Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the International Carbon Sequestration Incentive Act. I am joined by Senators Daschle, DeWine, Bob Kerrey, Grassley and Byrd. Environmental issues have traditionally been filled with controversy--pitting beneficial environmental measures against hard- working small business and state interests. It is unfortunate that the atmosphere surrounding environmental debate is filled with accusations of blame rather than basic problem-solving. From listening to the public discourse concerning environmental issues, one would thing there is no other choice but to handicap our booming economy in order to have a clean environment, despite the fact that pollution is often, unfortunately, an unavoidable consequence of meeting public needs. Mr. President, I stand here today to illustrate that there is a better way to deal with important environmental concerns. There is a way to encourage the best rather than expecting the worst. There is a way to create environmental incentives and environmental markets, rather than only environmental regulations. There is a way to chip away at environmental challenges, rather than demagoging an ``all or nothing'' stance. This bill--the International Carbon Sequestration Incentive Act, takes a pro-active, incentive-driven approach to one of the most difficult environmental issues of our time--global climate change. Specifically, this bill provides investment tax credits for groups who invest in international carbon sequestration projects--including investments which prevent rainforest destruction and projects which reforest abandoned native forest areas. These projects will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the air--helping to offset climate change since carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases. This bill achieves these environmental benefits by promoting carbon sequestration--the process of converting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into carbon which is stored in plants, trees and soils. Under this bill, eligible projects can receive funding at a rate of $2.50 per verified ton of carbon stored or sequestered--up to 50% of the total project cost. The minimum length of these projects is 30 years and the Implementing Panel can only approve $200 million in tax credits each year. Why do this? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas believed to contribute to global warming. While there is debate over the role in which human activity plays in speeding up the warming process, there is broad consensus that there are increased carbon levels in the atmosphere today. Until now, the only real approach seriously considered to address climate change was an international treaty which calls for emission limits on carbon dioxide--which would mean limiting the amount that comes from your car, your business and your farm. This treaty--the Kyoto treaty, also favored exempting developing nations from emission limits--putting the U.S. economy at a distinct disadvantage. Approaching the issue of climate change in this fashion would be very costly and would not respond to the global nature of this problem. Instead, my approach encourages offsetting greenhouse gases through improved land management and conservation--and by engaging developing nations rather than cutting them out of the process. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, sponsored projects under this bill will also help to preserve the irreplaceable biodiversity that flourishes in the Earth's tropical rain forests and other sensitive eco-systems. In addition to diverse plant life, these projects will be protecting countless endangered and rare species. This bill requires investors to work closely with foreign governments, non-governmental organizations and indigenous peoples to find the capital necessary to set aside some of the last great resources of the planet. Rain forests have been called the lungs of the Earth--helping to filter out pollution and provide sanctuary for numerous pharmaceutical finds which may one day cure many of our human diseases. This bill rewards the partnership and pro-active vision of companies that want to be part of the solution to climate change. We are lucky in the fact that private industry is already looking at this issue and working to find a way to contribute. An example of what this bill would promote can be seen by looking at the Noel Kempff Mercado National Park in Bolivia. As you can see by looking at these photos [DISPLAY FOREST SCENES], Noel Kempff is a beautiful, biodiverse part of the world. This park spans nearly 4 million acres in Bolivia, hosts several hundred species of rare and endangered wildlife--including 130 species of mammals, 620 species of birds and 70 species of reptiles--not to mention 110 different species of orchids and grasses. This park was in direct danger of deforestation. The land would have been cleared and eventually turned into large commercial farming operations. The loss of this park would have led to carbon dioxide emissions of between 25-36 million tons as well as increased commercial agricultural competition. Instead, the Bolivian government came together with The Nature Conservancy, American Electric Power and other investors to preserve the park and conduct extensive verification of the carbon being stored in trees and soils of the now protected area. Companies like American Electric Power, BP Amoco and PacifiCorp want to invest in projects like Noel Kempff because they want to promote the role of carbon sequestration as a means to combat climate change. These companies have taken a big step in contributing to the solution--think how much more good they, and other companies, could do if there were incentives to encourage this activity. In the U.S., we are lucky enough to have programs like the Conservation Reserve Program and federal parks--which help preserve some of the natural resources of this great nation. Unfortunately, developing countries do not have access to the kind of capital it takes to make similar investments in their own countries. It is therefore, a worthy investment in the world environment--since climate change is a global problem, to chip away at this problem by doing what we know helps reduce pollution and greenhouse gases: planting and preserving trees. This bill is designed to encourage more participation in projects like the Noel Kempff Park. By using limited and very targeted tax credits, we have an opportunity as a nation--to take a leadership role on climate change without crushing our own economy. This bill also furthers the goal of including developing countries in the climate change issue--since any agreement to reduce greenhouse gases must ultimately include these areas which will become the largest emitters. Mr. President, I do not pretend that this bill will resolve the climate change issue. That is not my intent. Rather, this bill takes the view that where we do agree that good can be achieved--we should move forward. It is my hope that this bill will contribute to the solution on climate change and help to re-shape the way we view environmental problems.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I rise to recognize The Call D.C., a group of young people who will gather in Washington, D.C. September 2, 2000 to strengthen and renew their commitment to God, their families and their local communities. The Call D.C. is a non-denominational gathering of youth and their parents, youth leaders, pastors, and Church leaders who are unified in their steadfast commitment to strengthening their faith in God and their concern for their local communities and our nation. I have long been greatly concerned about the state of our culture, and the state of our society. Young people today are barraged with images of violence, hate, and vulgarity that pour forth from our airwaves and our entertainment. The challenges young people face seem to grow more difficult, and more pervasive. Where once we, as a society, felt free to affirm faith in God, and adherence to high standards, such beliefs are now often called into question. It is thus even more exciting to see many young people, such as these young people, who are willing to lead by example and focus their efforts on steadily improving their families, communities and our nation. These young people, who represent communities and religions from around our nation, will come together on September 2 and use their assembly as a time to pray for strengthen their faith in God, their commitment to their families through reconciling with their parents, and nurturing their walk with God. These young people remind us of our solemn duty not just as parents, teachers, business leaders or public servants but as citizens of this great nation--``a nation under God . . .,'' I commend them for reminding us that we must first focus on God and he will strengthen us and enable us to build up our families, our local communities and our nation. I applaud all the participants of the Call D.C. and thank them for their work and their commitment and their heart for God.