings with North Korea. The camps, for

the time being, are a non-issue. ``Unfortunately, until we

get a handle on the security threat, we can't afford to deal

with human rights,'' said Peter Beck, a former executive

director of the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North

Korea.

A Family's Tribulations

Kim Young Soon, once a dancer in Pyongyang, said she spent

eight years in Camp 15 during the 1970s. Under the guilt-by-

association rule, she said, her four children and her parents

were also sentenced to hard labor there.

At the camp, she said, her parents starved to death and her

eldest son drowned. Around the time of her arrest, her

husband was shot for trying to flee the country, as was her

youngest son after his release from the camp.

It was not until 1989, more than a decade after her

release, that she found out why she had been imprisoned. A

security official told her then that she was punished because

she had been a friend of Kim Jong Il's first wife and that

she would ``never be forgiven again'' if the state suspected

that she had gossiped about the Dear Leader.

She escaped to China in 2000 and now lives in Seoul. At 73,

she said she is furious that the outside world doesn't take

more interest in the camps. ``I had a friend who loved Kim

Jong Il, and for that the government killed my family,'' she

said. ``How can it be justified?''

Exhibit 2

[From the Washington Post, July 21, 2009]

Clinton: U.S. Wary of Growing Burmese, North Korean Military

Cooperation

(By Glenn Kessler)

Bangkok, July 21--The Obama administration is increasingly

concerned that nuclear-armed North Korea is building

mysterious military ties with Burma, another opaque country

with a history of oppression, Secretary of State Hillary

Rodham Clinton said Tuesday.

``We know that there are also growing concerns about

military cooperation between North Korea and Burma, which we

take seriously'' Clinton told reporters after talks in the

Thai capital. ``It would be destabilizing for the region. It

would pose a direct threat to Burma's neighbors.''

U.S. officials traveling with Clinton, who is in Thailand

to attend a regional security forum, said the concerns about

Burma and North Korea extend to possible nuclear cooperation.

North Korea has a long history of illicit missile sales and

proliferation, including secretly helping to build a Syrian

nuclear reactor that was destroyed in 2007 by Israeli jets.

``This is one of the areas we'd like to know about,'' said

one official. ``We have concerns, but our information is

incomplete.''

Burma, also known as Myanmar, is regarded as one of the

world's most oppressive nations, run by generals who have

enriched themselves while much of the country remains

desperately poor. North Korea is an equally grim country,

with vast prison camps and an ailing dictator, Kim Jong Il.

The evidence of growing Burmese-North Korean cooperation

since formal ties were restored in 2007 is extensive, but the

full extent of the military relationship is unclear.

The nuclear connection is even murkier, but intelligence

agencies have tracked suspicious procurement of high-

precision equipment from Europe, as well as the arrival in

Burma of North Korean officials associated with the company

connected to the Syria reactor, according to David Albright,

director of the Institute for Science and International

Security in Washington.

``Something may be going on, but no one has any proof. It

is a mix of suspicions and concerns,'' Albright said, adding

that close examination of satellite imagery of suspected

nuclear sites has turned up no evidence. But he said that the

purchases of high-precision equipment were especially

troubling because the equipment did not make sense for use in

missiles and it was shipped to educational entities that had

connections to Burmese nuclear experts.

Japanese officials last month also arrested three people

for attempting to illegally export dual-use equipment to

Burma, via Malaysia, under the direction of a company

involved in the illicit procurement for North Korean military

programs.

Moreover, Albright said, European and U.S. intelligence

agencies have identified people associated with Namchongang

Trading Corp., a North Korean company also known as NCG, as

working in Burma. NCG reportedly provided the critical link

between Pyongyang and Damascus, acquiring key materials from

vendors in China and probably from Europe and secretly

transferring them to a desert construction site near the

Syrian town of Kibar.

The State Department last month cited NCG for being

``involved in the purchase of aluminum tubes and other

equipment specifically suitable for a uranium enrichment

program since the late 1990s.''

U.S. officials have observed other troubling connections.

The U.S. Navy last month closely tracked Kang Nam 1, a rusty

North Korean freighter, after the government in Pyongyang

tested a nuclear weapon. Although U.S. officials were never

completely certain the ship was headed to Burma, the ship

returned to North Korea after the United States, China and

other countries put pressure on Burma to respect a United

Nations resolution barring most North Korean weapons exports.

