Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am speaking on a bill that I put in today, along with several cosponsors, regarding the Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act. To be a farmer today, you really need to be an optimist--about the weather, about farm prices, about our rapidly changing economy. But one thing farmers should not have to worry about is being additionally taxed for participating in a conservation program. I rise today to introduce the Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act of 2001. This bill would simply correct the tax treatment of one of our nation's most valuable conservation programs so that there is not a disincentive for farmers to be good stewards of the land. I am joined in this effort by Senator Dorgan who has taken an active role on this issue last year and serves as the lead cosponsor of the bill this year. This bill is also co-sponsored by Senators Daschle, Lugar, Levin, Roberts, Burns, Jeffords, Baucus, DeWine, Harkin, Craig, Johnson, and Leahy. As you can see, Mr. President, this bill has the bipartisan support of many in the Senate because it is just common sense. In a time when the farm economy continues to suffer and conservation efforts are more important than ever, we should be doing everything we can to make conservation efforts more appealing, not less. And if there is one truth that is pretty evident here, it is that if you want less of something, than tax it. Well, Mr. President, I think we can all agree that we want more conservation, not less, and therefore, we need to correct this tax interpretation. The Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, has been a great success for this Nation. The program provides financial incentives for improving and preserving environmentally sensitive land, taking it out of production and enhancing its environmental benefit. The CRP program increases water quality, wildlife habitat and prevents soil erosion-- all factors which have become even more important in light of recent concerns about nonpoint source pollution in our nation's waterways. Specifically, this measure clarifies once and for all that CRP conservation payments from the Government are not subject to self- employment social security taxes--a rate of up to 15 percent of the payment amount. Currently, there is confusion over how CRP payments should be taxed owing to a recent court case in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. This case overturned a 1998 Tax Court ruling that CRP payments are not subject to Social Security taxes because they are a rental payment the Government makes in exchange for farmers taking environmentally sensitive land out of production. Since other rental payments are exempt from this additional tax, CRP payments were considered exempt as well. As a result of this confusion, there is now a discrepancy between active farmers who take part in CRP, which are now subject to the tax because it is considered income, and landowners who do not farm but take part in CRP and are exempt from the tax. Clearly, this is not what Congress intended when it set up this program. Furthermore, the new court ruling has inspired the IRS to aggressively seek back taxes on CRP payments, as far back as the 1996 tax year. That could amount to tens of thousands of dollars for farmers who are already struggling through economic hard times. In my State of Kansas alone, $102.7 million in CRP payments were issued in 1999. Are we really going to tell farmers that this money-- promised them for conservation purposes--will now be additionally taxed all the way back to 1996? This would amount to a disincentive for farmers to participate in environmental and conservation programs because they cannot trust that there won't be some hidden penalty down the road. Is that the message this body really wants to send? This tax makes no sense. Since CRP land is not used for agricultural production, it should not be considered farm income--but rather rental/ real estate income as the Tax Court originally ruled. CRP payments are different from traditional setaside programs because the program requires strict adherence to environmental standards. The farmer is contracting with the Government for an environmental benefit. Why on Earth would we choose to tax him for it? We must also consider the state of the farm economy today. Agriculture is one of the few industries in this country which has not been blessed with a prolonged booming economy. This is the worst possible time to burden farmers with additional taxes. This bill received enthusiastic support in the last Congress. In fact, this measure was approved unanimously in the Senate last year as part of a larger tax bill, but, unfortunately, was not able to make its way into law. In addition to strong Senate support, this bill has the backing of numerous farm groups including: the National Corn Growers, National Wheat Growers, American Soybean and Cattlemen's Beef Associations--along with the National Farmer's Union and the American Farm Bureau. My colleagues, one of the privileges we have as Members of the Senate is to be able to correct legislative wrongs that hurt our constituents. This may be a minor thing in the larger scheme of the tax debate, but it is of vital importance to our Nation's farmers. I urge you all to join me in this effort. If I may summarize, this Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act of 2001 is to remove taxation on CRP and put it back to where it was when the program was first put forward. That program pays farmers to idle land to be able to build it up, conserve it, to be able to build wildlife up on these tracts of land. It has been very successful. What has taken place or occurred is that the IRS has taken farmers to court and said they should be taxed for self-employment income for CRP payments, which was never the intent of Congress when it passed that. That was not to take place. Yet the lower court in that one circuit ruled that that is, indeed, correct and that they should be taxed a self-employment tax on that income. Today Senators Dorgan, Roberts, and myself held a press conference introducing this bill to clarify this issue and to remove the self- employment tax on CRP payments. I think this is a key provision. I hope we are able to move forward on it. Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, is supporting us in this effort, and he put it in an overall farm tax relief package. At this time, when we have so much difficulty in the farming economy, it is important to clarify that we are not going to tax people in a situation that they should not be taxed in and where it was never intended for them to be taxed. This bill previously passed the Senate last year. It has strong bipartisan support. The list of original cosponsors is as follows: Senators Daschle, Lugar, Levin, Roberts, Burns, Jeffords, Baucus, DeWine, Harkin, Craig, Johnson, Leahy, and Bingaman. I hope more will join us as well. I hope this not only clears the Senate this year, but gets through to the President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am speaking on a bill that I put in today, along with several cosponsors, regarding the Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act. To be a farmer today, you really need to be an optimist--about the weather, about farm prices, about our rapidly changing economy. But one thing farmers should not have to worry about is being additionally taxed for participating in a conservation program. I rise today to introduce the Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act of 2001. This bill would simply correct the tax treatment of one of our nation's most valuable conservation programs so that there is not a disincentive for farmers to be good stewards of the land. I am joined in this effort by Senator Dorgan who has taken an active role on this issue last year and serves as the lead cosponsor of the bill this year. This bill is also co-sponsored by Senators Daschle, Lugar, Levin, Roberts, Burns, Jeffords, Baucus, DeWine, Harkin, Craig, Johnson, and Leahy. As you can see, Mr. President, this bill has the bipartisan support of many in the Senate because it is just common sense. In a time when the farm economy continues to suffer and conservation efforts are more important than ever, we should be doing everything we can to make conservation efforts more appealing, not less. And if there is one truth that is pretty evident here, it is that if you want less of something, than tax it. Well, Mr. President, I think we can all agree that we want more conservation, not less, and therefore, we need to correct this tax interpretation. The Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, has been a great success for this Nation. The program provides financial incentives for improving and preserving environmentally sensitive land, taking it out of production and enhancing its environmental benefit. The CRP program increases water quality, wildlife habitat and prevents soil erosion-- all factors which have become even more important in light of recent concerns about nonpoint source pollution in our nation's waterways. Specifically, this measure clarifies once and for all that CRP conservation payments from the Government are not subject to self- employment social security taxes--a rate of up to 15 percent of the payment amount. Currently, there is confusion over how CRP payments should be taxed owing to a recent court case in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. This case overturned a 1998 Tax Court ruling that CRP payments are not subject to Social Security taxes because they are a rental payment the Government makes in exchange for farmers taking environmentally sensitive land out of production. Since other rental payments are exempt from this additional tax, CRP payments were considered exempt as well. As a result of this confusion, there is now a discrepancy between active farmers who take part in CRP, which are now subject to the tax because it is considered income, and landowners who do not farm but take part in CRP and are exempt from the tax. Clearly, this is not what Congress intended when it set up this program. Furthermore, the new court ruling has inspired the IRS to aggressively seek back taxes on CRP payments, as far back as the 1996 tax year. That could amount to tens of thousands of dollars for farmers who are already struggling through economic hard times. In my State of Kansas alone, $102.7 million in CRP payments were issued in 1999. Are we really going to tell farmers that this money-- promised them for conservation purposes--will now be additionally taxed all the way back to 1996? This would amount to a disincentive for farmers to participate in environmental and conservation programs because they cannot trust that there won't be some hidden penalty down the road. Is that the message this body really wants to send? This tax makes no sense. Since CRP land is not used for agricultural production, it should not be considered farm income--but rather rental/ real estate income as the Tax Court originally ruled. CRP payments are different from traditional setaside programs because the program requires strict adherence to environmental standards. The farmer is contracting with the Government for an environmental benefit. Why on Earth would we choose to tax him for it? We must also consider the state of the farm economy today. Agriculture is one of the few industries in this country which has not been blessed with a prolonged booming economy. This is the worst possible time to burden farmers with additional taxes. This bill received enthusiastic support in the last Congress. In fact, this measure was approved unanimously in the Senate last year as part of a larger tax bill, but, unfortunately, was not able to make its way into law. In addition to strong Senate support, this bill has the backing of numerous farm groups including: the National Corn Growers, National Wheat Growers, American Soybean and Cattlemen's Beef Associations--along with the National Farmer's Union and the American Farm Bureau. My colleagues, one of the privileges we have as Members of the Senate is to be able to correct legislative wrongs that hurt our constituents. This may be a minor thing in the larger scheme of the tax debate, but it is of vital importance to our Nation's farmers. I urge you all to join me in this effort. If I may summarize, this Conservation Reserve Program Tax Fairness Act of 2001 is to remove taxation on CRP and put it back to where it was when the program was first put forward. That program pays farmers to idle land to be able to build it up, conserve it, to be able to build wildlife up on these tracts of land. It has been very successful. What has taken place or occurred is that the IRS has taken farmers to court and said they should be taxed for self-employment income for CRP payments, which was never the intent of Congress when it passed that. That was not to take place. Yet the lower court in that one circuit ruled that that is, indeed, correct and that they should be taxed a self-employment tax on that income. Today Senators Dorgan, Roberts, and myself held a press conference introducing this bill to clarify this issue and to remove the self- employment tax on CRP payments. I think this is a key provision. I hope we are able to move forward on it. Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, is supporting us in this effort, and he put it in an overall farm tax relief package. At this time, when we have so much difficulty in the farming economy, it is important to clarify that we are not going to tax people in a situation that they should not be taxed in and where it was never intended for them to be taxed. This bill previously passed the Senate last year. It has strong bipartisan support. The list of original cosponsors is as follows: Senators Daschle, Lugar, Levin, Roberts, Burns, Jeffords, Baucus, DeWine, Harkin, Craig, Johnson, Leahy, and Bingaman. I hope more will join us as well. I hope this not only clears the Senate this year, but gets through to the President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Five minutes or less because I preside at that point in time.