Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Iran Nonproliferation Act. I note, as many do, the encouraging election results that happened this past week within Iran. I say encouraging because perhaps that country is moving towards a more open policy, a better policy of engagement with the rest of the world and the United States. I want to point out some facts and some reasons that this act should be passed. Iran remains a danger to the United States and to our friends in the Middle East, particularly to Israel. It is a fact. Iran continues as the largest state supporter of international terrorism, the bankroller of munitions supplied to Hezbollah in Lebanon and to Islamic Jihad and Hamas. It is still opposed to the Israeli peace process and to peace under any circumstances with Israel. Those are all the facts, and they remain the facts, in spite of the fact that a so-called moderate President Khatami has been in power in Iran for 2\1/2\ years. I know some would say he does not have full control, and he doesn't, nor will he after these elections. This will remain the factual situation even after this election. I don't think the United States should act on hope but on fact. The recent Hezbollah attacks on Israeli soldiers could not have happened without Iranian approval. Those attacks, made possible by the continued funneling of arms from Iran to Hezbollah, were undertaken primarily to derail the peace process. After all, Israel has already committed itself to withdraw from Lebanon by July. Even more worrisome is Iran's effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to be able to deliver them. The administration has already sanctioned 10 Russian entities for providing dangerous technologies to Iran but readily admits that the flow continues. Thousands of Russian scientists and technicians are at work in Iran helping these efforts. This remains the fact today. Iran has already flight-tested a missile capable of reaching Israel and is working on longer range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Fact. Under the guise of peaceful nuclear energy development, Iran is spending billions to develop a nuclear infrastructure. Iran, a country rich in both oil and natural gas, needs to develop nuclear energy about as much as Alaska needs artificial snowmaking machines. The picture gets worse. CIA Director Tenet, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee earlier this month, forecast the possibility that Iran might become a supplier in its own right of missile technology as it develops its own indigenous production capability. Fact. Those are the facts. Iran is getting this dangerous technology from North Korea and China, but its primary source remains Russia. Russian entities have assisted Iran in the development of a missile capable of hitting Israel. They are also the main technology sources for a longer range missile, the Kosar, that could hit the heart of Europe with nuclear warheads. Fact. The Russian Government has also signed peaceful nuclear cooperation agreements with Iran to build nuclear power reactors. Iran is reportedly using this legal cooperation to make clandestine efforts to procure nuclear material and to develop the ability to produce weapons- grade nuclear material on its own. The administration sought to get the Russian Government to stop this flow, and the Russians have taken some steps. They have passed legislation to create an export control regime, for example, but they have done little to enforce it. Not one Russian has been convicted of passing dangerous technology to Iran. Not a single Russian has been convicted under this law. That is why we must keep the heat on. This legislation requires the President to report to Congress, in a classified form if he deems it necessary, credible information on any entity anywhere in the world that is providing Iran with dangerous technology. It then authorizes him to sanction those entities. If he chose not to, he would then report to Congress on his rationale for not sanctioning. So, in the first instance, this legislation captures China, North Korea, and any others who are providing Iran the wherewithal to obtain weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. It goes a step further. Over the past few years, the Russians have been unable to meet their limited financial obligations to the creation of the international space station, so we have been helping them out, paying part of their funding in addition to our own, considerably larger, space station obligations. As it happens, the recipient of this money, the Russian Space Agency, their NASA, is also the Russian governmental entity with jurisdiction over any entity in Russia dealing with missile technology. Therefore, this legislation requires the President to certify three things before we can continue to pay the Russian share of the space station: That it is Russian policy to stop proliferation to Iran, that they are taking the steps necessary to prevent the proliferation, and that no entity under the jurisdiction of the Russian space station is cooperating with the Iranian missile program. If we are going to pay Russian obligations, then we have the right to suggest they must do everything they can to stop the proliferation to Iran--something that threatens not only America and our friends but, ultimately, Russia as well. It cannot be in Russia's interests to have a nuclear-armed Iran sitting on its borders. Some may say, with the recent elections in Iran in which the moderates appear to have done very well, indeed this is not the time to push this legislation. Unfortunately, as I pointed out earlier, even under the reportedly moderate President Khatami over the last 2\1/2\ years, Iranian support for terrorism and its weapons technology acquisition have not diminished. Those facts remain. Hard-liners remain in charge of Iranian security and foreign policy; they will after this election, as well. It may be that at some point in the future Iranian moderates may seek a different course. They have not to date. But for now, they have neither the ability nor necessarily the interest. They appear much more interested in reforming Iranian domestic policy than in all of these problems they are creating internationally. That means we cannot let down our guard. We must do everything we can to stop the flow of technology, to raise the cost of developing weapons of mass destruction, and to delay the time at which Iran could have such a capability. This is the purpose of this legislation and why I strongly urge its adoption. While the timing of this legislation may not seem the best, perhaps it is the absolute right time. We need to make clear to the Iranian people, particularly their leadership on foreign policy and these terrorist items, that this is unacceptable behavior for them and for the rest of the world to have to tolerate. The development of these weapons, the sponsorship of terrorism, the development of the missile capacity that could so threaten its neighbors and much of Europe is not responsible behavior. This is something we cannot tolerate, and we are sending that clear message at this time. I suggest 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to recognize an outstanding elementary school principal from Hays, Kansas. Alan Park, through dedication and hard work, has created an excellent after school program that has profoundly changed the lives of many young children in a positive way. The ``Serve Our Children'' program at Washington Elementary School has connected economically disadvantaged students with vital community services. The beneficial results are numerous: free child care, extensive leadership development opportunities, and many tutorial programs. Not only has Mr. Park integrated the use of computers within the school, he has helped pass a district bond to create a new addition to the school. Mr. President, I am proud to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of this elementary school principal. Mr. Park is an exemplary role model for young people in Kansas as well as our nation. I congratulate Mr. Alan Park for all he has done for Washington Elementary School and the community of Hays, Kansas.