Photographs that have emerged in recent weeks also show an

extensive series of 600 to 800 tunnel complexes and other

underground facilities built in Burma with North Korean

technical assistance near its new capital, Naypyidaw. North

Korean officials can be spotted in the photos, which were

taken between 2003 and 2006 and posted on the Web site of

YaleGlobal Online by journalist Bertil Lintner, an expert on

Burma.

Burma has uranium deposits, but as a signatory to the

nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is required to allow

inspections of any nuclear facilities. Russia in 2007 agreed

to help build a 10-megawatt light-water reactor in Burma, but

little appears to have come of the project.

At the news conference, Clinton also strongly criticized

the Burmese government for its well-documented use of gang

rape as a military tactic, organized by Burmese officers,

against ethnic minorities. A new offensive against the Karen

ethnic group has sent more than 4,000 refugees fleeing across

the border into Thailand in recent weeks.

``We are deeply concerned by reports of continuing human

rights abuses within Burma, particularly by actions that are

attributed to the Burmese military concerning the

mistreatment and abuse of young girls,'' Clinton said.

The Obama administration is conducting a review of its

Burma policy, which Clinton said has been placed on hold

while Washington awaits the outcome of the trial of Nobel

Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

``We have made clear we expect fair treatment of Aung San

Suu Kyi, and we have condemned the way that she has been

treated by the regime in Burma, which we consider to be

baseless and totally unacceptable,'' Clinton said.

The National League for Democracy, Suu Kyi's party, won a

landslide electoral victory in 1990, but the military

leadership refused to accept it. Since then, she has been

under house arrest for most of the time, as have hundreds of

her supporters.

In May, just days before Suu Kyi's six-year term under

house arrest was due to expire, the government put her on

trial for an incident involving a U.S. citizen who swam

across Rangoon's Lake Inya to reach Suu Kyi's lakefront

bungalow and allegedly stayed there one or two nights.

Suu Kyi was taken to Rangoon's notorious Insein Prison on

charges of violating the terms of her detention by hosting a

foreigner, which could bring a three- to five-year prison

term, according to Burmese opposition officials. Suu Kyi, 63,

is said to be in poor health and has recently been treated

for dehydration and low blood pressure.

``Our position is that we are willing to have a more

productive partnership with Burma if they take steps that are

self-evident,'' Clinton said. She called on Burmese

authorities to ``end the violence against their own people,''

including ethnic minorities, ``end the mistreatment of Aung

San Suu Kyi'' and release political prisoners.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bennett from Utah as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I thank my colleague from Arizona. I think he understands more than anybody in this body the situation and what happens in a gulag-type situation. That has drawn me to the topic of North Korea for a couple years--the human rights abuses. Hundreds and thousands of North Koreans are fleeing to be able to simply get food, and a couple hundred thousand of them are in the gulag system. It is unbelievable that this can happen in 2009. We have Google Earth that can even show this. But we just say: OK, that is the sort of thing that happens there. It is mind-boggling to me that we wouldn't act resolutely.

I appreciate the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator from Massachusetts, who is a distinguished Senator and is very bright and experienced in foreign policy. I could not disagree with him more about North Korea. We have had an ongoing dialog and discussion about this. He makes the point that we should not pop this on the bill.

I have been trying for months for us to relist them as terrorists. They should not have been delisted in the first place. It was a terrible process move on the Bush administration to try to move the talks forward, saying we are going to delist you and you are going to do something for us. Pyongyang and Kim Jong Il said thank you very much, and now we are going to stick it in your face, which is what they have continued to do. I have listed the things, as the Senator from Arizona has mentioned as well.

The thought that we are acting resolutely, to me, is an insult to the people in North Korea who have lived under this oppressive regime. We are not acting resolutely toward North Korea. We are not putting any sanctions on them. We have asked for international sanctions, but why aren't we willing to put sanctions on ourselves? If we think this is such a proper course to follow, and we are willing to push it on an international body, why wouldn't we be willing to do it ourselves? Why wouldn't we be willing to list them as a terror nation, as a state sponsor of terror? I don't understand that; why, if it is good in the international arena, we wouldn't do it ourselves.

