Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I propose that we have an order of speakers and----

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will propose a unanimous consent request for the order of speakers. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin have 10 minutes, and that on our side Senator Enzi have up to 15 minutes. Then if somebody comes on that side to speak, I propose that there be a Democratic speaker. But if they are not here, I ask that Senator Smith have up to 10 minutes, and then a Democrat speaker, and then Senator Brownback have 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as my friend from Pennsylvania, and perhaps every one in the free world, knows the issue he brings up with regard to how to teach scientific theory and philosophy was recently an issue in my home State of Kansas. For this reason, many of my constituents are particularly sensitive to this issue. I would like to take the opportunity of this amendment to clear the record about the controversy in Kansas. In August of 1999 the Kansas State School Board fired a shot heard 'round the world. Press reports began to surface that evolution would not longer be taught. The specter of a theocratic school board entering the class to ensure that no student would be taught the prevailing wisdom of biology was envisioned. Political cartoons and editorials were drafted by the hundreds. To hear the furor, one might think that the teachers would be charged with sorting through their student's texts with an Exacto knife carving out pictures of Darwin. However, the prevailing impression, as is often the case was not quite accurate. Here are the facts about what happened in Kansas. The school board did not ban the teaching of evolution. They did not forbid the mention of Darwin in the classroom. They didn't even remove all mention of evolution from the State assessment test. Rather, the school board voted against including questions on macro-evolution--the theory that new species can evolve from existing species over time--from the State assessment. The assessment did include questions on micro- evolution--the observed change over time within an existing species. Why did they do this? Why go so far as to decipher between micro and macro-evolution on the State exam? How would that serve the theocratic school board's purpose that we read so much about? Well, the truth is . . . their was no theocratic end to the actions of the school board. In fact, their vote was cast based on the most basic scientific principal that science is about what we observe, not what we assume. The great and bold statement that the Kansas School Board made was that simply that we observe micro-evolution and therefore it is scientific fact; and that it is impossible to observe macro-evolution, it is scientific assumption. The response to this relatively minor and eminently scientific move by the Kansas school board was shocking. The actions and intentions of the school board were routinely misrepresented in the global press. Many in the global scientific community, who presumably knew the facts, spread misinformation as to what happened in Kansas. College admissions boards, who most certainly knew the facts, threatened Kansas students. The State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the State universities were threatened based on the actions of school board. All of these effects caused by a school board trying to decipher between scientific fact and scientific assumption. The response to the actions of the board, appeared to many as a response to the commission of heresy. For this reason, I am very pleased that my friend from Pennsylvania offered this amendment. He clarifies the opinion of the Senate that the debate of scientific fact versus scientific assumption is an important debate to embrace. I plan to support the amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes at the closing to congratulate some key individuals, starting with Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Senator Grassley has worked doggedly to get this tax bill completed. He has done an artful, masterful job. He has worked with numbers of individuals--everybody in the Congress, in the House, the Senate, the White House--in order to get this bill on through. He deserves our applause and great thanks and appreciation. Senator Max Baucus led on the Democrat side. He did a great job as well on getting this bill and moving it on through. I also want to recognize our leadership, Trent Lott and Don Nickles in particular, both of them, in their aggressive efforts to get this tax bill, this tax cut that is needed by the American economy, that is deserved by the American public, on through the system. Without their efforts, it would not have taken place. Of course, I also want to recognize and thank the House of Representatives, Chairman Thomas on the Ways and Means Committee, Speaker Hastert, and people there who pushed this bill on through so it could get done. Finally, I recognize the person who, a year ago, started talking about the need for major tax relief in this country, and that is President George W. Bush, who put this forward in the campaign. I might note that was accompanied by a fair amount of consternation on the part of a number of people, saying it is too big, too much; we cannot afford to do this; it is not the right thing, it is not the right time--all of which proved to be false. He was right. The American economy needs this. The American people deserve this. This is the right time. It is the right place. Now we are