Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today we had this time reserved to discuss an amendment that I was planning to offer dealing with the lifting of economic sanctions on India and Pakistan. I did so in the belief, actually in the hope, that the bilateral relationship between India and Pakistan had improved in the wake of the Lahore summit. The summit seemed to imply that. Unfortunately, I was wrong. According to Indian news agencies Indian helicopter gun ships, backed by MiG-17 fighter aircraft from India's air force bombed the troubled state of Kashmir, marking the most serious escalation of tensions on the Indo-Pakistani border in the last several years. As a result, I have reconsidered the wisdom of offering my amendment on India and Pakistan at this time. It is important that I note here today that I strongly believe in the long term importance of easing economic sanctions on both of these nations. I also believe that the United States ignores at its peril these two vital countries. That reality is highlighted all the more by yesterday's release of the Cox report on China which, if nothing else, has clearly shown that China is a serious threat in South Asia--not to speak of a threat to our fundamental values around the world--and that we need to broaden our relationship with India in the South Asian subcontinent. I hope to revisit this issue in the near future. Let me emphasize that I will not feel comfortable doing so until there is a serious de- escalation of tension on the subcontinent. I just wanted to point this out and to enter into the Record an Associated Press story about India launching airstrikes into Kashmir against infiltrators. I think we have a lot to learn yet about what specifically took place. Those details are sketchy and not coming in at the present time. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I regret that due to family business which took me out of the country, I was unable to cast several recorded votes during yesterday's session. While my vote would not have altered the outcome of any of the motions, I would like to express how I would have voted had I been able: On vote No. 120, a Cloture Motion regarding the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 96, Y2K liability legislation. I would have voted ``AYE.'' It is high time we move to consideration of this important legislation. The turn of the millennium is fast approaching and we must work to protect our citizens and businesses against harmful litigation that benefits no one. On vote No. 121, amendment numbered 351 to S. 254 offered by Senator Allard regarding memorials in public schools, I would have voted ``AYE.'' This amendment will allow students and faculty members to grieve for classmates and colleagues killed on school property in a way that makes them most comfortable. On vote No. 122, an amendment numbered 352 to S. 254 offered by Senators Kohl and Hatch regarding mandatory safety locks on guns, I would have voted ``AYE.'' This amendment was an example of the importance of bipartisan compromise. The Kohl-Hatch amendment requires all handguns sold or transferred by a licensed dealer to be sold with a locking device. In addition, this amendment provides important liability protections for gun owners who use these safety devices. On vote No. 13, an amendment numbered 353 to S. 254 offered by Senators Hatch and Feinstein I would have voted ``AYE.'' This important amendment increased penalties for participating in a crime as a gang member; makes it illegal to travel or use the mail for gang business; makes it illegal to transfer firearms to children to commit a crime; makes it illegal to clone pagers; prohibits the distribution of certain information relating to explosives or destructive devices; makes it illegal to wear body armor in the commission of a crime and donates surplus body armor to local Law enforcement agencies; and strengthens penalties for Eco-terrorism. On vote No. 124, an amendment to S. 254 offered by Senator Byrd I would have voted ``AYE.'' This amendment allows states to enforce their own alcoholic beverage control laws by allowing state prosecutors to bring an injunction in Federal Court if interstate shippers violate State laws.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, I want to note my support for what Senator Enzi is stating, and that I am concerned that what we have in the underlying bill is not paid for and we ought to have appropriate offsets to this supplemental. It is an important supplemental bill, but I am reserving the right to object and I am saying that we should pay for this. It should be offset with other cuts in nondefense discretionary and domestic spending. We have a $15 billion supplemental appropriations bill. We are asking in the nondefense areas that there be offsets to that. This is not a major thing for us to do. I think it is fully appropriate that we move forward and have offsets taking place in this supplemental bill. There is important spending taking place in the supplemental that I think is appropriate. There is some for my home State and the disaster we had. But let's pay for it. That is why I am reserving the right to object.