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, in this effort yet again. We are going to keep pushing this ball up the hill until we get it over. I think this is the year we will get that done--to finally do away with this marriage penalty that impacts nearly 21 million American families in a very adverse and a terrible way--and an awful signal it sends to the married couples: Well, if you are going to get married, that is fine, but we are going to tax you for it. I think if there is one thing we ought to try to figure out, it is how not to tax the institution of marriage, which is in so much trouble. And there is so much pressure in this country already. The last thing it needs is more pressure by the taxation system, the Tax Code. This is the year for us to be able to get this done. I hope at the end of the day we can put together the marriage penalty and the estate tax, which is another family tax--particularly in my State with family farmers and small businesses--and pass a family tax cut bill of those two items, send it through, pass it by the House, and put it on the President's desk and ask him: Mr. President, please sign this on behalf of the working families of this country to be able to maintain these businesses, farms, and these marriages--that all of us ought to be strongly supporting and working with. It is interesting that the marriage penalty currently affects almost 50 percent of America's families. Fifty percent of America's families are impacted negatively by the marriage penalty today. On average--this is an old figure. People have heard this one but it is true, and it is so stark--they pay an additional $1,400 in taxes. You have 50 percent of married couples in America impacted by this tax and on average paying $1,400 a year more for the pleasure and the privilege in America to be married. It is a terrible signal and bad policy. This is the year to do away with it. It is critically important that during this second session of the 106th Congress we take the steps finally to eliminate the marriage penalty and alleviate its impact on our working families in this country. I applaud the work of Chairman Archer over in the House in advance of his proposal to double the standard deduction and widen the 15-percent bracket and to adjust the earned-income tax credit in order to alleviate the impact of the marriage penalty for America's working families. His proposal is an important first step in our effort to rid our Tax Code of this onerous penalty to our families. The Congressional Budget Office has announced that the expected on- budget surplus--I want to make this clear; it is the on-budget surplus; it is not Social Security--for this fiscal year is $233 billion. Clearly, we have the funds available on budget to do this tax cut and to start it this year. We need to begin by making an investment in America's families. Using the on-budget surplus to rid the Tax Code of this unfair tax is one way to make such an investment. We clearly have the funds to do this for both the marriage penalty and the estate tax, starting this year and phasing that out over a period of 5 years. The Government should not use the coercive power of the Tax Code to erode the foundation of our society--working families. We should quit incentivizing that erosion resulting from this taxation. Normally in the Tax Code we try to encourage work; we try to encourage families; we try to encourage good things. Yet these are two areas where we are discouraging two of our greatest things. One is the creation of families--good, strong, healthy families that are absolutely critical for vibrant societies. The second is working families, so they do not have what they labor for stolen from them by the taxation system upon death, so they can pass it on to their heirs, so they can hold the farm together. Some years ago I was an extension specialist for Kansas State University, and I worked with farm couples who were facing two facts of life at that point in time. One I was hoping we could get rid of. One was that they were all going to die. The second was they were very fearful they would have to break the farm up, rather than being able to pass it on to a son or daughter to farm as an intact unit; they were going to have to break it up to pay a portion of the estate taxes. These were good, hard-working people who worked all of their lives. Because they were frugal and saved and poured the money back into the farm, bought farmland, bought equipment, didn't go out and live luxuriously and take lots of vacations--they stayed there and worked and saved, all of which are laudable things for which we should be applauding them--here were people I was working with, couple after couple, saying: We just really want to have our son be able to farm, or our daughter and son-in-law be able to farm, but if we break this farm up they are not going to be able to have an economical-size unit. They are going to have to work in town and subsidize the farm because farming is a very capital intensive operation; it takes a lot of capital and there is very little return on the investment. We are afraid we will have to break the farm up to pay the estate taxes, so our son or daughter will not be able to farm. They worked hard and saved and we are going to tax them so they have to break up the farm. I worked with a whole bunch of other family farmers who said they would organize around this estate tax. They would go and work setting up a trust, a limited partnership, starting a gifting program here. So we have organized five different units to be able to break the assets up so they could get it to the next generation with a minimal amount of tax. That is a very uneconomical thing to do. Lawyers make money; accountants make money doing that. For farming, it is a bad thing to do because you are breaking your economical unit up into five and trying to figure it out, focusing so much on avoiding taxes rather than the profitability of the farm. It is ridiculous but it is the policy of the United States. We now have people basically paying as much to get around paying estate taxes as they pay in estate taxes. But that is only the apparent, on-the-surface costs. It says nothing about the economic cost--what happens to that farm and small business by focusing so much time on tax reduction rather than how do I run this business. How do I try to remain profitable when we have wheat prices the way they are today? Instead, I am focusing on how do I hold my capital together. It is a very counterproductive tax. We have the opportunity, the resources, the wherewithal, and the will this year to do two things: eliminate the marriage penalty and eliminate the estate tax. We should put them together as a family tax cut package and get it done. It sends good signals to our families; they need a good signal. Marriage in America has enough difficulty without the penalty from the Federal Government. I wish to give you a statistic from Rutgers University, a study they did about marriage being in the state of decline it is today. From 1960 to 1996, the annual number of marriages per 1,000 adult women declined by almost 43 percent, a precipitous falloff in the number of people getting married in a period of about 36 years. At the same time that fewer adults are getting married, far more young adults are cohabiting. In fact, between 1960 and 1998, virtually the same period, the number of unwed cohabiting couples increased by 1,000 percent. We gave them a tax subsidy for doing that. We taxed the married people. Is that the proper signal for Government to send? When marriage as an institution breaks down, children suffer. The past few decades have seen a huge increase in out-of-wedlock births--we are at nearly 30 percent of our population born to single mothers--and divorce, the combination of which has substantially undermined the well-being of children in virtually all areas of life: physical and psychological health, socialization, academic achievement, and even in the likelihood of suffering physical abuse. That is not to say some single parents do not struggle heroically to raise children. They do, and many get it done. It is simply to say it is far more difficult, and the numbers are bearing that out for us as a society that this is a very difficult thing to do, and has an enormous social cost in the aggregate associated with it. Study after study has shown that children do best when they grow up in a stable home, raised by two parents who are committed to each other through marriage. It should not take studies to tell us that. That is basic common sense and the experience we have. Newlyweds face enough challenges without paying punitive damages in the form of a marriage tax. Think of that. It really is basically punitive damages. If you get married, we are going to sock you with punitive damages in the amount of $1,400 a year. The last thing the Federal Government should do is penalize the institution that is the foundation of a civil society. We must eliminate the marriage penalty. The surging surplus is a result of nonpayroll tax receipts. In other words, the surplus is really a tax overpayment to the Government-- personal income and capital gains taxes. We must give the American people the growth rebate they deserve and return this overpayment in the form of the marriage penalty elimination and the estate tax elimination. We can. We should start now. I believe we must do it for a healthy society, for a healthy married society, for a healthy family society, for a healthy economical society, for small businesses and family farms. To rid the American people of the marriage tax penalty and the estate tax is something we can and we should do this year. I am delighted Senator Hutchison from Texas continues this fight; that Senator Ashcroft from Missouri has been one of the leaders in this fight. You can start to taste victory. It is going to be a tough fight. Clearly, there is not an excuse not to do it this year. We are starting early. We have the resources. The American people want us to do this. We need to send this signal to a society which is asking us: Where are the values in society? Where is the morality? We need to rebuild the civil society. These are enormously positive messages and notes we can send by doing this. With that, I call on my colleagues, all, to vote for these proposals. Do it together in a family tax cut and eliminate these two taxes. I yield the floor to my good friend and colleague from the State of Missouri. He has been a leader for many years on rebuilding civil society. Here is one more area and effort he is leading, in working for the elimination of this marriage penalty. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill along with Senators Leahy, Cochran, Jeffords, Helms, Durbin, Lugar, Edwards, Voinovich, McCain, and Feinstein, which seeks to protect the integrity of high school and college sports and reduce the unseemly influences that gambling has on our student athletes. I think you can tell by the coalition of people putting in this bill we are introducing today that this is a bipartisan issue that crosses virtually all ideological lines but is deeply concerned about the integrity of intercollegiate athletics and amateur sports. What we are seeking to do by this bill is to make it clear that it is illegal to wager on intercollegiate athletics, to wager on the Olympics. The High School and College Gambling Prohibition Act is in direct response to recommendations made by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), 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 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which represents more than 1,000 colleges and universities nationwide. This bipartisan bill will prohibit all legalized gambling on high school and college sports, as well as the Summer and Winter Olympic Games. Gambling on college games and student athletes is not only inappropriate, it can be disastrous. There have been more point-shaving scandals on our colleges and universities in the 1990's than in every other decade before it combined. There have been 10 such cases in the 1990s. Those are the ones who were caught. How many went on that we don't know about? These scandals are a result of an increasing amount of gambling that is taking place on amateur sports. We now have annually around $1 billion a year bet legally on amateur athletic games. That may sound like a lot, and it is. It is a lot to influence those games, but for the overall gambling industry it is a small percentage. It is less than a half of 1 percent. So to the industry that is small. To amateur athletics it is big, and it is leading to a burgeoning problem that we are having of point shaving cases amongst college athletics. The scandal also points to another problem, and this gambling increase actually points to another problem. A recent Gallup poll found that betting on college sports was twice as prevalent among teenagers (18%) as adults (9%). The American Academy of Pediatrics estimates that there are more than a million compulsive teenage gamblers, whose first experience with gambling is on sports. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission warned that sports gambling ``can serve as gateway behavior for adolescent gamblers, and can devastate individuals and careers.'' Critics have claimed this is a State issue, not a Federal one. Certainly, I am listening to that debate and am a person who is a strong supporter of States rights and believe strongly in devolution of authority from the Federal Government to the State government. But this argument just doesn't hold water. Congress already determined that it is a federal issue with the passage of Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in 1992. In addition, while Nevada is the only state where legal gambling on collegiate and Olympic sporting events occurs, Nevada's gaming regulations prohibit gambling on any of Nevada's own teams because of the potential to jeopardize the integrity of those sporting events. Let me give you the truth of the situation. You can go to Nevada and you cannot bet on UNLV in the basketball game. But you can bet on the University of Kansas basketball team and game. The reason the Nevada Legislature, I understand, took issue with betting on Nevada teams is by saying, well, it creates an unseemly situation and the potential for abuse. If the potential is there in Nevada, it is there across the rest of the country. That is what the NCAA is citing, and that is why this is their top legislative issue. They are saying this is important because it is starting to influence more and more sporting events and that we are afraid that may happen in the future. The NCAA used to be headquartered in Kansas. Until recently, it was headquartered in my State. We all consider ourselves to be advocates of state's rights, but in our eyes that means a state's authority to determine how best to govern within that state's own boundaries--not the authority to set laws that allow 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--and that threat extends beyond any one state's border. This legislation will have minimal economic impact on the Nevada casino industry. The NCAA has reported that sports betting makes up less than 1% of the total revenue by casinos in Las Vegas. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report recognized that sports wagering does not ``contribute to local economies or produce many jobs or create other economic sectors.'' This is not an economic issue. It is not even a gambling issue. This is about the integrity of amateur athletics. It is about the integrity of the Olympics and whether or not there are going to continue to be more and more of these point-shaving cases involved because of the amount of money involved in the gambling and the ability to impact some of the athletes who are involved. I want to make one other point too; that is, we are not talking about office pools or ``March Madness'' and people having an office pool that looks at the NCAA Final Four. Those activities we are not talking about at all. They go on. But we are not addressing that issue in this bill. What we are talking about is the legalized sports betting that takes place in casinos in Nevada and how those large-scale bets impact on intercollegiate athletics across this country. Senator Leahy was on the floor earlier. And I, along with Senator Durbin and Tim Roemer from the House of Representatives had a press conference earlier today with the NCAA. At that press conference, we had the gentleman who orchestrated the northwest football point-shaving scheme problem that they had during the decade of the 1990s. He said if it wasn't for the ability to place the $20,000 legal bet in Nevada, he wouldn't have had the system in place to be able to organize and put the money out there to organize this scheme. He had a powerful statement of his personal contrition and how he feels about having been a part of that. He blames only himself. But he said the system was there--and the temptation clearly is. We are trying to move collegiate athletics into a legal area. This nation's college and university system is one of our greatest assets. We offer the world the model for post-secondary education. Gambling on the outcome of college sporting events tarnishes the integrity of sports and diminishes respect and regard for our colleges and universities. This bill removes the ambiguity that surrounds gambling on college sports. It sends the clear and unmistakable message that it is illegal. 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 industry, and fans deserve to know that athletic competitions are honest and fair. This legislation ensures that it will be so. I welcome your support. I welcome anybody in this body and the House of Representatives to support us in this effort. It is important. I fear if we don't pass something like this, you are going to see more and more of these point- shaving scandals come about, as you see more and more athletes having the pressure they are facing with the potential for dollars occurring. In the decade of the 1990s--I want to repeat this one fact because I think it is so important--there were 10 illegal point-shaving cases the NCAA caught and prosecuted. Those were the ones caught. During the decade of the 1980s, there were two; in the 1970s, one; and in the prior fifties and forties, one each. So we had won, one, two in the 1980s, and then 10 in the 1990s that we know about. How many more were there? Or worse still, how many more will there be in this decade of 2000 to 2010? Let's stop that. Let's send that clear message, that signal. Let's help our student athletes. Let's protect the integrity of the sport. I introduce this bill, and I welcome any cosponsors.