Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled ``Protecting Small Business Rights: SBREFA on Its 5th Anniversary'' on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Committee and Tourism of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 10 a.m. on Booster Seats and the Forgotten Child: Closing a Safety Gap. The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Grant D. Aldonas, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade; Mr. Kenneth I. Juster, of the District of Columbia, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration; Ms. Maria Cino, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service; and Mr. Robert Glenn Hubbard, of New York, to be a member of the Council of Economic Advisors.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, to conduct a mark-up of S. 206, ``The Public Utility Holding Company Act.''

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the recruiting initiatives of the Department of Defense and the Military Services and to receive an update on the status of recruiting and retention goals. The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday. April 24, 2001 to hear testimony on the Tax Code Complexity, New Hope for Fresh Solutions.

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 3:30 p.m., in open session to consider the nominations of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim to be Under Secretary of Defense, comptroller; Mr. Charles S. Abell to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for force management policy; and Ms. Victoria Clarke to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to draw the attention of this body to a report that was released just today by the Federal Trade Commission. It is a followup study to one that was done last year on the issue of the marketing of violent, adult-rated entertainment material to children. It was a groundbreaking Federal Trade Commission study last year that found that much of our adult material, adult-rated entertainment material--movies, video games, music--was adult rated by the companies themselves, entertainment companies, the conglomerates, and then target-marketed back to children, for example, in the Joe Camel advertisement. It was said this was an adult-rated product, cigarettes, but using an image to target-market that then back to children. It turns out the entertainment community--entertainment companies and movies and music and video games--was doing the exact same thing. That report was released last fall, and it was very discouraging and disappointing that they would do this, particularly at a time when we have so much difficulty with violence in our society, violence among kids in our schools, killings among our teenagers. There was a followup study released just today to that September FTC study. What came forward is that the movie industry is doing somewhat better about not target-marketing the adult-rated material to children, the video game industry is doing better than the movie industry in not target-marketing their adult-rated fare to children, and the music industry that is putting forward these hyperviolent, suicide, violence- towards-women lyrics has actually done nothing to change its marketing practice and continues to directly target-market adult-rated material. This is material the music companies themselves deem to be inappropriate for children. They put an adult sticker, parental advisory, on this material, and they turn around and continue, with millions of dollars in marketing campaigns, to target children. They are saying: Yes, we got the study last fall. We saw that. Yes, we were target-marketing adult-rated, parental-advisory-stickered material to children last fall. Do you know what. We are going to keep doing it. And they have continued to do that, as shown in this study that was just released today. I asked that industry to come forward and change its marketing practices: If you believe this material is inappropriate, to the point it needs a parental advisory label on it, don't spend millions of dollars to try to bypass parents and get the kids to buy them. What the FTC study found is deeply disappointing. There have been some efforts made at progress, mostly, as I noted, in the video game industry, and more modest attempts in the movie industry. For those efforts I offer both praise and encouragement to step up the progress. But the report also found, as I stated, that the recording industry has made no effort to implement any reforms--either those mentioned in the report or the reforms that they, the recording industry themselves, told Congress they would do. This is even more disappointing. Before we had the hearing last fall on the marketing of violent material to children, the recording industry stepped up and said: We are going to change. Here is a three-point, five-point, seven-point plan we are putting forward; we will implement these as an industry to change our marketing practices. They volunteered. Now what they have done is they have said: We are not even going to do what we volunteered to Congress we would do-- change our marketing practices. I want to read just a few statements from this report because it is deeply disturbing: The Commission's review indicates that the entertainment industry had made some progress in limiting advertising in certain teen media and providing rating information in advertising. The industry must make a greater effort, however, if it is to meet the suggestions for improvement included in the Commission's Report as well as its own promises for reform. Specifically, the report found, ``ads for R-rated movies still appeared on the television programs most popular with teens . . .''