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, yesterday, Israel marked 32 years since Jerusalem was united under Israeli control in the 1967 Mideast war. I rise today to strongly urge the President of the United States not to employ the waiver provision in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, but rather to fulfill the intent of that law by moving our embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital city, Jerusalem. The United States has diplomatic relations with 184 countries around the world. With only one of those countries--Israel--do we neither recognize the country's designated capital nor have our embassy located in the designated capital. That is as incredible as it is unacceptable. It is not only that Israel is one of our closet and most important allies. Nor is it only the obvious principle that every country has the right to designate its own capital. It is also that there is no other capital city anywhere whose history is more intimately associated than is Jerusalem's with the nation of Israel. Jerusalem is the only city on earth that is the capital of the same country, inhabited by the same people who speak the same language and worship the same God as they did 3,000 years ago. No other city on earth can make that claim. Three thousand years ago, David, King of Israel, made Jerusalem his capital city and brought the Ark of the Covenant into its gates. Ever since, Jerusalem has been the cultural, spiritual, and religious center of the Jewish people. Twenty-five hundred years ago an anonymous Jewish psalmist living in forced exile wrote the following words: ``By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion . . . If I forget the O Jerusalem, may my right hand lose its cunning; may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember thee, If I do not set Jerusalem above my chief joy.'' Jerusalem has been a capital city of an independent country only three times in its history, and all three were under Jewish sovereignty: under the four hundred year rule of the House of Davids, under the restored Jewish commonwealth following the period of Babylonian exile (586-536 BC), and now under the reborn State of Israel. Jerusalem has been the capital of no other independent state, nor of any other people. It has had a continuous Jewish presence for three thousand years, and for the last hundred and fifty years, Jews have been the largest single part of its population. In 1947, The United Nations General Assembly passed the Partition Resolution for Palestine to partition what is today Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza into what was supposed to become a Jewish state and a Palestinian Arab state. In the resolution, Jerusalem was to have been an international city under UN auspices. The Jewish community of Palestine accepted the partition proposal but the Arab community, along with the rest of the Arab world, refused. Instead, Arab armies invaded the nascent Jewish state intent on destroying it--a de facto rendering the Partition Resolution null and void. Nevertheless, the United States established its embassy in Tel Aviv, where it sits to this day. But Jerusalem is Israel's capital: it is the seat of its government, its parliament, its supreme court. The President and Prime Minister reside there. Our ambassador travels daily from Tel Aviv to meetings with Israeli government officials in Jerusalem. All major political parties in Israel agree, moreover, that Jerusalem will remain Israel's undivided capital. The United States Congress also agrees. Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation in 1995 that contained an official statement of US policy on Jerusalem: that it should remain united and be recognized as Israel's capital, and that our embassy should be located there by the end of May, 1999. If the embassy were not located in Jerusalem by that date, 50 percent of the State Department's budget for buildings and maintenance abroad would be withheld unless the President issued a national security waiver. That is the waiver which the President now considers issuing. I strongly believe that he should not do so, that instead he should do what is right by recognizing that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. There are those who timidly argue that to do what is right will damage the peace process. How can that be possible? Is it not more harmful to fuel unrealizable expectations by pretending that Jerusalem is not Israel's capital or that it might someday be redivided? Would it not be better simply to finally do what we should have done fifty years ago by recognizing the only city that could ever be. Israel's capital, the one city that has always been Israel's capital, the eternal city of Jerusalem? President Clinton stated when he was running for office on June 30, 1992 the following: ``Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, . . . Jerusalem is still the capital of Israel, and must remain an undivided city accessible to all.'' He was right then, and he has the chance to do right now.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I, along with Senator Akaka, introduce the National Day of Reconciliation Bill. In this bill, the President will issue a yearly proclamation designating the day before Thanksgiving as a ``National Day of Reconciliation.'' On this day, it is our hope that every person in the U.S. should seek out those individuals who have been alienated and pursue forgiveness and reconciliation from them. Historically, Thanksgiving is a time when we put all of our differences aside and give thanks for all that we have achieved and shared. I cannot think of a better day in which to reconcile than the day before Thanksgiving. When considering the need for this piece of legislation, I was reminded of times when our nation was at war with itself, and the very fabric of our Constitution was held together by a few threads. The Civil War placed our democracy and national sovereignty in great jeopardy. However, Abraham Lincoln, one of our nation's greatest leaders, knew the importance of ``binding'' our nation together after civil war had ravaged our nation. It was through his wisdom and ability to forgive that he helped heal our nation's wounds. Once again, there is the absence of peace in America. We live in a society where there is too much alienation, from one another and from God. We, in too many cases, have allowed our focus to shift from one another to ourselves. Lincoln recognized the need to reconcile with one another. He also knew that reconciliation efforts would never be successful without looking first to the divine authority. In his second Inaugural speech, Lincoln said, ``with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds * * * to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.'' The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was yet another one of our nation's great leaders who knew the