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am curious. Can we go through a unanimous consent that the vote take place? You have announced to our colleagues that it would be a quarter after.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Before my colleague from Minnesota starts, could I ask if we could get a unanimous consent on order of discussion here, so we know how to organize things. I understand the Senator from California desires to speak for around 20 minutes. I believe the Senator from Idaho wanted to respond for up to 10 minutes. I would like to see if I could speak at that point in time for 10 minutes.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I thank my colleague from Arizona for moving this through so rapidly. Hopefully, we can get this through in a fashion so we can send it forward. We had extensive hearings last year. I think most of it was worked out quite well. The chairman, Senator McCain from Arizona, has done a splendid job of moving this forward. Therefore, today I rise to offer my support of S. 235, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001. I also come to the floor to strongly encourage my colleagues to pass a clean bill on this issue. We have worked a long time in a delicate set of negotiations to get a good bill through. It is well balanced. I think we need to move this through rapidly to get these safety issues out there dealing with the pipelines. I understand that the Senate is a body of amendments, but this issue is too important to be killed by hasty changes--and that is exactly what could happen if we clutter this carefully compromised bill with unnecessary changes or additions. The oil and gas industry is very important to my state of Kansas--but nothing is more important than securing the safety of all our citizens. I have worked hard alongside my friend from Arizona to find a way to strengthen safety precautions and provide strong incentives for better public and environmental protection without crippling a vital industry to our nation. Now more than ever, Americans are keenly aware of the need for a strong energy infrastructure--which makes the way we tighten these standards more important than ever. The bill before use today has crafted a fine balance between setting tough standards, and yet maintaining the flexibility which will be needed for industry to implement this bill. Industry is not questioning that there needs to be tougher standards--even though it will cost them money and they don't agree with all the provisions of this bill, they stand ready to do what is necessary to prevent as many accidents and injuries as possible. Everyone wants safety first. However, if this bill takes on prescriptive amendments which lock in the way these standards are to be implemented, there will be opposition to the bill--not on substance but on procedure. While it might be good politics to stir up anti-industry sentiment, it is bad policy because it would prevent a good bill from becoming law. I think we can all agree that this would hinder the cause of making America's pipelines more safe, which is our objective. This bill has a number of important provisions which will make our pipelines and our people who live near them, safer--including: Increased daily penalties for violation of safety regulations from $25,000/day to $500,000/day--a factor of 20 times. Spill reporting would occur for something as small as 5 gallons as opposed to the 2100 gallon trigger which currently exists. Training and qualification requirements strengthened along with public right to know provisions. The Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, worked diligently and carefully to getting this bill to this point. There are numerous positive things that this bill would achieve. I won't detail it all here now--but the important point is that this bill significantly improves the status quo and will make our nation safer. That is why it is so important that we not allow this bill to get bogged down, and potentially defeated by amendments that will destroy the hard-won balance achieved last year. I would remind my colleagues that this bill went through extensive debate last year. In the Commerce Committee there were hearings and markups which addressed the very contentious question of how best to increase the safety of oil and gas pipelines without jeopardizing a key industry to this nation. The compromise which this bill creates is a good one--but it is fragile. And before some of my fellow Senators try to amend this bill-- I would ask that they weigh the changes they seek against the possibility of killing this important bill--because that is a distinct possibility. If at the end of the day, members feel that this compromise is not adequate to address the concerns of pipeline safety-- then our recourse should be to return the bill to the committee and address those concerns through the regular process. We should not make the mistake of rushing through a bad bill. I hope this option will not be necessary. I believe this is a good bill; that it is a good compromise and addresses a very serious problem in our country. This problem cannot await further refinement and work. It needs to be addressed now. I urge my colleagues to join Senator McCain, myself, and others to pass this bill clean and move it on through the process so we can get a safer pipeline system in this country. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the tax cuts proposed this week by President Bush and to join my colleagues in this discussion. As I listened to my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, a number of the points he was making are the ones that I think are most germane to this discussion. He spoke eloquently; I have some charts that support what he said. He was talking about the one law that Government spending expands to reach the amount of Government resources we have available, plus 10 percent. I had not heard of that law, but it sounds as if it is fairly accurate. I have a chart that shows that the surpluses lead to higher spending. We can see that is what has taken place as we have had surpluses coming on line in 1995 through the year 2002. We had an enormous growth in discretionary spending during the same period of time. This is a time period when we had a Democrat President and a Republican Congress. There were supposed to be some restraints in spending, but the ironclad rule of Government is if there is a dollar left on the table anywhere, it will be spent. We now see that is, indeed, what has taken place where the discretionary spending has increased. If you leave the money on the table, it will get spent. I want to talk about another thing that my colleague addressed, as have others, and that is tax freedom day, the day we finally start working for ourselves and stop working for the Government. This day, unfortunately, has continued to grow longer in the career. We have less freedom from taxation in this country right now than at any time since World War II. I will first show the