Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate today on the subject of the violence in Littleton, CO. I note that over the weekend a number of funerals took place, and as I speak another funeral is occurring as a result of the shootings in Littleton, CO. I think it would be appropriate for us to observe a moment of silence for the victims of the shootings that took place. (Period of silence.)

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to once again voice my support for the Education Flexibility Partnership Act or Ed-Flex. With the passage of this important legislation, we are taking an important first step towards reducing the intrusive regulations and bureaucratic red tape the federal government imposes on local schools in Kansas and around the nation. First, I would like to note that Ed-Flex legislation did not make it to this point without the combined efforts of a great many talented people. I would like to commend and thank my colleagues Senators Jeffords and Frist for their dedication to this legislation. I would also like to thank our colleagues in the House and all of the staff that have dedicated their time and ability to increasing flexibility for school districts. Mr. President, Ed-Flex is a truly significant piece of legislation. For too long, the Federal Government, through the Department of Education, has prevented local schools and school districts from creating and implementing original programs custom designed to help their students learn. Ed-Flex provides local schools a chance to waive Federal regulations and statutes which prevent them from implementing these innovative programs. We are sending an important message to teachers, parents and local school boards that we recognize that they know best how to educate their students. My home State of Kansas is one of the 12 States already covered under Ed-Flex, and which have benefited from the waivers. Schools from across Kansas have submitted 43 waiver requests, none of which have yet been rejected. To hear from the folks back home with whom I visited, students are much better served by flexibility than they are by rigid Federal mandates. And Kansans aren't the only people who have supported our efforts to provide more flexibility. Both the Senate and House versions of this bill passed with broad bi-partisan support. All fifty governors have endorsed Ed-Flex. In fact, even President Clinton agrees that Ed-Flex will help to improve education in this country. However, while Ed-Flex is an important first step towards relieving the pressure of Federal mandates on local schools, it is still just the first step. Recognizing that the Federal Government is not best suited to set the rules under which we educate our students, we must continue to reduce the role of the Federal mandates in local education. The demands on a school district in urban California are quite different from those on districts in rural Kansas--no less daunting--simply different. We, as a body, must continue to move legislation which will allow those two districts to decide for themselves how best to educate their children.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to mark a milestone in the history of the Georgian nation towards consolidating its independence and sovereignty and the progress Georgia has made in moving towards becoming a democratic government with a free market economy. On the 9th of April 1999, Georgian Orthodox Good Friday, Georgia commemorated a tragic anniversary: ten years ago on that day in 1989, twenty-two people died for daring to express their desire for the independence of their country. During a peaceful demonstration in Tbilisi, Soviet troops moved in on the unarmed crowd with tanks. Soldiers carrying field engineer spades bludgeoned these brave people to death--all of them were unarmed and many of them were women. The troops also used an unknown type of poisonous gas which put thousands of people in hospital. These people paid a heavy price for expressing their desire for independence. This week, almost exactly 10 years later, Georgia is celebrating another major step towards the goal of full independence for which those people died: this time economic independence. On April 17th, Georgia celebrated the inauguration of the Baku-Supsa oil pipeline. With this step, Georgia has gained another significant measure of independence. This is a long way to have come in just ten years. And these have been very tumultuous years filled with strife and hardship: assassination attempts against President Shevardnadze; pressures from Russia which continues to harbor Igor Giorgadze, the mastermind behind the 1995 assassination attempt against President Shevardnadze; ethnic conflicts, over 300,000 refugees from Abkhazia, and tremendous economic hardships for the Georgian people. This refugee problem is one which should resonate with all of us. The television pictures and the stories told by the Kosovar refugees of ethnic cleansing, people pushed out of their homes and villages is a sight which shocks us and has galvanized the United States and the west to action. Similar scenes were taking place in Georgia which in a very short time had to assimilate over 300,000 refugees driven out of Abkhazia as part of ethnic cleansing in that part of the country. Had there been TV cameras there the world might have reacted. But there weren't and Georgia has been left to deal with this difficult problem on its own. Despite this difficult backup, President Shevardnadze and the reformers in the Georgian parliament have started and made significant progress in building a new nation. What we are witnessing in Georgia is truly that: the building up from scratch of a new state. This is a daunting task and one which requires immense fortitude and persistent commitment. There is no quick formula for building a state, no blueprint to follow which will smooth the way. In fact, the road is anything but smooth and there have been wrong turns along the way. But it is taking place. There