importance of focusing on a higher moral power to achieve peaceful reconciliation. Dr. King, through wisdom and sacrificial love, reconciled an entire nation with individuals who, through discrimination, were alienated from sections of our society. Dr. King said, ``It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to return to her true home of brotherhood and peaceful pursuits. * * * We must work unceasingly to lift this nation that we love to a higher destiny, to a new plateau of compassion, to a more noble expression of humaneness.'' Mr. President, we need to restore peace in our nation, we need to restore charity for one another, and we need to return our focus to a higher moral authority. As we look at our culture today, we see images that influence not only our actions but the actions of young people as well. Our culture glorifies conflict, greed, and violence. It is no wonder that we see atrocities that seem impossible to imagine. It is time for our country to reconcile, and the ``National Day of Reconciliation'' will remind us of this solemn obligation. If Americans hope to ``bind up [our] nation's wounds,'' as Lincoln suggested, we must first make the commitment in the Congress. This bill makes that commitment by calling for a ``National Day of Recognition''--a day that recognizes the need to move from alienation to reconciliation. In a ``Letter From A Birmingham Jail,'' Dr. King expressed his hope for national reconciliation. I too hope ``that the dark clouds of [misconceptions] will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.'' I urge all of my colleagues to support this much needed measure and begin to foster reconciliation throughout our country in order for us to once again be ``one nation under God.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I, along with Senator Akaka, introduce the National Day of Reconciliation Bill. In this bill, the President will issue a yearly proclamation designating the day before Thanksgiving as a ``National Day of Reconciliation.'' On this day, it is our hope that every person in the U.S. should seek out those individuals who have been alienated and pursue forgiveness and reconciliation from them. Historically, Thanksgiving is a time when we put all of our differences aside and give thanks for all that we have achieved and shared. I cannot think of a better day in which to reconcile than the day before Thanksgiving. When considering the need for this piece of legislation, I was reminded of times when our nation was at war with itself, and the very fabric of our Constitution was held together by a few threads. The Civil War placed our democracy and national sovereignty in great jeopardy. However, Abraham Lincoln, one of our nation's greatest leaders, knew the importance of ``binding'' our nation together after civil war had ravaged our nation. It was through his wisdom and ability to forgive that he helped heal our nation's wounds. Once again, there is the absence of peace in America. We live in a society where there is too much alienation, from one another and from God. We, in too many cases, have allowed our focus to shift from one another to ourselves. Lincoln recognized the need to reconcile with one another. He also knew that reconciliation efforts would never be successful without looking first to the divine authority. In his second Inaugural speech, Lincoln said, ``with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds * * * to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.'' The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was yet another one of our nation's great leaders who knew the importance of focusing on a higher moral power to achieve peaceful reconciliation. Dr. King, through wisdom and sacrificial love, reconciled an entire nation with individuals who, through discrimination, were alienated from sections of our society. Dr. King said, ``It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to return to her true home of brotherhood and peaceful pursuits. * * * We must work unceasingly to lift this nation that we love to a higher destiny, to a new plateau of compassion, to a more noble expression of humaneness.'' Mr. President, we need to restore peace in our nation, we need to restore charity for one another, and we need to return our focus to a higher moral authority. As we look at our culture today, we see images that influence not only our actions but the actions of young people as well. Our culture glorifies conflict, greed, and violence. It is no wonder that we see atrocities that seem impossible to imagine. It is time for our country to reconcile, and the ``National Day of Reconciliation'' will remind us of this solemn obligation. If Americans hope to ``bind up [our] nation's wounds,'' as Lincoln suggested, we must first make the commitment in the Congress. This bill makes that commitment by calling for a ``National Day of Recognition''--a day that recognizes the need to move from alienation to reconciliation. In a ``Letter From A Birmingham Jail,'' Dr. King expressed his hope for national reconciliation. I too hope ``that the dark clouds of [misconceptions] will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.'' I urge all of my colleagues to support this much needed measure and begin to foster reconciliation throughout our country in order for us to once again be ``one nation under God.