Plus, we need to have teeth into this. This is a modest--a modest-- proposal. It is a resolution, a sense of the Senate that North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism. We are not relisting them. That is an administration call. We are saying we, as a body, given the provocative actions that have taken place since they have been delisted clearly merits the relisting of North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. That is our opinion, and that is what we are saying to the administration.

Without a foundation in the law, it is clearly--as I read previously--allowed for the Secretary of State to determine that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. That is the actual wording of the law in the Arms Export Control Act. Clearly, they have acted to sponsor international terrorism with their relation with Burma, with the missiles, with the nuclear weapons, and with the proliferation they have done and continue to do.

He says, and is suggesting, that delisting has no practical effect. I believe it does have a practical effect, and it certainly does on the administration's stance toward North Korea

and their international posture toward North Korea. Plus, it has a practical effect on what we can provide for as far as aid from the United States to North Korea. We shouldn't be providing aid to the North Koreans. We should provide food aid, if we can monitor it. We shouldn't be giving oil to the North Koreans. That should be limited so the administration cannot do that. They would not be able to if they are listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Mr. President, it will hurt the people of North Korea and those who are in the North Korean gulags if we don't relist them. It recovers any vestige of hope they might have that at some point in time somebody of enough stature, such as the United States Government, is going to take enough notice that they are going to put pressure on the North Korean regime. I have talked with some people who were refuseniks in the Soviet Union, in a Soviet gulag during an era where we had far less communication capacity than we do today, and yet they were able to get messages at that point in time into the Soviet gulag that the Americans were putting pressure on the Soviet Union and the lack of human rights in the Soviet Union, and it gave them hope. It gave them hope in the Soviet gulag.

If we can pass this, it can give people in the gulags in North Korea hope that somebody is at least paying enough attention to put pressure on this, and maybe they may be able to live longer, or actually live at all. It can give them hope, instead of ``abandon hope all ye who enter here,'' as it says at the entrance to Inferno and as it is in the gulag system in North Korea.

So it is a modest resolution, and I would hope my colleagues would vote overwhelmingly for this resolution to relist North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I certainly concur with the statement of my colleague from South Dakota as to what he is saying about the health insurance issue and the need to do it right rather than fast. I think it is critically important.

I would like to bring to the body's attention something that was on the front page of the Washington Post today. It is an article about ``Who Will Succeed Kim Jong Il?'' and the point being: Here is a country that has recently tested missiles that can reach Hawaii, that has recently tested a nuclear device. He is gravely ill. Some are reporting he has pancreatic cancer. We don't know for sure what he has. But the question is, Who will succeed Kim Jong Il? And what does that mean to the United States? And what are we doing about it?

In our office, we are working on a piece of legislation to try to start some planning on our part as to what we should be doing if the leader in North Korea falls and if the state fails in North Korea, which is a very real possibility: that the overall state apparatus in North Korea will fail, that you will have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people seeking to flee that country or--in a grip of searching for food--moving around to try to find food, that nuclear weapons will not be well watched, and the missile capacity that is there--all in a state that is failing and may fall altogether.

The reason I point this out is, we are on the Defense authorization bill. It is a very important piece of legislation. It is a key piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation we pass every year because it is so important to the future of this country and so important to the defense of this country.

Here is a moment where we are looking at a potential nuclear threat, missile threat, to the United States and we ought to take up this issue and we ought to deal with the Defense authorization bill and, instead, we are on hate crimes legislation. The majority party has 60 votes to be able to move to that on another piece of legislation and should if they want to bring that up. But why here? And why are we eating up a couple days to do this on this bill, when we have these sorts of threats staring us right in the face?

I am going to put forward an amendment on the Defense authorization bill asking that we relist North Korea as a terrorist country. I think we ought to look at going at their financial instruments. I think we clearly need to be planning for the failure of this state, and we ought to be looking, as a humanitarian issue, at the failure of this state. I think we ought to be looking, as a security issue, at the failure of this state.

If North Korea falls, are we rushing in to try to secure the nuclear sites? Is South Korea? Is China? Is everybody in some sort of agreement as to what takes place to secure these nuclear sites?

What are we doing on humanitarian issues for 20 million people, many of whom will be starving during that period of time--where a number of them are starving now in North Korea?

This is a very present and pressing issue and instead we are on hate crimes legislation.