are a number of indicators. One is the regaining control of borders. After much negotiating, and persistence, Georgia is starting to regain control of its borders: in the strategic sea-port of Poti, the northern border as well as parts of the border with Turkey. Georgia is also scheduled to take control of the entire Turkish-Georgian border in Ajara in 1999. Another is in the area of basic legal reforms. Not only have President Shevardnadze and the reformers in Parliament tackled problems systematically, they have clearly demonstrated their commitment by passing legislation which will set the foundations for a free and prosperous society. A recent example is the overhaul of the judiciary. Most of Georgia's judges are being forcibly retired and replaced by new ones chosen by competitive examinations. This is a bold move in the right direction. While the reform of the legal system is moving forward at a fast pace, one area of concern is the recent decision to return to the Soviet system of appointing lay judges for high crimes' sentencing. These judges don't have to pass tests or meet the same standards as federal judges. This is a dangerous road to go down as it could slow down the pace of legal reform and open the door to corruption. Nevertheless, on the whole Georgia should be proud of this wonderful step forward. In a civil society, the legal system should work for the society and not for the benefit of the authorities. The overhaul of the judiciary sets Georgia on that course. Another is the fight against corruption. The reformers in Georgia have also taken on one of the most pervasive problems which is the legacy of 70 years of communism: corruption. Recent examples of the commitment to take on this overwhelming problem can be found in a number of decisions relating to the areas in which corruption is the most prevalent in any society. Georgia has hired foreign companies to take over areas which are traditionally the richest sources of bribes and corruption: the distribution of electric power in Tbilisi and the customs service. In another bold move, the Georgian government will be taking procurement away from the ministries: a law passed recently requires that as of 1 July 1999, all government procurements beyond 20,000 lari must be subject to tender by the Ministry of Economy. This law is most significant and will be further enhanced by establishment of a system for third party procurement. The Ministry of Economy working with seasoned western companies can make these tenders work for the government and not for individual people looking for their own personal gain. Leading the way in this effort is the military and the border guards. This will concretely contribute to the more efficient use of Georgian government resources and reduce the temptation of corruption. The progress made to date has not come easily and has not necessarily been smooth; mistakes have been made along the way. But we must remember that there is no easy map to chart the way from the economic shambles Georgia and the other former Soviet republics inherited to a full blown free market economy and democratic institutions. Building them takes some time, determination and perseverance. Mr. President, once implemented, the Georgian people will surely begin to see that they are on the right track toward a serious improvement in their circumstances. I congratulate President Shevardnadze and the parliamentarians who have stood up for the freedom and long-term wellbeing of their country. Mr. President, the geostrategic importance of Georgia to the United States is clear and has been mentioned often. It also has another claim on our attention and support: the progress toward democratization and free market economy there is a strong example to the other countries in the region. Georgia deserves our support as well as our congratulations.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague from Georgia for recognizing me and for bringing this bill forward. It was 2 weeks ago yesterday that I was at McConnell airbase in Wichita, KS, meeting with troops that afternoon heading out to run refueling missions and other activities in support of the Kosovo operation. They were in their working uniforms with a number of spouses and some children present. They were determined and ready to go. They said, ``This is our job,'' and they were saluting and saying they were off to do it even though they had questions: What is the objective? How will we get this done? How long will it last? We did not have good answers for them, but I said we would press for those answers. In speaking with a couple of the spouses afterwards, they noted their husbands had been deployed more than 200 days last year and they were having difficulty with that length of time of deployment. Also, they said: We love being part of the military, we want to do our job, but we feel we are being hamstrung by some of the things required of us. They don't believe some of the pay is quite enough, and I don't think it is enough for them. What I see in this bill of Senator Coverdell is a statement to some of the people at McConnell airbase, and others throughout Kansas who are serving in the military, that we want to help and do what we can in tough situations because you are going into the toughest situation that a nation could possibly send you. You are going in to face a hostile enemy, putting your lives on the line, your blood on the line. We are asking you to do it and you are doing it. The least we can do--God bless you, we want to help any way we can--is to do something to help. This 2-month extension for the due date for filing a tax return for any member of a uniformed service on a tour of duty outside the United States for a period including the normal due date for such filing is a small statement. It is a small act, but it is a good act. It is an important act and an important statement for us to tell those people in uniform and their families that we do care, we do hear you, and we want to try to