size of the overall tax cuts President Bush has put forward. They are pretty modest. My colleague from Oklahoma was discussing the relatively small size of the tax cuts in proportion to the economy. This is the percentage of Gross Domestic Product. The Bush tax cut is 1.2 percent of GDP which is quite small, in my estimation. We should be talking about a larger tax cut given the difficulty our economy is starting to show. We are seeing some slowness in the economy. We need to stimulate it both in fiscal and in monetary policy. The Fed is coming forward with monetary policy, and we need to come forward with fiscal policy. You can see Ronald Reagan had a 3.3-percent cut in percentage of GDP, and President Kennedy had a 2-percent cut. I think we ought to be getting up to this 2-percent category and talking more along the lines of a $2 trillion tax cut. This will stimulate the economy, keeping it from going into recession. That is the best thing to do to ensure that we maintain a surplus; with people doing well in this country, we can avoid an economic recession. That is what we are starting to face. This is a modest tax cut, particularly given the times and situation. We need to do so to help stimulate the overall economy. I think a 2- percent cut overall, a $2 trillion tax cut, would be more in keeping with traditional sizes of major tax cuts and would keep our economy from slipping into an actual recession. You can see what has happened to tax freedom day. This is the day you stop working for the Government and start working for yourself. It extended until May 3 in the year 2000. People are working for government at all levels of the government until May 3. I just bought a used car from an individual. He asked me what I did, and I told him I worked in the Senate. He said: If you guys can, do anything to cut taxes, I have a paycheck that comes in, and I never look at the gross number because it just depresses me. I just basically cut my gross wage in half, and that is how much I get to take home. Just cut it in half, was his statement. We ask people why they are having difficulties with the situation at home, with their families. They don't have enough money to take care of their kids, buy braces, pay for education, and take care of the normal expenses. They need to have at least two jobs in this family, maybe more. Why is that? We look at this chart and see one of the big cost drivers in that situation. It is the tax burden. Look at what happened in the 1990s. In this time period, it has gone up precipitously. That shows how much people work for the Government rather than working for themselves. Is it any wonder people experience stress or have difficulty in their family situation, when they are working for somebody else, who gets close to half the year? How does this break down? I want to break down this tax freedom day issue. These are the minutes in an 8-hour day that you are working for government, or other taxes that you are paying. Look at how many minutes of an 8-hour day you are working for Federal taxes: 112 minutes. It is getting close to 2 hours a day that you are working for the Federal Government. I appreciate you working for us that much. I am glad people are doing that. My point in highlighting this is that it is too much. It is too long. You should not be working for the Government that amount of time. Look at the Federal Government, but also look at State and local taxes. You add another 50 minutes to that. We are getting close to 3 hours of your workday to pay for Federal taxes and State and local taxes. That is before you ever pay for housing, health care, food, recreation, transportation, clothing, and put money away in savings. What happens to savings when you take this big of a bite out of it? This chart puts a graphic on it, and it shows that if you start working at 9 a.m., you are basically working in the morning for the Government, and then the rest of the day you are working for other things. The morning is basically given to the Government. It is nice that people are willing to do that, but my point is that it is too long, it is too much, it is taking too much from them, and it is hurting our families and individuals. This is just to point out how much it is, how it breaks down. This is from the Tax Foundation. How much per dollar of a median family income goes to taxes, comparing 1955 to 1998? In 1955--Federal income tax was 9 cents. Federal payroll tax, other Federal tax, State and local taxes, were 3 cents. In 1955, we had a pretty good size Government. In 1998, after- tax income was 61 cents; we are nearly at 40 percent today. Look at the size of this Federal payroll tax. When I go to high school senior classes, two-thirds of the groups with which I speak are paying taxes. The tax that they are paying is Federal payroll tax, which for most people in this country is larger than any other single tax they pay. This is one tax about which we are going to have a lot of discussion. This chart shows other Federal taxes and State and local taxes, which have increased a great deal as well. This breaks it down on the dollar. Finally, this is tax freedom day by type of tax. Many people don't realize all of the taxes that they pay. Basically, on anything you do, you are paying a tax. If you turn on a water faucet in the morning, there is going to be a tax on the water that comes through. If you use the phone, there is a phone tax. If you die, there is going to be a death tax, and if you get married, there is a marriage penalty tax--both of which I think we need to address and eliminate. We have a system where we have figured out how to tax virtually everything you do or that happens to you. It creates these type of burdens. To pay individual income taxes, we are working 50 days a year. You can look at the others. Business taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, estate and excise taxes, social insurance taxes are also on this chart. It is a big overall burden. One person has suggested, instead of having payroll taxes, that we require a person to each month write a check out to the Government for their level of taxes rather than taking it out of the account. If we really wanted to cut taxes, we should do that so people could see that each month when they wrote that check out. It is a heavy burden. I wanted to put that forward to put some context on this. When we talk about a $1.6 trillion tax cut--which I think actually should be at the $2 trillion category--we are overburdening people on taxes now. This is clear. We need help in stimulating the economy. This is clear. We should not be taxing things such as marriage when it is the foundational unit for the family. We need to get rid of the marriage penalty tax. I want my colleagues, particularly from Texas and Georgia, who put this tax plan forward, to know I am going to be aggressively pushing to get rid of the full marriage penalty tax rather than a portion of it, which is in this current bill. I think we have to do much better towards our working families, particularly getting rid of the marriage penalty