-- even though they are supposed to be a restricted audience for the movie--``and the ratings reasons in ads were either small, fleeting or inconspicuously placed.'' That was the good part of the study. The report reserved its harshest criticism for the music industry and stated: The Commission found that the music recording industry, unlike the motion picture and electronic game industries, has not visibly responded to the Commission's report, nor has it implemented the reforms its trade association announced just before the Commission issued its report. The Commission's review showed that advertising for explicit-content labeled music recordings routinely appeared on popular teen television programming. All five major recording companies placed advertising for explicit content music on TV programs and magazines with substantial under-17 audiences. Furthermore, ads for explicit-content labeled music usually did not indicate that the recording was stickered with a parental advisory label. So not only did they market to kids, they didn't warn the parents in the advertising that this was parental labeled material. In the advertising, they said they were not even going to point that out to the parents. If you refer back to the original FTC report released last September, you will find 100 percent of the violent music they studied was target- marketed to kids--100 percent. Evidently the recording industry saw no reason to change. Soon the Senate will turn its attention to consider the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, and how to provide the best education for all of America's children. I think for every Senator of both parties, ensuring that America's children get a world-class education is a top priority. We also know one of the best measures of what a child learns is time on task; that is, children learn what they spend their time focusing on. That is significant because typically the American child spends more time each year watching television and movies, playing video games, listening to music, than he or she does in school. It makes no sense to assume that what a child sees, hears, and does in school will mold, shape, and enlighten his or her young mind but that what he sees, hears, and plays in terms of entertainment will have no impact whatsoever. Many of the most popular songs, games, and movies actively glorify violence and glamorize brutality. There are video games which cast players as drug kingpins, with the game revolving around selling drugs and killing competitors. There are movies which glamorize murder, casting teen idols as dashing killers. And there are numerous songs which celebrate violence against women--all of which are marketed to children. If being perceived is doing, we clearly have problems on our hands. There is new evidence to suggest that exposing children to violent entertainment not only affects their emotional and behavioral development--their sensitivity to other's pain, their ability to empathize, and their perceptions of the world around them--but also their cognitive development. A professor in my alma mater of Kansas State has done ground-breaking research on the impact that exposure to violent entertainment has on children's brain activity. Dr. John Murray's studies have found that in terms of brain activity, kids who are exposed to violent entertainment have a similar experience to those who are exposed to real-life trauma, and their brain responds in much the same fashion. This research, while still in its rudimentary stages, has potentially profound implications for education. I would therefore like to announce my intention to introduce an amendment to ESEA which calls for increased research into the impact that exposing children to violent entertainment--violent music, and violent video games--has on their cognitive development and educational achievement. I hope and trust that the Senate will adopt this amendment. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to look at this interim study by the FCC and what has happened. I also urge the recording industry to step up and actually do what they said they would do, which is not to market adult-rated material and parental advisory material directly to children. It is harming our kids. It is the wrong thing to do. I ask them sincerely to review what they are doing in their marketing campaigns and stop this practice. It is harmful. I am hopeful when we have the followup study and the anniversary report to the FCC study this fall that the recording industry will actually step forward and do what is right. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Virginia for his sponsorship in putting forward this amendment. I think this is a key amendment. We have been talking a lot about reducing the tax cut because we are not sure that the money may come in. What this amendment says is, if the money does come in, then let's require that there be a vote that we have a larger tax cut. That seems to me to be the symmetrical discussion that should be taking place. We hear concern about: OK, what if the resources do not come in? What if this does not quite work out? Should we lock ourselves into this size tax cut? What we are saying is, once this money comes in--I am confident it is going to come in; I am confident that it will happen-- if it does come in, then tax cuts of a larger scale should be voted upon. Yesterday the step was taken by the Senate to make a smaller tax cut. I think that was a wrong step. I think it is a bad step for our economy. That sends a