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that will expand capacity and increase competition within the domestic transportation system. This legislation, which will allow foreign built ships to transport bulk commodities, forest products, and livestock between U.S. ports, will help to expand the overall capacity by allowing ship operators to expand their fleets through obtaining affordable ships. Currently, Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the Jones Act, requires that merchandise being transported on water between U.S. ports travel on U.S. built, U.S. flagged, and U.S. citizen owned vessels that are documented by the Coast Guard for such carriage. The bill I am introducing today, The Freedom to Transport Act of 1999, does not seek to repeal the Jones Act. Rather, it provides very targeted modification--to allow foreign built ships to carry bulk cargo in domestic trade. These ships would have to register in the United States and comply with all U.S. laws, including Jones Act ownership and crewing requirements. The current law makes it infeasible for domestic coastwise shipments of agricultural commodities to occur on bulk shipping vessels. This is largely because the cost of purchasing a ship in the United States is as much as three times higher than it can be obtained on the world market. As a result, there has been little capital infusion into the domestic Jones Act fleet for many years. As a consequence, the cost of transport on bulk Jones Act vessels, if they are available at all, is prohibitively high. Agriculture is a pillar to the Kansas economy, and an efficient transportation is critical to American agriculture. Laws that raise the cost of conducting business and impede efficient means for transporting product have a negative impact on farmers around the country, including Kansas. Moreover, the cost of transporting goods is always a proportionately high cost of the delivered product for bulk commodities, but especially now as grain prices are at the lowest levels seen in years. Having means to the most cost-effective and efficient means for transporting product is now, more than ever, critical to American farmers. If ocean transportation between U.S. ports were more efficient, more product might be delivered to its destination by ocean rather than by rail. For example, the poultry and pork producers in the grain deficit southeastern United States could bring in grain by ocean through the Great Lakes rather than by across the country by railroad. Since little of this type of trade currently occurs, this could have the effect of increasing the overall capacity of the domestic transportation infrastructure. That would make more railcars available for transport in places like Kansas, particularly during the harvest season when there is often a shortage of available cars. Furthermore, more efficient coastwise transportation would bring down prices for trade to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska, which oftentimes find it less expensive to purchase products from other countries than to pay the inflated costs of shipping from the mainland U.S. I am aware that the maritime industry has supported the Jones Act as a protection of domestic industry for many years, and resists any change to the current law. However, despite the ``protective'' nature of the Jones Act, it has protected very little. In the last 50 years the merchant marine has lost 40,000 jobs and over 60 shipyards have closed since 1987. In my view this legislation would not only benefit the customers of transportation services, but would also inject new life into an industry that has missed out on the unprecedented growth that the rest of the economy has enjoyed in the last generation. I want to work with the maritime industry to address their concerns and look forward to their eventual support of this legislation, which I envision will help them as much as it will help agricultural shippers. I would like to point out that the legislation as introduced enjoys broad support not only in the agriculture industry, but also among many industries that ship bulk commodities--including oil, coal, clay, and steel. Additionally, those engaged in commerce with the non-contiguous U.S. are supportive, including the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, the Hawaii Shippers Council, and the Alaska Jones Act Reform Coalition. Finally, the National Taxpayers Union and Americans for Tax Reform support this as a measure that would save consumers over $14 billion annually. A healthy maritime industry increases competitiveness, lowers costs, and improves service for customers of transportation. It creates jobs in the U.S. not only for the people who crew the ships, but for those who repair them, who own them, and who are employed by industries who buy transportation services. It is a win-win-win-win proposal. I hope my colleagues will join me in reducing stifling government regulation and support this important bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that will expand capacity and increase competition within the domestic transportation system. This legislation, which will allow foreign built ships to transport bulk commodities, forest products, and livestock between U.S. ports, will help to expand the overall capacity by allowing ship operators to expand their fleets through obtaining affordable ships. Currently, Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the Jones Act, requires that merchandise being transported on water between U.S. ports travel on U.S. built, U.S. flagged, and U.S. citizen owned vessels that are documented by the Coast Guard for such carriage. The bill I am introducing today, The Freedom to Transport Act of 1999, does not seek to repeal the Jones Act. Rather, it provides very targeted modification--to allow foreign built ships to carry bulk cargo in domestic trade. These ships would have to register in the United States and comply with all U.S. laws, including Jones Act ownership and crewing requirements. The current law makes it infeasible for domestic coastwise shipments of agricultural commodities to occur on bulk shipping vessels. This is largely because the cost of purchasing a ship in the United States is as much as three times higher than it can be obtained on the world market. As a result, there has been little capital infusion into the domestic Jones Act fleet for many years. As a consequence, the cost of transport on bulk Jones Act vessels, if they are available at all, is prohibitively high. Agriculture is a pillar to the Kansas economy, and an efficient transportation is critical to American agriculture. Laws that raise the cost of conducting business and impede efficient means for transporting