going to do that $1.35 trillion worth of tax relief for which the President has asked. If you are getting a headache coming on, most people would say take an aspirin before it really sets in hard. If you get a recession that is coming on, and a downturn in the economy, most economists would note to you: Act early and act surely and act clearly to try to prevent that. The Federal Reserve has done that by easing the monetary supply and lowering interest rates five times. Five times the Federal Reserve has done that in anticipation of a slowing economy, saying we are going to do everything we can to keep this economy from going into recession. Economists would say that is monetary policy. There is fiscal policy on the other side. In fiscal policy, you cut taxes if you anticipate a slowing of the economy. You need to do so clearly. You need to do so in ways that stimulate the economy, and you need to do it early before recession sets in. It is similar to that headache: If it starts pounding and you take two aspirin, it doesn't do much. But if you start much earlier, when it is just starting, then you can pull back out of it. The same is true with fiscal policy. We needed this tax cut for the economy. Rate reduction is the key way to do that. This is primarily about rate reduction, although it has great provisions on marriage penalty relief, educational savings relief, death taxes, and a number of different provisions in the bill--retirement security, adoption tax credits so people can be in a better position to afford the cost of adoption. This is what the doctor ordered. This is what the economists have said we need and we need to do now. This should be the package enabling us to assure that the economy, while slowing, does not go into recession. This is exactly what the doctor ordered. The individuals who led in this effort should be commended and recognized and given a real attaboy for seeing this early and putting us in the situation where now we are in the latter part of May putting this through and getting it done now, before we really could get into some trouble spots. I think this is exactly the appropriate thing for management of this great economy in the United States that has had some difficulties here lately, for us to do the right thing. The individuals I mentioned certainly deserve our praise and accolades for getting it done. This is a great day for the country. It is an important day for the economy. It is a necessary day for the economy. It is the right thing and a deserved day for the American taxpayers. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination as well of Senator Howard Baker to be Ambassador to Japan, and of Nancy Kassebaum, a good friend of mine, a former Senator from Kansas, to go along, as well. Senator Baker I have gotten to know better. I have not served in this body with him. I have known Nancy Kassebaum very well over the years, her political history in Kansas. Her family has great leadership in my State. Her dad, Alf Landon, was a Presidential nominee, and in 1936 was Governor of Kansas. Senator Kassebaum followed in his footsteps as a very able, qualified, wholesome, and dignified public servant. She did an excellent job. She will do an excellent job in Japan, as well. Senator Howard Baker I have gotten to know later in life. Sometimes he has come to Kansas State University football games. A great fan--and he picks a great team to support. When we play Tennessee, I understand they have a family dispute between Kansas and Tennessee and he stays with Tennessee, while Senator Kassebaum stays with Kansas State University. This is an important nomination for reasons already noted, but I will reiterate; that is, the significance of the stature of the Ambassador we are sending to represent us in Japan. Japan is a key ally of the United States. Japan is in a region that will draw increasing focus from the United States in the future and has in recent times even more so. So we are sending to Japan a man of stature from our Nation to represent us in a part of the world on which we will increasingly focus. We have had difficulties recently in Asia, particularly in our relationship with China. We are expanding our relationship with other nations throughout Asia. We are expanding our relationship with India and South Asia. This entire region of the world is growing in significance globally and growing in significance to the United States. It is important we send this level of leadership to this region in the form of Senator Baker, for him to be able to represent our interests and our thoughts at this time of expanded U.S. activity and engagement throughout that area. I wholeheartedly endorse his nomination as a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I am delighted the United States will have this individual involved in its foreign affairs. He will make an outstanding representative, an outstanding Ambassador. Nancy Kassebaum will be a co-Ambassador. I think she will be dearly loved by the Japanese people, the same way she was loved by the people of Kansas. While she served in the Senate, there was no politician in the country who had a higher approval rating on a statewide basis than Nancy Kassebaum. There are some who say she ranked just below the sunset and the wheat harvest in her approval ratings in our State. She had a lofty stature, and she will carry that along with her to Japan. This is a great nomination that I wholeheartedly support. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 717