signal to people that there is going to be less money in their pocket. Less consumer confidence will result and that is going to be a more difficult situation for our economy and for our people. What we are trying to do is send a different signal, saying that if this economy continues to put these sorts of receipts in the Federal Government--which I am confident that it will--then we are going to return more of that to the American taxpayers. That will create an economic climate that allows individuals to make informed savings and investment decisions. It is the best path for sound, responsible fiscal policy. If individuals are not confident that the economic decisions they make today will be respected in the Tax Code tomorrow, they will be less likely to take the kind of risks that make our economy one of the most productive and fastest growing in the world. That level of predictability and the assurance is important. This is why offering taxpayers a one-time rebate, in my estimation, as has been proposed by some of my colleagues, is bad economic policy. The problem is, it gives the veneer of economic growth while only providing really a Band-Aid to the larger underlying problems of sluggish growth and a slowing economy. The goal of our economic policy should be to encourage savings and investments at the margins, not promoting policies that artificially might prop up the economy through consumption incentives that do nothing to solve long-run economic problems. Mr. President, because I know our time is short, I want to make an additional point; that is, for people who are also concerned that we are not paying down the debt sufficiently with the policies we put forward, what this says is that if we have more coming in, we will vote on a larger scale tax cut. We are going to continue to pay the debt down. We will pay down all the available debt over a period of 10 years. This has nothing to do with that. We will continue to honor that debt paydown provision that is in the overall budget and is a part of our overall proposal. I want to make sure we set that one off to the side so people are not concerned about that particular issue as well. With those caveats, and for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for this triggering mechanism that would go into place if--if--the dollars are forthcoming. There really should be no reason to vote against this amendment. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote for it. With that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time and yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that I be allotted 5 minutes to speak on behalf of the amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time remains on the amendment?

Mr. BROWNBACK. How much?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, CBO, in January of 1999, said that the 2-year forecast showed a total budget surplus of $2.3 trillion. The surplus announced this year is $5.6 trillion. In that 2-year time period, they more than doubled the size of it. What we are saying is, if that happens again, as is likely, let us vote on a bigger tax cut.

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. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce today with Senator McCain, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. This legislation combats performance enhancing drugs use by athletes, as well as the corruptive influence of legal gambling on high school, college, and amateur sports. I would like to thank my colleague for his continued interest in and leadership on this issue. I look forward to winning an up or down vote on this bill this Congress. The Amatuer Sports Integrity Act serves two purposes. First, it combats the use of performance enhancing drugs by athletes through the creation a new grant program to be administered by the National Institute of Science and Technology. This program will support research on the use of performance-enhancing drugs, and methods of detecting their use. Quite simply, Mr. President, we need to find out who's cheating and how they're doing it so we can disqualify their dishonorable efforts to compete. The Act will achieve this goal. Our legislation will also ban the continued and unseemly practice of legal wagering on high school, college, and amateur sports at the expense of the achievements of our nation's student and amateur athletes. This bill closes the loophole in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act that allows legal sports betting in Nevada to negatively impact student athletics in other states. This bill is supported by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which represents more than 1000 colleges and universities nationwide. In addition, numerous coaches among the college ranks support this effort, and I can think of no better advocate then the coaches who spend time day in and day out with the athletes and prized sporting institutions negatively affected by legal sports gambling. My continuing efforts on this issue are in direct response to the recommendation made by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), which in 1999 concluded a two-year study on the impact of legalized gambling in our country. The Commission's recommendation called for a complete ban on all legalized gambling on amateur sports. The Commission in its report recognized the potential harm of legalized gambling by stating that sports gambling ``can serve as a gateway behavior for adolescent gamblers, and can devastate individuals and careers.'' This Amateur Sports Integrity Act will serve notice that betting on college games or amateur athletics is not only inappropriate but can result in these significant social costs. Legislation addressing illegal gambling has been introduced in the House and Senate by members of the Nevada delegation. I would like to take a moment to commend my colleagues, Senators Reid and Ensign, for recognizing that the social consequences of gambling for the public must be addressed. I agree with the Nevada delegation that we should be vigilant in our efforts to increase our knowledge regarding illegal gambling activities, and find ways to help law enforcement combat such activities. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to which that bill has been referred, I look forward to working with the Nevada delegation to improve the bill and, ultimately, support its passage. However, we must also address the fact that legal gambling has a real and telling impact on high school, college, and amateur athletics and the public, and in fact facilitates illegal gambling activity. If there are any doubts, just ask Kevin Pendergast who orchestrated the basketball point-shaving scandal at Northwestern University. He had stated that he never would have been able to pull off his scheme if it weren't for the ability to lay a large amount of money on the Las Vegas sports books. The frequency of point shaving scandals over the last decade, and the tie-in to the Vegas sports books of the episodes at Northwestern and Arizona State is a clear indication that legal gambling on college sports stretches beyond Nevada, impacting the integrity of other state's sporting events. The now familiar opposition to this bill on the theory of states rights simply does not hold water, and I categorically reject the notion that Kansas college athletics should be jeopardized so the casinos in Vegas can rake in some additional gambling revenues. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the Amateur Sports Integrity Act and I look forward to a vote before the full Senate.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce today with Senator McCain, the Amateur Sports Integrity Act. This legislation combats performance enhancing drugs use by athletes, as well as the corruptive influence of legal gambling on high school, college, and amateur sports. I would like to thank my colleague for his continued interest in and leadership on this issue. I look forward to winning an up or down vote on this bill this Congress. The Amatuer Sports Integrity Act serves two purposes. First, it combats the use of performance enhancing drugs by athletes through the creation a new grant program to be administered by the National Institute of Science and Technology. This program will support research on the use of performance-enhancing drugs, and methods of detecting their use. Quite simply, Mr. President, we need to find out who's cheating and how they're doing it so we can disqualify their dishonorable efforts to compete. The Act will achieve this goal. Our legislation will also ban the continued and unseemly practice of legal wagering on high school, college, and amateur sports at the expense of the achievements of our nation's student and amateur athletes. This bill closes the loophole in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act that allows legal sports betting in Nevada to negatively impact student athletics in other states. This bill is supported by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, which represents more than 1000 colleges and universities nationwide. In addition, numerous coaches among the college ranks support this effort, and I can think of no better advocate then the coaches who spend time day in and day out with the athletes and prized sporting institutions negatively affected by legal sports gambling. My continuing efforts on this issue are in direct response to the recommendation made by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), which in 1999 concluded a two-year study on the impact of legalized gambling in our country. The Commission's recommendation called for a complete ban on all legalized gambling on amateur sports. The Commission in its report recognized the potential harm of legalized gambling by stating that sports gambling ``can serve as a gateway behavior for adolescent gamblers, and can devastate individuals and careers.'' This Amateur Sports Integrity Act will serve notice that betting on college games or amateur athletics is not only inappropriate but can result in these significant social costs. Legislation addressing illegal gambling has been introduced in the House and Senate by members of the Nevada delegation. I would like to take a moment to commend my colleagues, Senators Reid and Ensign, for recognizing that the social consequences of gambling for the public must be addressed. I agree with the Nevada delegation that we should be vigilant in our efforts to increase our knowledge regarding illegal gambling activities, and find ways to help law enforcement combat such activities. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to which that bill has been referred, I look forward to working with the Nevada delegation to improve the bill and, ultimately, support its passage. However, we must also address the fact that legal gambling has a real and telling impact on high school, college, and amateur athletics and the public, and in fact facilitates illegal gambling activity. If there are any doubts, just ask Kevin Pendergast who orchestrated the basketball point-shaving scandal at Northwestern University. He had stated that he never would have been able to pull off his scheme if it weren't for the ability to lay a large amount of money on the Las Vegas sports books. The frequency of point shaving scandals over the last decade, and the tie-in to the Vegas sports books of the episodes at Northwestern and Arizona State is a clear indication that legal gambling on college sports stretches beyond Nevada, impacting the integrity of other state's sporting events. The now familiar opposition to this bill on the theory of states rights simply does not hold water, and I categorically reject the notion that Kansas college athletics should be jeopardized so the casinos in Vegas can rake in some additional gambling revenues. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to cosponsor the Amateur Sports Integrity Act and I look forward to a vote before the full Senate.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Third Generation Wireless Internet Act. This legislation, which I first introduced in the 106th Congress, is needed today more then ever. The Act requires The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to lift the current cap on the amount of spectrum any one company may be licensed to use in a market. Today, over 104 million Americans are benefitting from the products and services being offered by our nation's wireless industry. The public has benefited from stiff competition among industry participants as 244.8 million Americans can choose between three and eight wireless service providers, with 181.7 million of them able to choose from at least five service providers. The result of this competition has been a fifty percent decrease in wireless rates between 1988 and 2000, while the total number of minutes used has increased forty-two percent over that same period. Impressive as is the development of the wireless marketplace, our nation's wireless industry is fast approaching a crossroads where it will transition from voice and text messaging services to a marriage of wireless mobility with the power of the Internet and broadband Internet access: the ability to deliver voice, video, and data simultaneously over one wireless device. This transition will be made possible by the deployment of third generation technology, commonly referred to as ``3G,'' which combines wireless mobility with transmission speeds and capacity resembling that of the broadband pipes being laid primarily in urban markets by wireline companies. Congress, the FCC, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration continue to work to identify sufficient spectrum resources for a timely 3G deployment. The Third Generation Wireless Internet Act will ensure that companies currently at the limits of the spectrum they are permitted to use under FCC regulations will still be able to participate in 3G deployment once the spectrum is identified. Just as Internet access, especially broadband Internet access, promises to be a great equalizer across socio-economic lines, 3G promises to be a great equalizer between those consumers with access to broadband and those without. As Congress continues to look for ways to close the digital divide as it relates to broadband, wireless technology can play a key role in ensuring that all Americans have access to broadband irrespective of their geographic location. It is incumbent upon Congress to recognize and act upon the potential of 3G to close the gap between urban and rural broadband access, and the Third Generation Wireless Internet Act does just that. I request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce the Third Generation Wireless Internet Act. This legislation, which I first introduced in the 106th Congress, is needed today more then ever. The Act requires The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to lift the current cap on the amount of spectrum any one company may be licensed to use in a market. Today, over 104 million Americans are benefitting from the products and services being offered by our nation's wireless industry. The public has benefited from stiff competition among industry participants as 244.8 million Americans can choose between three and eight wireless service providers, with 181.7 million of them able to choose from at least five service providers. The result of this competition has been a fifty percent decrease in wireless rates between 1988 and 2000, while the total number of minutes used has increased forty-two percent over that same period. Impressive as is the development of the wireless marketplace, our nation's wireless industry is fast approaching a crossroads where it will transition from voice and text messaging services to a marriage of wireless mobility with the power of the Internet and broadband Internet access: the ability to deliver voice, video, and data simultaneously over one wireless device. This transition will be made possible by the deployment of third generation technology, commonly referred to as ``3G,'' which combines wireless mobility with transmission speeds and capacity resembling that of the broadband pipes being laid primarily in urban markets by wireline companies. Congress, the FCC, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration continue to work to identify sufficient spectrum resources for a timely 3G deployment. The Third Generation Wireless Internet Act will ensure that companies currently at the limits of the spectrum they are permitted to use under FCC regulations will still be able to participate in 3G deployment once the spectrum is identified. Just as Internet access, especially broadband Internet access, promises to be a great equalizer across socio-economic lines, 3G promises to be a great equalizer between those