As a nation, we will not tolerate violent crime, and I am appalled by news stories of individuals being assaulted or even killed because of their ethnicity, their beliefs, who they are. I am appalled by violence done to those who choose any sort of lifestyle they may choose. I believe we must send a strong message through our law enforcement and judicial system that such attacks would bring the full force of law upon those who commit such terrible acts.

I do appreciate the good will and sincerity of those who wish to expand hate crimes legislation. However, I do not believe such legislation in this body from the Federal Government is the answer. I do not think that is something we should be doing on a Department of Defense authorization bill when we are facing such key strategic threats internationally and we have forces in the field in Iraq and in Afghanistan today. This is not the place. This is not the time.

First, I believe that the severity of a crime should be based upon actions committed. If a violent crime is committed, then the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Every violent crime ought to be treated as severe, regardless of why it was committed. Every life has value, and every murder is an egregious crime.

Our law enforcement and judicial system should be focused on holding individuals accountable for what they do, not what they think, feel or believe. During the passage of the Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1785, James Madison expressed, ``extinguished for ever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind.'' He clearly opposed any law that punished the thoughts or motives of people. Laws already exist to punish crimes themselves.

The Matthew Shepard, hate crimes bill authorizes the prosecution of a crime motivated by actually or perceived race, color, religion national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim. This is another example in which a thought or belief becomes an element of prosecuting crime.

Second, I oppose this bill because I believe it would usurp the power and jurisdiction of the States. It violates constitutional federalism by asserting Federal law enforcement power to police local conduct over which the Constitution has reserved sole authority to the 50 States. No matter how upset Americans and politicians might be about certain criminal behavior, every criminal offense and every authorization of criminal enforcement power should be restricted by the explicit principles of the Constitution as well as our long-established criminal law precedents.

Currently, 45 States, as well as the District of Columbia, have hate crime laws. Many of these State laws carry heavier penalties than those proposed in this hate crimes bill. During the Judiciary Committee's hearing on hate crimes, Secretary Holder was asked to prove that there is evidence that hate crimes cases are not receiving proper prosecution and sentencing at the State level. He was unable to produce any.

Even members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the commission of the U.S. Federal Government charged with the responsibility for investigating, reporting on, and making recommendations concerning civil rights issues that face the Nation, oppose this bill. Their concern is that this law will allow Federal officials to reprosecute defendants who have already been acquitted by State juries.

Third, all crime victims deserve equal protection under the law. This is granted to them under the 14th amendment. Hate crime laws create a multilevel system of justice in which some crime victims' cases are prosecuted more severely than others.

Recently during the hate crimes debate in the House of Representatives, amendments to add military personnel, pregnant women, the elderly, and the homeless to the list of protected classes were all defeated. It is wrong to attempt to set up the law to favor one class of Americans over another.

Fourth, during the Judiciary hearing on hate crimes, Michael Lieberman of the Anti-Defamation League, when referring to hate crimes, said that ``these are selective prosecutions.'' We have also heard a lot of talk about wanting the Federal Government to send a message about the severity of hate crimes. I cannot endorse the idea that criminal law should be selective or be used to send a message. Its purpose is to prosecute criminal action, not to make selective statements.

Finally, I oppose this bill because I am concerned that it could be used to prosecute against religious leaders and organizations for speaking out against acts they find morally unacceptable. Hate crime laws have already been used in foreign countries to silence people of faith who speak their opinion on homosexuality that is derived from their faith.

The other side continues to insist that this bill does not prosecute speech, only criminal actions. Yet there is great concern within religious communities that the Federal Government could prosecute their leaders and members criminally based on their speech or other protected activity. This is a chilling threat to the first amendment right to free speech for people of faith and freedom of religion. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I wish to point out and say to my colleagues, particularly the chairman who is on the floor, my hope is, once we get past hate crimes, we will remain on the Department of Defense authorization and take up the issue of North Korea. I know some may say: Well, that is not germane to the Department of Defense bill. I think it is a lot closer than what we are on right now. I would hope we would bring up this issue because of the clear and present problems we are facing on this issue.

I know the chairman of this committee knows this issue very well. I have worked with him on this issue previously. So we have now a bipartisan bill to relist them as a terrorist country that we are bringing forward. I met with our nominee to be Ambassador to China today, saying we should begin planning with the Chinese Government today for the failure of the North Korea state taking place in this successionist order.