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I recognize my colleague from Minnesota today, for legislation that he and I have been working on together has passed this body. It previously passed the House, and now will go to conference. It is The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. It is a bill--one of the first perhaps in the world--to address the growing ugly practice of sex trafficking where people are traded into human bondage--again, into the sex and prostitution business around the world. It is an ugly practice that is growing. More organized crime is getting into it. It is one of the darker sides of globalization that is taking place in the world. It is estimated that the size of this business is $7 billion annually, only surpassed by that of the illegal arms trade on an illegal basis. If those numbers aren't stark enough, the numbers of the individuals involved is stark enough. Our intelligence community estimates that up to 700,000 women and children--primarily young girls--are trafficked, generally from poorer countries to richer countries each year, and sold into bondage; raped, held against their will, locked up, and food withheld from them until they submit to this sex trade. That is taking place in our world in the year 2000. Our intelligence community estimates that 50,000 are trafficked into the United States into this ugly traffic. I had a personal experience with this earlier this year. In January, I traveled to Nepal and met with a number of girls who had been trafficked and then returned. They had been tricked to leave their villages. Many of them were told at the ages of 11, 12, or 13: Come with us. We are going to get you a job as a housekeeper, or making rugs, or some other thing in Bombay, India, that will be much better than what you are doing now. Their families don't have the wherewithal to pay their livelihood. Their families are poor as can be. They are not able to feed them, and the families say: Go ahead. They then take them across the border. They take their papers from them. They force them into brothels in Bombay or Calcutta or somewhere else and force them into this trade. Some of these girls make their way back at the age of 16 or 17 years of age. Two-thirds of them now carry AIDS and/or tuberculosis. Most of them come home to die. It is one of the ugliest, darkest things I have seen around the world. The Senate took the step today to start to deal with this practice that is occurring around the world, and that is occurring in the United States. My colleague, Senator Wellstone, and I worked this legislation together to be able to get it moved through this body. I am so thankful to him and other people who have worked greatly on this legislation to get it passed. I particularly want to recognize, on my staff, Sharon Payt, who has leaned in for a long time to be able to get this done. This is the new, modern form of slavery. Trafficking victims are the new enslaved of the world. Until lately, they have had no advocates, no defenders, no avenues of escape, except death, to release them from the hellish types of circumstances and conditions they have been trafficked into. This is changing rapidly--a new movement of awareness is forming to wrench freedom for the victims and combat trafficking networks. This growing movement runs from `right' to `left,' from Chuck Colson to Gloria Steinem, and from Sam Brownback to Paul Wellstone. Our legislation, which passed today, is part of that movement, providing numerous protections and tools to empower these brutalized people toward re-capturing their dignity and obtaining justice, and getting their lives back. Trafficking has risen dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years with experts speculating that it could exceed the drug trade in revenues in the next few decades. It is coldly observed that drugs are sold once, while a woman or child can be sold 20 and even 30 times a day. This dramatic increase is attributed also to the popularizing of the sex industry worldwide, including the increase of child pornography, and sex tours in Eastern Asia. As the world's dark appetite for these practices grows, so do the number of victims in this evil manifestation of global trade. The victims are usually transported across international borders so as to `shake' local authorities, leaving them defenseless in a foreign country, virtually held hostage in a strange land. Perpetrating further vulnerability, often they are ``traded'' routinely among brothels in different cities. This deliberate ploy robs them of assistance from family, friends, and authorities. The favorite age for girls in some countries is around 13 years of age. I have a 14-year-old daughter and it almost makes me cry to think of somebody being taken out of the home at that age and submitted and subjected and forced into this type of situation. Thirteen is the favorite age. There is a demand particularly for virgins because of the fear of AIDS. Now, imagine, your daughter, your sister, your granddaughter in that hellish condition. International trafficking routes are very specific and include the Eastern European states, particularly Russia and the Ukraine, into Central Europe and Israel. Other routes include girls sold or abducted from Nepal to India--the Nepalese girls are prized because they are beautiful, illiterate, extremely poor with no defenders, and compliant, making it easy to keep them in bondage. In Eastern Asia, most abductees are simple tribal girls from isolated mountain regions who are forced into sexual service, primarily in Thailand and Malaysia. These are only a few of the countless but repeatedly traveled routes. One of two methods, fraud or force, is used to obtain victims. Force is often used in the cities wherein, for example, the victim is physically abducted and held against her will, sometimes in chains, and usually brutalized through repeated rape and beatings. Regarding fraudulent procurement, typically the ``buyer'' promises the parents that he is taking their daughter away to become a nanny or domestic servant, giving the parents a few hundred dollars as a ``down payment'' for the future money she will earn for the family. Then the girl is transported across international borders, deposited in a brothel and forced into the trade until she is no longer useful having contracted AIDS. She is held against her will under the rationale that she must ``work off'' her debt which was paid to the parents, which usually takes several years, if she remains alive that long. A Washington Post article, Sex Trade Enslaves East Europeans, dated July 25th, vividly captures the suffering of one Eastern Europe woman who was trafficked through Albania to Italy: ``As Irina recounts the next part of her story, she picks and scratches at the skin on her face, arms and legs, as if looking for an escape . . . she says the women were raped by a succession of Albanian men who stopped by at all hours, in what seemed part of a carefully organized campaign of psychological conditioning for a life of prostitution.'' This insidious activity must be challenged, and our legislation would do exactly that. That is what this body has passed today. This legislation establishes, for the first time, a bright