Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from Utah for his kind remarks, and note that I agree with his assessment. I look forward to working with him and the Judiciary Committee on the important work of ensuring effective implementation of the National Capital Revitalization Act.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks on the tax cut package being considered before us today. Not since 1981 have we been able to offer the American people as comprehensive a tax relief package as we are offering in this tax bill. Through this historic tax bill we will offer American families much needed tax relief in the form of $500 per child tax credit, capital gains tax rate cuts, as well as an increase in the unified credit exemption for death taxes. Families will also be able to save through tax relief for education expenses. But this is just the beginning. Cutting taxes and shrinking government spending are two things that will help to remove the obstacles that impede the progress of our economy. We must continue to cut taxes even more. Current estimates by the Congressional Budget Office place our deficit this year around $45 billion. With a robust economy and continually declining deficits we could easily reach a balanced budget next year--we might even go into surplus for the first time in well over a generation--something that would truly make this budget deal historic. In the spending portion of the budget deal the Administration has stated that the amounts agreed to are enough for the operation of the federal government. Although I believe that we need to reduce the size of the federal government even further. We have a deal that limits government, we cannot and should not let government grow beyond what we have agreed to here today when revenues exceed the costs of the operation of the federal government. The question is now upon us as to what we should do next--what we should do after having achieved the goals so boldly outlined just three short years ago. The debate is no longer about whether we should balance the budget or not--it's not about whether we should cut taxes or not--we have done those things. The debate before us is now in terms of a more limited government with lower taxes. The next question is now that we have agreed on the acceptable size of government what should we do next. The short answer is we must continue to cut taxes. Surpluses that are generalized either next year or five years from now must be used for further tax reduction. We must make it clear that our priority is to provide Americans with as much tax relief as possible--and using surpluses to provide additional tax relief makes that priority clear. Cutting taxes will continue to fuel the economy and will further unleash the potential of our economy to perform at full speed. For too long the Congress has worked to hinder the functioning of our economy by imposing a multilayered tax system that punishes success more than it rewards it. We must continue to cut taxes and to make that our priority as we move into the next century. Currently, whenever revenues come into the Treasury higher than estimated the revenues automatically go to deficit reduction and will eventually contribute to paying down the Federal debt once we are running a surplus. I believe that it is critical that we continue to eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt--but we must do that in the context of lower taxes for the American people. We can do both--we can provide the American taxpayers with much needed tax relief and pay down the debt by allocating excess revenues to both tax reduction and debt reduction. But we must be vigilant in ensuring that excess revenues do not go to more Government spending; they must go to tax cuts and debt reduction alone. We must continue to limit the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the Federal Government. We must further limit Government and force its shrinkage through a continuing effort to cut taxes. And when we cut the size of Government further we must return the money to the taxpayers who have been forced to subsidize its woefully inefficient operations for much of this century. The taxpayers deserve a break. Now, however, we must reject any notions of relaxing at having completed this historic budget deal. Rather, we must pick up again, and begin again, fighting for more tax relief, more tax cuts, and a smaller, less intrusive Federal Government. The American people have said they want these things--now we must bind ourselves to provide those things--it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. Thank you Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Richard Lesher the retiring president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Dr. Lesher, who was chosen as president of the Chamber in 1975 as served the Chamber with both pride and dignity for over 21 years. His service to the business community will be remembered. During his tenure, Dr. Lesher helped the Chamber's membership to grow to include 215,000 business members, 3,000 local chambers of commerce and 1,200 trade and professional organizations. His work on behalf of the business community in promoting common sense reforms and tax cuts has benefitted the entire country. Dr. Lesher has served the business community with true integrity. I would like to take this opportunity to wish Dr. Lesher great success in his future endeavors. I know that he will continue to contribute his time and talent to his fellow man even in his retirement.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. BROWNBACK. First of all, I would like to thank the Senator from Alabama for his hard work on this bill and to commend him for his diligence in furthering this important legislation. I would like to talk about a provision that is a part of the House counterpart to this bill and which addresses issues related to the impact in Wichita, KS, of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific merger. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the report language included in the House bill be inserted for the Record. Mr. President, the impact of this merger is of great importance to the community of Wichita, KS. Since the railroad runs through the center of the city, the increased train traffic resulting from the merger may affect significantly the flow of traffic through the city. Various alternatives to mitigate this impact are currently being considered, including the building of grade separations through the city or the building of a bypass around the city. The Surface Transportation Board is currently evaluating the feasibility of each of the alternatives, and is expected to release its recommendations for easing the impact of the additional trains in early September. The language that I am requesting to be included in the Record would simply state that the STB should revisit its recommendations if any substantial changes are made in the assumptions used to complete this study. This would include assumptions in the number of trains that are expected to pass through the city or the speed at which the trains travel. I would also like to point out that not only will this provisions not have any current budgetary impact, it will help to ensure that the Federal Government will not finance costly bailout in the future because of faulty planning. I would like to get assurances from the Senator from Alabama that he will pay close attention to the concerns of the community of Wichita during the Conference Committee consideration of this issue.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask that the previous amendment that has been proposed be set aside and I have an amendment that I will send to the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the Advanced Technology Program which was established to spur high-risk precompetitive research and development. It was intended to make U.S. businesses more competitive in the global marketplace by assisting them in developing technologies which they wouldn't fund on their own. It was not established to fund research and development which would have been funded in the marketplace anyway. No one believes that the Federal Government should be in the business of taxing American families to subsidize product development, research spending for rich corporations. I think this would be in anybody's definition what former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich qualified and stated was ``corporate welfare.'' I have grave concern that the Advanced Technology Program has become just that, a corporate welfare program. While recognizing the importance of a strong Federal role in research and development, I am very concerned that the ATP program is providing too much money to companies that have clearly adequate resources of their own to fund any research that is worth their doing. My amendment is a simple one, and it should have broad bipartisan support. My amendment says that no company with revenues in excess of $2.5 billion--revenues in excess of $2.5 billion--can receive Federal funding through the Advanced Technology Program. We are talking about revenues. This is gross revenues of a company of $2.5 billion--so this is a pretty large company we are talking about--above which you can't receive funding from the Advanced Technology Program. I think if you are having revenues of $2.5 billion or more a year, you can afford to fund your own research and development program, and you don't need the Advanced Technology Program. We use the $2.5 billion revenue threshold because it would exclude the 500 largest companies in America, the so-called Fortune 500, from receiving welfare dollars. I think if you are a Fortune 500 company, you can do without corporate welfare dollars. In the word of one Silicon Valley executive--and there have been a number out there to support this provision; we have a letter signed by over 100 CEO's from startup companies in Silicon Valley which say terminate the entire ATP program, get rid of the whole thing. We are saying let's hold it to the largest corporations. One executive said this: If you were General Motors with annual sales of $160 billion and $20 billion in the bank, why don't you fund this great idea yourself and patent it yourself? I think the answer to this question is pretty simple, and that is, if there is a Federal subsidy program which will fund corporate R&D for free, even if the company has enough corporate R&D resources, and if that company's competitors are taking the money from the Federal Government, why not take the money from the Federal Government yourself? Therefore, we need to close that loophole so their competitors can't get it and they be forced to take it as well. What may be most troublesome is that for every grant given to a huge company with a multibillion-dollar budget and CEO making tens of millions of dollars, there is a small company who may have a good idea but can't raise the capital and will do without Federal assistance. The small companies will do without, while the big corporations get it. What we are saying is let's keep it from going to the megacorporation and have more available to the small corporation, which is what we are trying to target in the first place. We are not talking about a program that gives money exclusively to small business, entrepreneurs or inventors working in their garages. Some ATP money goes to small companies and universities. This amendment would make it more available to them. But the top five companies that participate in the greatest dollar volume of grants from the ATP program are some pretty familiar names: IBM, General Motors, General Electric, Ford, Sun Microsystems. I think they can afford to fund these programs on their own. They don't need corporate welfare, and we should be making more of this available to small companies. Maybe they get it because they have a great idea or maybe they get it because they have a lobbyist in Washington that watches for