Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of a great man, King Hussein of Jordan. Today the world said goodbye to King Hussein and the great outpouring of grief by his people and the presence today in Amman of almost all of the world's leaders, is testament to his greatness and to the real honor and affection in which he was held; it was a testament to the enormous contribution he made to world peace and stability. King Hussein was very young when he became king 47 years ago, in a tough neighborhood where wits and courage and character are quickly tested--and tested often. During his reign, he dodged at least 12 assassination attempts and 7 plots to overthrow him. Though he took over a shaky throne, his perseverance, his vision and his great faith carried him through and resulted in a much stronger nation of Jordan and a more stable Middle East. He took his country far down the path of democratic reforms--reforms which he had hoped to continue to improve upon and to broaden. His rule saw his country acquire stability and make peace with Israel. He modernized Jordan and created a situation in which Jordanians enjoy a degree of political freedom not found in most other Arab nations. He did all this by living his faith and his ideals: he practiced political tolerance and even reached a peace and pardoned those who had tried to kill him. He was a true friend and ally of the United States but his true devotion was to his people and to the cause of peace. He took great risks to achieve this peace. He was a lynchpin in Middle East Peace Process. Only a few months ago, he left his sickbed and came to Wye to help broker the Wye River accord that revived the failing peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. It was his presence and his commitment that brought a successful resolution to this agreement. He did this at great personal sacrifice when he was near death. He fought illness with grace, courage and faith in the same way he had lived his life. A stronger Kingdom of Jordan and a more stable Middle East, capable of eventually sustaining a lasting peace will be one of his great legacies. Mr. President it is vitally important for the United States and Jordan to continue our close ties and to deepen our mutual commitment. I join my colleagues in expressing my support and best wishes to King Hussein's son and successor, King Abdullah. I met with King Abdullah this past November. He is very capable, knowledgeable and his is a strong leader. He is now a key to peace in the world and he is up to the task. We all wish him God's speed and great blessings.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I rise to recognize the 1998 Kansas Wheat Man of the Year, Dr. Rollie Sears. Dr. Sears is a world-renowned wheat breeder and a Professor in the Department of Agronomy at Kansas State University. His colleagues describe him as much more than a college professor. Throughout the wheat industry, Mr. Sears is known for his many contributions to the development of new wheat varieties. Dr. Sears was again in the spotlight in 1998 when he released two new varieties of hard white wheat along with the indication that shortly there was more to come. Mr. President, today I join with the Kansas Wheat Association in honoring a man who works to develop, and improve the wheat industry. I congratulate Dr. Sears for his outstanding contributions to wheat growers and I wish him continued success.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chief Justice, I call for the regular order.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to bring to the Senate's attention something that, when I first saw it, I found it just to be unbelievable, that the type of situation that is going on is happening in the world today, in 1999. I am speaking of what is taking place and the human rights abuses that are occurring in the Sudan today. The northern Sudanese Government is waging a vicious war in the south against its own people, who are suffering extraordinary human rights abuses on a massive scale. Slavery--slavery--and Government-induced famine not only exist but are increasing. It is unpardonable that slavery continues in the modern world today, that in 1999 we have slavery going on in the world. And it does in the Sudan. It is even more dismaying that this offense against humanity is officially tolerated, even perpetrated, by a national government against its own people. I believe that America has the moral authority and the duty to protest this outrageous practice. Joined by other Members of Congress, I will be introducing a resolution which demands the end of slavery in the Sudan. Legislation will also be introduced which challenges the famine-induced practices of the Government. Consider this a modern-day abolitionist movement, inspired by the legacy of some of the great freedom advocates such as Martin Luther King or William Wilberforce who ended the slavery trade in Britain nearly two centuries ago. Let the facts speak for the victims. There are 1.9 million Sudanese who have died at the hands of their own Government, more people than Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo combined. Over 2 million people have been displaced, driven from their ancient communities--that is nearly 10 percent of the population--and they now wander homeless, without resources, education, or hope for a decent future for their children. This is the largest internally displaced population in Africa. Most alarming, 2.6 million risk starvation this year--this year--because of Government policies deliberately calculated to produce food shortages. Reportedly, 1998 was the worst famine in 10 years because of the official Government practices of denying food distribution to its own starving people. Experts warn that 1999 will even be worse because of the now weakened condition of the population. How could this happen when so much aid stands waiting for shipment? The answer is because the Government denies humanitarian aid organizations access to famine- stricken areas in the south. They deliberately withhold American- sponsored aid from the starving population to manufacture a famine. Now, why would a government deliberately starve its own people? They have made starvation a weapon of war to crush those fighting for self- determination and religious freedom. Through this weapon of starvation, they can drive the people into refugee centers, which they cynically call ``peace camps,'' and there break them with humiliating treatment, deprivation, rape, more starvation, and even bombings in peace camps. The Sudanese people suffer terrible treatment in these so-called peace camps; they are forced to renounce their own deeply held religious beliefs as a condition to being given food. Christians and traditional tribal believers report this is a routine practice. The U.S. Committee for Refugees issued a report recently which describes the bombing of refugee centers by the Government. The Government bombs these unarmed refugees, the women, the children, the sick, the starving, the elderly, all of whom have taken refuge in these camps as their last resort for food. Recently, reports on female refugees state that virtually every woman interviewed--virtually every woman interviewed--was raped or nearly raped during induction to the camps. Moreover, young boys in these camps are abducted into the northern cause and used as front-line fodder. These are the so-called peace camps. Yet the most incredible crime against humanity practiced in the Sudan today is slavery. In 1999, slavery still exists in this world, and it is officially tolerated, even perpetrated, by the National Government against its own people. Tens of thousands of Sudanese presently exist as chattel property, owned by masters who force their captives into hard labor and sexual concubinage. They are branded, beaten, starved, and raped at their master's whim. Forced religious conversion is routine. Christian and tribal traditional believers experience starvation and whippings until they renounce their own personal faiths. All slaves with Christian or African names are given new Arab names by their masters. The girls undergo a terrible practice, lightly referred to as ``female circumcision,'' better described as ``female genital mutilation,'' which is permanently disfiguring, extremely painful, and physically dangerous. Some Moslems also have this act forced upon them. I asked my personal staff to investigate this situation in September. That trip to the Sudan produced extraordinary photos of children who have been redeemed by John Eibner of Christian Solidarity International. Mr. Eibner is a modern-day abolitionist, an American who redeems people from slavery for about $50 a person--50 bucks a person to redeem a slave today. He has rescued over 5,000 people from slavery in the Sudan since 1995. These photos from that trip show some of those redeemed slaves. I want to show those photos to the Senate. These are people my staff went and met with, who have been enslaved in the northern part of Sudan. You can see young children here in this picture who were gathered together, beautiful young children who have suffered