product have a negative impact on farmers around the country, including Kansas. Moreover, the cost of transporting goods is always a proportionately high cost of the delivered product for bulk commodities, but especially now as grain prices are at the lowest levels seen in years. Having means to the most cost-effective and efficient means for transporting product is now, more than ever, critical to American farmers. If ocean transportation between U.S. ports were more efficient, more product might be delivered to its destination by ocean rather than by rail. For example, the poultry and pork producers in the grain deficit southeastern United States could bring in grain by ocean through the Great Lakes rather than by across the country by railroad. Since little of this type of trade currently occurs, this could have the effect of increasing the overall capacity of the domestic transportation infrastructure. That would make more railcars available for transport in places like Kansas, particularly during the harvest season when there is often a shortage of available cars. Furthermore, more efficient coastwise transportation would bring down prices for trade to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska, which oftentimes find it less expensive to purchase products from other countries than to pay the inflated costs of shipping from the mainland U.S. I am aware that the maritime industry has supported the Jones Act as a protection of domestic industry for many years, and resists any change to the current law. However, despite the ``protective'' nature of the Jones Act, it has protected very little. In the last 50 years the merchant marine has lost 40,000 jobs and over 60 shipyards have closed since 1987. In my view this legislation would not only benefit the customers of transportation services, but would also inject new life into an industry that has missed out on the unprecedented growth that the rest of the economy has enjoyed in the last generation. I want to work with the maritime industry to address their concerns and look forward to their eventual support of this legislation, which I envision will help them as much as it will help agricultural shippers. I would like to point out that the legislation as introduced enjoys broad support not only in the agriculture industry, but also among many industries that ship bulk commodities--including oil, coal, clay, and steel. Additionally, those engaged in commerce with the non-contiguous U.S. are supportive, including the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, the Hawaii Shippers Council, and the Alaska Jones Act Reform Coalition. Finally, the National Taxpayers Union and Americans for Tax Reform support this as a measure that would save consumers over $14 billion annually. A healthy maritime industry increases competitiveness, lowers costs, and improves service for customers of transportation. It creates jobs in the U.S. not only for the people who crew the ships, but for those who repair them, who own them, and who are employed by industries who buy transportation services. It is a win-win-win-win proposal. I hope my colleagues will join me in reducing stifling government regulation and support this important bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday May 12, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an Oversight Hearing on HUBZones Implementation in Indian Country. The Hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 12, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Communications Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. on S. 800--Wireless Communication and Public Safety Act of 1999.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, May 12, 1999 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``ESEA: Title I: Evaluation and Reform'' during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, in executive session, to mark up the fiscal year 2000 Defense authorization bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, in executive session, to mark up the FY 2000 Defense authorization bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 12, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on damage to the national security from Chinese espionage at DOE nuclear weapons laboratories.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much. Amendment No. 329

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as the vote nears on the amendment that I have proposed, along with the chairman and Senator Lieberman and a number of others--and I will be asking for a recorded vote--I thank them for their work on this issue. The chairman has done tireless work in trying to do things to clean up the culture, and also in this juvenile justice bill to address issues here which I think are critically important. Senator McCain, with his leadership on the Commerce Committee, has elevated the issues, as well as Senator Lieberman in his work, and Senator Sessions as well. I also note the addition of Senator Kent Conrad as an original cosponsor of this amendment, and I appreciate all of his support. There has been much discussion today about the causes and cures of youth violence. As I have noted before, I do not believe my amendment-- this amendment--is a panacea for all that ails us, but it is a modest and necessary first step towards encouraging a sense of corporate responsibility among some of the most powerful corporations in the world--corporations with incredible access to the minds of young people--and towards gaining a better understanding of the impact of cultural influences on youth violence. I firmly believe that youth violence is not merely, or even primarily, a public policy problem; it is a cultural and a moral problem. We live in a society, unfortunately, that glorifies violence. Popular culture is awash in violence. It is glorified in gangsta rap songs, glamorized in movies with vigilante heroes, and simulated in numerous video games. Violence, carnage, destruction and death is presented not as a horror but as entertainment for our young