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill along with Senators Leahy, Cochran, Jeffords, Helms, Durbin, Lugar, Edwards, Voinovich, McCain, and Feinstein, which seeks to protect the integrity of high school and college sports and reduce the unseemly influences that gambling has on our student athletes. I think you can tell by the coalition of people putting in this bill we are introducing today that this is a bipartisan issue that crosses virtually all ideological lines but is deeply concerned about the integrity of intercollegiate athletics and amateur sports. What we are seeking to do by this bill is to make it clear that it is illegal to wager on intercollegiate athletics, to wager on the Olympics. The High School and College Gambling Prohibition Act is in direct response to recommendations made by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), 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 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which represents more than 1,000 colleges and universities nationwide. This bipartisan bill will prohibit all legalized gambling on high school and college sports, as well as the Summer and Winter Olympic Games. Gambling on college games and student athletes is not only inappropriate, it can be disastrous. There have been more point-shaving scandals on our colleges and universities in the 1990's than in every other decade before it combined. There have been 10 such cases in the 1990s. Those are the ones who were caught. How many went on that we don't know about? These scandals are a result of an increasing amount of gambling that is taking place on amateur sports. We now have annually around $1 billion a year bet legally on amateur athletic games. That may sound like a lot, and it is. It is a lot to influence those games, but for the overall gambling industry it is a small percentage. It is less than a half of 1 percent. So to the industry that is small. To amateur athletics it is big, and it is leading to a burgeoning problem that we are having of point shaving cases amongst college athletics. The scandal also points to another problem, and this gambling increase actually points to another problem. A recent Gallup poll found that betting on college sports was twice as prevalent among teenagers (18%) as adults (9%). The American Academy of Pediatrics estimates that there are more than a million compulsive teenage gamblers, whose first experience with gambling is on sports. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission warned that sports gambling ``can serve as gateway behavior for adolescent gamblers, and can devastate individuals and careers.'' Critics have claimed this is a State issue, not a Federal one. Certainly, I am listening to that debate and am a person who is a strong supporter of States rights and believe strongly in devolution of authority from the Federal Government to the State government. But this argument just doesn't hold water. Congress already determined that it is a federal issue with the passage of Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in 1992. In addition, while Nevada is the only state where legal gambling on collegiate and Olympic sporting events occurs, Nevada's gaming regulations prohibit gambling on any of Nevada's own teams because of the potential to jeopardize the integrity of those sporting events. Let me give you the truth of the situation. You can go to Nevada and you cannot bet on UNLV in the basketball game. But you can bet on the University of Kansas basketball team and game. The reason the Nevada Legislature, I understand, took issue with betting on Nevada teams is by saying, well, it creates an unseemly situation and the potential for abuse. If the potential is there in Nevada, it is there across the rest of the country. That is what the NCAA is citing, and that is why this is their top legislative issue. They are saying this is important because it is starting to influence more and more sporting events and that we are afraid that may happen in the future. The NCAA used to be headquartered in Kansas. Until recently, it was headquartered in my State. We all consider ourselves to be advocates of state's rights, but in our eyes that means a state's authority to determine how best to govern within that state's own boundaries--not the authority to set laws that allow 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--and that threat extends beyond any one state's border. This legislation will have minimal economic impact on the Nevada casino industry. The NCAA has reported that sports betting makes up less than 1% of the total revenue by casinos in Las Vegas. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report recognized that sports wagering does not ``contribute to local economies or produce many jobs or create other economic sectors.'' This is not an economic issue. It is not even a gambling issue. This is about the integrity of amateur athletics. It is about the integrity of the Olympics and whether or not there are going to continue to be more and more of these point-shaving cases involved because of the amount of money involved in the gambling and the ability to impact some of the athletes who are involved. I want to make one other point too; that is, we are not talking about office pools or ``March Madness'' and people having an office pool that looks at the NCAA Final Four. Those activities we are not talking about at all. They go on. But we are not addressing that issue in this bill. What we are talking about is the legalized sports betting that takes place in casinos in Nevada and how those large-scale bets impact on intercollegiate athletics across this country. Senator Leahy was on the floor earlier. And I, along with Senator Durbin and Tim Roemer from the House of Representatives had a press conference earlier today with the NCAA. At that press conference, we had the gentleman who orchestrated the northwest football point-shaving scheme problem that they had during the decade of the 1990s. He said if it wasn't for the ability to place the $20,000 legal bet in Nevada, he wouldn't have had the system in place to be able to organize and put the money out there to organize this scheme. He had a powerful statement of his personal contrition and how he feels about having been a part of that. He blames only himself. But he said the system was there--and the temptation clearly is. We are trying to move collegiate athletics into a legal area. This nation's college and university system is one of our greatest assets. We offer the world the model for post-secondary education. Gambling on the outcome of college sporting events tarnishes the integrity of sports and diminishes respect and regard for our colleges and universities. This bill removes the ambiguity that surrounds gambling on college sports. It sends the clear and unmistakable message that it is illegal. 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 industry, and fans deserve to know that athletic competitions are honest and fair. This legislation ensures that it will be so. I welcome your support. I welcome anybody in this body and the House of Representatives to support us in this effort. It is important. I fear if we don't pass something like this, you are going to see more and more of these point- shaving scandals come about, as you see more and more athletes having the pressure they are facing with the potential for dollars occurring. In the decade of the 1990s--I want to repeat this one fact because I think it is so important--there were 10 illegal point-shaving cases the NCAA caught and prosecuted. Those were the ones caught. During the decade of the 1980s, there were two; in the 1970s, one; and in the prior fifties and forties, one each. So we had won, one, two in the 1980s, and then 10 in the 1990s that we know about. How many more were there? Or worse still, how many more will there be in this decade of 2000 to 2010? Let's stop that. Let's send that clear message, that signal. Let's help our student athletes. Let's protect the integrity of the sport. I introduce this bill, and I welcome any cosponsors.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleagues from Vermont, Senator Leahy and Senator Jeffords, among others, to introduce this bill entitled The Refugee Protection Act of 1999, which restores fairness to our treatment of refugees who arrive at our shores seeking freedom from persecution and oppression. This bill should dramatically reduce incidences where refugees are wrongly returned to their countries to face imprisonment, torture, and even death. It was about 400 years when the refugee Pilgrims arrived in this new land seeking religious liberty. Defined by such events since the earliest days of the Republic, America has provided asylum to those fleeing tyranny and seeking liberty. George Washington urged his fellow citizens ``to render this country more and more a safe and propitious asylum for the unfortunates of other countries.'' In his 1801 First Annual Message, President Thomas Jefferson asked, ``Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?'' In 1996, Congress changed the procedures by which arriving asylum seekers ask for protection in the United States, which our legislation corrects. Previously, arriving asylum seekers presented their claims directly to an immigration judge at an evidentiary hearing. The applicant could present witnesses and documentation to support their claim. Decisions by the immigration judge were subject to administrative and judicial review. The new 1996 law did away with these fundamental due process protections, and instead, granted lower level INS officers the power to make life and death decisions that previously were entrusted to professional immigration judges. This new, unfortunate system of ``expedited removal'' presently allows for the immediate deportation of individuals who arrive without valid travel documents, such as a passport and visa. It can even be used against an individual who has a facially valid visa that INS inspectors suspect was obtained under false pretenses. In short, the process