respond in any way we possibly can. We need to do a lot more. We need to up the pay to people in the military. We need to be questioning all the places we are sending our military around the world, how many times we are deploying them. We need to upgrade the military's hardware. I think that is important. One thing we recently did for the Nation's defense was to pass on the national missile defense bill. We need to do that. I noted to those at McConnell airbase and those attending the nine townhall meetings I had across Kansas last week a chart showing the percentage of the Federal budget going to military defense spending. About 17 percent of our budget is now going to military defense spending. In 1962--not all that long ago--it was nearly 50 percent going into our military budget. I noted that the amount we invest in the military--which does the very basic thing we are called on to do, which is to provide for the common defense--is going to need to go up if we are going to continue the far-flung operations that the United States is involved in around the world. We cannot maintain this pace in this many places on this budget. That is all they are asking. They are saying: I will put my life on the line, I will subject my family to this, I believe in the United States, and I believe in our cause, but, gosh, can't you help us out a little bit? Can't you make sure that people aren't on food stamps? Can't you address some of these issues? And we should. This is a bill to help some of those people. Some Members may have conflicting opinions on our involvement in Kosovo, but we can all agree that our service men and women should not be penalized for their service to our country. We owe them a debt of gratitude for risking their lives to represent our country. Our soldiers defend the liberties we hold dear, and we should not be arbitrarily penalizing them in our Tax Code for their work to protect our country. With that, I say to my colleague from Georgia I am very appreciative of the bill the Senator has put forward, of the effort to recognize the needs of our people in uniform. I support wholeheartedly this bill and say God bless to our soldiers who are in uniform and in harm's way today. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the amendment put forward by the Senator from Missouri. I join him in this amendment and I join him in the sentiment that he has put forward and articulated, I think very well, about the potential problems and pitfalls if we go this route of the Government investing the Social Security trust fund surplus in the stock market. Now, a lot of us would say if we want to have private sector individuals take certain portions of their surplus and put them in investments they deem worthy and sound, that is one thing to consider; but when you have the Government looking at potentially investing $2.7 trillion over a period of time and directing that in the stock market, I think you are asking for a whole boat load of problems. Having the Government invest the Social Security trust fund in the stock market, I believe, is dangerous because of the Government having cross-purposes when it frequently seeks to do various things. We heard the Senator from Missouri talk about some ``for instances.'' If we have a poor economy taking place and people are looking around saying what can we do to stimulate the economy, what we need to do is put more money in the stock market to stimulate its growth and hopefully that will stimulate the economy. People say, ``Raid the trust fund and move it into the stock market.'' That may be a fine thing for macroeconomics, it may not be. It could be a very poor thing for Social Security and trust funds and pension funds. We should look at these as people's pension funds. That is just not a wise policy to take place. We could also have all sorts of political pressures--the Senator from Missouri or the Senator from Kansas saying, ``Not enough of this money is being placed by the Government into Kansas. I think they ought to be investing more money in Kansas rather than less money,'' so I start lobbying, or others do, to get the Government to invest more of the Social Security money, these pension funds of the American public, into Kansas. That may be a good and laudable purpose. From my perspective, it is a great purpose. Is that the sort of thing we ought to be doing with our pension funds, though? Is that the sort of cross-purpose that we should invite by encouraging and allowing the Federal Government to invest money in the private stock market? I think not. President Clinton has suggested that the Government invest up to $700 billion in surplus payroll taxes in the stock market. I applaud the President for recognizing the strength of our economy. I have to seriously question this proposal. The dangers of a Government- controlled economy are vast and they are far reaching. Socializing our free market economy through Government-controlled investments in the stock market would have a chilling effect on future economic growth. The markets would become more sensitive to the executive branch decisions and less sensitive to market forces and factors. The potential abuses are easily seen, and I have already articulated a couple of them. Businesses that are not supportive of the administration could be punished and those that are supportive would be rewarded. Again, a cross-purpose with people's pension money--not a good idea. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has been previously quoted as saying he deems this to be a bad idea for Social Security and a bad idea for the economy. I think his one quote bears repeating at this time because it goes to the heart of the issue. Alan Greenspan said he ``does not believe that it is politically feasible to insulate such huge funds from a governmental direction.'' Now, imagine that--$700 billion multiplied over time being directed by Government and an administration that might be at cross purposes with saying what is the best thing to do for these pension funds, or even if we had the best of purposes, you are going to invite manipulation taking place in the market with pension funds. The last thing this country needs is the Federal Government directing the investment of Social Security funds based on politics. That is simply what we are inviting if we seek to have the Government do this investment. This is something private individuals should do. They should be allowed to do that on certain portions of it, but the Government should not. Our amendment states that it is the sense of the Senate that the Government should not be allowed to invest the trust funds in the stock market. I hope all of our colleagues, seeing the dangers of this proposal, will vote in favor of our amendment. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would like to speak on Kosovo about 7 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, could we establish a discussion order?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I agree to 10 minutes, as will the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have to preside at 6.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia very much. I am sorry to assert myself at this point, but I have to preside shortly. Mr. President, I think the Senate and the American people, hopefully, heard a number of strong arguments questioning whether or not we should start this bombing campaign at this point in time. Let me say categorically, I am concerned about the carnage that is taking place in Kosovo and in Europe and the number of people who are displaced that the newspapers put at 45,000, the number of people who have been killed, and the possibility of refugees in the surrounding area. Let me also say that if our troops are engaged and are starting to bomb or are put there, I will support the troops. If they go to battle, I will support them. But this action at this point in time seems to me to be ill-advised. If the Senate has not been properly consulted, the American people have not been properly consulted and brought along, and we should back up and rethink what we are about to do in this area. We are making an act of war against a sovereign nation, with likely loss of U.S. life, and neither the Senate nor this Nation has been adequately consulted. The Senator from Delaware previously spoke and talked about the objective is to stop oppression that is occurring. I am supportive of stopping oppression, but if we are looking at oppression, that occurs a number of places around the world. If we want to stop oppression, I have a better suggestion. Let's engage in the Sudan, not with troops, not with bombing, but let's support the southern Sudanese. They have 4 million people displaced at the present time. Two million have had a loss of life, and there you have a government in Khartoum that is supporting terrorism in the surrounding region in Uganda, Eritrea, and Congo, that is expanding, that is a militant fundamentalist regime that seeks to do us harm. There you have a vital strategic United States interest. If we want to stop oppression, let's supply and support the southern Sudanese. If that is what the objective is, then let's do something there where we can help save more lives, help more people, and also a vital and strategic U.S. interest. I do not see us doing that. The situation taking place in Europe is a sad situation, but one where I really question whether we should put forth the loss of U.S. lives which is contemplated at this point in time. Perhaps this can be explained over some period of time. Perhaps the administration can engage the American public and the Congress to get that kind of support. But I cannot give that at this point in time on the basis of the information I have to date. Plus, what is the plan? The Senator from Kentucky just asked a number of very simple and very basic questions. Here is a Member of the Senate asking these sorts of simple and basic questions, saying, ``I don't know the answers to these things.'' Nor do I. Have we been sufficiently brought along and engaged and had discussions on these items that we can have such basic questions and not even know the answers to them? We have been told there is going to be a bombing campaign, maybe several ways of bombing. What if Mr. Milosevic does not blink at that point in time and says, ``OK, we are going to support some kind of autonomy in Kosovo"? What then? What is the plan at that point in time? Are we engaging ground troops not in a peacekeeping but aggressive fashion? I do not think people will support that. After Kosovo, is it Montenegro next where we will be going in and supporting, supplying people who want a separatist movement, if that were to happen in that region of the former Yugoslavia? What next? And what is the full plan? We just do not have the answers to these questions, and we are about to take an act against a sovereign nation that is likely to result in the loss of U.S. lives. Now is the time to debate and discuss and to back up and slow down on this, have the administration engage the American public, engage the Congress in answering the simple questions that my colleagues have put forward. Now is the time to do that. I ask the President, please, let's have that sort of discussion on those sorts of specifics with the American public before we move in to what I think could be a very ill-fated, ill-timed, and inappropriate action at this point in time by the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate our colleague from Idaho recognizing me to speak briefly on this amendment. I rise in opposition to this amendment to this resolution. I think this is an ill-advised, ill-timed, inappropriate action to take, given the situation that we have, given the potential and the actual probable loss of U.S. lives, the lack of involving the entire United States in this and saying to the American people: Why are we doing this? We don't know where it is going on step 2, step 3, and step 4. This is step 1. We go in and we bomb a