people--young people whose minds, hearts, moral sense, manners, behavior, convictions, and conscience are still being developed. Recently, the Pope denounced what he called a ``culture of death,'' a culture that rewards the producers of violent entertainment with lucrative contracts and critical acclaim, celebrates the casual cruelty and consequence-free violence depicted in movies and music, that markets the simulation of mass murder in games that were sold to children. His remarks should give us much to think about. This is not something we can fix with legislation, but it should be raised and discussed and seriously considered, not only on the floor of the Senate, but in homes, studios, and corporate boardrooms across America. Nothing in this amendment curtails freedom of expression in any way. It does not restrict the entertainment industry in any way. Rather, it gives entertainment companies more freedom, enabling--not requiring but enabling--them to enter into a voluntary code of conduct. Such a code would spell out what the company standards are, what products they would be putting forward, and would set a line that the industry would say below this we will not go, and say that to the public. This amendment also provides for further studies on the impact and marketing of violent entertainment. We need to know more, and we need to start now. The first step towards addressing problems is to accurately define them. Mr. President, I say, in conclusion on this amendment, we are here today saying that it is time to address this. It is time for us to step forward and be serious about it. It is time for us to renew the culture in America. This amendment is a first step.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could respond to my colleague, I appreciate her bringing this up. It would have been nice, maybe, to have caught it at a little earlier time. The amendment itself is directed at a particular facet. I think we are going to have a number of different amendments that are going to affect the gun industry. We do not have an amendment here on marketing for the knife industry either. There are other places, I suppose, we could look at marketing issues as well, and perhaps should. This is particularly directed at a certain sector. I hope my colleague will bring this up at another time with another amendment. I am afraid I could not accept it at this point in time because I have too many cosponsors on this amendment and I would have to go around to those cosponsors and ask them. I think the Senator brings up a good point. I think this is a fair item to look at. It has been studied. There have been several studies, I am informed, on this very point she is raising. It might be good to look at some of those. The things we are trying to study here have not been studied before. That is why we particularly look at that set of points, because we have not. It is tied into a particular industry area.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, by a previous unanimous consent agreement, I call up amendment No. 329.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr President, I call up this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Hatch and Senator Lieberman. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Abraham be listed as an original cosponsor.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is a discussion we have been having within the country and we now need to have in the Senate. We have four provisions in the amendment. They are, basically, things that we can address in the Senate about the culture of violence that has enveloped the country and has taken us to the point where so many people have so many fears of what has taken place, and we see some of this acted out. This is not a panacea amendment. It will not solve all our problems, but I think it is a positive step in the right direction. It has bipartisan support, and I am hopeful we can get broad support throughout the Senate so that these amendments will become law. Let me go through each of them. The amendment will provide, first, a limited antitrust exemption to the entertainment industry enabling the industry to develop and disseminate voluntary guidelines for television programming, movies, video games, Internet content and music. What we are seeking is an antitrust exemption so that the industry can enter into its own voluntary code of conduct, the likes of which the television industry used to have and then left after there was some feeling that this was potentially an antitrust violation. We want to give them an antitrust exemption so they can set a code of conduct, a floor below which they will not go in the race to the bottom for ever more violent, ever more explicit, ever more troubling content. We want to provide that for television, movies, video game producers, Internet content, and music. These voluntary guidelines will be used to alleviate some of the negative impact of violent sexual content and other subjects inappropriate for children that are so pervasive throughout the television shows, movies, video games, Internet content, and music produced today by the industry. This amendment does not--does not--require the entertainment industry to develop or disseminate such guidelines, nor does it provide the Federal Government with any additional authority to regulate TV programming, movies, video games, Internet content, or music. Members can support this and know what this amendment does not do. The amendment does enable the entertainment industry to establish voluntary guidelines. I believe this is an appropriate way for us to encourage the industry to reconsider their entertainment products with an eye toward their corporate responsibility. My amendment would simply make clear that the entertainment industry would not be subject to antitrust scrutiny if its members create such guidelines. This amendment does not infringe upon the first amendment rights of the entertainment industry. It would provide us with the opportunity to give the industry the tools that are necessary