tax. I also hope that we can make these tax cuts retroactive to stimulate the economy. I point out to my colleagues as well about the surplus--we have been paying down the debt, and we will continue to do so. We have paid down the debt by about $360 billion over the last 3 years. We will continue to pay the debt down. However, those surpluses have led to increased government spending as well. So we need to get some of the tax dollars out of the system and back into people's individual pockets. Finally, we have the wherewithal to do this and to protect Social Security. We can do a $2 trillion tax cut and we can still pay the debt down at the current rate (if not more than what we are currently doing) and provide for substantial Federal Government needs that we have identified. That is all doable because the projection on our own receipts is substantial enough that we can get that accommodated-- roughly in the $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. We need to do this. American working families need this to take place. It is the right thing to do. It is the right time to do it. I hope we do not waste much more time before we actually get these tax cuts in place. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for hosting this dialog and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe under a previous agreement I have 15 minutes allocated to me; is that correct?

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could, I have about 10 minutes to speak. If I could, I would like to go in a back-and-forth order.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to speak in favor of our colleague, Senator Ashcroft, to be Attorney General of the United States. I serve on our Judiciary Committee along with the esteemed Presiding Officer. I wonder sometimes who people are talking about when I hear people saying he is too far this way or that way to be Attorney General. I wonder. How did he win statewide elections in a swing State such as Missouri for so many different elections. How was he elected president of the National Association of Attorney Generals? How was he elected head of the National Governors' Association--bipartisan groups? If this guy is so far out there on these issues, how on Earth did he get elected to all of these positions? It just baffles me other than to say he is not extreme. In most of his policy issues he has put forward, he cares strongly with passion. But there is a solid core of Americans, and in most cases a majority of Americans, who strongly believe in and agree with him on issues such as partial-birth abortion and other items. But that really is neither here nor there. The issue is whether he will enforce the law. That is what an Attorney General is required to do and is called upon to do and in States are elected to do. He has done that at the State level as an elected attorney general. He will do that as a national Attorney General, especially for the United States. I am new to the Judiciary Committee with this session. I am looking forward to serving on that body. But what I found by this process that we have had in the treatment of John Ashcroft is that it is an extraordinarily unfair process, and I think quite undeservedly toward John. Mr. President, I grew up in a town only about 20 miles from the State of Missouri in a small town called Parker, KS. I have had the opportunity to follow John's career for a long time. Our States share a common border. In the Senate, John and I served together on the Commerce and Foreign Relations Committee. Our offices were even down the hall from each other. John and I were neighbors here in Washington, and he even put me up in his house when my apartment building burned. I submit that he would do that for anyone who needed a roof over their head. But more important than geography or committee assignments, John Ashcroft is my friend. A friend who shared with me his honesty and integrity, his devotion to his creator, his principled character, and his steadfast belief that each of us is put here on Earth, to help our fellow man, and to leave the world a better place for all of our children. Contrary to the assertions of those who make a living exacerbating the tensions that divide us as a nation, I know John Ashcroft is committed to our Nation's promise of equal justice for all. President Bush made an outstanding choice for his Attorney General. John Ashcroft is one of the most qualified nominees for the office of Attorney General in history. But even more impressive than his resume, Mr. President, are John Ashcroft's words and deeds. Article II, section 3 of the Constitution provides that the President of the United States, ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The Department of Justice is the primary government agency charged with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. John Ashcroft has fulfilled this function as two-time attorney general of the State of Missouri. In that role, John Ashcroft upheld law with which he personally disagreed, and which many of us in this body might disagree with. But as Missouri attorney general, he swore an oath to uphold the law, and he did. Mr. President, there are many issues on which many of us in this body disagree. But we are legislators, we write laws. That is not the role of the Attorney General of the United States. Mr. President, John Ashcroft raised his right hand swore before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would faithfully enforce the laws of the United States, ``So help me God.'' As a person who feels fortunate to call John Ashcroft a friend, I don't think there is a stronger guarantee than that oath he took. Some have called Senator Ashcroft's record on civil rights into question. This has been a program of distortion. As Missouri Governor, John Ashcroft signed Missouri's first hate crimes statute into law. As a U.S. Senator, John Ashcroft supported every African-American judicial nominee confirmed by the Senate. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, John Ashcroft convened a hearing on racial profiling with Senator Feingold, stating on the record that racial profiling is unconstitutional. John Ashcroft's record speaks for itself; he is a man of integrity dedicated to equal justice under law. There have been other distortions of Senator Ashcroft's record. Mr. President, I was heartened by Senator Feingold's remarks in the Judiciary Committee executive session yesterday, in which he extended an olive branch of peace and cooperation to our side of the aisle, and we have a Senate more evenly divided than we have had for almost 50 years. Senator Feingold has answered President Bush's call to change the tone in Washington. It is a bold step, a step I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will follow. I had the opportunity to speak personally with the witnesses who testified both for and against John Ashcroft's nomination. Believe me, there is more that binds us together as a people and a nation than keeps us apart. Let us begin this Congress in that spirit which Abraham Lincoln used to help