Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, October 27. I further ask consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.J. Res. 102, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to the joint resolution be agreed to, and the joint resolution, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the amendment to the preamble and the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed en bloc to the following Energy bills which are at the desk: H.R. 5083, H.R. 4957, H.R. 5331, H.R. 4404. I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2780, which is at the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill S. 768. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives. Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 768) entitled ``An Act to establish court-martial jurisdiction over civilians serving with the Armed Forces during contingency operations, and to establish Federal jurisdiction over crimes committed outside the United States by former members of the Armed Forces and civilians accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendments of the House.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3045, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the amendment to the title be agreed to, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5157, which is at the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Health Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1880, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Senator Frist has a substitute amendment at the desk for himself and others.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4940, which is at the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, Senators Murkowski, Frist, and Bingaman have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the following nominations be discharged from the respective committees and, further, the Senate proceed to their consideration, en bloc, along with the following nominations on the calendar. They are as follows: From the Governmental Affairs Committee, Don Harrel and Thomas Fink; From the Foreign Relations Committee, Marc Nathanson, Norman Pattiz, Tom Korologos, and Robert Ledbetter; On the calendar, Nos. 547, 548, 549, 642, 643, 700, 701, 702, and 703. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear at this point in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to retain the important ag tax provisions contained in the Senate version of the upcoming tax package that will soon be before us. I have not seen the final tax bill as of yet, but word is that most if not all of the agricultural tax provisions are being stripped from the bill at the will of the House. I hope this is not true. I cannot imagine why we would choose to leave out farmers from important tax relief at a time when this Congress has clearly recognized the economic hardships in farm country today. I plead with my colleagues to include these necessary provisions in any final tax package. Specifically, I am talking about a provision that came from a bill Senator Daschle and I introduced--along with 31 co-sponsors--to clarify that Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) payments made to farmers for taking agricultural land out of production for environmental improvement--are not subject to self employment social security taxes--a rate of up to 15 percent of the payment amount. The CRP has been a great success for this nation. The program provides financial incentives for improving and preserving environmentally sensitive land--taking it out of production and enhancing its environmental benefit. The CRP program increases water quality, wildlife habitat and prevents soil erosion--all factors which have become even more important in light of recent concerns about nonpoint source pollution in our nation's waterways. The Senate has strongly supported this measure--passing it by unanimous consent earlier this year on the death tax debate--and our Senate leadership has held firm in fighting for this needed provision, but for some reason, our fine colleagues in the House have decided to make an issue of this provision and are trying to strike it from the tax package. It makes no sense to yield to the House on this matter. The provision, as currently contained in the Senate tax package--will only cost $292 million over 5 years--but that money and the clarity it brings to our nation's farmers is worth far more than can be said in this time of farm economic stress. This provision allows farmers to plan and better use their resources next year because they will no longer have to wonder or worry about whether the IRS is going to come after them for a conservation tax they didn't know they owed. Currently, there is confusion over whether CRP income should be taxed owing to a recent court case in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which overturned a 1998 Tax Court ruling that CRP income is not subject to social security taxes. The Tax Court found and I concur, that because it is a rental payment the government makes in exchange for farmers taking environmentally sensitive land out of production, CRP payments should be treated the same as other contractual agreements made by farmers for land use--and be exempt from self-employment taxes. The new court ruling creates a discrepancy between active farmers who take part in CRP--which are now subject to the tax--and landowners who do not farm but take part in CRP and are exempt from the tax. This tax correction is just common sense. Now more than ever we should appreciate the need for conservation and the co-benefits of wildlife, air and water quality it provides. We should not allow a tax to create confusion and a disincentive for farmers to trust and work with government for the good of the environment. Numerous ag groups support this bill including the National Corn Growers, National Wheat Growers, American Soybean and Cattlemen's Beef Associations--along with the National Farmer's Union and the American Farm Bureau. This is our only opportunity to address this important issue. In my state of Kansas alone, $102.7 million in CRP payments were issued in 1999. Are we really going to tell farmers that this money-- promised them for conservation purposes--will now be additionally taxed? This would amount to a disincentive for farmers to participate in environmental and conservation programs. Is that the message this Congress really wants to send? Again, I urge my colleagues to include this important provision--and all the ag tax provisions that have been so carefully worked out and included in the Community Renewal and New Markets Act. We cannot afford to leave this important work undone.