the bonds of slavery in 1999. Here is the broader group, and a picture of the group they met with who had all been enslaved. Then I want to show you these next two pictures up close. This is the face of slavery today in the world, in Sudan. This young boy, approximately the age of my son, was a slave in 1999, in this world today in the Sudan. You can see he is holding his arm out here as they were looking at his arm and his slave brand that he had. We have a closer picture of that brand that this young boy suffered that was put on under his slave master's hand--slavery in the world today. It still goes on. It still goes on. And it is going on in the Sudan. Both victims and experts report that the slave practice has actually even increased since 1996. It appears that the Sudanese Government employs slavery as a deliberate means of demoralizing the civilian population and fragmenting communities. Slavery is also used to reward government soldiers fighting this civil war. These women and children are captured as war booty, as a type of salary for the soldiers. It is repugnant that any country would permit, let alone promote the demeaning cruelties described here. Therefore I invite anyone who is touched by this account of suffering to join me in this cause to end slavery before the next millennium and stop this insane practice of man-made famines in the Sudan. We have the capacity to do this. We need to do this. And we must do it now. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 12 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which would authorize ``normal trade relations'' treatment to the product of Kyrgyzstan. In 1998, Kyrgyzstan acceeded into the World Trade Organization, one of two republics of the former Soviet Union to be granted membership. Only Latvia can join Kyrgyzstan in boasting of that accomplishment. Admission to the World Trade Organization was an acknowledgement of the progress Kyrgyzstan has made in adopting and implementing economic and trade reforms since its independence from the Soviet Union. However, despite World Trade Organization membership, Kyrgyzstan remains subject to the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. As you are aware, Title IV is the provision of law governing the normal trade relations status of nonmarket economy countries. Under the present arrangement, Kyrgyzstan's compliance with the requirements of the Jackson-Vanik amendment must be assessed semiannually. The legislation that I am introducing would eliminate the twice yearly review by granting Kyrgyzstan permanent ``normal trade relations'' treatment. Currently, the United States cannot extend unconditional and reciprocal treatment to Kyrgyzstan, nor can we apply the World Trade Organization agreements to Kyrgyzstan. Until granted ``normal trade relations'' treatment, transactions with Kyrgyzstan continue to be governed by the provisions of the bilateral trade agreement negotiated under Title IV. It is important that Kyrgyzstan be extended unconditional ``normal trade relations'' treatment. It is important not only because the Kyrgyz Republic has met the criteria required by that designation, but also because Kyrgyzstan is deserving of that designation. It is also important because until accorded that status, neither Kyrgyzstan nor the United States can realize fully the benefits of Kyrgyzstan's World Trade Organization membership. Kyrgyzstan has complied with both the freedom-of-emigration and the bilateral commercial agreement requirements of Jackson-Vanik and Title IV. Kyrgyzstan should graduate from Jackson-Vanik in recognition of the great strides the country has made in employing market-oriented reforms. The Kyrgyz Republic has served as a leader in economic and political reform in Central Asia and demonstrates the potential to serve as a model for other transforming economies. Passage of this legislation would send a powerful message not only to Kyrgyzstan, but to all of Central Asia that a free-market economy is the path to prosperity. Permanent ``normal trade relations'' status for Kyrgyzstan would help advance further reform not only in that country, but would also serve as incentive for other countries in the region. ``Normal trade relations'' is important for both Kyrgyzstan and the United States. I hope my colleagues will join me in acknowledging Kyrgyzstan's progress and support this bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the issue I specifically want to address this morning, more than just our legislative agenda, is something that we celebrated yesterday, and that is the tribute to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the celebration we had yesterday, on January 18, when we once again paused to remember Dr. King, a man who changed the course of history and America's conscience. Dr. King is one of the few individuals throughout history who has so nobly exemplified the principles of sacrificial love and devotion. Yesterday, in Kansas, I attended two Dr. King celebrations, one in Topeka and one in Kansas City, and both full of people rededicating themselves to the life of Dr. King and what he had committed himself to and what he had done. Dr. King dedicated his life to the advancement of individuals in need. He selflessly gave of his time and energy--and his life--in order to bring this country to a higher moral plateau. Dr. King suggested that we should not, as he stated, ``judge success by the index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles, but rather . . . by the quality of our service and relationship to humanity.'' In keeping with that vision, it is not enough to discuss how we can foster change within our communities. We must act and become involved in our communities the way Dr. King involved himself in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s. This year, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday observance theme was ``Remember! Celebrate! Act! A day on, not a day off!!'' I cannot think of a better way to honor Dr. King's memory than taking part in our local communities and extending our help to those in need. I am particularly pleased that Kansas organizations are working to honor Dr. King's memory by their outstanding work in their communities. I regularly visit different charity organizations throughout the State of Kansas, such as the Grace Center, which is a home for unwed mothers, and Bread of Life, which is an inner-city church that is leading community revitalization by partnering with schools and neighborhood organizations to provide scholastic, mentoring, and bible study programs. It is through this important work that we truly demonstrate the sacrificial love required to achieve Dr. King's ``Dream'' of an equal society. Likewise, in order to realize Dr. King's ``Dream'' we must constantly work to improve our communities. Dr. King suggested that we will one day live in a society that encompasses all the principles for which he fought so hard and valiantly on April 3, 1968, the day before Dr. King's tragic death, he gave the following speech: I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountain top. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life; longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the Promised Land. And I'm happy tonight, I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord. The day before. Let us keep pressing up the mountain. We are not in the Promised Land yet. We must keep his faith and his wisdom for our future. We need to return to those basic values, which Dr. King promoted. Those values are work, family, and most important, the recognition of a higher moral authority. Only through those qualities will we become a nation truly worthy of Dr. King's legacy. Quoting again from Dr. King: The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but . . . at times of challenge and controversy. The true neighbor will risk his position, his prestige, and even his life for the welfare of others. Indeed, Dr. King exemplified these qualities in his life. We should all join me in continuing his legacy. So, as we start this legislative session on the day after we honor Dr. King, let us keep his principles in mind as we press forward in this Nation to the promised land. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address this body for the first time in this legislative session. We will have an exciting session full of business that the American people need conducted in this body. I am particularly excited about the opportunity for us to deal with issues such as Social Security, creating a real Social Security trust fund instead of robbing from that trust fund, as has taken place for so many years. That money needs to be saved, needs to be used, needs to be kept for the senior citizens or those soon to retire in this Nation. In this legislative session we have that opportunity to create that new Social Security trust fund. That is the top agenda item for the Republicans in the U.S. Senate: Social Security preservation and protection. We need to fight and get it done and do it in a bipartisan fashion. Second is education, emphasizing local control of education. The notion of creating a national school board is not one that many of us are too enthusiastic about, feeling as if we have too much control out of Washington and not enough local control, not enough people on a localized basis saying here is what we need to do with education, and the notion that we are going to create a national school board is one that a number of us would be opposed to. But helping local units of government get access to Federal funds, more access to put more of that money in the classroom, is something many of us would be very supportive of and be excited about doing, and we are going to attack that tough issue of education to make the schools of this country better for the children of this country. Third is taxes. Taxes are too high. It is time to reduce the marginal rates. It is time to eliminate the marriage penalty that is a penalty on married couples in this country. That is a ridiculous tax, if you think about it and the difficulties we are facing as a nation. Those three top items--Social Security, education, taxes--are lead items the Republican Senate is going to be putting forward, and I look forward to a hearty session full of those meaty items, dealt with, hopefully, in a bipartisan fashion. I welcome colleagues from the other side of the aisle to help us in solving those difficult issues.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the bill managers for their hard work to reach an agreement on the bill before us today. I especially want to thank them for including the District of Columbia Adoption Improvement Act of 1998 in the omnibus appropriations bill. As chairman of the Senate Oversight Subcommittee on Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, improving adoption for foster care in the District is one of my highest priorities. For the past year, I, along with Senators DeWine, Grassley, Craig, and Landrieu, have been looking for ways to make it easier for children in the Nation's Capital to find an adoptive family. Earlier this year, we hosted an Adoption Fair on Capitol Hill in which resulted in the adoption of five children to two families. We also held a hearing in the subcommittee to explore a solution that would shorten the time it takes for children in the District to be adopted. Gordon Gosselink, age 13, testified before the subcommittee at this hearing about how he entered the District's foster care system at the age of two. For the next 10 years, he lived in several foster care homes and even endured physical abuse until he was finally adopted at the age of 13 by Robert and Mary Beth Gosselink. He said: Last year, I met Rob and Mary Beth Gosselink at a Christmas party. When my social worker told me that two people were hoping to adopt me, I was really excited. I knew that this was the one. I moved [in] with Rob and Mary Beth last year at Easter time, and now I am part of the Gosselink Family. Things are really great now. I like my neighborhood and I am doing well in school. Best of all, I am with a family who loves me forever. My parents now are adopting another boy named Ricardo who is 11 years old. I am looking forward to having a new brother. I know there are a lot of kids who are still waiting for a home. I hope they find homes, too, like me. Some children are not as lucky as Gordon. Currently, there are 994 children in the District with the goal of adoption but only 50 percent have been referred to the District's adoption branch. Even worse, many children in the District grow up moving from foster care home to foster care home without finding an adoptive family by the age of 18. The most recent statistics indicate that 67 percent of the children who left the foster care system, left because they turned 18 years old. In other words, one of the only ways out of the system, is to grow-up to adulthood within the system. Once these children turn 18, they are released to the streets without a family or a home. Allowing just one child to grow up without the love, attention, and commitment of a family is a tragedy. Allowing hundreds to languish in foster care is a disgrace. The District Child and Family Services Agency has been under the leadership of Ernestine Jones, the Federal court appointed receiver for nearly one year now. I am hopeful that reforming the system will remain a priority and these discouraging realities will no longer haunt the children who need the system most. We must also recognize foster care and adoptive parents for their contribution and their example of taking in these children when they need them most. As many of the Senators, who have adopted children, know, we need to make it easier, not more difficult, for parents to adopt. I believe this can be done and systemic improvements can be made with positive results--as seen in my home state of Kansas. The Kansas reform model of the Child and Welfare Services Agency has shown some immediate signs of success. Within one year of implementing these reforms, Kansas increased the number of children placed in adoptive homes from 25 percent to 50 percent. Prior to these reforms, the average stay for a child in the Kansas foster care system was two years. Now, the average stay in 13 months. Using the Kansas model, we drafted the D.C. adoption reform language and came to a bipartisan agreement which included the Federal court appointed receiver and the Federal court appointed monitor. I am pleased that this compromise language is included in the omnibus appropriations bill. First, the bill would require the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) to maintain an accurate database tracking all children found by the Family Division of the District of Columbia Superior Court to be abused or neglected and who is in the custody of the District of Columbia--including any child with the goal of adoption or who is legally free for adoption. Unfortunately, this basic step has been neglected in the past in CFSA. To meet the immediate demand of placing children in adoptive homes, the bill would also require CFSA to contract out some of its adoption functions which may include recruitment, homestudy, and placement services. Like the Kansas model, these contracts would be required to be performance-based contracts. Contractors would be compensated once specific goals, such as an adoption placement or finalization, are achieved. Finally, CFSA and contractors would be required to work together to identify and lift any barriers to timely adoptions. I want to stress that in the end, we are talking about individual children who are in search of a permanent and secure home. Any improvement in the system translates into bringing each child closer to the fundamental need of having a loving, adoptive family. THE AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS AND WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT ACT INCLUDED IN

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the tremendous work accomplished by Barbara Wolanin, the Curator of the Capitol, in preparing the excellent book on the art in the Capitol created by Constantino Brumidi. The Curator did a magnificent job writing and editing the many articles and photographs which depict the works of the Italian artist, Constantino Brumidi, who was the principal artist of the Capitol. The book was compiled under the direction of the Architect of the Capitol, and Dr. Wolanin had the assistance of many of her colleagues and fellow employees in the Curator's office. So I would like to commend them all on the excellent quality of this book which will enable many to read about the numerous and exquisite works of painting, sculpture and architecture which Constantino Brumidi created to cover the walls and ceilings of the Capitol. I would also like to recommend this excellent artistic book to all of my colleagues and to the many others who will visit the Capitol. The book is at the Senate and U. S. Capitol Historical Society gift shops. Constantino Brumidi: Artist of the Capitol The new congressional publication, Constantino Brumidi: Artist of the Capitol, was authorized by the 103rd Congress (S. Con. Res. 40) as part of the celebration of the bicentennial of the construction of the Capitol. The book, prepared under the direction of Architect George M. White and completed under Architect Alan M. Hantman, has taken a number of years to research, write, illustrate, edit, and design. The book is richly illustrated, primarily with photographs taken by the Architect of the Capitol Photography Branch. It is intended to be valuable to those visiting and working in the Capitol as well as to specialists, and it should enhance the appreciation and understanding of the building's mural decoration for years to come. Brumidi painted murals in the Capitol between 1855 and 1880, contributing greatly to the beauty and unique symbolic character of the Rotunda and of many rooms and corridors. Brumidi had great skill in making the figures he painted on a flat surface look three dimensional; he created rooms where the decoration goes from floor to ceiling. He was also a master in using rich and vibrant color. His murals pay tribute to American history, technological achievements, and values. Brumidi's Capitol murals, including the canopy and the frieze, the House and Senate Appropriations Committee Rooms, the President's Room, the Senate Reception Room, and the Brumidi Corridors, are the major focus. The book also gives an overview of his career, including his training and work in Rome. It was primarily envisioned and written by Dr. Barbara Wolanin, Curator for the Architect of the Capitol, who has overseen the conservation of Brumidi's murals. The book would not have been possible without the assistance of many on her staff, especially photographer Wayne Firth. The book includes chapters by a number of other experts, including the Architectural Historian for the Architect, William Allen, historian Pellegrino Nazzaro, art historian Francis V. O'Connor, and conservators Bernard Rabin, Constance Silver, Christiana Cunningham-Adams and George W. Adams, to provide additional perspectives. The book includes information about other painters working with Brumidi, a chronology of Brumidi's life and work, and a list of known works by him. The Government Printing Office is to be commended for the special care it took in the design and printing.