these things. That may be part of it as well. Whereas, a small startup company is just busy in their garage, or wherever, trying to hustle enough to make this thing go. We want to make it more available to the small companies, the entrepreneurs and keep it out of the hands of the Fortune 500, all of which have large lobbying staffs to get hold of that here. According to the Department of Commerce, more than 40 percent of single-applicant grants currently go to large companies--40 percent. Other ATP recipients are AT&T, Black & Decker, 3M, DuPont, MCI, Xerox, Caterpillar, Kodak, United States Steel, Honeywell, Allied Signal, and the list goes on. These industrial giants have the time and the money to fill out ATP applications, but also have the money to fund these projects on their own. I also take this opportunity to commend Secretary Daley for initiating a review of the ATP program. As he and I have discussed, I believe this review is long, long overdue, and I appreciate that it was instigated very early on in his tenure. The Secretary recognized in his recent report on the program that the question of whether huge corporations should participate in ATP grants to the exclusion of some smaller ventures is a legitimate concern and one that he is concerned about as well. As a result of the Secretary's review, he has proposed changes in the match for single-applicant-large companies to a 60-40 match from the current 50-50 and encourage joint ventures over single applicants. That is a laudable start, but, my goodness, that is just not far enough when we are talking about a company that has $2.5 billion in revenues, huge companies. They can afford to do this on their own. It just doesn't go far enough. At most, this would reduce the amount a large company will receive in grants by $65,000 a year, and that is not much of an incentive for companies like IBM with revenues of $76 billion annually. To its credit, this year the Department of Commerce requested input from the public on the ATP. Among the public responses were, listen to this one: ATP awards large companies even though a smaller company, as a single applicant, may have a better technical and business proposal. In some cases, the large company tries to get the award in a new research file just to shelf the idea and prevent someone from doing the research because it will compete with its existing markets. Another one: ATP should not be a time-consuming, expensive proposal preparation contest which it is now. Another one: ATP does not provide much assistance for individuals or shoestring startups which need assistance most. While I am not offering an amendment to kill this program today, I do have grave concerns about it primarily because I believe there is ample private capital for good ideas. Last year alone, the venture capital industry pumped more than $10 billion into new ventures. Last year, companies raised more than $50 billion from initial public stock offerings. The top four winners of ATP grants invested more than $20 billion of their own corporate resources on research and development. We are talking about a total program, the total ATP program of right around or under $300 million. I don't think I have the support this year to eliminate this program on an appropriations bill. Many of my colleagues believe that would be more appropriate for the authorizing process, which I think would be as well and a good place to do it as well. So let me reiterate, today I am not offering a killer amendment. This isn't even an amendment to reduce the funding of this program. It does nothing to the funding of ATP. I am offering an amendment which will make a small change in the program to better enable it to meet its mission of providing funds for high-technology research without replacing private dollars. I want to note something else, Mr. President, if I can, about people applying for ATP grants and companies that are applying for ATP grants. This is according to a GAO report when they were looking at whether people try to find these first outside the Government. This is the GAO: When we asked if they had searched for funding from other sources before applying to ATP, we found that 63 percent of the applicants said they had not-- Sixty-three percent-- [and] 65 percent of the winners had not looked for funding before applying to ATP. In other words, they are going first right to the Federal Government, to the ATP program. These are huge corporations with over $2.5 billion in revenues, the only ones we are targeting, and they are saying, ``Let us take it there first.'' This is a simple amendment and will help the small entrepreneur. It will bring some sanity back to the process. It will start to address the issue of corporate welfare, and this is a perfect case. So, Mr. President, I think this is an appropriate amendment. At the appropriate time, I will urge its adoption and ask for the yeas and nays. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to rise in response to some of the statements made by the Senator from South Carolina. I deeply appreciate his heart, of where it is about what we need to do to make America a stronger economy, to keep jobs, growth, high technology, and jobs growing and prospering in the United States. I think his heart is clearly in the right place and he wants to do the right thing. I just think in a nation this big, with an economy this size, with the dynamism that we have in this country, you can't control it out of Washington. That is why the President pronounced, over a year ago, that the era of big Government is over. It seems to me that was an admission that things have changed to the point that you just can't direct all things, and all wisdom doesn't come out of Washington. This program is one of those that we are talking about in that particular area. You are basically talking about a program here where you are going to pick winners and losers out of Washington. We have an application process that takes place here. You apply