heal a nation, when he warned that ``A house divided against itself cannot stand.'' I intend to vote for John Ashcroft's nomination to be Attorney General of the United States. I encourage my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to follow the spirit of Lincoln, and help renew the ties that bind us together, and to resist the temptation to use this process for political gain, and further divide us as a nation. I think once John Ashcroft is approved as Attorney General of the United States, he will be an outstanding and extraordinary Attorney General for all American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I note with sadness what took place at Oklahoma State. That was a terrible tragedy. I was reading about it in our papers in Kansas. That happened to Wichita State University about 30 years ago. It still has not really healed. Somehow when you take that young life and that vibrant seed with the team, it really grabs a hole out of you that takes a long time to fill. My thoughts immediately turned to Wichita State when that happened to Oklahoma State. My thoughts and prayers are with the Senator and with Oklahoma. Mr. President, I wonder if it would be appropriate to have a moment of silent prayer for Oklahoma, for the tragedy they have experienced.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a different issue, one of great importance and one I think we are going to see take place, and that is overdue tax relief for the American people. The Congressional Budget Office has just announced the 10-year budget surplus projection has increased to $5.6 trillion. When I came to the House of Representatives in 1994, it would have been hard to fathom numbers of this nature, but through fiscal restraint, a plan put in place to limit the amount of spending over a period of years, and a healthy, growing economy, we are now to the point where we are projecting and experiencing budget surpluses. It is wonderful that we have this opportunity. I also point out to the American public, in case you are worried the Republicans in Congress are taking their eyes off the ball of fiscal discipline and paying down the debt, we are paying down the debt, and we will continue to pay down the debt. Over the past 3 years, we paid down over $360 billion of public debt--$360 billion over 3 years. We will continue at that pace, if not greater, of reducing the Federal debt. We are going to continue to do that. But it also is possible, and I suggest necessary, for us to do the needed tax cuts and tax relief the American public deserves. America's taxpayers are overpaying the bill for their Government. More specifically, it is a tax on their success. It is, in fact, a tax on the robust economic growth we have experienced and which now seems to be slowing. Of the $5.6 trillion, we have already committed to save $2.7 trillion for Social Security, and we should do that. That still leaves almost $3 trillion. This is separate and distinct from the Social Security trust fund. We have put that in a lockbox. The Republican Congress said we are building a lockbox; we are going to put the Social Security surplus in it. That is the $2.7 trillion of Social Security income, leaving $3 trillion over the next 10 years for tax cuts and debt reduction. We can do both. We must do both. With the announcement by the Congressional Budget Office last week, along with Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's comments, there is no longer any credible excuse not to cut taxes for the American people. There is more than enough money to cut taxes, protect Social Security, and continue on our path of debt reduction--the $360 billion paydown we have done over the past 3 years. Americans demand fiscal responsibility, and they deserve a tax cut. I am hopeful we will be able to pass meaningful tax relief this session, sooner rather than later. I think that is important for the economy, I think it is important for the American people, and it is necessary. We have worked in a bipartisan fashion to balance the budget, to pay down the debt, and protect Social Security. Now we must work in the same fashion to give the American people a tax cut they deserve. As virtually everyone in the free world knows, our economy is slowing. Some are even concerned we are teetering on the brink of a recession. Recent reports indicate consumer confidence has now dipped to its lowest level since December of 1996, which could have the effect of fueling further fears of a slow downturn into a recession. The last month and a half has shown the accuracy of President Bush's remarks about the state of the economy as he was in the midst of handling his transition. We now await further action by Chairman Alan Greenspan. It is worthy of note that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have urged the Chairman not to increase interest rates. I think that was correct. However, now it is clear the Fed is changing its direction. In fact, according to many economists, the markets are already assuming a half basis point reduction to be announced at the conclusion of the meeting that began yesterday. The Federal Reserve is doing its job to strengthen this economy and prevent it from going into a recession. It is now time for Congress to do its job, which is to cut taxes. In fact, I think as a body we need to worry less about the job Mr. Greenspan is doing down the street and more about the job we need to do on Capitol Hill. Both monetary and fiscal policy needs to be used to keep this economy from going into recession but lift it up. Our part in doing this, as virtually all economists will note, is to cut taxes to help stimulate the economy. We need to pursue a fiscal policy that reflects the needs of Americans and of our economy. Based on the surplus projections of the Congressional Budget Office, we have the resources available to not only realize our commitment to sound fiscal policy, protecting Social Security, and paying down the debt, but to significantly--and I want to add the point, significantly--reduce the tax burden faced by Americans. We must cut taxes now for America's working families. In fact, we need to pursue broader and deeper tax cuts than those proposed last week by my colleagues from Texas and Georgia. It is a bipartisan tax cut bill that was put in last week by Senators Gramm and Miller. We must cut taxes for two primary reasons. First, tax cuts are in effect an insurance policy for further economic growth because of the stimulating effect they would have on the economy. Second, tax cuts are good policy not only because they return hard-earned dollars back to the American people--the people who earned the dollars in the first place--but also because they help limit the growth of Government. If we do not send the surplus back to the American people in the form of tax cuts, Washington's big spenders will use the money to grow the size of Government. It is almost an iron rule of Government; if there is a dollar left on the table around here, it is going to get spent. It needs to go back to the American people because they