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I wish to call attention to a target of terrorism that is rarely discussed. Increasingly, acts of violence are directed at some of the noblest members of our community, namely, humanitarian relief workers. I have been requested by internationally-respected aid agencies to call attention to this issue to encourage risk assessment solutions to minimize humanitarian aid worker fatalities. Borrowing from a recent GAO report entitled Combatting Terrorism, finding solutions demands a ``threat and risk assessment approach used by several public and private sector organizations [who] deal with terrorist and other security risks.'' Unfortunately, little security expertise has been directed to their extraordinary circumstances. How great is this threat? A March study presented at Harvard warned of sharp increases in security threats against the humanitarian community. The United Nations reports that the safety risks for relief workers has altered dramatically in the last 5 years. We know that at least 25 relief workers from America and other countries died in 1997. Between 1995 and 1997, the International Red Cross, alone, recorded 397 separate security incidents of aggression and banditry against its personnel. In the farthest corners of the earth, aid workers feed the hungry, heal the sick, comfort the persecuted, and shelter the homeless. Non- profit aid organizations do the hardest work for the littlest pay under the greatest risks with the least support. From Kosovo to Cambodia, Angola to Afghanistan, Liberia to Chechnya, selfless people from America and beyond are serving in increasingly dangerous situations with tremendous personal exposure. Some of these voluntary organizations have become household names like CARE, World Vision, the American Red Cross, and Catholic Relief Services. Some are smaller community-based charities. Some are missionary organizations in the most isolated places. Some are faith- based, others are secular, but all of them have one thing in common: they are at greater risk than ever before of murder, abduction, and assault. Their extraordinary vulnerability is illustrated by the following stories: In Tajikistan, a health care worker for street children was kidnaped. Ultimately, both the worker and her 5 abductors were killed by a grenade they set off. In Rwanda, a worker transporting emergency food relief died during an attack by unknown assailants at a military checkpoint. The truck was then set on fire, resulting in the loss of 15 tons of humanitarian relief food which would have fed some 1,700 people for the next month. These are only a few of the countless untold stories of worker maiming and death. At a recent training course in security for humanitarian organizations held by InterAction (a coalition of international aid organizations), an instructor asked if anyone present had ever evacuated a country under hazardous conditions or had been physically assaulted in the course of their work. Nearly all of the assembled field workers raised their hands. Many asked, ``Which time?'' These voluntary organizations play a central role in foreign assistance, and significant American foreign assistance is being funneled through them at an increasing rate. As these groups distribute US foreign relief, they represent America in difficult and dangerous international arenas. And they do it well--they are lean, efficient, and flexible as is demanded by the extremities of working in the most conflicted regions worldwide. Their accomplishments are legendary. Over the years, they have stood between life and death for countless millions during numerous, threatened famines which were averted because of their efforts. This is the central point of my concern. These courageous and selfless groups are more exposed than ever as terrorism continues to escalate against Americans worldwide. The least we can do during the current, on-going public debate on ``terrorism'' is to direct attention their way to generate risk assessment solutions. They cannot isolate themselves behind compound walls as would an embassy or arm themselves with military equipment. Their job description requires them to live among the people, and by necessity, become vulnerable. What can be done? First, I do not want to implement more cumbersome legislation. I do, however, hope to energize private sector solutions relating to risk assessment in this new era of violence. I hope that both public and private sector expertise will be directed towards their unique security challenges. One immediate solution is information sharing. Even though most experienced humanitarian workers can relate harrowing stories, hard data is difficult to obtain. Experts agree that security incidents among voluntary organizations operating overseas are vastly under-reported. By working cooperatively, aid organizations can share information and resources as incidents occur. Another solution involves training; InterAction, in conjunction with the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, recently developed a security training course for aid organizations which was well received. I encourage their continued endeavors and commend all groups seeking ways to improve security training. Training resources could be developed and shared via a consortium. The gathering of more information quantifying the problems is another step towards solutions. The skills and equipment that once well-served field workers in the past may no longer be adequate. To get a better understanding of the scope and nature of these new problems, I am working with the General Accounting Office to provide a detailed study to assess this problem. Aid workers are one of America's great natural resources--living in obscurity at great personal sacrifice to ease the suffering of strangers, they express the best of the American character through their extraordinary generosity. They already sacrifice their personal lives, they should not also pay with their blood. We should not lose them to senseless acts of violence if this can be avoided by appropriate risk assessment and resource sharing. I believe there are unique solutions for these unique challenges, where the best security experts will creatively address these special needs. We should not let these heroes be defeated by heartless terrorism--we should not unnecessarily lose our best to this insidious form of violence.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to recognize an outstanding young fifth grade student from Kansas, Molly Allen. Molly is a student at Sunset Ridge Elementary School in Shawnee Mission, and was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes in July. Since that time, Molly brought awareness about this disease to her fellow classmates by sharing her personal experience. In addition, Molly organized her school's effort to raise money for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation's walk, which was Saturday, September 19, 1998. This courageous young lady exemplifies leadership and courage. I am proud to recognize one of Kansas' outstanding young leaders. I wish Molly continued success in her future endeavors, and I ask that the Kansas City Star article featuring Molly follow my remarks in the Congressional Record. The article follows: [From the Kansas City Star, Sept. 19, 1998] Student Walking To Fight Diabetes (By Anne Christiansen) When 10-year-old Molly Allen participates in the Walk to Cure Diabetes today, she'll have 4 miles ahead of her and 459 feet behind her. That's how many paper sneakers cover the windows of her elementary school--the newly opened Sunset Ridge. They're put there as a visual indicator of how much money students have raised so far--$459--only halfway through a six--day fund drive that ends Wednesday. Molly was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes in July. Since that time, she's talked to classes at the school from her own fifth grade right down to kindergarten. ``They asked me why I have to