for this and give us your good idea, and we in Washington are going to think about it and see if we think you deserve to get this money or not. If your technology is one we are interested in and if we think this technology is good for our future, then we will decide to give it to you. We will decide those sort of issues from Washington. I am not even talking about the overall program here. As I mentioned, and as Senator Gregg has mentioned as well, this is actually a strengthening amendment. We are just saying, if you are a Fortune 500 company and have revenues of over $2.5 billion a year, we are not going to make this program available to you. You are going to have to be, at least, a startup company, because the larger companies do have lobbyists here in Washington, as the Senator from South Carolina knows. They are always coming around looking for things for their companies, as they should be. Many of their companies take it because their competitor takes this. Let's remove that as an opportunity and remove this area of corporate welfare, which truly is corporate welfare. Now I would like to clear up a couple of other points on this, if we could. One is that I am afraid, too, that some of these programs qualify in the area--we put out a big press release saying this program is going to solve all the problems of technology drifting abroad, and we are going to solve all of the problems of not having good, high- wage, high-skill jobs in the United States because we have the Advanced Technology Program. This will solve all of those problems. This will do it. I think we suffer here from a concept of having a big press release and a very small program to answer that. Listen once again to the figures. We are talking about a program of $200 million. That is a large sum of money, but if you look at what venture capital put into new startups last year alone, which was $10 billion, this is 2 percent of what was put into this from just venture capital. And I add initial public offerings on to that, where people go to the marketplace to raise capital for a good idea, and that was $50 billion. We are talking about less than 2 percent in this particular program. If we really want to help business in America--which I think the Senator from South Carolina clearly wants to do; he wants business to stay here in America, to grow in America, and he wants business to prosper--well, then let's do some things that would actually help business: cut taxation, regulation and litigation and manipulation out of Washington. Let's cut capital gains tax rates. I was just in the Silicon Valley, one of the key areas in this country where startup companies are flourishing with new ideas and products that are going global rapidly. I was there and talking about the Advanced Technology Program. I have a letter, as I mentioned, signed by over 100 CEO's of startup companies saying, ``Do away with this corporate welfare.'' That is what they called it. These are the people who, arguably, this program started for. They said: We don't want you directing it because you move too slow; Washington moves too slow in trying to figure out what is taking place in the global marketplace. It can't react fast enough; it can't figure these out. You are going back and basically taking taxpayer dollars from the startup companies to fund more stodgy, slower moving items, many of which end up going to the private market. If you want to help us, cut the capital gains rates; do something about the litigation; as we try to raise capital in this marketplace, do something about the regulatory regime where we have 50 different entities regulating us. Much of that is needed, but can you make it more simplified? What about all the manipulation where you are trying to direct, by the Tax Code, everything we do every day. Then they gave a great example which I thought was wonderful. There is a little startup company in the Silicon Valley that raised over $300 million in capital. That is more than the Advanced Technology Program. We are talking about $200 million in this program. They raised that much. I was speaking to a group of people about 5 miles away from this startup company that raised $300 million. I was talking to a crowd of about 100 people there. I asked them, ``Have any of you heard of this company?'' I gave the name of the company. This was a group of 100 people, 5 miles a way. This company has actually raised more money than is in the ATP Program. One person there out of the 100 had heard of it. That is a substantial amount of money, but it is not large compared to the amount of capital being raised and is needed. If we really want to do something, let's help the overall atmosphere and not try to direct it. As I want to point out yet again, look at what we are talking about with this amendment. We are saying that if you are a Fortune 500 company, if you have over $2.5 billion in revenues, we think you can find enough capital on your own to fund ideas you think are good. Let's target it for the startup companies. That is what we are supposed to be after with this. These large companies, when they have an idea they want to pursue, have the ability to be able to pursue it. That is how you deal with this issue. If we want to really help corporate America, we have a great chance coming up to cut capital gains and deal with litigation reform, and we can actually do something real. So those are my responses. I know the Senator from South Carolina has his heart in the right place and his concepts are clear in his mind. If we really want to help them--and I have been there and talked with them--target this and cut it away from the Fortune 500 companies. Mr. President, I do ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment, and I believe there is some discussion about holding this vote until 2:45.