have overpaid. And it will help stimulate our economy, which is one of the keys of how we have been able to balance the budget and pay down the debt and have a strong economy. If that economy weakens, we are not going to have the tax receipts to be able to pay down the debt or do the things that people would like to do as well. If the markets are any indication, we need to use our fiscal policy now to grow the economy, not to grow the Government. Today, we are collecting more from hard-working Americans than we have at any point since the conclusion of World War II. Artificially high tax rates used to fund our bloated Federal Government is one reason we are collecting so much revenue from the American people; the growth in the stock market and an increase in entrepreneurial activity is the other. The American people should not be taxed on success, but that is exactly what we are doing when we impose high rates of taxation, particularly on capital gains. We punish people for innovation, thrift, and hard work, and we penalize them for being successful. We need another reduction in capital gains tax rates to follow on the 1997 reductions. I want to go to a particular point at this time, and that is the marriage penalty tax that has been in place now for a number of years. Twice in Congress we have passed a bill to repeal it. Now is the time for us to repeal it and get it signed into law by a President who agrees that we should repeal the marriage penalty tax. We have been taxing people for being married. It is a ridiculous policy. We have discussed it a number of times on the floor. An average American couple, in a two-wage-earner family, pays about $1,500 extra in taxes just for the privilege of being married. It is ridiculous. Recently, my colleague, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and I introduced a bill to eliminate the marriage penalty. It is now clearly within our grasp to rid the Tax Code of this onerous, ridiculous penalty. I believe we must eliminate this penalty immediately. Unfortunately, some of the proposals being considered to reduce taxes fail to adequately address the marriage penalty. We need real marriage penalty reduction, not more gimmicks in our Tax Code. We need to double the standard deduction immediately. In fact, I prefer to make it retroactive to January 1 of this year. We also need to double the income subject to the marginal rate brackets for married couples to twice the amount it is for individuals. This accomplishes real marriage penalty relief. As we move to consideration of a reconciliation bill later this year, I will be pushing for broad-based marriage penalty relief. I am hopeful this Congress, with an enormous on-budget surplus, will be able to accomplish real tax cuts for American families. The proposal by my colleagues is a good way to start the debate on tax cuts, but I am hopeful we can do more than the $1.6 trillion tax cut. We have $3 trillion that is available, and $2.7 trillion of the Social Security surplus is set aside. We have $3 trillion to pay down debt and to be able to cut taxes. I think we can do better than the $1.6 trillion. I think it will be necessary for us to do that to help to stimulate this economy. Finally, I believe tax cuts work in part because they do stimulate economic growth and also because they help insure against an economic downturn. We need that insurance policy before the economic situation deteriorates even more. I would add that there is a positive psychological effect that takes place; when the Federal Reserve reduces the rate it charges by half basis points, there is a psychological point that, OK, the Fed is stepping in and taking action to make sure this economy does not go in recession. Therefore, more people say: Good, that is a positive sign. I am going to watch, and I am going to be maybe a little more positive. If the Congress would do that similarly with tax cuts, the American people, as well, would say: OK, they are concerned about this economy, but they are taking action. I can see there is light at the end of the tunnel. We should do that for its economic and stimulative effect on people's positive thinking of what can take place for this economy. I am hopeful that Congress will pass meaningful tax cuts earlier in this year rather than later. Americans deserve some tax relief. They have waited long enough. Mr. President, thank you very much for your time. I yield the floor and yield back any time allotted to me.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, in the era of the Internet, in the era of the microchip, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, I am concerned that the most prosperous, productive and inventive nation in the world conducts its elections for its highest offices in some areas in ways that are outdated, slow, inaccurate, and inaccessible to many. That is why, Mr. President, I rise as an original sponsor of the ``Voting Study and Improvement Act,'' which I am proud to introduce today with my colleague Chuck Schumer of New York. The long national nightmare that the 2000 Presidential election has become has taught us, Republican and Democrat alike, that we need to improve the instruments of voting and the means of electing our federal office holders. Both rural and urban areas have unique difficulties not only with accessibility to voting, but also in funding improvements in their voting systems. A rural State like Kansas has problems with voting that are different than those faced by a State such as New York. Our legislation recognizes these differences, and will allow each State to implement the changes they believe are best for them. What is the best system for voting in Kansas may not be the best system for voting in New York. What is the best system for voting in some parts of Kansas may not be the best system for voting in another part of Kansas. That is why Chuck Schumer and I can agree to sponsor this legislation together today, and that is why we agree that something must be done. I am pleased to rise with Chuck Schumer today to introduce the Voting Study and Improvement Act. This is the first bipartisan attempt to provide grant money to States to implement alternate means and instruments of voting that provide swifter and more accurate results, and are less susceptible to partisan interference and differences of opinion Let me be clear: unlike some legislation that has been introduced in this regard, this is not a federal mandate of election standards. We provide the means to States to implement the changes that they deem are most fitting for their unique needs. In addition, unlike some other legislation that is being proposed in this area, we do not create a new federal agency or bureaucracy. We use the existing expertise and personnel of the Federal Election Commission to study possible improvements to our current voting system, and make recommendations for changes. Given the magnitude of controversy surrounding the 2000 Presidential election, it is tempting to create a new agency with new powers to solve these problems. Given these problems, it is also tempting to create a federalized system of voting for federal elections. However, Senator Chuck Schumer and I believe these decisions are best left to the individual States to decide. States are as different as my home State of Kansas is from Chuck's home State of New York, and they are the ones who can best decide how to improve their own voting systems. I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Schumer and myself in supporting this common-sense, bipartisan legislation, and help bring our nation's elections into the twenty-first century.