is so expedited and summary that it has resulted in the improper deportation of refugees fleeing persecution and torture. Simply put, our legislation restores the pre-1996 due process procedures, including a judicial review. Last year, Congress addressed the problems of religious persecution which continues to be a serious problem worldwide. Enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act was the first time in the history of democracy that any country had adopted comprehensive, national legislation on religious liberty. That legislation ensures that religious liberty will be an important factor in our nation's foreign policy considerations. In the May 17, 1999 final report to the Secretary of State and to President of the United States, the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad said: Putting an end to such (religious) persecution cannot be accomplished without providing meaningful protection to the victims of religious persecution. We must upgrade domestic procedures that identify and protect refugees and asylum seekers fleeing religious persecution. We must strengthen our overseas refugee processing mechanisms to reach those in need of rescue. . . And, here at home we must eliminate processes such as ``expedited removal'' that can make victims of those fleeing religious persecution rather than providing access to protection. Consistent with this commitment to protect international religious liberty, we must also ensure that persons fleeing religious persecution are not wrongly turned away at our shores because of unfair procedures. This will be accomplished through this Act. The Refugee Protection Act returns fairness to the system by limiting expedited removal procedures only to emergency situations. An ``emergency'' must be declared as such by the Attorney General, and typically involves large numbers of immigrants arriving en masse, so as to overwhelm the INS review system. In the event that ``expedited removal'' is employed, the Act requires an immigration judge to review the summary deportation order. Also, it permits claims for asylum to be filed beyond the one-year deadline created by the 1996 legislation, if there is good cause for the delay or when consideration of the claims is clearly in the interest of justice. Our refugee asylum system reflects both the best and the worst policies, throughout our history as a nation. In 1939, more than 900 Jews aboard the SS St. Louis, who were within sight of Miami, were rejected and forced to return to Europe where they were murdered in concentration camps. Yet when World War II ended, the United States led the effort to establish universally recognized fundamental rights. As a result of this advocacy, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 which recognized a right of asylum. Over the next 30 years the United States provided refuge to numerous people fleeing communism, including to those involved in `underground' democracy movements in Hungary, Cuba, and Southeast Asia. Yet it was not until 1980 that Congress enacted a comprehensive asylum system using the criteria of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Convention defines a refugee as someone with a ``well- founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.'' Under the procedures of this Refugee Act of 1980, requests for asylum were decided by an immigration judge, thus providing a fundamental due process protection. Notably, this judicial review was stripped in the 1996 legislation, and is a flaw which our legislation seeks to correct. Fair procedures are critically important in making life or death decisions, as asylum cases can be. At a June 24, 1999 hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, Ms. Lavinia Limon, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services, noted: Once released, torture victims often attempt to flee to countries such as the United States to become invisible and safe, and to survive. But they retain the impact of torture: they are not able to speak of their experiences for fear officials will not believe them or understand them or will regard them as criminals. They often cannot express themselves effectively in asylum interviews because they cannot speak articulately of their experiences and they feel vulnerable to all officials. They have learned to fear government and the police and they do not trust any government officials and authorities to help them. They have been weakened and disabled psychologically from the torture. Many times the victims must flee alone, enduring long periods of separation from their families who might otherwise provide emotional support. Today the need for proper asylum reviews is greater than ever. Worldwide, religious intolerance and ethnic strife turn religious leaders and ordinary citizens into desperate asylum seekers. According to Amnesty International, government-sanctioned torture is practiced in 125 countries. This legislation helps those fleeing intolerable injustices in the name of religious freedom and democracy. Placing the decision squarely in the hands of an immigration judge does not impose an unreasonable or impossible burden on the government. Congress should enact the Refugee Protection Act because it restores the fundamental due process protections needed to ensure that legitimate asylum seekers are not wrongly turned away.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleagues from Vermont, Senator Leahy and Senator Jeffords, among others, to introduce this bill entitled The Refugee Protection Act of 1999, which restores fairness to our treatment of refugees who arrive at our shores seeking freedom from persecution and oppression. This bill should dramatically reduce incidences where refugees are wrongly returned to their countries to face imprisonment, torture, and even death. It was about 400 years when the refugee Pilgrims arrived in this new land seeking religious liberty. Defined by such events since the earliest days of the Republic, America has provided asylum to those fleeing tyranny and seeking liberty. George Washington urged his fellow citizens ``to render this country more and more a safe and propitious asylum for the unfortunates of other countries.'' In his 1801 First Annual Message, President Thomas Jefferson asked, ``Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?'' In 1996, Congress changed the procedures by which arriving asylum seekers ask for protection in the United States, which our legislation corrects. Previously, arriving asylum seekers presented their claims directly to an immigration judge at an evidentiary hearing. The applicant could present witnesses and documentation to support their claim. Decisions by the immigration judge were subject to administrative and judicial review. The new 1996 law did away with these fundamental due process protections, and instead, granted lower level INS officers the power to make life and death decisions that previously were entrusted to professional immigration judges. This new, unfortunate system of ``expedited removal'' presently allows for the immediate deportation of individuals who arrive without valid travel documents, such as a passport and visa. It can even be used against an individual who has a facially valid visa that INS inspectors suspect was obtained under false pretenses. In short, the process is so expedited and summary that it has resulted in the improper deportation of refugees fleeing persecution and torture. Simply put, our legislation restores the pre-1996 due process procedures, including a judicial review. Last year, Congress addressed the problems of religious persecution which continues to be a serious problem worldwide. Enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act was the first time in the history of democracy that any country had adopted comprehensive, national legislation on religious liberty. That legislation ensures that religious liberty will be an important factor in our nation's foreign policy considerations. In the May 17, 1999 final report to the Secretary of State and to President of the United States, the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad said: Putting an end to such (religious) persecution cannot be accomplished without providing meaningful protection to the victims of religious persecution. We must upgrade domestic procedures that identify and protect refugees and asylum seekers fleeing religious persecution. We must strengthen our overseas refugee processing mechanisms to reach those in need of rescue. . . And, here at home we must eliminate processes such as ``expedited removal'' that can make victims of those fleeing religious persecution rather than providing access to protection. Consistent with this commitment to protect international religious liberty, we must also ensure that persons fleeing religious persecution are not wrongly turned away at our shores because of unfair procedures. This will be accomplished through this Act. The Refugee Protection Act returns fairness to the system by limiting expedited removal procedures only to emergency situations. An ``emergency'' must be declared as such by the Attorney General, and typically involves large numbers of immigrants arriving en masse, so as to overwhelm the INS review system. In the