wear this bracelet,'' she said, twirling the medical alert chain around her wrist. ``They ask me if the (insulin) shots hurt. They were really pretty mature about it.'' She's brought in the device that measures the glucose in her blood. She's taught her friends to look for signs of low blood sugar. She's also spearheaded the school's effort to raise money for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation's walk, which begins at 10 a.m. today in Shawnee Mission Park. Principal Jane Fletcher said she has been impressed with Molly's dedication. ``She got on the intercom, and she said, `Thank you for helping me.' that took a lot of courage,'' Fletcher said. When school first started, some of the students were afraid they would ``catch'' diabetes from Molly. ``I had to explain to them that it wasn't that kind of disease,'' she said. She also had to explain to her class why she was allowed a mid-morning snack in class while the rest of the students salivated jealously. ``They said, `What are you doing?' because only a few of the girls knew before school started that I had diabetes,'' she explained. Molly's mother, Norma Allen, said it wasn't easy for Molly at first. ``No child wants to be singled out as being different,'' she said. ``But once everyone at school understood the disease, they've been so supportive.'' Judy Marino, school nurse at Sunset Ridge, said she's been thrilled with the response the students and staff have given Molly. ``Of course, she's done most of it by herself,'' she said. ``She's a great girl.'' With a snack in her pocket, Molly has been able to stay active in her long list of athletic interests: basketball, cheerleading, softball, soccer, swimming and tennis. She said she's looking forward to the walk today. ``I feel like a lot of people care about me,'' she said. ``With this much help, we will find a cure for diabetes.''

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Thompson in introducing the Government for the 21st Century Act of 1998. Both majority and minority members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee have been working on this legislation throughout this Congress and have come to agreement to introduce this important bill. The Government for the 21st Century Act would establish a commission to propose to Congress and the President a plan to reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of the Federal government by bringing its structure and operations in line with the needs of America in the next century. The commission would consist of nine members appointed by the President and the congressional leadership of both parties. The President may submit his recommendations to the Commission by July 1, 1999. By December 1, 1999, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress preliminary recommendations on restructuring the Federal government. After a public comment period, the Commission will prepare a final report to the President. Legislation based on the final report would be introduced in both Houses and referred to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction. The bill would be considered by both Houses after 30 days. Once the legislation is signed into law, the Office of Management and Budget would be responsible for implementation. The Commission would reinforce our work to maintain a balanced budget. Good government must have agencies that operate efficiently and effectively within their core mission and within their budget. We have achieved one goal of operating within a balanced budget but we must continue to work towards the other. Even under a balanced budget and a budget surplus, inefficiencies and rising costs remain in the Federal government. A balanced budget and a budget surplus does not preclude the Federal government from being accountable to the American people. The Government for the 21st Century Act would see to it that the Federal government will continue to be accountable.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Thompson in introducing the Government for the 21st Century Act of 1998. Both majority and minority members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee have been working on this legislation throughout this Congress and have come to agreement to introduce this important bill. The Government for the 21st Century Act would establish a commission to propose to Congress and the President a plan to reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of the Federal government by bringing its structure and operations in line with the needs of America in the next century. The commission would consist of nine members appointed by the President and the congressional leadership of both parties. The President may submit his recommendations to the Commission by July 1, 1999. By December 1, 1999, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress preliminary recommendations on restructuring the Federal government. After a public comment period, the Commission will prepare a final report to the President. Legislation based on the final report would be introduced in both Houses and referred to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction. The bill would be considered by both Houses after 30 days. Once the legislation is signed into law, the Office of Management and Budget would be responsible for implementation. The Commission would reinforce our work to maintain a balanced budget. Good government must have agencies that operate efficiently and effectively within their core mission and within their budget. We have achieved one goal of operating within a balanced budget but we must continue to work towards the other. Even under a balanced budget and a budget surplus, inefficiencies and rising costs remain in the Federal government. A balanced budget and a budget surplus does not preclude the Federal government from being accountable to the American people. The Government for the 21st Century Act would see to it that the Federal government will continue to be accountable.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senate-House Conference Report on the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act. I applaud the hard work of both the Senate and House conferencees, especially the leadership that Senator Grassley has shown on reforming our bankruptcy laws. I believe that this conference report is a balance between preventing the fraud and abuse of our bankruptcy system and protecting those who are in considerable economic pain. The increase in bankruptcies has put a strain on our economy and families. These losses associated with bankruptcies have been passed onto consumers, costing every household that pays its bills $400 in hidden taxes. That is not fair to the millions of families who pay their bills every month. This report will prohibit fraud, abuse, and the casual use of our bankruptcy laws while ensuring the payment of child support and alimony. I am disheartened by some of my Democratic colleagues and the Administration's opposition to this conference report. This bill not only reforms our current bankruptcy laws, but places Chapter 12 into our bankruptcy code permanently in order to protect family farms and farmers. Farmers in Kansas and across the country are experiencing cash flow problems associated with low commodity prices. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture estimated that net farm income would be down by 15.8 percent this year. Some economists have indicated that America's farmers could soon see a recession similar to the one which occurred in the mid-1980's. Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code was created by Congress in 1986 in response to the farm crisis of the mid-1980's, which caused many family farmers to lose their farms and homes. This chapter was specifically designed to protect family farmers by enabling them to reorganize their debts and keep their land. However, this chapter has not yet been reauthorized and expired on October 1. While I realize both sides of the aisle have differences on how to provide relief to our family farmers during this difficult time, we are all unanimous in protecting their farms and homes. Just last year, the Senate passed the Family Farmer Protection Act by unanimous consent that would permanently place Chapter 12 in our bankruptcy code. If we want to protect our family farms and farmers during this crisis, we must pass the bankruptcy conference report and place Chapter 12 permanently into our bankruptcy code.