The North Koreans are acting peculiarly, even by North Korean standards, with all the missiles they have launched, the nuclear weapons they have put in play, the things they have stated lately. They are normally provocative, but this is an all-out scale of provocation that is taking place now.

It would be my hope we could bring this up and at least start to address what clearly is opening to be a major problem. Whether the Obama administration wants to address it now or the Senate wants to address it now, we may not have a choice. If he is facing pancreatic cancer and there is a successionist battle taking place in a nuclear- armed missile country of North Korea and us having 25,000, 27,000 troops just south in South Korea, we may not have a choice. We need to get this addressed. So I would hope the chairman of the committee could take this up at that proper time.

I appreciate this chance and to be able to put this statement into the Record. I think it is prudent for us to start to address some things that are right on and in front of us rather than this hate crimes legislation that does not apply to the Department of Defense bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, there is soon to be an announced agreement. In that there will be an amendment I am putting forward to protect free speech. I hope all my colleagues would join me in supporting the amendment I am putting forward on the hate crimes bill. I think it is very important that we protect free speech. It has been one of the things my colleagues who support the hate crimes legislation are saying: Look, we are protective of free speech. We are protective of religious expression.

If that is the case, I hope they will vote for the amendment I am putting forward.

I think it is important we be very clear on the protection of free speech and religious protection as protected in the first amendment in this bill as a way for it to be clear these things are to be protected. I want to read the amendment I am putting forward. It is a paragraph long, and I think by reading it, it will help explain some of this to my colleagues:

Nothing in this section or an amendment made by this

section shall be construed or applied in a manner that

infringes any rights under the First Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution, or substantially burdens any exercise of

religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to,

a system of religious belief), speech, expression,

association, if such exercise of religion, speech,

expression, or association was not intended to--(1) plan or

prepare for an act of physical violence; or (2) incite an

imminent act of physical violence against another.

There is some lawyerese in that, but what it says is you have free speech unless it is intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.

In other words, if you are saying this to try to incite people to physical violence or an imminent act of physical violence, that is not protected. But everything else is free speech and may be seen by some as religious expression.

What we are trying to do is narrow this, tying it into the actual act that takes place and not be an act that intimidates people's expression of their ideas or expression of their religious convictions that they may hold.

I hope my colleagues will look at this and say, yes, that is what we mean to do, and not to sort of have a chilling effect on all free speech, all free expression, on all free expression within a religious organization or group that may have some differing views.

Frankly, I don't think, if we have a bill that intimidates or chills first amendment free speech or religious expression, that it is going to stand constitutional challenge. That is why I am putting forward this amendment.

The current language of this bill attempts to project the free exercise of religion solely to a first amendment constitutional framework. I think this is problematic because the Supreme Court has severely limited those first amendment rights, particularly regarding free religious expression as a result of a decision in an Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. It was a Ninth Circuit Court opinion.

The Congress, after that opinion was issued, was quick to recognize the damage done to religious freedom in Smith and in response passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This act serves as a framework created by Congress to protect religious free speech in other contexts. That is what this amendment is taking from, this bill that has already passed this Congress by a wide margin, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

My amendment adopts language from that bill in contrast to the free exercise jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Courts have noted that the congressionally created Religious Freedom Restoration Act model possesses clarity and ease of construction. In fact, numerous claims that were unsuccessful under the first exercise clause jurisprudence of the Supreme Court have either prevailed or were entitled to remand for more favorable review under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. My amendment seeks to protect religious motivated speech but it protects speech.

What it says is, if you are in a narrow category of where you are intending this speech to cause somebody bodily harm, then you are not protected, and you should not be protected. But, if otherwise, you are exercising your right of free speech or religious association, you are entitled to the protection under the Constitution.

It would be my hope that my colleagues would look at this amendment and they would say that what we are putting forward is an amendment which has passed this body previously, passed this body in a strong bipartisan vote, is one that we want to stick with--that definition and not this broader one that can be interpreted as limiting first amendment freedom of expression or religious association.

That is a simple amendment I have put forward. I ask my colleagues to look at the amendment itself. It is one paragraph long. I ask they support this amendment.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1610 and ask that it be brought before the body.

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

Mr. President, this is part of the agreement we had for votes on side-by-sides.