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to put on the record my concerns about numerous provisions contained in this year's conference report of the Ag appropriations bill. Specifically, I am greatly concerned that this year's bill single-handedly turns back a number of reforms made by the 1996 farm bill and moves us further away from an agriculture policy that looks to the markets rather than government for survival. The danger of following such a philosophy is that government is not likely to have the will to sustain the ag industry indefinitely, so that when the political will to support agriculture dries up, there will be massive calamity. There are legitimate ag emergencies occurring in the country right now. My family is still on the farm, Kansas is the 4th largest agricultural-producing state in the Nation--and I myself served as Secretary of Agriculture for the State of Kansas before coming to the U.S. Senate. I am not here to find fault with providing additional aid to farmers. Indeed, it is in our national interest to do so. My problem is not with the concept of government assistance to farmers--but rather in the shape this assistance is beginning to take--especially this year. Specifically, I am referring to the treatment of pet commodities like sugar and tobacco--which have been exempt from the market-oriented reforms faced by most other commodities--including the wheat growers of my state, for example. These reforms were set forth in 1996 to move farmers closer to the market. Some of my Democratic colleagues have accused us of abandoning a financial safety net for farmers--I don't see how they can honestly make that claim since farm spending has gone up dramatically since the '96 law was enacted. The Congressional Research Service notes that program payments combined with emergency spending for calendar year 1999 reached $22.7 billion--the highest ever and we have continued to provide substantial support to our farmers in 2000--well above that which would have been allowed under previous farm bills. If this conference report merely continued this tradition of backing up the market-reforms of the 1996 farm bill, I would have no problem--but this conference report takes serious steps to undermine those reforms--and that is wrong. This conference report contains a provision to change the 1996 farm bill language on marketing loans for sugar--now, instead of having to meet a certain threshold, non-recourse loans will be guaranteed for the next two years. This clears the way for additional payments to sugar producers on top of an already complex quota system which allows them to control the amount of imported competition. We don't do this for wheat, corn or soybeans--we should not do it for sugar. One of the most egregious parts of this bill is language which will promote increased tobacco production from the same government which is trying to decrease domestic demand for tobacco products. Currently, co-ops can and do purchase low quality or remaining tobacco not bid on by cigarette companies in order to artificially keep the price high. This bill will now allow the co-ops to then sell, this inferior tobacco to the government (through Commodity Credit Corporation funds). This measure is estimated to cost the government $510 million and cuts out flute-cured tobacco grown in North Carolina-- which means there will likely be a similar fix that doubles the cost to the taxpayer. After obtaining this left-over tobacco, the U.S. is not allowed to market this tobacco domestically for fear of displacing the controlled market and we will not be able to unload it on the world market due to restrictions about exporting tobacco and the already high amounts of world production that are much cheaper than this U.S. price-inflated tobacco--especially since this is the inferior ``left-over'' tobacco. To make matters worse, this language prevents this government action from affecting the quota limits for tobacco growing. This means that once the oversupply is wiped out by selling excess tobacco to the government, tobacco quotas will increase and allow for the growing of more tobacco--which will lead to the need for another bailout next year. For no other commodity do we have a situation like this: the U.S. government actively encourages a reduction in the use of tobacco, particularly by children--and now the same government is going to subsidize and encourage expanded tobacco production. This is one of the worst market-distorting abuses I've ever seen--at a time when we have repeatedly told farmers of most other commodities to turn toward the market and adjust to the new world economy. Unfortunately, the Senate does not have the opportunity to vote on these measures--we are forced to vote for these offensive programs because they are tied to an agriculture appropriations bill which is so important to our Nation--which provides a measure of unilateral sanctions reform many of us in this body have fought for--for years. This is no mistake--the numerous faulty measures contained in this bill were added at the last minute in conference--precisely because they would never pass on their own, nor should they. It is truly a disappointment that the conference report to such an important bill contains the very means to undermine the market reforms this Congress has pushed for, because of the interests of a few. This bill is a very important one--and just as the conference predicted, it is too important for me to vote against--but I fell compelled to express my frustration, and my disappointment in this process--and the hypocrisy it creates.