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask to speak on the bill for 15 minutes, off the time of the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Baucus- Grassley tax bill. I say to my colleagues from Iowa and Montana, thank you for bringing the bill here on the floor. This is a great day. This is a great debate. I appreciate what you are doing putting this forward. I also want to say thanks for including a great number of provisions that work on the marriage penalty. We have been pushing for several years now to get rid of this ridiculous marriage penalty, the tax you pay for the privilege of being married. Marriage Penalty tax relief has been a long time coming, and with this bill, we can actually do something about it. I am delighted to hear as well from my colleague from Iowa that last night they added an additional year in which the marriage penalty relief would be in effect. That is a very positive step. It is a good thing. What we are seeking to do with this amendment, and I join my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison from Texas, in this amendment, is to speed up that marriage penalty relief, making it fuller because the marriage penalty is at several places within the Tax Code. It still remains, even after this bill. We need to take care of those places, and this amendment is a positive step toward this. Tax relief is long overdue for the American taxpayer. We are at record high levels of tax collection during one of the longest eras of peace ever known in America. Does that make sense? It is unreasonable for the Federal Government to continue collecting taxes from hard- working Americans at a rate that rivals wartime rates of tax collection. Americans deserve relief. However, I think some of the tax relief in this proposal is delayed too long, specifically that of the marriage penalty tax relief. Almost half of America's working families experience the ill-effects of the marriage penalty tax. In my State alone, 260,000 married couples experience this penalty. To put the burden of the marriage penalty tax in some perspective, every one of us knows somebody who is being forced to pay, on average--this is on average--about an additional $1,500 of taxes every year simply for being married. Requiring Americans to pay more in taxes for being married defies common sense. Families are the bedrock of a Civil society. Between carpools to soccer games and putting food on the table, American families do not need this added tax burden. Marriage tax penalty relief needs to be one of the first priorities in this bill. Making Americans wait until the year 2005 to receive a break from this onerous burden of the marriage penalty is unnecessary. We clearly have the resources to provide the American people with much needed marriage penalty relief sooner rather than later. At a minimum, we should eliminate the marriage penalty in the standard deduction sooner rather than later. I believe with some adjustments in the tax bill we can provide marriage penalty relief next year rather than making America's families wait until 2005 for the Federal Government to recognize the negative effects of the tax we place on the institution of marriage and the people who are married. America's families deserve a break from the marriage penalty. Alleviation of the marriage penalty tax will allow married couples greater freedom to raise the quality of life for their families. Freedom will mean different things for different couples, of course. For some it may mean the ability to make a downpayment on a home. For others it may mean an investment in their children's education. The options are as numerous as the people of our great Nation. Married Americans deserve to be free from this unjust penalty. Make no mistake about it, however, those who will benefit the most from the correction of the marriage penalty are children. Study after study has shown that children do best when they grow up in a stable home, raised by two parents who are committed to each other through marriage. Newlyweds face enough challenges without paying punitive damages in the form of a marriage tax. The last thing the Federal Government should do is penalize the institution that is the clear bedrock of a civil society. The amendment I am cosponsing along with my good friend, colleague, and fellow warrior of the past 5 years, Senator Hutchison of Texas would eliminate the marriage penalty in the standard deduction effective in the year 2002, rather than later in 2006 and would be offset by small modifications in other areas of the bill. I am hopeful that this amendment will receive the full support of the Senate and be included in the conference report that we will hopefully send to the President before the Memorial Day Recess. Our amendment recognizes the need to provide American families with relief from the marriage penalty and the need to do it now, rather than 5 years from now. For our children, for strong marriages, for almost half of America's working families, I urge my colleagues to support this important provision. I understand, along with everybody else, the number of tradeoffs involved to get this done. I think that if we were to ask the American public to prioritize the tax cuts and the tax relief we are putting forward, they would clearly say, we need tax relief to stimulate the economy, and we need tax fairness, particularly in the area of the marriage penalty tax. I point out to my colleagues a number of surveys that have been done showing that 70 percent of the American public support eliminating the marriage penalty tax. They are aware of this tax. I now have people who come up to me and tell me, for example: My marriage penalty this year was $1,478--that their accountants calculate their marriage penalty they are going to be paying on a yearly basis. People are aware of it. They know it is there. They know it is not fair. We have been telling them for years we are going to do away with it, that we are going to get it out of there. I think the Finance Committee has done a good job on starting to address this, but it is phased in awfully late. This amendment, I think, does something the American public would widely support. In looking at the tax cuts, they would say this should be one of the top ones that we need for fairness and for the future of a civil society. So I urge my colleagues to support the Hutchison amendment when the vote comes up in this Chamber. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back the time to Senator Hutchison that may be remaining on the 15 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 659

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Congressional Responsibility Act of 2001. The underlying principle of this legislation is that the Constitution forbids the delegation of legislative powers to any other branch of government. Following the preamble to the Constitution, Article I, Section 1 begins: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'' The Founders clearly believed that this included the power to regulate, as they had noted John Locke's wise admonition that, ``the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making law to any other hands.'' They understood that if this transfer did occur, legislators would no longer be responsible for the laws that government imposes on the people. Throughout the late eighteenth century and the entire nineteenth century, in fact for the first 150 years of our republic, the Supreme Court held that the transfer of legislative powers to another branch of government was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, in the late 1920's a radical break with the Constitution, and established precedent in previous Supreme Court rulings, occurred with the landmark case, J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States. This was, essentially, a ruling in favor of political expediency, and it started Congress down a slippery slope. Since the Hampton case, Congress has ceded its basic legislative responsibilities to executive branch agencies that craft and enforce regulations, which have the full force of law. Consequently, our constituents can be taxed, fined, and even imprisoned without any congressional action. This is unjust. The Founders purposefully designed the Congress to be the most accountable branch of government, but Congress has grown increasingly irresponsible. The fundamental link between voter and lawmaker has been severed. A handful of broadly written laws has spawned a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies and an overwhelming regulatory burden that undermines the very idea of representative government. During the 106th Congress, 2,510 new rules and revisions of old rules went into effect. Of these, 75 were considered to be major rules--or rules with an impact of $100 million or more. The case has become so egregious that many regulatory analysts believe more consequential law is generated in the executive branch than in the legislative branch. The bottom line is that the executive branch has assumed the law- making authority given to the Congress. This is wrong. The Congressional Responsibility Act would restore the constitutional responsibility of the Congress over the formulation of all laws by making executive branch agencies accountable to the American people through their elected representatives in Congress. In short, it would return power to Congress, and ultimately it would return power to the people who elect us. Under the Congressional Responsibility Act all rules and regulations would have to come before the Congress prior to being enacted into law. Congress would then be required to have an up or down vote on the proposed rule or regulation before it could take effect. The bill provides for consideration of rules and regulations in an expedited manner, unless a majority of Members vote to send it through the normal legislative process. Under the bill, if Congress did not take action on the rule, then it would die by default. This approach not only puts Congress back in control of the legislative process, it also ends the horrendous practice of delegation without representation--and it makes Congress accountable for the laws that affect the lives of every American. It is about returning power, responsibility and authority back to Congress. This non-partisan, ideologically neutral concept was first offered by then Judge Stephen Breyer who wrote that we should end delegation as a means to satisfy ``the literal wording of the Constitution's bicameral and presentation clauses.'' The concept offered in the Congressional Responsibility Act also takes into account the Supreme Court's 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha, which held a one-house veto to be unconstitutional. Other supporters of this concept include Judge Robert Bork; David Schoenbrod, a professor at New York Law School; and numerous other constitutional scholars. The Constitution suffered greatly in the twentieth century. Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, we have a tremendous opportunity to restore the Constitution to its rightful preeminence as the guarantor of our freedoms, the protector of our liberties, and the guiding force for our form of government. Delegation of legislative powers is as wrong today as taxation without representation was in the 1700s. With enactment of this legislation, we will send a clear message to the bureaucrats in Washington and to the American people at home: Congress must not delegate its constitutionally-granted powers.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Congressional Responsibility Act of 2001. The underlying principle of this legislation is that the Constitution forbids the delegation of legislative powers to any other branch of government. Following the preamble to the Constitution, Article I, Section 1 begins: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'' The Founders clearly believed that this included the power to regulate, as they had noted John Locke's wise admonition that, ``the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making law to any other hands.'' They understood that if this transfer did occur, legislators would no longer be responsible for the laws that government imposes on the people. Throughout the late eighteenth century and the entire nineteenth century, in fact for the first 150 years of our republic, the Supreme Court held that the transfer of legislative powers to another branch of government was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, in the late 1920's a radical break with the Constitution, and established precedent in previous Supreme Court rulings, occurred with the landmark case, J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States. This was, essentially, a ruling in favor of political expediency, and it started Congress down a slippery slope. Since the Hampton case, Congress has ceded its basic legislative responsibilities to executive branch agencies that craft and enforce regulations, which have the full force of law. Consequently, our constituents can be taxed, fined, and even imprisoned without any congressional action. This is unjust. The Founders purposefully designed the Congress to be the most accountable branch of government, but Congress has grown increasingly irresponsible. The fundamental link between voter and lawmaker has been severed. A handful of broadly written laws has spawned a virtual alphabet soup of government agencies and an overwhelming regulatory burden that undermines the very idea of representative government. During the 106th Congress, 2,510 new rules and revisions of old rules went into effect. Of these, 75 were considered to be major rules--or rules with an impact of $100 million or more. The case has become so egregious that many regulatory analysts believe more consequential law is generated in the executive branch than in the legislative branch. The bottom line is that the executive branch has assumed the law- making authority given to the Congress. This is wrong. The Congressional Responsibility Act would restore the constitutional responsibility of the Congress over the formulation of all laws by making executive branch agencies accountable to the American people through their elected representatives in Congress. In short, it would return power to Congress, and ultimately it would return power to the people who elect us. Under the Congressional Responsibility Act all rules and regulations would have to come before the Congress prior to being enacted into law. Congress would then be required to have an up or down vote on the proposed rule or regulation before it could take effect. The bill provides for consideration of rules and regulations in an expedited manner, unless a majority of Members vote to send it through the normal legislative process. Under the bill, if Congress did not take action on the rule, then it would die by default. This approach not only puts Congress back in control of the legislative process, it also ends the horrendous practice of delegation without representation--and it makes Congress accountable for the laws that affect the lives of every American. It is about returning power, responsibility and authority back to Congress. This non-partisan, ideologically neutral concept was first offered by then Judge Stephen Breyer who wrote that we should end delegation as a means to satisfy ``the literal wording of the Constitution's bicameral and presentation clauses.'' The concept offered in the Congressional Responsibility Act also takes into account the Supreme Court's 1983 decision in INS v. Chadha, which held a one-house veto to be unconstitutional. Other supporters of this concept include Judge Robert Bork; David Schoenbrod, a professor at New York Law School; and numerous other constitutional scholars. The Constitution suffered greatly in the twentieth century. Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, we have a tremendous opportunity to restore the Constitution to its rightful preeminence as the guarantor of our freedoms, the protector of our liberties, and the guiding force for our form of government. Delegation of legislative powers is as wrong today as taxation without representation was in the 1700s. With enactment of this legislation, we will send a clear message to the bureaucrats in Washington and to the American people at home: Congress must not delegate its constitutionally-granted powers.