line between the victim and perpetrator. Presently, most existing laws internationally fail to distinguish between victims of sexual trafficking and their perpetrators. Sadly and ironically, victims are punished more harshly than the traffickers, because of their illegal immigration status and lack of documents (which the traffickers have confiscated to control the victim). In contrast, our legislation punishes the perpetrators and provides an advocacy forum to promote international awareness, as well as providing the following: Criminal punishment for persons convicted of operating as traffickers in the U.S. Creates a new immigration status termed a ``T'' visa for trafficking victims found in the U.S., to promote aggressive prosecution of traffickers. Directs USAID, as well as domestic government agencies to fund programs for victim assistance and awareness to help stop this practice, both overseas and domestically. Establishes an annual reporting mechanism to identify trafficking offenders, both individual and country-specific. Advances rule of law programs to promote combating of international sex trafficking. Authorizes grants for law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute international trafficking, and assist in drafting and implementation of new legislation. In closing, there is a unique generosity in the American people, who are defined by their vigilance for justice. As we challenge this dehumanizing practice, an inspired movement is growing in America and worldwide. Sparking this awareness are courageous groups which deserve acknowledgment, including the International Justice Mission with Gary Haugen, and the Protection Project with Dr. Laura Lederer, among several others. Both Senator Wellstone and I hope this legislation is the beginning of the end for this modern-day slavery known as trafficking. Mr. President, we had five major health organizations come together and identify the violence in our entertainment that is harming our children. The organizations include the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatricians. I turn the floor back over to my colleague from Minnesota. Today, his interest has culminated in this legislation passing this body. This is the most significant human rights legislation we have passed this Congress, if not for several years. This is going to save lives. It will start identifying this pernicious, ugly, dark practice around the world for what it is. We are going to start saving people's lives as a result of it.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for doing that.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the body on an issue.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as the father of five children--two of whom came into our family through international adoption--I take special interest in the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. The treaty signers hope to improve the international adoption system and provide more homes for the children who need them. Like many active adoption professionals and leaders of the American adoption community, I support the mission of the treaty to protect the rights of, and prevent abuses against, children, birth families, and adoptive parents, involved in adoptions. The treaty will not only reassure countries who send their children outside their borders, it will also improve the ability of the United States to assist its citizens who seek to adopt children from abroad. While the treaty will provide significant benefits, I had serious concerns that the proposed method of implementation would have caused more harm than good. After study, it became clear to me that there are few nonprofit private entities in existence that have the funding, staff, and experience necessary to develop and administer standards for entities (agencies) providing child welfare services. Small community based agencies especially would have found it costly and burdensome to deal with only one or possibly two large and most likely distant accrediting entities. For the season, I have repeatedly expressed concerns that many states, especially rural and sparsely populated areas, risk being left with no adoption agencies authorized to help their residents with foreign adoptions. As I have stated before, I believe it is important for each state to regulate adoption agencies as it deems appropriate to meet the widely varying needs of its families with the resources available in that state. Working closely with the sponsors of this bill, I proposed an amendment that allows public entities (other than a Federal entity), including an agency or instrumentality of State government having responsibility for licensing adoption agencies, to serve as an accrediting entity. (In other words, a state government may serve as an accrediting entity). In this way, States may continue to participate in intercountry adoption--making sure that interested parties meet the Hague requirements. Giving states the option to continue to participate in intercountry adoption would ensure that small and medium sized agencies have at least one accrediting entity choice that is local, familiar, and easily accessible. In addition, in order to further lessen the initial burden of federal accreditation on small and medium sized agencies, I worked with the sponsors of this bill to minimally increase the temporary registration period for small and medium sized agencies. Thus, they would have more time to prepare for federal accreditation--a process that may prove to be costly and burdensome but is considered necessary by many in the adoption community. My initial concerns regarding certain provisions of the implementing legislation stemmed from a number of areas including my own experience of having recently adopted two children from other countries, and contact with numerous other families who would either love to adopt a child, but can't afford it, or who have adopted a child under the present system and had great success. Like many Americans, I am firmly committed to finding permanent, safe, and loving homes for children who have been orphaned or are in foster care. I am hopeful this legislation will help secure that dream without adding a significant overlay of federal bureaucracy and red tape. At this time, I would like to recognize and thank one of my staff members, Amanda Adkins, for help on this legislation. Amanda was truly diligent in her efforts to make this a better bill and to work for the needs of rural Kansans. I thank her for her dedication. Many families spend their entire life savings to realize their dream of having a child. I look forward to continuing to work with the sponsors of this bill as we monitor the implementation of this important treaty.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S. 2982 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. As recently as this morning, upon Chairman Arafat's arrival back in Gaza, Arafat said: There is an agreement between us and the Israeli government made in Sharm-El-Sheikh that we continue negotiations until Sept. 13th, the date for declaring our independent state, with Jerusalem as its capital, whether people like it or not. By itself, the threat undermines confidence in the Palestinians' commitment to the peace process and, in effect, would abrogate the foundation of the Oslo accords that all outstanding final status issues will be resolved through negotiations. Allow me, for a moment, to review the history here. More than 50 years ago, the United Nations created two states: Israel and Palestine. The creation of a homeland for the Jews in Israel was unacceptable to the Arabs, and five Arab states attacked the newly created state. When all was said and done, Israel was a reality, and the nominal Palestine ended up in the hands of Jordan. We never heard about Jerusalem then. In fact, when the PLO was created in 1964, Jerusalem was never even mentioned. When Jordan lost the West Bank and Jerusalem in 1967, then the question of Palestine and Jerusalem became important once again. In fact, we are told that the reason Yasser Arafat walked out of Camp David was because he did not get all of east Jerusalem and the Old