consumers with access to broadband and those without. As Congress continues to look for ways to close the digital divide as it relates to broadband, wireless technology can play a key role in ensuring that all Americans have access to broadband irrespective of their geographic location. It is incumbent upon Congress to recognize and act upon the potential of 3G to close the gap between urban and rural broadband access, and the Third Generation Wireless Internet Act does just that. I request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to table the Kohl amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to table the Kohl amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding the 10-minute time for me to speak on this topic. Mr. President, we have an issue that has been worked on extensively. I appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin bringing this back to the floor this year. We had spirited debate and discussion on it last year. We had an aggressive effort to work this out in conference. We did--I don't think to everybody's satisfaction--but there are a number of people on that side of the aisle and our side of the aisle who thought this was an area that should be addressed. I personally think this is an area that should be left in the State's constitution and away from bankruptcy law the way it has been for 132 years, and I continue to believe that now. But what has come forward has been a compromise that has been worked out by a number of people who worked on the bankruptcy issue, people of good faith from different perspectives, and that compromise is in the bill. The chairman of the committee spoke about what that compromise was. To deviate from that will cause a number of us to then say that is something with which we will not be able to live. I personally will be voting against the bill if that is in it, and I will fight this bill coming back in any form from conference if it has this new language in it. I respect the thoughts on the part of my colleague from Wisconsin. I know his heart is good and clear on this. But there is another matter here for me; that is, Kansas, along with a number of other States, has put in the State constitution a homestead provision that says you are entitled to be able to keep your home and 160 contiguous acres. This dates back to the period of homesteading, which Kansas, the State of Nebraska, and the United States granted to people. It said, if for 5 years you can go out there and tame 160 acres and build a home, you get to keep it. It is yours. That is your homestead. We settled much of the Midwest in that way--not all of it. It was settled that way. Over succeeding years, a number of farmers would borrow against the land. They would say, I need to buy fertilizer, or seed, or some stock and cattle to put on it. They would borrow against the land. Then a bad market would hit, or bad weather would hit, and they would lose the land. So a number of States built not just in their laws but their constitution a law to say you can protect your home and 160 contiguous acres so you can farm again. This was very much thought through, and it has been used a lot--even as recently as the eighties in Kansas. This provision was used extensively by farmers who lost most of their land, most of their machinery, and most of their livestock. But they could keep the home and 160 acres to be able to start farming again. At that time, I did a number of foreclosures for farmers, defending farmers, and bankruptcy work for farmers. A number of them lost everything but the home and 160 acres. Today they are still out there farming--some because they were able to protect it. They were able to continue and start farming again. A compromise has been carefully worked out in this legislation that says we are not going to let people defraud others, or try to protect more than they are entitled to, and we are going to continue to allow States 2 years out--people who have lived there for more than 2 years-- to protect what the State law would allow you to protect. In my State, 160 acres is your homestead; or, in town, a home and one-half acre. That is in our law and the constitution of the State of Kansas. I think that is fully appropriate. It is fair. I think it is right, and it is what a number of States have done. I point out some of the States that have worked on this either in their constitution or in their laws--Florida, Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. And there are other States that have different provisions as well. We have had a Federal bankruptcy law for 133 years that has not addressed this issue and has said this should be left to what an individual State would decide. If California or Wisconsin or Kansas want to do this differently within their State, we will let the State determine what they want to do. I think it is important we allow that provision to continue. The effect of this would be that the Federal Government identifies this law and would say for the first time in 133 years that we are going to take up this issue. There have been a few high profile instances of abuse of the homestead exemption. Debtors have moved to other States to take advantage of a higher exemption in that State or have transferred assets of the homestead to shield them. Those are, by far, the exception rather than the rule. I can tell you that during the 1980s during the bankruptcy crisis in Kansas they weren't moving. Some were trying to shield assets but most were trying to hold onto enough so they could start farming again. That is, by far, the typical situation, while there have been some high