sovereign nation involved in a civil war. What if he doesn't fall back? What if Milosevic doesn't say: OK, I give up, and you can have autonomy in Kosovo? What if we go ahead into Montenegro and say we want to split off. Will the United States bomb and support Montenegro in that process? This is a very, very serious step we are taking of such foreign policy, and we have not had sufficient debate about what the U.S. position is. This is not in our strategic and vital interest of what is taking place. Yet we are going to go forward and start a bombing campaign. We need to have a thorough, extensive debate here, involving the American people, as to whether or not this is in our vital and strategic interests. I submit that has not taken place to date. The administration has not brought the Congress along, and this is an inappropriate, ill-timed event and action for us to take and is not being supported by the American people. For those reasons, I will be opposing this resolution.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. In yesterday's Record, it did not reflect that I was an original cosponsor of the Roberts-Brownback amendments regarding gas producers that was adopted. I want to inform my colleagues that I was an original cosponsor and I understand the permanent Record will reflect that fact.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment offered by myself and Senator Roberts which will seek to provide fair and equitable treatment for Kansas gas producers. At a time when the oil and gas industry is suffering, the Federal Government has taken unnecessary action against gas producers in Kansas. For almost two decades the Commission allowed gas producers to obtain reimbursement for payment of Kansas ad valorem taxes on natural gas. In a series of orders the Commission repeatedly approved the collection of the Kansas ad valorem tax, despite challenges by various pipelines and distributors. However, in 1993 the Commission changed its mind and decided that the Kansas ad valorem tax did not qualify for reimbursement to the producer, and in 1996 the D.C. Circuit Court determined that a refund was to be made retroactively. This is another example of Federal preemption of State rights and of a regulatory agency that is out of control. Kansas gas producers are being penalized more than $300 million for abiding by regulations that the Commission had previously approved. The Commission's decision will likely force small producers out of business, causing a slowdown in the production of natural gas which could have a tremendously negative impact on the Kansas economy. This amendment that Senator Roberts and I have cosponsored will essentially relieve all gas producers from interest owed on the ad valorem tax. This amendment will save jobs, businesses, and loss of State revenue. I am hopeful that my colleagues will support this amendment and provide fair and equitable treatment for Kansas gas producers. amendment no. 102 (Purpose: to exempt non-Indian Health Service and non-Bureau of Indian Affairs funds from section 328 of the Interior Department and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999) At the end of Title II insert the following: ``Sec. . Section 328 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 P.L. 105-277, Division A, Section 1(e), Title III) is amended by striking ``none of the funds in this Act'' and inserting ``none of the funds provided in this Act to the Indian Health Service or Bureau of Indian Affairs''.'' amendment no. 103 (Purpose: To provide funding for annual contributions to public housing agencies for the operation of low-income housing projects) On page 30, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following: pha renewal Of amounts appropriated for fiscal year 1999 for salaries and expenses under this heading in title II of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, $3,400,000 shall be transferred to the appropriate account of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for annual contributions to public housing agencies for the operation of low-income housing projects under section 673 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1437g): Provided, That in distributing such amount, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall give priority to public housing agencies that submitted eligible applications for renewal of fiscal year 1995 elderly service coordinator grants pursuant to the Notice of Funding Availability for Service Coordinator Funds for Fiscal Year 1998, as published in the Federal Register on June 1, 1998.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the author of this amendment from Texas, as well as our colleague from Florida. The idea that we would tell the States how to spend this money from this litigation is absolutely wrong. It is just wrong on its face. The people who are proposing it, I respect their motivation; they are trying to reach out and save lives and to stop these health problems. I think their motivation is appropriate, but the direction and the apportionment that is taking place on the States is the wrong way to do it. In every State in the country that has been a part of this litigation, there is now ongoing a healthy and vigorous debate about how best to spend the tobacco settlement funds. It is happening in Kansas, my State. I am being contacted by the Kansas Legislature in very strong terms. ``Do you not think that we care about what happens to the people here? Do you not have enough problems in Washington to deal with, that you have to tell us what to do with this? We are the ones who brought this litigation forward.'' They are quite offended that we would try to direct them and tell them what to do with these funds that they pursued in litigation and that they need. They are offended as well because they think we don't believe they know what is best for Kansans. I agree with them. I laud my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, in what she is doing. I note, as well, that in Kansas in the debate and in the funding proposal that we have, 50 percent of all the funds to Kansas are going to children's health care program funds for prevention and cessation. We are putting in 50 percent which was enacted in the legislature. But we should not require them to go to HCFA after they have appropriated the money and see if they agree or see if they are going to have to do something different. With almost unprecedented unanimity, every State Governor, Attorney General, and State legislature has directly backed the Hutchison-Graham language. In fact, in many cases it is the No. 1 Federal issue for the 106th Congress by a number of these groups. I applaud my colleague. The debate is happening at the right place now. We should not impose a ``Washington knows best'' approach.