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the adoption of this amendment to S. 1. I am delighted to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, Senator Kohl from Wisconsin. I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for his work in securing the passage of this amendment. I think this is a noncontroversial amendment so I am going to summarize the point. Over the past several years, we have had a number of hearings by this Congress about the impact of entertainment, particularly violent entertainment, on children, and the accessibility of such entertainment to children. This last summer we had the six major health organizations in the country--the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and others--sign a statement which said that exposing children to violent entertainment can actually cause increases in aggression and hostility and decreases in empathy. Since then, there have also been reports of studies focusing on how violent entertainment affects a child's brain activity. Less than a month ago, USA Today reported on one study conducted by Professor John Murray of Kansas State University. It showed the results of MRIs taken of children who were watching violent film clips. The reporter concluded: ``The scans showed that violent film clips activate children's brains in a distinctive, potentially violence-producing pattern. Although children may consciously know that violence on the screen isn't real, their brains are treating it as gospel truth.'' We know that a young child's mind goes through extraordinary development, particularly before the age of 7. We know the influences on their early life can profoundly affect both what they think about and how they think. New research has provided interesting insights into how parents can create the best learning environment and most encouraging learning environment for their children--what influences and factors will encourage the healthiest development of a child's intellect and cognition and enhance their abilities as they develop and move forward in life. Despite these studies and their implications for the way a young child's mind grows and develops, as well as how they perform in school, there has been very little study on how exposure to entertainment, particularly violent entertainment, affects their cognitive development. This is not a data gap; it is a chasm. And it needs to be filled. It is in the public interest to find out what the impact of exposing children to violent entertainment has on their cognitive development. It is also in the parent's best interests, as well as in the best interests of children, and, obviously, it is in the best interests of this country. Therefore, the amendment I am proposing, along with my colleague, Senator Kohl, would be a first step in addressing this data chasm. It calls for a study on how children's cognitive and academic achievement are affected by exposure to violent entertainment. It calls on the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Education to jointly work out a plan for conducting this study, subject to congressional approval, and to report its findings. The more we know about how our children's young minds are formed and cultivated, the better we can educate, nurture, and care for them. This amendment is an important step towards realizing that goal. In conclusion, let me say this: We know that currently children in America spend more time in front of a television, a computer screen, or a play station than they do in school. They certainly spend more time in front of one of those screens than they do talking with their parents. We know children spend a large portion of their waking hours focused on entertainment, and we can assume that it has some impact on their thoughts, attitudes, and even abilities. But what we do not know yet is what exposure to violent entertainment does to a child's cognitive abilities. Some of the early studies seem to be very troubling about what it is doing to a child's brain. That is why we are asking for this study, so we can learn about this much better. Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Jeffords, the manager of the bill would be willing to engage me in a short colloquy concerning the pending Brownback-Kohl amendment. I thank the managers of the bill for their willingness to include our amendment in the education bill. We think this is an important addition to the legislation because it will give Congress and the Department of Education a tool for evaluating the effect of violent entertainment on the cognitive development and educational achievement of our children. It is the Senator's intention when we go to conference in the House to make every effort to assure that the Brownback-Kohl amendment is included in the final version of the bill?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I do not know of anybody who is opposing this amendment. I ask for its adoption. There may be other Members who would like to comment on this amendment. I believe it is possible we may be able to proceed to a voice vote on this amendment while we are still on the amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to proceed to a voice vote on the amendment. Unless the Senator from North Carolina would care to address the amendment, I think it would be appropriate for us to proceed to a voice vote. I call for a voice vote at this time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 462 To Amendment No. 358