What this amendment does is put forward and into this bill language that this body has already passed by a vote of 97 to 3. It is language that was in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It is to protect individuals' religious freedom, their freedom of expression. It has passed this body overwhelmingly. It narrows the definition and it says that if you intend to incite somebody to do physical harm to another individual, that is not protected speech. If you plan to prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another, it is not protected, that is not protected speech; otherwise, you have free speech and the right to free speech expression and religious freedom expression.

It is important that we have a very clear definition--a narrow definition but a very clear definition--of what is protected and what is not protected speech in this very critical area of first amendment rights and limitations we are putting in here.

It is a very short amendment, a very important amendment on the hate crimes legislation. I ask my colleagues for their support again, as many of my colleagues have already voted for it in an overwhelming number.

I thank my colleagues for their review of this amendment. I hope they can vote for it.

I yield the floor.

I certainly don't have an objection to an amendment being brought up. I would note that this is a very important area we are treading on, limitation of people's free speech and religious association they have. What I am offering is language that has passed this body by a large margin before, 97 to 3. I hope to see the language the Senator from Vermont is putting forward. If it is the language that is currently in the bill, this is quite untested language in a very limited area. I read his language to be quite expansive. I think it would be questionable, going into constitutional territory. But the bigger point on this being that I believe my colleagues who want to pass the hate speech legislation have been saying all along this does not limit somebody's right of free

speech. It doesn't limit anybody's right of religious expression, if they have different views. It is just about a violent act and association that would reflect hate. So what I have done in two sentences is say let's be specific about that rather than very general about that in its interpretation or leaving that to the court.

If I have the language correct that he is putting forward in reinstating this, I really hope my colleagues would look at both of these and say they do want a very narrow, specific definition put forward.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I thank my colleagues, and I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his comment on this issue.

I guess the conferees will have to deal with a difficult issue outside the jurisdiction of the committee, particularly on something like hate crimes, which I really have great question as to why on Earth we would do this on a DOD authorization bill.

But I would like to point out that my colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has been in that committee for a long period of time, and he knows these issues very well. What his amendment puts forward is something that will be interpreted then by the courts. It will have to be interpreted by the courts, and it has broader language.

What I am putting forward is very specific language that puts a clear intent of the Congress not to limit certain types of speech but to limit speech that is associated with physical harm or the incitement of physical harm. That seems to me to be clearly appropriate for us to do, probably a better thing to do on the hate crimes legislation--for us to be very specific and narrow in this area where we are treading into first amendment religious expression areas.

I would like to read my language, if I could, to my colleague. It says--and this is the operative part of this--``if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to''--so it protects every area except what is ``not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.''

So we are trying to get into the category and the area, and a lot of people are very concerned about this, about being able to have their rights for religious expression and freedom. I think this is a much tighter focus. I believe my colleague would agree, as a lawyer----

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Brownback amendment.

The language we put in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed this body 97 to 3. This language is much more targeted, so it doesn't leave it all to the interpretation of the court. It expresses what this body has previously expressed. I think it is important that we put this forward. It says that if you are speaking and intending to incite physical violence or imminent threat, that is not protected speech. But otherwise you have protected speech. It puts a much finer definition on it that is important for this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I commend the extraordinary career of Norm Coleman. Norm began his public service as a prosecutor for the Minnesota State Attorney General's Office, working his way up to chief prosecutor before eventually serving as solicitor general of Minnesota. In 1993, he became mayor of St. Paul. During his tenure as mayor, Norm worked faithfully to revitalize the city, even securing a National Hockey League franchise for St. Paul. In 2002, at the urging of President Bush, Norm ran for U.S. Senate. He was the challenger in a close, hard-fought race, and his ultimate victory was an exciting one.

I am proud to have served alongside Norm in the Senate. He was an excellent comrade in the fight against partial birth abortion and worked hard to prevent waste and fraud at the United Nations. Known for his willingness to work with both parties, Norm fought for tax cuts, renewable energy, and prescription drug benefits for seniors. He worked for the passage of legislation improving rural health care, increasing funding for Pell Grants and securing our ports.

He leaves an impressive record as testament to his service in the Senate, but his presence here will be missed. Though the outcome of last fall's election ended differently than I had hoped, I know great things are in store for Norm. He has much more to offer our great country. I wish Norm, his wife Laurie, and their two children, Jacob and Sarah, all the best as they embrace the new and exciting opportunities before them.