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have a series of items I need to go through and a discussion I want to have, but I understand the Senator from Michigan has some comments to make, so I yield the floor to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. I believe the Senator from Illinois has a resolution and a discussion that he wants to put forward about St. Patrick, of all things, if you can imagine that. Of course, that is a very worthy cause. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today is St. Patrick's Day. It is interesting to me that when people think of St. Patrick's Day, they think of Irish, of Ireland and green and spring and those sorts of things, much more than we think of St. Patrick. I was looking up today and asking for some information on St. Patrick himself. St. Patrick of Ireland--this is on a web site. It is fascinating. I do not think most people realize about St. Patrick, but he is one of the world's most popular saints, as people know, along with St. Nicholas and St. Valentine. The day is one cherished by everyone, particularly the Irish. There are many legends and stories of St. Patrick. This is his story. I will go through it briefly. He was born around 385 in Scotland, probably Kilpatrick. His parents were Romans living in Britain in charge of the colonies. As a boy of 14 or so, he was captured during a raiding party and taken to Ireland as a slave to herd and tend sheep. Ireland at this time was a land of Druids and pagans. He learned the language and practices of the people who held him. During his captivity, he turned to God in prayer, and he wrote: The love of God and his fear grew in me more and more, as did the faith, and my soul was rosed, so that, in a single day, I have said as many as a hundred prayers and in the night, nearly the same. I prayed in the woods and on the mountains, even before dawn. I felt no hurt from the snow or ice or rain. Patrick's captivity lasted until he was 20, when he escaped after having a dream from God in which he was told to leave Ireland by going to the coast. There he found some sailors who took him back to Britain, where he was reunited with his family. He had another dream--and this is just fascinating and miraculous to me--in which the people of Ireland were calling out to him, ``We beg you, holy youth, to come and walk among us once more.'' This, again, was the land where he was enslaved and from which he escaped. He began his studies for the priesthood. He was ordained by St. Germanus, the Bishop of Auxerre, whom he studied under for years. Later, Patrick was ordained a bishop and was sent to take the Gospel to Ireland where he had been enslaved. He arrived in Ireland on March 25, 433. One legend says that he met a chieftain of one of the tribes who tried to kill Patrick. He converted the chieftain after he was unable to move his arm and so he became friendly to Patrick. Patrick began preaching the Gospel throughout Ireland, converting many. He and his disciples preached and converted thousands and began building churches all over the country. Kings, their families, and entire kingdoms converted to Christianity when hearing Patrick's message. Patrick by now had many disciples, several of whom were later canonized, as was St. Patrick. Patrick preached and converted all of Ireland for many years. He worked many miracles and wrote of his love for God in confessions. After years of living in poverty, traveling, and enduring much suffering, he died March 17, 461. He died at Saul, where he had built the first church. That is the story of St. Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland.

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, following the remarks of Senator Frist.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene at 9:30 a.m. and immediately resume consideration of the Specter amendment, with 90 minutes remaining for debate equally divided. At the conclusion of debate time, approximately 11 a.m., the Senate will vote on, or in relation to, the amendment. Following that vote, Senator Hutchison of Texas will be recognized to offer her amendment relative to Kosovo. Further amendments may be offered during Thursday's session to the supplemental bill, with the hope of finishing the bill by early evening. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout Thursday's session, with the first vote beginning at 11 a.m.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and statements of explanation appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed en bloc to the immediate consideration of 3 legal counsel resolutions which are at the desk and numbered as follows: S. Res. 65, S. Res. 66, and S. Res. 67.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 18. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of the Specter amendment to S. 544, the supplemental appropriations bill, under the provisions of the previous consent agreement.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 8 and 14. I finally ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the RecordThere being no objection, the I21 was ordered to be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then return to legislative session.