event that ``expedited removal'' is employed, the Act requires an immigration judge to review the summary deportation order. Also, it permits claims for asylum to be filed beyond the one-year deadline created by the 1996 legislation, if there is good cause for the delay or when consideration of the claims is clearly in the interest of justice. Our refugee asylum system reflects both the best and the worst policies, throughout our history as a nation. In 1939, more than 900 Jews aboard the SS St. Louis, who were within sight of Miami, were rejected and forced to return to Europe where they were murdered in concentration camps. Yet when World War II ended, the United States led the effort to establish universally recognized fundamental rights. As a result of this advocacy, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 which recognized a right of asylum. Over the next 30 years the United States provided refuge to numerous people fleeing communism, including to those involved in `underground' democracy movements in Hungary, Cuba, and Southeast Asia. Yet it was not until 1980 that Congress enacted a comprehensive asylum system using the criteria of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Convention defines a refugee as someone with a ``well- founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.'' Under the procedures of this Refugee Act of 1980, requests for asylum were decided by an immigration judge, thus providing a fundamental due process protection. Notably, this judicial review was stripped in the 1996 legislation, and is a flaw which our legislation seeks to correct. Fair procedures are critically important in making life or death decisions, as asylum cases can be. At a June 24, 1999 hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, Ms. Lavinia Limon, Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services, noted: Once released, torture victims often attempt to flee to countries such as the United States to become invisible and safe, and to survive. But they retain the impact of torture: they are not able to speak of their experiences for fear officials will not believe them or understand them or will regard them as criminals. They often cannot express themselves effectively in asylum interviews because they cannot speak articulately of their experiences and they feel vulnerable to all officials. They have learned to fear government and the police and they do not trust any government officials and authorities to help them. They have been weakened and disabled psychologically from the torture. Many times the victims must flee alone, enduring long periods of separation from their families who might otherwise provide emotional support. Today the need for proper asylum reviews is greater than ever. Worldwide, religious intolerance and ethnic strife turn religious leaders and ordinary citizens into desperate asylum seekers. According to Amnesty International, government-sanctioned torture is practiced in 125 countries. This legislation helps those fleeing intolerable injustices in the name of religious freedom and democracy. Placing the decision squarely in the hands of an immigration judge does not impose an unreasonable or impossible burden on the government. Congress should enact the Refugee Protection Act because it restores the fundamental due process protections needed to ensure that legitimate asylum seekers are not wrongly turned away.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Third- Generation Wireless Internet Act of 1999, a bill to prevent the FCC from applying the current spectrum cap imposed upon commercial mobile wireless services to new spectrum auctions. Mr. President, the popularity of wireless services has far exceeded expectations. More people purchase wireless phones every month, and the duration of calls is growing rapidly as per-minute rates decline. Mr. President, while the popularity of wireless has increased, the Internet has become a mass-market phenomenon. Flat-rate Internet-usage plans have lured millions of Americans online. Broadband services have increased the Internet applications available to consumers and drastically reduced the amount of time necessary to access information online. Now, we are witnessing the marriage of the wireless and Internet crazes. Wireless Internet access presents consumers with the opportunity to access the Internet anywhere and anytime. With wireless access, consumers will no longer be dependent upon personal computers to reach the Internet. However, wireless Internet access will only become a mass-market phenomenon when consumers can obtain wireless broadband services that provide the bandwidth necessary to download information from the Internet on a hand-held device at reasonable speeds. Third-generation wireless services represent the first wave of truly broadband mobile services. Third-generation services should enable wireless users to achieve speeds of up to 384 kilobits per second. But, Mr. President, to ensure the rapid deployment of third-generation services, Congress needs to provide wireless carriers with the ability to purchase additional spectrum at future FCC auctions, which many carriers cannot do under the current FCC policy. Manufacturers are hesitant to produce equipment for third-generation applications, and wireless carriers are unable to roll out third- generation services, because wireless carriers do not have enough spectrum to offer true third-generation services. Consumers have an opportunity to have wireless high-speed access to the Internet. But until there is regulatory certainty that carriers will be able to obtain the spectrum necessary to offer third-generation services, consumers will have to wait before they can have a mobile on-ramp to the information superhighway. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Third- Generation Wireless Internet Act of 1999, a bill to prevent the FCC from applying the current spectrum cap imposed upon commercial mobile wireless services to new spectrum auctions. Mr. President, the popularity of wireless services has far exceeded expectations. More people purchase wireless phones every month, and the duration of calls is growing rapidly as per-minute rates decline. Mr. President, while the popularity of wireless has increased, the Internet has become a mass-market phenomenon. Flat-rate Internet-usage plans have lured millions of Americans online. Broadband services have increased the Internet applications available to consumers and drastically reduced the amount of time necessary to access information online. Now, we are witnessing the marriage of the wireless and Internet crazes. Wireless Internet access presents consumers with the opportunity to access the Internet anywhere and anytime. With wireless access, consumers will no longer be dependent upon personal computers to reach the Internet. However, wireless Internet access will only become a mass-market phenomenon when consumers can obtain wireless broadband services that provide the bandwidth necessary to download information from the Internet on a hand-held device at reasonable speeds. Third-generation wireless services represent the first wave of truly broadband mobile services. Third-generation services should enable wireless users to achieve speeds of up to 384 kilobits per second. But, Mr. President, to ensure the rapid deployment of third-generation services, Congress needs to provide wireless carriers with the ability to purchase additional spectrum at future FCC auctions, which many carriers cannot do under the current FCC policy. Manufacturers are hesitant to produce equipment for third-generation applications, and wireless carriers are unable to roll out third- generation services, because wireless carriers do not have enough spectrum to offer true third-generation services. Consumers have an opportunity to have wireless high-speed access to the Internet. But until there is regulatory certainty that carriers will be able to obtain the spectrum necessary to offer third-generation services, consumers will have to wait before they can have a mobile on-ramp to the information superhighway. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. President, I think there are a number of things that need a response. Let me first set this in the context of being from Kansas. Kansas has in its constitution a provision allowing for the homestead to be protected. That homestead is defined in Kansas law as a home in town on 1 acre or in the country on 160 acres. It is based on original Federal law. That Federal law was the Homestead Act that settled much of the Midwest. The Federal Government said the Federal Government owned this land, but if you could go out there and work those 160 acres and stay there for 5 years, the 160 acres was yours. That was the homestead. There is a sanctity about the issue of the homestead. That is why it was built into our State constitution. That is why it has been so protected in the past and why I rise in support of the Hutchison- Brownback amendment and its amendment to what Senator Kohl would do. I will support the Kohl amendment if the Hutchison-Brownback amendment passes but not otherwise. This is an important part of our State. What is being attempted by Senator Kohl and others--and I have great respect for them and their desires for what they are putting forward-- is to take a right away from States that they have had for over 100 years. Bankruptcy law is in the Federal Constitution, but for over 100 years they have allowed States to set that homestead provision and said they would allow the States to determine the homestead issue. Now we would be taking that right that the States have had for over 100 years and federalizing it. That is wrong. It is contrary to the devolution of States' rights. It is contrary to the Homestead Act that the Federal Government set, and it is harmful to farmers. I used to practice agricultural law. I taught agricultural law. I have written books on this subject. The homestead provision in my State and many others has helped save family farmers. These are not cases that make the newspaper or that are quoted here on the floor. Those, unfortunately, have happened as well. But listen to some of these cases that have occurred in Kansas. A farm couple--the husband is age 52, and the wife is age 66--are cattle ranchers in eastern Kansas. They have been farming the same ranch since 1965. In 1997, the husband was cleaning out a swine lagoon and received a staph infection in his eye. He lost nearly 80 percent of his vision and became legally blind. At this time, his wife was also forced to take her mother in for health care reasons. She had to stay with them. This brought on numerous hardships for the family. It forced them into chapter 12 bankruptcy in December 1997. It doesn't sound very glitzy or a high-profile, newspaper-type case at this point. Under chapter 12, they were not required to sell the homestead and 160 acres because of that homestead provision. These were paid for. They had these paid for. They were entitled to them under Kansas statute and under the Kansas Constitution. If not for this exemption, this family would have been forced to sell everything and would have been forced out onto the street and from their farm for which they worked so hard. The wife's exact words describing the homestead exemption were ``a godsend.'' After an extensive reorganization, they are rebuilding their cattle herd. They are still repaying debts from the bankruptcy according to the reorganization. They have currently applied for a loan from Farm Credit to purchase more cattle and are very optimistic about the future. That doesn't sound like a case that would make the newspaper. This is a very practical thing that has happened throughout the history of Kansas that I can cite for you at various times. Typically, when we have the prices of farm commodities dropping and dropping substantially, farmers are caught with too much credit and too low prices. They will get in the squeeze, and the only thing they can save is the homestead. I have read abstracts of land titles across the State of Kansas, where this has been used time and time again, and none of those make the newspaper. Yet it is a part of their being able to build back. In this case, and many others, it is a part of them being able to pay their creditors in the future. This isn't about them moving to Florida or to Texas to bilk this law. Here is another case. I will read to you about a farming couple from eastern Kansas. He is now 71. The wife is 55. They declared chapter 12 bankruptcy. They had trouble with their bank because of low commodity prices and many other typical struggles of a family farm. This is a typical case. Their homestead-exempted property consists of 160 acres valued at approximately $800 an acre, including the house and buildings. With the exemption, they were able to retain all of their property for use as equity to start farming again. Listen to what happened. The situation 3 years later is that this couple is about to pay off all of their creditors under the chapter 12 plan within the next few months and are now able to continue profitably with their farming operation. It is a happy ending that would have sadly ended without this sort of homestead provision. There is a lot of talk about fraud that has taken place. I want to point out something in addressing this issue. Currently in bankruptcy law, if there is a fraudulent transaction of taking money that should go to a creditor and placing it in an exempt property, the court can come in and set that aside and get that money back. That is under current bankruptcy law. Also, in the base bill there is a provision that if you purchase a home within 2 years of bankruptcy, that can be brought back into the creditor estate so that the creditors can get hold of that. There is a lot already built into the bankruptcy law as it is currently practiced, and as it has been interpreted by the courts. I have practiced in front of bankruptcy courts. There is also built into this change that within 2 years of purchasing a homestead, you can come back and get those assets. What about some of these high-profile cases? In many of those cases, I think you will find that the courts go after and later set aside the transaction as a fraudulent transaction. But particularly, let's look at the case of Burt Reynolds, who has become kind of a poster boy in this situation. He has not filed under chapter 7 bankruptcy. He is not in chapter 7 where you have this homestead provision. He is in chapter 11, which is a reorganization in bankruptcy usually reserved for corporations. But there are also some higher income individuals who can qualify for chapter 11. An amendment offered in the Judiciary Committee by Senator Grassley would close this chapter 11 loophole for wealthy individuals. Fortunately, that much needed amendment was passed during the markup despite some opposition from the others. Mr. President, my simple plea is on a couple of fronts. No. 1, this is contrary to what this Congress has been committed to do, which is devolution of power and authority to States and local units of government. Here we have an area of law that has been devolved to the States for over 100 years, and we are going to grab it. And we are going to pull it up here back from the States that built it into their constitutions, such as Kansas and Texas. We are going to grab it. The Federal Government is going to say this is ours. We are taking it away. That is completely contrary to devolution. No. 2, this is very harmful to family farmers, many of whom have used these homestead provisions during times of bad commodity prices--in my State, and in others--to protect that 160-acre homestead, which is, as I mentioned at the outset, the sacrosanct unit--the family farm, to be able to protect it. No. 3, it is already taken care of if these are fraudulent transactions that are occurring, that can be set aside by the bankruptcy judge under current law. If they were planning to go into bankruptcy and move those assets, they can come within 2 years and still get that asset back. So this has taken care of it. It is harmful to family farmers. It is against devolution. It is against States rights, and this is the wrong way for us to go. It is going to hurt a lot of family farmers who use this day in and day out and don't make the newspaper but are just simply trying to make a decent living and they get caught in a bad commodity cycle. During the 1980s, I worked with a lot of family farmers who got caught in a bad commodity cycle and used this homestead provision. They did not make the newspaper. But today, many of them are still farming simply because of the possibility of doing this, and they worked extra hard to pay their creditors even over and above what was required in bankruptcy law because they felt this is the honorable thing to do. There are abuses under bankruptcy law. I would like to be able to support this bill at the end of the day. But this is not the right way to go for us. It is harmful for us to do this to family farmers and to States. I support strongly the Hutchison-Brownback amendment and hope that it can be added to the Kohl amendment so that we can press forward with this bankruptcy reform. Otherwise, this Senator will certainly have to oppose the amendment. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how much time remains on our side?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I inquire of the Senator from Texas if I could have just 2 minutes to explain an item that has been coming up in this debate.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wanted to point out two things. No. 1, there is a recent study of U.S. bankruptcy filings by the Executive Office of the United States Trustees. The Trustees are the people who actually do the bankruptcies. They are the ones who handle the financial transactions. They concluded that the homestead abuse is--and this is their quote--``a rare phenomenon.'' That was a quote from the United States Trustees, Executive Office of the United States Trustees. The second point I wanted to make is, my State of Kansas has a homestead provision under the State constitution that dates back to 1859. Kansans have used this for a long time. However, in the U.S. bankruptcy code, many small family farmers would not qualify for what is defined as a family farmer because they or their spouse have earned off-farm income. Because of that, under this particular provision, in farming States such as mine with similar homestead provisions, they would be impacted because they would not be able to qualify there. I want to make the point, that adds doubly to the difficulty we have here. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the pending amendment put forward by Senator Ashcroft. Both leaders were previously up and talking on the floor about moving the bill forward. I think the underlying Ashcroft amendment is actually a pretty good way to move things forward. It is something about which most of the parties agree. It is about an ambassador position at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. I think that is an important and worthy goal. I do not know of anybody here who actually opposes it. I know the chairman of the Finance Committee has spoken already in favor of it. Here is a way maybe we can start to move this train forward. I want to address it from a couple of perspectives, if I could, because I think this is an important aspect for my colleagues to listen and learn a little bit about. This is at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, which is our lead trade negotiator. We are going into the Seattle Round, which the United States will be hosting, of the World Trade Organization. This is the premier set of trade talks. Agriculture is the lead issue that is going to be discussed during this round of trade talks. We do not have a permanent ag negotiator at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. So we are going into trade negotiations, which the United States is hosting, where the lead issue is agriculture and we do not have an ambassador with permanent status. That amendment is something I think most people in this body would actually support, perhaps unanimously. I hope we can move this bill forward. I am glad that we are having some discussions about how we might be able to move this bill forward. Here is a pretty simple, commonsense amendment. Most of our States have some agriculture in them. Here would be a representative who could help us make that trade go forward. This position within the U.S. Trade Representative's Office has been established on an interim basis. It was not put in on a permanent basis. It was thought: Let's try this for a little period of time. It has proven to be effective. My State of Kansas is a major agricultural exporting State. I think we are sixth in the country as far as agricultural exports. It is a key part of our economy. Being able to export food products is an important part of what we do, as well. So to be able to have somebody with an ambassador status to be able to address these sorts of trade negotiating issues at the USTR is important to my State. It is very important. It is particularly important now when we are having so much difficulty with farm prices. Almost all of that is due to our inability to crack into markets around the world. Whether it is dealing with China and some of their trade barriers, whether it is dealing with the Europeans and their trade subsidies, their export subsidies, whether it is dealing with tariffs globally, the United States faces high agricultural tariffs around the world. The United States has some of the lowest agricultural tariffs. This trade ambassador would make this a central focus. It would be her or his job to make sure we keep focused on that particular issue. That is an important one. It is vitally important in this body. It is important across this country, and it is certainly important to my State. I think it would be an important signal for us to send to the other countries around the world that will be convening in Seattle the latter part of November, the first part of December; that the United States values agriculture; that the signal we are sending is: We are going to beef up the status of the people who we have negotiating agricultural issues. We are going to do so on a permanent basis. I think, to date, a lot of times other countries have doubted our resolve on some issues, maybe questioned our willingness to hang in there. And here is the signal to send: No. This is important. We are going to stay in there. We are going to stick with this particular issue. This is another way we can send that signal. This amendment makes this a clear priority for the United States; that we establish this on a permanent basis. Agriculture is a lead export industry for the United States. Some have different figures, but either the top or the second leading export of the United States is agriculture and food products. One would think you would have somebody of an ambassadorial status who would be our lead negotiator and could speak with some authority and have not only the title but the status to be able to do so. This amendment is straightforward. This person will exist at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office and have a permanent ambassadorial rank. It sends an important signal, not only to our trade opponents agriculturally around the world; it sends an important signal to our agricultural producers in this country. My parents, my brother who farms full time, we say to them, it is important we have somebody of status dealing with agricultural trade upon which you are so dependent for your livelihood. I think many times farmers in this country, particularly after the passage of the Freedom to Farm Act, said Freedom to Farm won't work unless you have freedom to aggressively market. Freedom to market means we have to pound open doors around the world to let our farmers and producers have a fair shot. This helps send a signal to our farmers that we meant it. We meant it when we said freedom to farm also means we are also going to push freedom to market. Freedom to market means you have to be able to get your foot in the door. Right now they can't get their foot in the door in a lot of places. We have sanctions on a number of countries around the world. We also have high tariffs on a number of places around the world. This sends a signal to our farmers, the agricultural industry, to our agricultural processors, and our agricultural exporters that we deem this to be an important topic as well. I think it is altogether appropriate for us to want that. We do have people at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office who are very supportive of agriculture, but there are thousands of different issues to deal with of an export nature. They go across many different industries. It is impossible for the U.S. Trade Representative to constantly keep a strong focus on the lead export industry in the country. They have a lot of other matters with which to deal. This will help keep that focus there within the U.S. Trade Representative's Office as well and do so on a permanent basis. I rise to speak on behalf of this particular industry, on behalf of this particular position. I think it sends the right signal to our opponents who are against us in agricultural trade. I think it sends the right signal to our allies who want to open up agricultural trade opportunities that we think it is important. I think it sends a good signal to our agricultural producers that we deem this as important and that freedom to farm, to work, has to have freedom to market on top of that. I think that works well. Clearly, a majority of the body wants to pass this bill. A supermajority of this body wants to pass this bill. This is an important trade initiative the chairman and ranking member have put forward. This amendment could help us move forward because it is an amendment which is probably unanimously supported. So as a facilitating effort, to try to move the total package forward, I think this one is a good start. I submit to my colleagues and to the leadership it is a good possibility. I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee for the excellent work he has done on agricultural trade issues, which is important to his State as well, supporting this particular amendment and putting together a very important trade bill. I hope to be a part of the process to make sure it moves forward. I hope those who seek to stop it can be heard, but let us have a clear vote on this particular issue so we can have the will of the body be done. I congratulate the chairman and thank him for his efforts and work.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record, with the above occurring with no intervening action.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H. Con Res. 196 be discharged from the Rules Committee and, further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business from 9:30 to 10:30 a.m. By a previous consent agreement, debate on the African trade bill will begin at 10:30 a.m. Amendments to the bill are expected, and it is hoped that time agreements can be reached on those amendments so that the Senate can complete action on the bill in a timely manner. The Senate may also consider legislative or executive calendar items cleared for action during tomorrow's session of the Senate.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 27. I further ask consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin or designee, from 9:30 to 10 a.m.; Senator Thomas or designee, from 10 to 10:30 a.m.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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