City. In other words, when Arafat did not get through the peace process what he could not get through war, he decided to walk away from peace. One thing has become clear to me in the last few years. The Oslo agreement was nothing less than an admission on the part of the Palestinians and the PLO that Israel would never be defeated in war. The Palestinians entered into a peace process because they had no other choice. Now I am forced to question just how committed they are to that process. If the aim is to win through negotiations what they could not through war, then what kind of a process is it? There are no ambiguities here: Either the Palestinians are committed to the process, and to a negotiated outcome, or they are not. Arafat's threat to declare a Palestinians state on September 13, 2000 is an abrogation of the peace process, and as such, an abrogation of any understanding with the United States regarding the PLO and Mr. Arafat as negotiating partners. U.S. assistance to the Palestinians is predicated upon good faith negotiations in a peace process. Nothing else. Nothing. For those that have some doubt, I remind them that as far as U.S. law is concerned, the Palestine Liberation Organization is a terrorist organization. I and many of my colleagues have always stood ready to accept the outcome of a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. We have done so reluctantly, because of fears about what a Palestinian state would do, how it would survive, about the commitment to democracy, and real fears about terrorism. We will not stand idly by and accept a non-negotiated solution, contrary to the Oslo Accords, contrary to the spirit of a peace process. Should Mr. Arafat go forward and declare a Palestinian state, the bill that Senator Schumer and I are offering today will preclude the expenditure of funds to recognize that state and preclude further assistance to any Palestinian governing entity. It instructs the President to use the voice and vote of the United States in the United Nations bodies to stop recognition or admission of a Palestinian state. I hope Chairman Arafat chooses the path of peace. However, if he does not, this legislation makes very clear that the relationship between the U.S. government and the Palestine leadership will change. We will not recognize the unilaterally declared Palestinian state and we will strongly urge all others not to do so. Either there is peace through a process or there can be no peace. If that is what Yasser Arafat wants, it is a terrible crime against the Palestinians, and a mistake that history will not forget.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, what is the present order of business?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to make a few remarks on an issue very important to our young student athletes, as well as our colleges and universities. It is a piece of legislation that, if the appropriations continue to be held up on the other side of the aisle, I think we should consider. We should go to this piece of legislation. The legislation is the Amateur Sports Integrity Act, which was passed out of the Commerce Committee by a 16-2 vote. There was strong bipartisan support for the legislation and introduction of the bill. Senator Leahy and I introduced the bill. Basically, the legislation closes the one loophole on college gambling. Presently, you cannot gamble legally in this country on college athletics. You can't bet on the Road to the Final Four, the NCAA basketball tournament, football and bowl games--except in one State in the country, and that is Nevada. That is what has led to a number of problems we have had of expanded sports gambling on amateur athletics and expanded cases where student athletes have fallen to the whims of people promising them some help if they will shave a point or two off the game. So we are trying to close that one loophole in Nevada so it is clear that it is illegal to bet on college sports in the United States. This bipartisan legislation is in direct response to a recommendation made by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which last year concluded a 2-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 NCAA, coaches, teachers, athletic directors, commissioners, university presidents, school principals, and family groups from across the country. Those groups are all strongly supportive of this legislation. In my home State, Roy Williams, the basketball coach at the University of Kansas, considered taking the job at North Carolina but decided against it--happily, in my opinion. He is a strong proponent of this legislation. These are the people supporting this who know about the threat of gambling on amateur athletics. These are the people who are fighting the problem on the front lines 24 hours a day. These groups support our legislation which will prohibit all legalized gambling on high school and college sports, as well as the Summer and Winter Olympic Games. The Nation's college and university system is one of our greatest assets. We offer the world the model for postsecondary education. But sports gambling has become a black eye on too many colleges and universities. Gambling on the outcome of sporting events tarnishes the integrity of sports and diminishes the esteem in which we and the rest of the world hold U.S. postsecondary institutions. This amendment would deal with that problem. It would remove the ambiguity that surrounds gambling on college sports and make it clearly illegal in all 50 States in the United States. We should not gamble with the integrity of our colleges or the future of our college athletes. Our young athletes deserve legal protection from the seedy influences of the gambling, and fans deserve to know that athletic competitions are honest and fair. Gambling scandals involving student athletes have become all too common over the past 10 years. In fact, there have been more gambling scandals in our colleges and universities in the 1990s than in every other decade before it combined. These scandals are a direct result of an increase in gambling on amateur sports. It was just 2 years ago, during the Final Four, that we learned of the point-shaving scandal at Northwestern University involving their men's basketball team. This scandal involved both legal and illegal gambling on several Northwestern games. Kevin Pendergast, a former Notre Dame place kicker who orchestrated the basketball point-shaving scandal at Northwestern University, has stated--and I think this is clear, and it points to where we have a problem and why this is a problem and something we should take care of. In other States, it is illegal. Here is what the guy who masterminded that point-shaving case at Northwestern said: My relationship with sports gambling continued off and on and ended with a $20,000 bet placed in a sports book in Las Vegas. This was part of three basketball games that have been mentioned by Senator Brownback in the Northwestern point- shaving incident. The majority of the monies wagered in these games were legally wagered in Nevada. And by legally wagered, I mean you walk up to the sports book and place a bet on one team or the other. Now it was obviously illegal because of what was going on behind the scenes, but like I said, the majority of the monies wagered in this situation were wagered in a legal manner in sports casinos in Nevada. That was the big case that broke 2 years ago. He went to a number of college athletes and said, ``We are not talking about losing the game. Don't lose the game. We just want you not to win it by as much as the margin.'' That is what we are talking about--the point spread. We will be able to wager money on the game, and if you are ahead by five points and the margin says six on it, just don't score. We are learning, as we have gone through hearings, that you don't do this on offense; you do it on defense. If you want to shave points, it is not that you miss the free throw or the shot; you actually let your player get by you on an offensive move. It is less obvious to the other people watching that that is something that is going on. So actually people have thought this through quite a bit on how you allow shaving to take place. That is what Kevin Pendergast said on this one particular case that broke 2 years ago. In fact, the last two major point shaving scandals involved legalized gambling in Las Vegas sports books. The point-shaving scandal involving Arizona State University is believed to involve more money than any other sports gambling case in the history of intercollegiate athletics and involved legalized gambling and organized crime. A study recently conducted by the University of Michigan found that 84 percent of college referees said they had participated in some form of gambling since beginning their careers as referees. Nearly 40 percent also admitted placing bets on sporting events and 20 percent 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.'' Just a few months ago, newspaper articles from Las Vegas and Chicago detailed how illegal and legal gambling are sometime interconnected. I get irritated sometimes at the referees in games. But if I thought there was anything going on where they were gambling on the games and that it was affecting their calls, imagine how poisonous this would be to them and to the integrity of the sport that is taking place. 