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have an amendment I call up.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am honored to introduce legislation, today, that creates the ``National Museum of African American History and Culture.'' I along with Senators Max Cleland, Rich Santorum, Majority Leader Lott, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Christopher Dodd, Zell Miller, and John Edwards are committed to passing this legislation this year. One of the most important chapters in our national story of human freedom and dignity is the history and legacy of the African American march toward freedom, legal equality and full participation in American Society. Yet in our nation's front yard, the National Mall, there is no museum set aside to honor this legacy. As a Kansan, I feel a special connection to honoring the legacy of African-Americans. Kansas, as you know, not only played a significant role in the Civil War but also was chosen by many African-American families as a place to began their new life of freedom and prosperity in the ``Exodus to Kansas.'' This is just one part of the incredible history of African Americans that must be told on a national level. We have over 200 wonderful African-American history museums across the nation that tell portions of the African-American story. However, this legacy must be showcased at a national level. That is why I am here today with my colleagues introducing this legislation to create the National Museum of African-American history and culture within the Smithsonian Institution, a premier organization, which represents the best museums in the nation. We believe it is vitally important that the Smithsonian, the world's leading museum organization, provide its expertise in putting this facility and its programs together. This project has brought together a very broad and bicameral coalition that stood with us today during the press conference to announce the introduction of this bill. I would like to personally thank Pastor Chuck Singleton, of Loveland Church in California, as well as Robert Johnson, of B.E.T., Dorothy Height of the National Council of Negro Women, and Phyllis Berry Myers, of the Center for New Black Leadership for joining with us to support this legislation today. We do not pretend that our legislation is a cure-all for the problem of racial division. It is, however, an important and productive step toward healing our nation's racial wounds. I believe that this museum will both celebrate African-American achievement and serve as a landmark of national conscience on the historical facts of slavery and the civil rights struggle. We have an extraordinary opportunity before us--a chance to learn, understand and remember together our nation's history and to honor the significant contribution of African Americans to our history and culture. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am honored to introduce legislation, today, that creates the ``National Museum of African American History and Culture.'' I along with Senators Max Cleland, Rich Santorum, Majority Leader Lott, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Christopher Dodd, Zell Miller, and John Edwards are committed to passing this legislation this year. One of the most important chapters in our national story of human freedom and dignity is the history and legacy of the African American march toward freedom, legal equality and full participation in American Society. Yet in our nation's front yard, the National Mall, there is no museum set aside to honor this legacy. As a Kansan, I feel a special connection to honoring the legacy of African-Americans. Kansas, as you know, not only played a significant role in the Civil War but also was chosen by many African-American families as a place to began their new life of freedom and prosperity in the ``Exodus to Kansas.'' This is just one part of the incredible history of African Americans that must be told on a national level. We have over 200 wonderful African-American history museums across the nation that tell portions of the African-American story. However, this legacy must be showcased at a national level. That is why I am here today with my colleagues introducing this legislation to create the National Museum of African-American history and culture within the Smithsonian Institution, a premier organization, which represents the best museums in the nation. We believe it is vitally important that the Smithsonian, the world's leading museum organization, provide its expertise in putting this facility and its programs together. This project has brought together a very broad and bicameral coalition that stood with us today during the press conference to announce the introduction of this bill. I would like to personally thank Pastor Chuck Singleton, of Loveland Church in California, as well as Robert Johnson, of B.E.T., Dorothy Height of the National Council of Negro Women, and Phyllis Berry Myers, of the Center for New Black Leadership for joining with us to support this legislation today. We do not pretend that our legislation is a cure-all for the problem of racial division. It is, however, an important and productive step toward healing our nation's racial wounds. I believe that this museum will both celebrate African-American achievement and serve as a landmark of national conscience on the historical facts of slavery and the civil rights struggle. We have an extraordinary opportunity before us--a chance to learn, understand and remember together our nation's history and to honor the significant contribution of African Americans to our history and culture. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 2:20 p.m., in executive session to consider certain pending nominations.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 2:30 p.m. on NASA's Aeronautics Program. The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. Subcommittee on Personnel

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.