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Senator from Missouri for recognizing the importance of these studies and my recommendation. Given the significance of this research and overall limitations on funding, I think it is important that we are assured that the research will include those studies that will help us determine whether a cause- effect relationship exists between exposure to particulate matter and adverse health impacts. These include: First, controlled inhalation studies that will allow us to determine the effects of exposure to particulate matter at different concentration levels and the mechanism by which particulate matter could affect health; second, prospective epidemiology studies based on individual exposure measurements that will allow us to better examine the role of possible alternative causes of the measured increase in risk; and third, the relationship of outdoor, indoor, and personal exposures to particulate matter. Without these types of studies, we may not be any further along in resolving the scientific uncertainties associated with this rulemaking. I further believe that the results of this research should be made available for independent scientific review.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 that we are considering today allocates $35 million in the administration's budget request for research on the public health effects of airborne particulate matter. I have an amendment that simply states that these studies employ some basic sound scientific methods. This is an extremely important provision, but I would withdraw my amendment, if we could engage in a colloquy to assure that the issue will be addressed in conference. This language will be an important part of assuring that we protect public health. Last week, the EPA finalized its rule on particulate matter. Many have questioned the science behind this rule and a great deal of uncertainty exists over the effect of particulate matter on public health. As we reach this juncture, we must remember the reason for this standard: to enhance public health. The only way we can be sure that the standard will, in fact, provide the desired benefits is through sound science. Lacking sound science, we may end up with standards that don't provide any benefit, but cost the public dearly. While we often hear about costs on industry, we must remember that those costs are passed down to individuals in the form of higher prices and higher State and local taxes. When individuals truly gain significant benefits from a standard, they are indeed better off. However, if we raise their costs for nothing or little in return, we simply make them poorer and less able to pay for basic necessities, such as health care. Last week you may recall, one District of Columbia woman died in her apartment because of the heat and the fact that she could not afford air conditioning. Such stories remind us that poverty represents one of the greatest risk to public health. Hence, we should make sure that new regulations do not simply make people poorer. If we don't pursue sound science, we may impose regulations that actually decrease public health. By demanding that particulate matter research relies on the best available scientific methods, we can gain better knowledge over the impacts of the regulations and reform them to assure that we are actually enhancing overall public health.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I also believe it is important that the research program include funding for the reanalysis of the American Cancer Society study on particulate matter that was used as the basis for EPA's risk estimate. My understanding is that the Health Effects Institute, an independent research organization that is already reviewing some of the epidemiology data, is willing to undertake this reanalysis and has received permission from the American Cancer Society, but currently lacks adequate funding to do a complete reanalysis.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to say that the amendment that was just agreed to was to eliminate the cost-of-living adjustment for the Members of Congress. I think it is important that at this time when we are seeking to balance the budget, we not be seen as giving ourselves a pay raise, to be able to establish this as an important issue. I do not say that Members are overpaid, because I do not believe they are. But I do think we are moving forward to balance this budget, and we need to show leadership by not receiving this COLA. And that is why I put this amendment forward. I am very appreciative that the author of the first- degree amendment, the manager of the bill, has agreed to it and that it has been accepted. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 2 minutes on the amendment, my amendment that was just agreed to.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have put forth this amendment in working with the manager of the bill, the author of the first-degree amendment. I believe he has agreed to it being a second-degree amendment. And I ask for its adoption.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to bring attention to legislation that I believe could have a substantial positive impact on United States commerce. For several months now, my colleagues on the Commerce Committee have been working to forge an agreement that will deregulate ocean shipping and allow our exporters to compete on a more level playing field with our foreign competitors. S. 414, The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1997, would bring much-needed reform to the shipping industry by injecting a higher degree of competition into the current conference-dominated system of ocean shipping. It would also end federal government tariff filing with the Federal Maritime Commission and I believe that this is a significant step toward reducing red tape in this industry. First of all, I want to commend those Senators who have played an active role in writing and furthering this important legislation. Senators Hutchison, Gorton, Lott, and Breaux have worked diligently to achieve a consensus among the diverse interests in the shipping industry, and I