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 percent of America's 20 million teenagers 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; and Ninety percent of the nation's 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. We are talking about the gateway behavior, the pathological gambling, and 90 percent of it starts as teenagers. Where does it generally start? One of the favorite gateways is sports gambling. Opponents of our legislation have tried to discredit our efforts by insisting that we should be focusing our efforts on curbing illegal gambling, not legal. I agree that we should be looking at ways to help law enforcement and institutions for higher education combat illegal gambling. The NCAA has undertaken numerous steps to combat gambling among student athletes and stated during the Commerce Committee hearing its intention to do even more. I want to list some of the steps they proposed and are doing. They are sponsoring educational programs for student athletes, including development of a sports wagering video; partnershiping with several professional organizations; assisting in bringing Federal and local enforcement officers to camps across the country; continuing to broadcast antisports gambling through public service announcements during NCAA championship games aired on CBS and CNN, most recently aired 18 times during the 2000 basketball championship games, and will continue to run during championship games this year. They developed a ``don't-bet-on-it booklet,'' created in partnership with the National Endowment for Financial Education to educate students about the dangers of sports gambling and to acquaint them with good financial management strategies. They distributed these to at least 325,000 NCAA students. The NCAA established policies that prohibit gambling on professional or college sports by college athletic personnel, student athletes, athletic conferences, and NCAA employees. They prohibit student athletes from competing if they knowingly provide information to individuals concerning games. They prohibit student athletes from competing if they solicit a bet on any intercollegiate game, or if they accept a bet on any intercollegiate team, or if they accept a bet on any team representing the institution, or participate in any gambling activity that involves an intercollegiate athlete through a book maker, or any other method employed by organized gambling. They have instituted background checks on men and women basketball officials to try to deal with the study that I just mentioned by the University of Michigan about the number of referees who have been involved in gambling. The NCAA has been working in partnership with the National Association of Student Personnel and Administrators on implementation of on-campus surveys aimed at obtaining data related to gambling behavior of college students. The goal is to enlist 50 institutions to participate in the project. I hope the results will be available later this year. The NCAA is working with several of the largest athletic conferences to assist in the development of comprehensive research on student athletic gambling behavior. They have other programs they are working with as well. My point in mentioning all of that is there were charges made at the hearing in the Commerce Committee that the NCAA isn't doing enough. I agree. They are not. They are not stepping up and doing more. That should not be an excuse for us not doing what is right here, which is to ban the gambling on student sports. We shouldn't be subjecting our student athletes to this type of pressure. Opponents have claimed that this is a state issue, not a federal one. This argument doesn't hold water. Congress already determined this is a federal issue with the passage of Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in 1992. Ironically, while Nevada is the only state where legal gambling on collegiate and Olympic sporting events occurs, Nevada's own gaming regulations prohibit gambling on any of Nevada's teams because of the potential to jeopardize the integrity of those sporting events. If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander. This should be banned everywhere. During a press conference on my legislation earlier this year I encouraged colleges and universities from across the country to ask the Nevada Gaming Control Board to prohibit any wagers from being ``accepted or paid by any book'' on their respective athletic teams in Nevada. Unfortunately, the board refused the NCAA's request, stating that ``the same level of protection is already extended within each of these states.'' What they failed to mention was that no state, except for Nevada, allows betting on college teams from other states. The frequency of gambling scandals over the last decade is a clear indication of legal gambling of college sports stretching beyond the borders of Nevada, impacting the integrity of States' sporting events in other places. I said to the Nevada Gaming Control Board: If you take UNLV off the books, allow a way for the University of Kansas and Kansas State University to get off the books. Let our board of regents petition the Nevada Gaming Board that if they don't want to be on the books, Kansas State University can be pulled off, the Governor can send a letter officially requesting, or the legislature can even pass a resolution saying the request be pulled off the books. Give us a way out to protect the integrity of our universities. They denied the request. They said they would not do it because if we wanted out, there will be a whole bunch more who want out. Should that not tell us something right there, as well? I am a strong advocate of States rights. However, States rights meet a State's authority to determine how best to govern within that State's own borders; they do not have a right to impact the integrity of Kansas sporting events. They do not have the authority to set laws allowing a State to impose its policies on every other State while exempting itself. Gambling on college sports, both legal and illegal, threatens the integrity of the game. That threat extends beyond any one State's borders. I realize a ban on collegiate sports gambling will not eliminate all gambling on college sports. However, as Coach Calhoun stated in his testimony during the hearing: It is a starting point. It is an important starting point. This is exactly what this legislation is about, a beginning. It will send a clear signal to our communities and, more importantly, a clear message to our kids: Gambling on student athletics is wrong and threatens the integrity of college athletes. I believe it is important that every Senator voting on this legislation should ask him or herself this question: Is it unseemly and wrong to bet on kids? I think so. If enacted, there will be no ambiguity about whether it is legal or illegal to bet on college sports. As part of a broader strategy to resensitize the public to the problems associated with college sports gambling, this will make a difference. We should not wait for another point-shaving scandal in order to act. There will be another point-shaving case that will come down. Given the amount of money--over $1 billion bet each year on college sports--there will be another point-shaving case that will occur. Mr. President, if the minority, if the Democrat side, chooses to continue to hold up legislation on appropriations bills, I think this would be a good time to go take up this bill. I think it would be appropriate. I think it would be a good time to take it up. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I guess we are reading different bills here. The bill that we have is a 5-year bill. It sunsets in 5 years. It is scored at $89 billion. At the end of 5 years, it sunsets. We don't know what happens at the end of that. It is only on the 15-percent tax bracket. It doubles the standard deduction over a period of years from $26,250 per individual to $52,500. I hardly see how that is wealthy. It is 5 percent of the on-budget surplus, not Social Security. It does not steal money from other priority programs. I guess I am confused. I guess he is talking about a different bill than I will vote on this morning. My final point is, this will pass with a large margin. It will pass with over 60 votes. Then it is up to the President of the United States and the Vice President--President Clinton and Vice President Gore-- whether this tax cut will reach our working families across America. It will be up to them. I call on them to sign this bill and not penalize our people across this country for the simple act of being married. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Senate just passed the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Reconciliation Act by 60 votes. Sixty percent of the Senate voted in favor of eliminating the marriage penalty tax. Now it is up to the President and the Vice President--President Clinton and Al Gore--whether or not we will continue to tax marriage in America. This relief is available now to more than 50 million Americans. The President and the Vice President decide whether this is going to become law. All that remains for this legislation to become law is the President's signature. He is the one who can decide. He is the one who will decide, along with the Vice President, whether or not the marriage penalty will be eliminated. It is on their desk. It is up to the President. He is the one who decides. He said he is for it. He said it during the State of the Union message. Now he will have a chance to go ahead and act and sign the bill. I say to the President yet again: Sign this into law. I congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, who has done wonderful work, yeoman work on getting this bill passed. I congratulate the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, who has waged a crusade for several years, seeing this was wrong in the Tax Code, and has fought diligently to get this done. I thank the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, for his work in pushing this over a period of time. Now we are close to getting it done. We are almost there. It is time to be able to do it. We have the wherewithal. It is time. The President and the Vice President will decide whether or not this becomes law. I want to cite what is in the bill so that people know what is there. I know we have been through this a number of times, but just to make sure people are clear what we are doing, we are doubling the standard deduction; we eliminate the penalty there. The current standard deduction is $4,400 for singles. For couples it is $7,350. We just double it. We make it $8,800 for married couples. It seems only fair that for two people you should have a standard deduction that would be double what it is for one person. In the 15-percent tax bracket, for a married couple filing, we double the income amount. Currently, a single taxpayer, hits the top of the 15-percent bracket when they make over $26,250. If it is a couple, they hit the top when they earn $43,850. We say that is not fair. If it is two people, it should be double what it is for one, so we move it up to $52,500. Those are the two main features of this bill. That is the big end of the bill. It is taking a standard deduction from $4,400 for a single and that is now $7,350 for a married couple and saying we will make it $8,800. We are saying on the 15-percent bracket, which is the one we hit here, we are saying right now that if you are a couple, that you hit the top of that bracket at $43,850, even though it is $26,250 for a single person. We are saying if you are a married couple, we will move it up to $52,500. That is the guts of the bill. Then on the earned-income tax credit, we increase the phaseout by $2,000 for a married couple so that low-income individuals don't hit that same marriage penalty. Those are the three main features. That is what was passed. That is what 60 Senators and 63 percent of the House voted for. That is now what is in front of the President. Some people say it costs too much--$89 billion. This is a 5-year tax bill. It sunsets after 5 years--$89 billion. It is 5 percent of the on- budget surplus. Setting the Social Security surplus aside, just leaving what is still the on-budget surplus, it is only 5 percent. That is all it is. Some people say we should be using it for debt reduction. This year, we will pay down the national debt--the debt, not the deficit--we will pay down the national debt about $200 billion. We will buy down the national debt this year by $200 billion, probably the most in the history of the United States. I haven't looked up the actual number, but it is probably the most in real terms, $200 billion of debt buy- down. The simple point here is there are no excuses remaining for the President not to sign this into law. There is no excuse on debt reduction. There is no excuse that it is too expensive. There is no excuse that it is just for the wealthy. All of those are false statements. There is just no substance to them. There is no excuse for him to deny 25 million American families this tax cut. I wouldn't even call it a tax cut. I think the Senator from Texas has it right. It is a tax correction. Should we tax marriage more than we are taxing single people, when we are having so much trouble with the family in the country? We ought to give them a bonus to encourage family values. This is a big day for this body. This is a major piece of legislation. It has cleared Congress. It has cleared through the House; it has cleared through the Senate. It now sits on the desk of the President; for the President and Vice President of the United States to decide. They can be heroes. They can sign this bill into law or they can say, no, we are going to veto this piece of legislation. I hope they will say, no, we don't want to send a signal to the married people of America that we think they ought to be taxed. Democrats offered an alternative. It was a fine alternative, but it created a homemaker penalty that if you had one wage earner, but a second spouse who decided to stay home to take care of older parents and children, it actually taxed them more. So you had a homemaker penalty that was put into the Democratic alternative. It had a number of positive things about it, but the last thing we want to do is to say to people: Well, we really don't value somebody who stays at home to take care of family members, young or old, or other friends. I think we ought to say this is a critical thing. We don't want to send the signal that we are going to tax in that situation. That is why we have worked out over the years all the problems in this bill. I don't know what the President will come up with in vetoing it, but it has been a great bipartisan majority that has passed this bill; sixty votes, a number of our Democratic colleagues joining us on this bill that has now passed. It just awaits the signature of the person who sits in the Presidency of the United States. I hope he and Vice President Al Gore will decide: They have met most of the charges in the concerns we had and we are going to sign it into law.