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks todays regarding the recent proposals put forth by the Nevada Gaming Commission yesterday that would place a $550 cap on all legalized gambling on college sports and prohibits all gambling on high school and the Olympic sporting events. I believe that the proposed rule changes in Nevada are a significant first step in protecting our student athletes and the integrity of college sports. The Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission stated yesterday that the changes proposed ``will provide protection for Nevada athletes and for Nevada games. They will also protect athletes in the other 49 states. The proposals are intended to discourage illegal bookmakers and fixers from attempting to use Nevada's legal sports books as a place to place bets.'' It is obvious from these proposals that the Nevada Gaming Commission knows that gambling has an unseemly influence on our colleges and universities. Ironically, while Nevada is the only state where legal gambling on collegiate and Olympic sporting events occurs, Nevada's own gaming regulations currently prohibit gambling on any of Nevada's teams because of the potential to jeopardize the integrity of those sporting events. The frequency of gambling scandals over the last decade is a clear indication that legal gambling on college sports stretches beyond the borders of Nevada, impacting the integrity of other state's sporting events. While I am encouraged by the proposed rule changes from the Nevada Gaming Commission, I do not believe it goes far enough. I will continue to insist that the Senate take up and pass, The Amateur Sports Integrity Act, which is in response to a recommendation made by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), which last year concluded a two-year study on the impact of legalized gambling on our country. The recommendation called for a ban on all legalized gambling on amateur sports and is supported by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), coaches, teachers, athletic directors, commissioners, university presidents, school principals and family groups from across the country. Banning all legalized gambling on amateur sports serves notice that betting on college games or student athletes are not only inappropriate but can result in significant social costs. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report recognized the potential harm of legalized gambling by stating that sports gambling ``can serve as gateway behavior for adolescent gamblers, and can devastate individuals and careers.'' Some of its findings include: more than 5 million Americans suffer from pathological gambling; another 15 million are ``at risk'' for it; and about 1.1 million adolescents, ages 12 to 17, or 5% of America's 20 million teenager engage in severe pathological gambling each year. According to the American Psychiatric Association: Pathological gambling is a chronic and progressive psychiatric disorder characterized by emotional dependence, loss of control and leads to adverse consequences at school and at home. Teens are more than twice as vulnerable to gambling addictions than adults because they are prone to high-risk behaviors during adolescence. Ninety percent of the nations compulsive gamblers start at an adolescent age. According to the Minnesota Council on Compulsive Gambling, gambling on sporting events is a favorite preference of teenage gamblers. A study conducted by the University of Michigan found that most student athletes gamble. According to this study, ``72% of students athletes have gambled in some way since entering college (80% among male student athletes).'' Many student athletes gamble on sports. This study found ``35% of all students athletes have gambled on sports while attending college (45% among male student athletes).'' This study found that a considerable number of student athletes acted in ways that call into question the integrity of their contests. ``Over 5% of male student athletes provided inside information for gambling purposes, bet on a game in which they participated, or accepted money for performing poorly in a game.'' A study recently conducted by the University of Michigan found that ``84% of college referees said they had participated in some form of gambling since beginning their careers as referees. Nearly 40% also admitted placing bets on sporting events and 20% said they gambled on the NCAA basketball tournament. Two referees said they were aware of the spread on a game and that it affected the way they officiated the contest. Some reported being asked to fix games they were officiating and others were aware of referees who ``did not call a game fairly because of gambling reasons.'' Gambling on college kids is banned in 49 states. Prior to 1992 when any state could have allowed gambling on amateur sporting events, they didn't. No states have asked to have this federal law repealed. Why do you think that is? It is because it is inappropriate. The bottom line--it is inappropriate to bet on college kids. This is about protecting the integrity of amateur athletics, it is about the effect that legal, government sanctioned betting has on the games, it is about the gateway college sports betting provides youth gamblers, and most importantly, it is about the impropriety of betting on teenagers.