know that is no small task. I also want to commend Senator McCain and his staff, who have endeavored to find common ground with all affected parties by working openly and holding numerous meetings. The result of this work is an important piece of legislation on which I hope the Senate will be able to focus its attention in the near future. I care about this legislation because it could have a tremendous impact on the agriculture industry which is, of course, vitally important to Kansas. Exporting is critical to the agriculture industry--overall, forty percent of what we grow in the U.S. is consumed overseas. Moreover, exports will play an increasingly important role in agriculture because any growth in the industry will primarily come from exports. As the incomes of people in many developing countries increase, they are able to afford a higher quality, more diversified diet--and the U.S. stands ready to provide it. And, the fastest growing category of agricultural commodities for export are high-value products, such as meat and vegetables, which are transported in ocean containers--the type of ocean transportation that is affected by this legislation. Transportation costs are a particularly important factor in achieving agricultural exports because transportation typically comprises a larger proportion of the final cost of the good than for other industries. In fact, transportation is often the single largest component of the delivered cost of the good, accounting for as much as 50 percent of total landed cost. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that the agriculture industry alone spends more than four billion dollars each year in containerized shipping, and that this price includes a premium attributable to conference market power which is 18 percent of the cost of transportation. In a business where sales are made or lost based on pennies per pound, this is the difference between the U.S. or our competitors making the sale. And, given that every $1 in agricultural exports generates an additional $1.50 in economic activity, the importance of S. 414 for not only the agriculture industry, but the U.S. economy as a whole, is clear. This bill has the support of many farm organizations; in fact, I have letters that I would like to submit for the record from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Grain and Feed Association, Farmland Industries, ConAgra, the National Broiler Council, and the American Frozen Food Institute. Additionally, many agricultural chemicals are exported via containerized ocean vessels would benefit from reduced regulatory restraints. However, while these organizations are united in their support for legislation to reform ocean shipping, they also share the concern I have regarding certain provisions of the bill in its current form. In its current form, this bill requires the reporting of essential contract terms with the Intermodel Transportation Board. I must register my belief that without contract confidentiality the basic premise of this legislation, to allow greater competition in the shipping industry, is severely undermined. What is gained by the ability to negotiate individual contracts if one's competitors have access to the essential terms of the contract? When I voted for this bill as it was passed out of the Commerce Committee on May 1 it was clear that outstanding concerns regarding confidential contracting would be addressed before the bill was to be considered on the Senate floor. It was with that understanding that I supported the bill. While I appreciate the sincere efforts that have been made to accommodate the interests of exporters since that time, my reservations remain because no agreement has been reached. I understand that the distinguished majority leader has promised to bring this bill to the floor in its current form during this Congress and that Senator Gorton has expressed his intention to address the contract reporting provisions through amendment. While I am disappointed that more reform will not be embraced in the bill that is brought to the floor, I respect our leader's view and look forward to the debate that will ensue. I want to support this legislation. I support its underlying goal to reduce burdensome regulation. I believe that reducing regulatory hurdles that hinder the efficiency of U.S. businesses is the right thing to do, and it is one of the primary reasons that I came to Washington. However, to the extent that the reforms in this bill are diminished, my support is eroded. Nevertheless, I continue to believe in the importance of this legislation. I hope that the Senate will take action soon so that the agriculture industry, as well as all other industries which utilize containerized ocean shipping, will be able to increase their competitive advantage in the global marketplace.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information of all Members, today the Senate will resume consideration of S. 955, the foreign operations appropriations bill. Under the previous order, following the debate time on the remaining two amendments to S. 955, the Senate will begin voting on those amendments as well as final passage. Therefore, Senators can expect three consecutive rollcall votes beginning at approximately 10 a.m. this morning. It is the intention of the majority leader for the Senate to begin consideration of the Treasury, postal appropriations bill following the disposition of the foreign operations appropriations bill. Members can anticipate additional rollcall votes today on the Treasury, postal appropriations bill. The majority leader has also stated that the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Joel Klein to be an Assistant Attorney General. Senators can expect a rollcall vote on that nomination following the conclusion of the remaining 3 hours for debate. I thank all Senators for their attention, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

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