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I will need somewhere around 10 minutes to discuss the conference report. May I proceed at this time?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for putting forward this legislation. This is the marriage penalty tax. It has been before this body. We passed it with 61 votes in favor of it, and 9 Democrats voted in favor of this bill. Almost the entire Republican side voted for this bill. Now we have a conference report in front of us. I hope people will look at this and look at what is in the conference report. That is why I wanted to take some time to go through it. It is a 5-year package, $89 billion. I don't want people saying it is $250 billion or anything; it is an $89 billion package. It only hits the 15- percent tax bracket. There has been concern about the 28-percent bracket being hit. It doesn't include the 28-percent bracket. The House side has a 15-percent bracket in dealing with the marriage penalty but not the 28-percent bracket. So we went with the House side and said: OK, we will pull out the 28-percent bracket. So it is just that 15- percent bracket. It is phased in faster than the Senate bill that passed. It does continue to contain the earned-income tax provisions within it so that married couples who are currently being hit by a marriage penalty associated with the earned-income tax credit are no longer impacted by that. This is an overall excellent bill that meets virtually everybody's suggestions that they were making about this bill. I hope we can get 100 percent support within the Senate for this bill. It eliminates the marriage penalty built into the standard deduction effective back to the beginning of this year. It backs it up to the beginning of the year 2000. It widens the 15-percent bracket gradually so that joint filing is two times that of singles. It starts at the beginning of this year, and is fully effective by the year 2004. In other words, we are taking that 15-percent bracket for two-wage earners, or spouses with combined incomes, or even only one spouse, and we are doubling the standard deduction. We are doing it up until 2004. It increases the top phaseout amount of the earned-income tax credit--the provision I was talking about earlier--for joint filers by $2,000 effective to the beginning of this year; again, the beginning of the year 2000. It sunsets the tax relief provisions in accordance with the Byrd rule at the end of 2004. I want to make sure to point out that provision to people as well. This is a 5-year marriage penalty elimination for the 15-percent tax bracket and earned-income tax credit. That is basically what the package is. I think it should contain more. I think we ought to have the 28-percent bracket as well on combined incomes. We couldn't get agreement to that in the House. We did on the 15-percent bracket. I direct most of my statement tonight to the administration. This is going to pass. It is going to pass strong. We have had a lot of calls and contacts in our office from people saying: Of course you shouldn't tax marriage. Let's do away with this penalty. That is what we are simply pleading to the President. After tomorrow morning when this passes with at least 61 votes, this will be on the administration's desk. It is up to the President and Vice President to determine whether they are going to sign this tax cut. Are we going to sign this tax correction and send to the American people, or are we going to veto it? The President has been saying: OK. Send me prescription drugs and I will sign the marriage penalty. In the State of the Union Message, he said: Let's deal with the marriage penalty tax, and let's eliminate it. He didn't say then that you have to send this to me at the same time. He asked for a hundred things in the State of the Union Message. He didn't say they have to be linked together. I think he is hiding behind that issue rather than saying whether he is for or against eliminating the marriage penalty within the Tax Code. I call on the President to sign this for the American people. After tomorrow morning, the President and the Vice President and this administration are all that stands in the way of the American people being able to receive this correction within the Tax Code so people who are married don't pay more taxes than people who are single. It simply makes equitable a situation for most people impacted by the marriage penalty; not all. It would be better if it dealt with everybody. It is a simple statement that we should not be taxing marriage. We have said that repeatedly. For most people impacted by the marriage penalty, this bill will deal with that situation. We will not be taxing people just for being married. Plus, I think it is just the right message to send across to the American public saying we think marriage is a valuable institution; it shouldn't be taxed. We think it is at the center of family values. Let's all say we are for it and that we shouldn't be taxing it. Also, it gets around that iron rule in government that if you want less of something, tax it; if you want more of something, subsidize it. I don't think we want to tell the American public we want less marriage, and therefore we are taxing them. This is the time for us to accomplish this. I say in conclusion that this is going to pass, and it will pass large tomorrow morning. At least nine Democrats voted for it the last time. The only thing that stands in the way of this tax relief--this tax sanity, that we shouldn't be taxing marriage and the American public--is the President of the United States. Please, Mr. President, sign this bill. This is good tax policy. This Congress is doing a number of things. We are getting them to the President. It is up to the President whether he will sign them into law. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to recognize and celebrate the life of Paul Coverdell, as many of my colleagues have today, a beautiful, warm-hearted, deep-souled man who was constantly encouraging and engaging people. I know he is hearing these comments. I wish I would have said them to him physically as well, but we know he is here, as we celebrate a life well lived. It is a very sad day for us in the Senate. I caught the comments of Senator Gramm earlier wherein he said that instead of staring at the death, we should stare at the life; instead of staring at our loss, we should stare at our gain from having known Paul Coverdell. That is a very appropriate way for us to look at and think about it. Paul touched so many of us in the Senate in many wonderful ways. One of the things he did for my family that I most remember was sending us a book by a Georgian author. The title of the book was ``Lights Along the Way.'' It was a collection of vignettes of people of faith, acts they had performed--many of them very obscure, some of them well known--to help people along the way. For example, one person had adopted 10 children, and the light this person had been along the way; some of the things Abraham Lincoln had done, a clear light along the way. My daughter and I would frequently read one, maybe two of these stories at night before going to bed. They were uplifting, happy, light, joyous stories of lives well lived, of somebody being a light along the way. That is exactly what Paul Coverdell was, a light along the way. If you saw him during the day, it was never a confrontational meeting. It was always a happy meeting. Even though you may disagree about something, he was always trying to be helpful. He was a peacemaker. As you would pass through your day, he was one of those lights along the way. That is why our grief is so great. When you lose part of that light, it makes it very difficult. He clearly was that. He was one of those people who talked about the scripture of God working through an individual and that it was God working in him to be that light along the way. I think Paul was truly that, a beautiful, deeply-caring man. He cared for his country, cared for his friends. He cared for people who were not his friends. I never saw him give a harsh or a cross word to anybody. I never saw him hardly give a frown to anybody, let alone a harsh word. It is those sorts of vignettes of Paul's life that I remember, that stick out in my mind, his being such a light along the way. I hope he is a light we don't forget. I hope he is a light we learn from. Light cleanses. Light shows us the way. Light points to where we ought to be and where we ought to go. Many times, it is a point of light in the distance that we seek, towards which we aim, whether it is a lighthouse or a distant shining light. That is what Paul is to us now, one of those lights we seek and aim towards, hoping that in some way, at some time in our life, we will be able to draw closer, move towards it, be purer, be a greater light; that when we enter a room, people will react as they did when Paul entered a room. You can enter a room and there are shadows that come out, frowns, or you can enter a room and people start to smile and be happy, even though they are not exactly sure why you are there. Paul was one of those where the room started to light up rather than get darker when he entered. I hope his is a light we will always remember. As we mourn today, we celebrate that light among us, a light for us to aim towards. He was a great man. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, before we close, I ask that we have a moment of silent prayer for the Paul Coverdell family. (Moment of silence.)

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the ground- breaking and encouraging work being performed by the Healthy Culture Initiative, a non-profit group with which I am honored to be associated. The Healthy Culture Initiative (HCI) is an organization committed to strengthening and improving the health of America's culture by recognizing and replicating the many innovative, local initiatives aimed at solving community challenges. The Healthy Culture Initiative recognizes that there are many challenges we face as a nation--over the last thirty years, we have seen huge increases in family breakdown, out-of-wedlock births, single parent families, teen suicide, drug abuse, violence, and civic disengagement. But for every problem in America, there is already a solution--a solution that is in place in neighborhoods across America. Indeed, many of the most effective solutions to the complex social problems of crime, drug abuse, family breakdown, teen suicide, illegitimacy, and poverty arise from the committed efforts of a small group of individuals working within their own community. The Healthy Culture Initiative seeks to recognize these exciting efforts, and encourage their replication. HCI has four primary objectives: First, through a series of Success Summits to be held in cities across America, the Healthy Culture Initiative will recognize, and help replicate, community-based solutions to pressing social challenges. Second, the Healthy Culture Initiative will jump-start important civic dialogue about ways that ordinary people, working alone or in small groups, can help strengthen families, schools, neighborhoods, and ultimately, our Nation. Third, HCI will measure the success of new initiatives. In conjunction with the Gallup organization, the Healthy Culture Initiative will work to quantify the actual results of each new initiative launched, so that resources and attention can be concentrated on the most effective efforts. And finally, HCI will develop a network of information resources, including web links and educational materials, to assist community activists in initiating new programs in their neighborhoods. I can personally attest to the exciting work undertaken by the Healthy Culture Initiative, in that I and Senator Joe Lieberman, currently serve as honorary co-chairs. I am excited by the caliber and quality of individuals who are leading this initiative--including Don Clifton, President and CEO of the Gallup Corporation; Charles Krulak, former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, Executive Director Cindy Cobb; Don Eberly, CEO of the National Fatherhood Initiative, Curt Smith of the Hudson Institute, Jay Speigel of the Reserve Officers Association, and many others. The plans of the Healthy Culture Initiative are ambitious and wide- ranging. It is my hope that by celebrating the many exciting success stories taking place in our communities across America, we can encourage their replication--and build a healthier culture, and a stronger America.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am delighted to hail today the passage of the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act. This legislation is the product of more than three year's worth of negotiations between the governors, cities, State tax and local tax authorities, and the wireless industry. The legislation represents an historic agreement between State and local governments and the wireless industry to bring sanity to the manner in which wireless telecommunications services are taxed. For as long as we have had wireless telecommunications in this country, we have had a taxation system that is incredibly complex for carriers and costly for consumers. Today, there are several different methodologies that determine whether a taxing jurisdiction may tax a wireless call. If a call originates at a cell site located in a jurisdiction, it may impose a tax. If a call originates at a switch in the jurisdiction, a tax may be imposed. If the billing address is in the jurisdiction, a tax can be imposed. As a result, many different taxing authorities can tax the same wireless call. The farther you travel during a call, the greater the number of taxes that can be imposed upon it. This system is simply not sustainable as wireless calls represent an increasingly portion of the total number of calls made throughout the United States. To reduce the cost of making wireless calls, Senator Dorgan and I introduced S. 1755, the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act. The bill we pass today that we received from the House is substantively identical to our bill. While the current bill amends title 4 rather than title 47 and represents the drafting style of the House rather than the Senate, the legislation uses our language to accomplish our mutual goal. The legislation would create a nationwide, uniform system for the taxation of wireless calls. The only jurisdictions that would have the authority to tax mobile calls would be the taxing authorities of the customer's place of primary use, which would essentially be the customer's home or office. By creating this uniform system, Congress would be greatly simplifying the taxation and billing of wireless calls. The wireless industry would not have to keep track of multiple taxing laws for each wireless transaction. State and local taxing authorities would be relieved of burdensome audit and oversight responsibilities without losing the authority to tax wireless calls. And, most importantly, consumers would see reduced wireless rates and fewer billing headaches. The Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act is a win-win-win. It's a win for industry, a win for government, and a win for consumers. I thank Senator Dorgan for working with me in crafting our bill. And I would like to commend the House for sending the Senate the bill before us. And, most of all, I thank the groups outside of Congress for coming together and reaching agreement on this important issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous, consent that Senator Dorgan and I be permitted to enter into a colloquy.

Mr. BROWNBACK. The Senator from North Dakota is correct. H.R. 4391 is substantively identical to S. 1755, which the Senator and I introduced last year, which is co-sponsored by every member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which was reported unanimously by the Senate Commerce Committee to the Senate, and for which the Senate Commerce Committee filed Senate Report No. 106-326.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is an amendment I want to get into the mix. I would like it to be brought up and considered on Monday. It deals with a number of issues that are affecting CRP payments. I submit it for consideration, and I ask it be considered at the proper time. I ask now it be set aside for other business.