profile cases where it has been different. In fact, a recent survey of bankruptcies by the Executive Office for the United States Trustees said they ``did not find a single debtor who came close to the popular stereotype of homestead abuse. Our conclusion is that this is a relatively rare phenomenon in bankruptcy.'' For every Burt Reynolds-type example out there, there are hundreds of honest, middle-class people who find themselves in financial trouble who would be forced to move out of their homes or off their farms under this particular well-meaning amendment. As well meaning as it may be, it is going to hit them, and it is going to harm them. What is in the bill now to end homestead abuse? The bill now contains compromise language on the homestead issue that was adopted during the debate on the bill last year. That was approved by the Senate as part of the overall bill by a 70-vote margin. We worked a long time to get this language worked out. There were a lot of parties involved. We were able to get it through by a 70-vote majority. Taken together, the protections against homestead abuse contained in the bill virtually guarantee that the few instances of true abuse will never occur again. They include a cap of $100,000, indexed to inflation, on any new equity obtained in the homestead within 2 years of filing for bankruptcy. Thus, a debtor would not be able to shield a $200,000 addition to a house built within 2 years of filing. This would, however, leave the large majority of homeowners unaffected since very few homeowners can expect to acquire more than $100,000 in equity within a 2-year period. The bill requires that, before a debtor can use the homestead exemption in a particular State, he or she must have resided in that State for no less than 2 years. This will prevent the problem of ``forum shopping'' by bankruptcy filers. If you are trying to plan bankruptcy and looking more than 2 years out, that is a pretty aggressive effort. And, like I said, from the Bankruptcy Trustees' perspective in their study, they don't find any cases of this abuse, and there is a relatively very rare phenomenon of that. The bill contains a heightened scrutiny of any transfer of assets to the homestead made within 7 years of filing for bankruptcy done to ``delay, hinder, or defraud'' creditors--for example, getting cash from a credit card to fraudulently pay-down a mortgage before filing for bankruptcy. The bill now makes it very hard for anyone who makes or who can make above the national median income to even file chapter 7, where the homestead exemption is at issue. This effectively guarantees that high- income debtors will not be able to shield their assets in their home and discharge their debts. Finally, these and other general provisions of the bill and of existing law grant any bankruptcy judge in the country the power to disallow the use of the homestead or any other exemption, if it is being used improperly to shield assets. The bankruptcy judge can step in as well and say: No. I am not going to allow this to take place. With all of these protections against abuse or fraud, one can only conclude that this amendment will have the effect of forcing middle- class Americans to sell their homes if they encounter financial difficulty. As I stated, if this gets in the bill, I will be voting against the overall bankruptcy bill, and I will be fighting against it coming out of conference. I will be fighting against it in conference and on the floor by every means possible. It is in the Kansas Constitution. Their right of a homestead is in it. It is in the constitution of several States. It is something that has been used by farmers for generations and will continue to be used. For those reasons, I will adamantly oppose the Kohl amendment, with as much respect as I have for the Senator from Wisconsin and his heart and his desire to see that people do not fraudulently keep too many of their assets. But it is going to have a detrimental impact on my State. I cannot support that. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the first woman ever elected governor of the great State of Kansas, and my good friend, Joan Finney. Unfortunately, Governor Finney is currently in a serious battle with liver cancer. Governor Finney served 16 years as State treasurer before becoming the first woman elected to the State's highest office, where she served as governor from 1991 through 1994. She did not seek a second term. A resolution adopted by the State Democratic party describes her as someone who ``gave tirelessly and selflessly to the people of Kansas, dedicating her energy, optimism, openness and faith to serving the people of Kansas.'' I had the honor and privilege to serve with Governor Finney when I was Secretary of Agriculture for the State of Kansas. It was a true honor to serve with someone who believed so much in public service. Particularly in a country that is marked by a growing skepticism about public service in general, and some of our public servants in particular, Governor Finney was a breath of fresh air in our capitol. She embodied bipartisanship in so many ways; often working in a bipartisan way to advance the causes for which she so deeply believed. Her service to the State of Kansas will not soon be forgotten. The Democrats at their annual meeting in Topeka this year adopted a resolution describing Governor Finney as ``truly one of Kansas' most adored native daughters'', and she is. I extend my best wishes to Governor Finney as she faces this difficult period in her life. She and her husband, Spencer, need our prayers, they already have mine.