to articulate what their standards are and to inform parents what they can expect from the industry. Why do we need a code of conduct? I think there are several very important reasons why. First, our popular culture exerts an enormous influence on our young children and on our entire society. What we see, hear, and experience helps shape how we think, how we feel, and how we act. This is particularly true for children. All too often, what kids see in movies or on television, what they hear in music, and what they experience in the games they play actually desensitizes them and debases rather than uplifts. Given that entertainment companies wield such enormous power in this country, it is only right that parents and consumers should know what their standards are and how they will use their media. This code of conduct will call on entertainment executives to define those standards, what levels they would not sink below, and what ideals they intend to uphold. I think the public has a right to know that as well. Second, establishing a code of conduct not only informs parents, it helps hold the entertainment industries accountable. Parents will have a written code by which to judge television, movies, music, and games and be empowered to demand that companies live up to their code. Third, a code of conduct says that entertainment companies do bear some corporate responsibility for the impact of the entertainment that they peddle. For too long, entertainment executives have insisted--in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary--that the violence and sexual activity they depict had no impact, and that therefore they had no responsibility. A code of conduct recognizes that these companies wield enormous power and must therefore bear a corporate responsibility to the public at large. There are some who defend the extreme violence and sexual activity in some movies, television shows, or music lyrics by claiming they are merely reflections of the reality of life, that they hold a mirror to society. But it is not a mirror; it is a mirage. The world of television and movies is--thank goodness --far more violent, conflicted and sexually explicit than the life of the average American. There are far more Amish people in the United States than there are serial murderers. There are more pastors than prostitutes. But you would never know that from watching television. Enabling the entertainment industry to develop and enter into a code of conduct is not a panacea. It will not, by itself, put an end to all objectionable content, but it will be an important first step in encouraging the industry to reconsider the influence--for good or ill-- of its products, its internal standards, and its corporate responsibility. It will provide parents and consumers with information, and enable them to hold entertainment companies responsible for their product, and it will further an important national dialogue about what our duties to our children are and the role we play in determining whether we live in a culture that glorifies death, carnage and violence, or in a civil society. We also have other provisions that are in this amendment beyond just the code of conduct, the voluntary code of conduct. This amendment would also require the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice to conduct a joint study of the marketing practices of the motion picture industry, recording industry, and video game industry. The amendment requires the FTC and the DOJ examine the extent to which the entertainment industry targets--targets--the marketing of violent, sexually explicit or other material unsuitable to minors, including whether such content is advertised in media outlets in which minors comprise a substantial percentage of the audience. We want to know, are these entertainment companies actually marketing violence to minors? Are they lacing more violence in their products to get more sales to minors? The effectiveness of voluntary industry ratings in limiting access of minors to content that is unsuitable is something else that we want studied as well. Further, we want to study the extent to which those who engage in the sale or rental of entertainment products abide by voluntary industry ratings or labeling systems. We want to know whether mechanisms or procedures are necessary to ensure the effective enforcement of voluntary ratings or labeling systems. We need to know the extent to which the entertainment industry encourages the enforcement of their voluntary ratings and labeling systems. And we need to know whether any of the entertainment industry's marketing practices violate Federal law. Recently, I held a hearing at which Senator Lieberman and Senator Hatch testified regarding the marketing of violence to our children, and whether violence is used to market products. There is a strong suspicion that, indeed, it occurs. I would like to draw the attention to the Senate to some of the advertisements of products to children. These are particularly of video games. This one that I am showing you now is an advertisement in a magazine for a video game rated for teens. This is rated for teenagers. This is the advertisement: ``Deploy. Destroy. Then relax over a cold one.'' It sure is laced with violence and uses violence to market a product to teens. Here is one, a popular video game, a video game called Carmageddon. I have shown this to the Senate before. Rigormotorist. It is about killing people in a car-driving video game. There is another video game that we have shown to the Senate before. It is rated for teens. You can see the symbol there: ``Destroying your enemies is not enough. You must devour their souls.'' Clear use of violence and other imagery with that as well. There is in the amendment an NIH study. There have been literally hundreds of studies, some would estimate even more, conducted on the impact of television on our attitudes, thoughts, psychological well- being, behavior, development, level of aggression, and predisposition toward violence. The more we study it, the clearer