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, tomorrow, our Founding Fathers are going to be proud of us. Tomorrow as we pass, hopefully, this International Religious Freedom Act, they will be proud of the tradition that we have carried on, a tradition that finds its wording above our mantels here in this hall and says ``In God We Trust,'' a tradition that finds itself rooted in freedom, particularly religious freedom and religious expression of freedom. They will be proud that we passed this act and that we stand--and stand strong-- around the world for religious freedom, freedom from persecution, and allow people of conscience to express their conscience and their desires as they see them fit before God. Today, I stand to support the International Religious Freedom Act which addresses religious persecution worldwide. It is a noble and significant effort to confront an ancient prejudice which permeates societies and produces deep suffering. I fervently hope that this legislation will be passed for many reasons. This legislation is an expression of solidarity with embattled minority faith communities worldwide. It supports those who simply and humbly seek to practice their religion in peace without crushing governmental interference. It supports those who were commanded to stop worshiping their God and refused. It supports those who fear for safety and even life, yet continue against the odds. This is a legislative memorial to anyone who has been unjustly imprisoned for their faith, especially for the ones who refused to recant on principle and remained incarcerated for years, even decades. This is a memorial to peaceful believers who presently sit in jails throughout the world for the crime of daring to express their love of God. We put it above our doors in the U.S. Senate. We have written ``In God We Trust.'' Other people around the world sit in jail for uttering that same phrase. This is a memorial to all persecuted believers who strain towards justice and freedom, and have no advocates. I admire this bill particularly because it addresses the problem of state-sponsored persecution of peaceful religious groups. This is the most insidious form of persecution. How do sincere people of faith stand against the crushing onslaught of a hostile government? How does an individual, or a small faith community, stand against a national security force? Imagine countries where entire divisions of the national police are dedicated to stalking peaceful people of faith. Now imagine being the victim of this onslaught without any defense or advocates, whatsoever. This is true in communist nations, in developing nations, in ultra-nationalist nations. Bottom line--any individual who dares to stand alone, to stand against a hostile national government for their peaceful faith convictions deserves our advocacy. And this legislation provides tools for that advocacy. In his 14th-century epic poem, ``The Divine Comedy,'' Dante believes a place reserved in the Inferno for those who refused to take a stand on the great moral issues of the day. I believe that religious freedom is one of those great moral issues. It is abundantly clear that in some parts of the world, your religious identity is your death-warrant. This is simply wrong and should not be. Knowing the generosity of the American spirit, I believe that we all agree that religious liberty is worth our defense, that our nation was founded on this principle, and that it is central to the core of our American character. This legislation powerfully expresses our national concern for the sanctity of this fundamental right, internationally. Is religious persecution advocacy our responsibility? It is certainly no less justified than our support for democracy dissidents in China or for Sakharov and Soltzenitsyn during the earlier days of Soviet Russia. There are striking parallels between both movements. Both, upon principle, refuse to bow their knee to the crushing dictates of hostile national governments. I am compelled by the stark image of a lone person refusing to recant a precious belief, and consequently incarcerated for the practice of fundamental rights, including free speech, assembly and association. This occurs routinely in communist countries and other fundamentalist regimes. There are countless Chinese Christians who have been incarcerated for 20 years and more for their faith. Jail is known as ``Chinese seminary'' because the government incarcerates so many people for the crime of illegally sharing their faith. In North Vietnam, it's even worse where, routinely, people of faith are incarcerated for 10 or 15 years. But the government does not stop there. Extended family members are also imprisoned, from grandparents and parents, to siblings and children--three generations because of one religious believer. If we freedom-loving people do not stand for this fundamental principle who will? It is my honor to continue to advance the elementary notion that this is an inalienable right, which no one can dictate, not even a government. It is a higher principle, protected, divine, precious, fundamental, universal and vastly personal. And it deserves our protest on shear principle, so I am grateful for the advocacy tools provided by this legislation. Throughout the centuries, many have fought for religious liberty at great personal cost. There is a magnificent cloud of witnesses who look down upon us, their scars bearing testimony to their commitment even to death for religious freedom. Countless, nameless believers have engaged in tremendous feats of faith and self-sacrifice in the name of religious freedom and conviction. The 6 million Jews of Nazi Europe bear witness in an unmatched way for the sacrifice they made as a people for their religious identity. There are over 200 million Christian believers worldwide who presently live in nations which are so hostile to their faith that they are in physical jeopardy. The Bahai of Iran, one of the most devotedly peaceful faith communities in the world was racked in Iran with yet another execution last month and 15 more Bahai are sitting on death row presently. The Tibetan Buddhists had thousands of monasteries destroyed, their nuns raped, their Dalai Lama forced into exile, their religion outlawed. The list is long, the suffering is great, and the goodness of their cause resonates throughout these great halls of freedom today. Religious freedom is a fundamental, universal right protected by treaties and constitutions worldwide. I will continue to stand for this principle as long as people suffer for it, along with the many other Members of Congress who share this conviction. In the face of crushing persecution, in apparent defeat, there is a light that continues to pierce the darkness and it will not be extinguished. If we stand for anything, let us stand with those whose courage is a living testimony to the fundamental freedoms we love so deeply in America. Let us vote ``yes'' on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do so. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, during the past several weeks the Senate has spent its time debating spending legislation. Now with only 10 days remaining in the second session of this 105th Congress we are going to begin considering a supplemental spending bill. The American people are currently facing tax rates that are near all- time highs. These excessive taxes are being imposed on the American people in spite of the fact that for the first time in a generation the Federal books are balanced. The first time since 1969, since Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, the books are balanced and we have these near all-time high tax rates. Congress did some work in balancing the budget and restraining spending, but Americans did most of the work. And now that there is a surplus, they should be the first ones to get some relief. Currently, on average, 21 million American married couples are forced to shoulder an additional, on average, $1,400 in taxes simply because they are married. That is ridiculous. Congress now has the opportunity to correct this injustice by repealing the marriage penalty. And I want to say this very clearly: We can do so without touching the Social Security trust fund. We need to enact profamily, progrowth tax relief and eliminate the marriage penalty. That is an important first step that we need to move forward on reducing our horrendously high taxes in America. America clearly needs strong families. The family is the building block for our country and our hope for the future, and it is unconscionable the Tax Code of the United States is being used to subsidize something against the family, to penalize those who are married rather than living together, and creating disincentives towards marriage. We need to eliminate the marriage penalty during the remaining 11 days of this session of Congress. We have the time. We have the opportunity. The House has passed an $80 billion tax package that includes elimination of a portion of the marriage penalty. The Senate needs to move forward with this now. The American people should be the first to benefit from our budget surplus with a reduction in their taxes this year. And we can do it without touching the Social Security trust fund. Elimination of the marriage penalty will serve this purpose. First, it will restrain the growth in the Federal Government, and more importantly will begin to keep Washington taxmongers out of people's wallets and out of their lives. During debate on the Treasury-Postal appropriation bill, the Senate spoke overwhelmingly in favor of a complete elimination of the marriage penalty. We need as large a tax cut as is possible, and in particular, as large a cut in the marriage penalty as possible. Finally, I would like to state my willingness to work in a bipartisan way with my colleagues across the aisle in providing the type of tax relief that I know we both want to give married couples laboring under this oppressive Tax Code. A couple of days ago, some of my colleagues were on the floor demanding that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board begin to implement expansionary monetary policy by cutting interest rates. Cutting interest rates would incentivize investment and act as a stabilizing effect on many worldwide financial markets now teetering under a cloud of uncertainty. I think that is good, that the Federal Reserve should consider moving towards a more expansionist monetary policy, but I don't think we should require the Fed to do that. I believe we should let the Federal Reserve do its job and we should concentrate on doing our job. If Congress has the will to enact progrowth fiscal policy, I suggest it begin to do so by enacting the largest tax cut possible so we can help stimulate the financial markets, help in this uncertain financial situation that we have, and continue the growth taking place. We have a unique opportunity to substantially change our Tax Code treatment of married people. We can do so without touching the Social Security trust fund. There are other people who want to spend that money. I think we need to leave the money alone, create a real Social Security trust fund, and at the same time let's give people a little bit of their money back with a tax cut. The House has done this. Let's work together, let's push to finally be able to get some of that tax relief put in place. Last year, we cut taxes for the first time in 16 years. We need to continue that effort to cut taxes to continue to stimulate the economy, to continue to give people back a little bit of their money. We should start with married two-wage-earner couples who are being penalized by a Tax Code that doesn't make any sense at this point. So I urge my colleagues, let's work with the House and make this tax cut a reality. We can do it. We have spent a year talking about spending. Let's take a few days to talk about tax cuts.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks on the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act, which is the pending business at this point in time. I commend the hard work of Senator Grassley and the Senate Judiciary Committee for crafting this much-needed reform of our bankruptcy laws. Bankruptcy filings rose to almost 1.4 million last year. That is up from 172,000 in just 1978--enormous growth in bankruptcy filings. More than 70 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy last year did so under chapter 7 of the U.S. bankruptcy code, which erases most debt incurred. The cost of these bankruptcies to the U.S. economy last year has been estimated at more than $44 billion--enormous cost. And these losses are passed on to consumers, costing every household that pays its bills $400 in hidden taxes. That is not fair to the millions of families who pay their bills--mortgages, car loans, student loans, and credit card tabs--every month. This legislation goes a long way in addressing the fraud and abuse of our bankruptcy system while ensuring that people who are in considerable economic pain will be protected. However, I am extremely concerned about a provision in this bill which places a cap on the homestead exemption. My State of Kansas has a homestead law in our State constitution dating back to 1859. Many farmers have used this law during times of economic hardship to protect their farms, their homes and their 160 acres. While the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act exempts family farmers from the homestead provision, many small farmers would not qualify under the bankruptcy code as a family farm because they or their spouse earn off-farm taxable income. I might note for my fellow Members that over half of the people involved in agriculture today in my State and in many States across the country have considerable off-farm income from either themselves or their spouses and yet are full-time involved in agriculture. They have the outside income for various numbers of reasons, but this provision will not allow them to qualify for that agricultural exemption, the family farm exemption, if it remains as we have it in this particular act. Many farming States have similar homestead laws dating back frequently to the time of statehood and of the settling of many places in the Midwest, where people could keep their home and 160 acres if they would just settle this land for a period of 5 years. That is the basis of this homestead law. This provision that is in the bankruptcy code and the changes that we have before us today could have a significant impact on farmers who are already faced with cash flow problems caused by low commodity prices. This bill also does not take into consideration the vastly different property values in various States that will be affected by this particular homestead provision. While I believe we should prevent fraud and abuse of our bankruptcy system, preempting State homestead laws and imposing a one-size-fits- all approach is not the answer. I hope that my colleagues will consider this as we look forward in dealing with this provision and working together with the House to get a fine Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act put together. We should not penalize, we should not usurp, the States that have put forward a particular homestead exemption. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his work and his effort in this area. I want to talk in the brief period of time that I have about the soul of a nation, the soul of our Nation and what happens to it when, once pierced with consciousness that this procedure goes on, allows it to continue to go on. Government-sanctioned brutality presently exists in America in the form of partial-birth abortion. We know that now. The cold mechanics of partial-birth abortion involve the near delivery of a late-term infant to facilitate the extraction of the child's brains. This procedure will be performed several times this month throughout our Nation, and we know that, and we know that we sanction that as a State-sanctioned form of death. I speak today of deep concern for the soul of our Nation which is permitting these defiling acts to continue with our consent. Why do otherwise decent nations permit their young to be ripped apart? Why do they permit the shameless repeated acts of cruelty against their weakest and most vulnerable? People of conscience must intervene now. I draw attention of the people here in this body to the words that adorn the doorways as we walk in. As you preside, you stare up at the words, ``In God we trust.'' As you look across the walkway, ``He, God, has smiled on our undertakings.'' Above this doorway we have ``A new order for the ages.'' All thoughts of our founders; all thoughts, I think, they had towards the newborn child, towards any nature of life in this Nation, that, ``In God we trust.'' With a nation of such a conscience and such a soul, would it tolerate such a procedure once it knows that this procedure exists? I think not. I urge my colleagues, as we look at this, as we consider the soul of our Nation, would we, should we, can we continue to tolerate this outrageous form of death? History teaches us that tolerated acts of cruelty both brand a nation for infamy and sear its conscience. Tolerance is complicity, and nations will eventually be judged for their failure to stop the course of unbridled cruelty. America is distinguished around the world basically because of one phrase: America is distinguished for her goodness. I don't think we can excuse this act. No adequate excuse exists for the death of an innocent child by this horrific surgical procedure. This is a human rights abuse of the basest form, which, if condoned, will singe the soul of our Nation now that we know it exists. We must force ourselves to look squarely into the face of this brutality, regardless of the many sophisticated arguments. I close with a quote from Edward R. Murrow on this point. He would say: ``There are not two sides to every story.'' There are not two sides to this story. Partial-birth abortion must be banned. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Enzi- Sessions amendment which ensures that the Secretary of Interior does not circumvent Congress and the States in gaming on Indian lands. It would also extend the moratorium on expansion of gambling on tribal lands. The growth of the gambling industry in this country in recent years has been explosive. Twenty years ago, only two States allowed casino gambling. Today, the industry reins in $40 billion each year in 23 States and generates revenues that are six times the revenue from all American spectator sports combined. The amount of money wagered annually in the United States exceeds $500 billion. It concerns me that this explosive growth in the gambling industry has taken place during the same time period that so many other aspects of our culture have declined. Two years ago, Congress enacted PL-104- 169, which established the National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission for the purpose of studying the social and economic impact of gambling and reporting its findings to Congress. I supported that legislation. In fact, not one member in either the House nor the Senate rose in opposition to that legislation. This I believe, illustrates the need Congress has to gather more information on the implications of the extraordinary growth of the gaming industry. Until the findings of the Commission are available to guide the actions of Congress, I simply believe that it is reasonable for Congress to not take any action that may proliferate a problem in our society until the ramifications are better understood. The problems correlated with gambling are serious. Increased family violence, child abuse, suicide, white collar crime, alcohol abuse, prostitution, drug activities, and organized crime have all been linked to gambling. Furthermore, I am concerned about the destructive societal impact of compulsive gamblers. Compulsive gamblers will bet their entire savings and anything of value that can be sold or borrowed against while neglecting family responsibilities to pursue the short- lived thrill of betting. They are more likely to abuse their spouses and their children, and most have contemplated suicide. Compounding these problems, there is speculation that the gambling industry actually targets these vulnerable individuals as well as another faction of vulnerable individuals--the poor. And, the economic benefits promised to communities which open their doors to gambling are often exaggerated. On the contrary, some municipalities have found that casinos flourished at the expense of existing businesses, and that the incidences of theft and larceny increased. In fact, I would like to submit for the record an article which was printed in the Topeka Capitol-Journal on April 28, 1998. The article chronicles the difficulties that two Northeast Kansas counties are facing as a result of two Indian casinos recently established within the counties. This year, the local State Representative appealed to the State legislature to provide a special financial grant to deal with rising law enforcement and social service costs. Since one casino opened, the number of arrests in that county for driving under the influence, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana has increased sharply. The sheriff says there has been an ``explosion'' in criminal cases of forgery, narcotics abuse, possession of stolen property, and worthless checks. Even more troubling is that when the counties asked the owners of the casinos to help reimburse the counties for the increased law enforcement costs, the tribes refused. This is an example of how the economic development brought about by the tribes has been a drain, not a boon, to the local government and economy. Yet, while I have qualms about the possible destructive effects of gambling, I recognize that many will maintain that these claims are speculative and dispute that there is a conclusive link between gambling and increased crime. This is why I think we need to receive the Commission's report before allowing any new facilities to be established. The National Gaming Impact Study Commission itself agrees, as does the National Governor's Association and the Christian Coalition. Mr. President, I do not want my views to be construed as opposition to the chance for economically deprived Indian nations to bring needed economic activity to their communities. On the contrary, I commend the efforts to generate income and become more self-sufficient in view of decreasing Federal aid. I think that it is a positive thing that tribes are striving to provide employment, health care, housing, and other important services without Federal assistance. However, even the benefits of gaming to the tribes themselves is a question. Typical problems are a direct result of disorganized, fractionalized, and historically poor communities and their lack of experience in managing large sums of money. Unfortunately, the lack of understanding of what the management of gaming facilities entails has spelled disaster for a large number of tribes. Furthermore, signs of increased crime are seen on the tribal lands, too. Economic development that invites destructive behavior is not sustainable and is not a healthy way to provide for social services to a community. This amendment takes a moderate approach. it does not ban Indian gaming and does not affect gaming compacts which already are operational or already have been approved. It simply places prohibits the Secretary from approving any new Tribal-State compacts. It also prohibits the Secretary from promulgating rules that are designed to circumvent Congress and all 50 States until Congress better understands the societal ramifications of the Federal Government's actions to approve gambling, and I believe this is a reasonable approach to take.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. What is the pending business?

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am a proud sponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act, which makes it a Federal offense to transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion in circumvention of State parental notification laws. Good laws, constitutionally-tested laws, have been enacted in over 20 States which require parental participation, or judicial involvement, in a minor's abortion decision. Yet, these same laws are flagrantly breached by nonfamily adults who secretly transport young, pregnant girls in complete disregard of her parents' knowledge or participation. I think this is wrong, and I believe most parents would agree with me. The Child Custody Protection Act is really a family values bill which preserves the parental right to oversee their child's medical treatment of the most intrusive kind--namely, that of abortion. This bill is about choosing to support parents, rather than unrelated strangers, in their State-recognized right to care for a vulnerable, at-risk daughter. Is this too much to ask? Even ear-piercing for minors requires parental authorization, let alone this most disturbing surgical procedure. Abortion, I believe, is in a class by itself and is unlike any other medical procedure, for both strikingly emotional and physical reasons. There is no other surgery like it, where the object is to terminate a developing human life, and the emotional repercussions can be devastating. Women who have experienced abortion are haunted by the unspeakably weighty consequences of lost life and the deep emotional conflicts this produces. Add to this terrible mix the factor of youthful vulnerability and you invite extreme emotional trauma. Also, abortion can have unique physical consequences--rendering a young girl physically traumatized and even infertile from a bungled operation. Most alarmingly, some ``absconding'' adults can exhibit the extremes of irresponsibility and disregard for the physical well-being of their ``charges.'' There are tragic examples of young women who have been plied with alcohol, raped, impregnated, and then taken across State lines for secret abortions. Some of these cases are just so horrific that one can't even really repeat them. We simply don't want strangers interfering with this important parental responsibility, which is already protected by several States. We must honor the fact that parents have a unique legal status of in loco parentis, which is a historic common law charge to protect their child's well-being. Don't let this right be eroded by unfettered abortion activists with baseless constitutional law claims. To do otherwise is an assault against the precious institution of ``family,'' which we prize and which has been harmed and is a fundamental foundation for our culture and this society. Let's help, and not hinder, parents in their difficult and crucial job in an otherwise potentially disastrous situation. Let's not allow parental rights and family ties to be further eroded. Let's support the wisdom of these 20-plus States which have already done the hard work of safeguarding unwed, pregnant children by requiring parental notification. In short, let's support family values by passing this Child Custody Protection Act. Mr. President, this is a commonsense act. If you are going to allow-- and we have--parents to have the responsibility over a child in getting their ears pierced, my goodness, shouldn't we have the responsibility for a parent, or a court, to get involved if an abortion is going to take place across State lines? Shouldn't we honor these States for their efforts in the devolution of power? Shouldn't we honor those 20 States that have decided to go differently on this and require the parental notification to take place? This just makes sense throughout our constitutional system, throughout our Federal system, and throughout our family system. The foundational unit of this Government is the family. We should not further erode that responsibility. For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to help and support in the passage of this Child Custody Protection Act. I yield the floor, and I suggest absence of a quorum.