the link we have of the consumption of violent entertainment and increased aggression, fear, anger, emotional difficulties, even predisposition towards violence. However, there have been very few studies done on the impact of music and video games on young people. We need to know more. The other point of this amendment is to study that connection. By some estimates, the average teen listens to music around 4 hours a day. Between 7th and 12th grades, teens will spend around 10,500 hours listening to music. Listen to that again. Between the 7th and 12th grades, they are going to listen, the average teen, to around 10,000 hours of music. That is more time than they will spend in school. Similarly, the popularity of video games is rapidly increasing among young people. One study, conducted by Strategy Records Research, found that 64 percent of young people played these games on a regular basis. Clearly, young people spend a huge amount of time focused on these kinds of entertainment. It stands to reason that music and games have some sort of impact on young people, just as it stands to reason that what we see, hear and experience has some impact on our thoughts and attitudes and, thus, our decisions and our behavior. Determining what this impact is, is clearly in the public interest. This amendment, sponsored by myself, Senator Hatch, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Abraham, provides for a study to determine that impact. We need to know more, and we need to start now. The first step towards addressing problems is to accurately define them. And for that, we need all the available information. This amendment is an important start in that direction. I point out something that I hope is becoming more familiar to Members of the Senate and to the country, the violence that is in some of the music. We talked about video games. We have studied music and television. In music, here is a person who is pretty famous now, Marilyn Manson, with an album ``Anti-Christ Superstar.'' You can look at all the words pointing towards ``Tomorrow's turned up dead.'' ``You can kill yourself now.'' Glorification of suicide and violence. Here is another record out of it. ``Anti-cop, Anti-fun.'' I am not going to read any of that. Here is another top record from Master P, ``Come and Get Some.'' ``I got friends running out the blanking crack house.'' You can go down through this and see the violent, in many cases, very hateful and misogynistic, some racist terminology. We need to know what is the impact on a young mind that is consuming, in many cases, on the average of 4 hours of this a day. That is the intent of this study to ask that those things be looked at. We think the evidence is clearly growing. We need to do something about what has happened to our culture. We are asking in this set of amendments, one, for an antitrust exemption for a voluntary code of conduct, for enforcement of industry rating systems, for a study on the marketing of violence to children, and for an NIH study of violent entertainment, particularly video games and music, and its impact on children. We have had terrible, unthinkable tragedies that have happened to our children in this country. We know there is a link between the violence and the action. Both the American Medical Association and the American Association of Pediatrics have warned against exposing children to violent entertainment. One 1996 American Medical Association study conducted concluded this: ``The link between media violence and real life violence has been proven by science time and time again.'' Another AMA study concluded that ``exposure to violence in entertainment increases aggressive behavior and contributes to Americans' sense that they live in a mean society.'' Those are pretty clear points of view. Mr. President, we need to do something. These are modest steps. They will not, in and of themselves, change the society or change the culture, but they are appropriate steps. They can continue our national debate. I think they can help focus us on moving away from this culture of violence, this culture of death, towards more of a culture of peace and a culture of life that clearly we need to provide to our children. I note that there are a number of people who wish to speak on this amendment. I recognize first the chairman of the committee, who wanted to address this subject, Senator Hatch, and then Senator Lieberman has been on the floor to speak as well. I yield to Senator Hatch on this amendment.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I would note, I think we should look at these prior studies that have been done on this particular issue. I think it would be wise as well to look at those. I appreciate my colleague raising this. We have a series of amendments that are bipartisan. We have a series of cosponsors on this amendment. It is an area on which we have held a number of hearings. That is what we seek to have addressed here. If she seeks to add it into another, or bring it up as a separate amendment, I think that would be a good thing to do. I am certainly not opposed. But on this, at this point in time, we have a number of cosponsors. I think we are up to eight cosponsors, bipartisan, on this. I would need to go to all of them and ask all of them to add this particular amendment. It is out of the flow of what we are trying to do with this amendment. We have announced this. I have been working with a number of people on a bipartisan basis. I think we need to stay with that at this time.

Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could just comment, I have had no objection to this all along. We had a specific set area we wanted to talk about and to address and to have a discussion on. I have not had an objection to doing this. But we have had a focus and set of hearings on the things we talked about, and it has been well developed, and it had eight cosponsors to it. I just did not want to do that without having a chance for other people to look at it and have their point of view. I have no objection to this.