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, in the era of the Internet, in the era of the microchip, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, I am concerned that the most prosperous, productive and inventive nation in the world conducts its elections for its highest offices in some areas in ways that are outdated, slow, inaccurate, and inaccessible to many. That is why, Mr. President, I rise as an original sponsor of the ``Voting Study and Improvement Act,'' which I am proud to introduce today with my colleague Chuck Schumer of New York. The long national nightmare that the 2000 Presidential election has become has taught us, Republican and Democrat alike, that we need to improve the instruments of voting and the means of electing our federal office holders. Both rural and urban areas have unique difficulties not only with accessibility to voting, but also in funding improvements in their voting systems. A rural State like Kansas has problems with voting that are different than those faced by a State such as New York. Our legislation recognizes these differences, and will allow each State to implement the changes they believe are best for them. What is the best system for voting in Kansas may not be the best system for voting in New York. What is the best system for voting in some parts of Kansas may not be the best system for voting in another part of Kansas. That is why Chuck Schumer and I can agree to sponsor this legislation together today, and that is why we agree that something must be done. I am pleased to rise with Chuck Schumer today to introduce the Voting Study and Improvement Act. This is the first bipartisan attempt to provide grant money to States to implement alternate means and instruments of voting that provide swifter and more accurate results, and are less susceptible to partisan interference and differences of opinion Let me be clear: unlike some legislation that has been introduced in this regard, this is not a federal mandate of election standards. We provide the means to States to implement the changes that they deem are most fitting for their unique needs. In addition, unlike some other legislation that is being proposed in this area, we do not create a new federal agency or bureaucracy. We use the existing expertise and personnel of the Federal Election Commission to study possible improvements to our current voting system, and make recommendations for changes. Given the magnitude of controversy surrounding the 2000 Presidential election, it is tempting to create a new agency with new powers to solve these problems. Given these problems, it is also tempting to create a federalized system of voting for federal elections. However, Senator Chuck Schumer and I believe these decisions are best left to the individual States to decide. States are as different as my home State of Kansas is from Chuck's home State of New York, and they are the ones who can best decide how to improve their own voting systems. I encourage my colleagues to join Senator Schumer and myself in supporting this common-sense, bipartisan legislation, and help bring our nation's elections into the twenty-first century.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record. The bill (H.R. 5157) was read the third time and passed.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to take some time this evening to discuss an issue on which I held a hearing, along with Senator Gordon Smith, yesterday. It concerns something that is very troubling: The arming of Iran, which occurred recently, and concerns an agreement that was made by Vice President Al Gore with then-Prime Minister of Russia Viktor Chernomyrdin on allowing Russia to convey armaments to Iran and avoid U.S. sanctions law. I do not want to discuss so much that part of the issue, although it is an important part of it, but I want to get to the issue of an agreement made between the Vice President and then-Prime Minister of Russia Viktor Chernomyrdin to allow the conveyance of this equipment, military hardware--we are talking submarines, tanks, attack helicopters, a lot of equipment. It was stated by the Vice President in this agreement--and we found this out when it was leaked to the press 14 days ago, in the New York Times--that we will not sanction Russia for allowing this to take place. I asked the administration in the hearing I held yesterday and I asked by letter today signed by a number of my colleagues: Let us see the agreement the Vice President entered into with Viktor Chernomyrdin. To date, the administration has refused to convey that document to us. We held a closed session yesterday. We said: Convey it to us in closed session. They refused. This afternoon, a group of Senators and myself sent a letter to the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, restating our position that the administration should share with the Congress the documents relating to the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement which allowed Russia to sell conventional weaponry to Iran and not be sanctioned under U.S. law. If we have not received the documents by noon on Monday, the Foreign Relations Committee will be forced to issue--and pursue issuing--a subpoena to receive those documents from the administration. This letter was signed by Senator Gordon Smith; myself, who chaired the hearing yesterday; along with Chairman McCain of the Commerce Committee; Senator Lugar; Chairman Shelby of the Intelligence Committee; Chairman Warner of the Armed Services Committee; Chairman Thompson of the Governmental Affairs Committee; and Senators Nickles and Lott of leadership. In it we express our disappointment with the administration's continued stonewalling and refusal to provide documents related to the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement. They refused to even allow us to see documents which have been published in the press, which is how we learned about them. These were published in the New York Times. That is how we learned about this taking place. Essentially, now, the administration is asking us to trust them. But the fact that almost everything we have learned about this secret deal has come from the New York Times and the Washington Times--and not the administration--makes such trust difficult. Congress has the right and the responsibility to review all the relevant documents and to judge for itself whether the transfers the Vice President signed off on were covered by U.S. nonproliferation laws. Unfortunately, until the New York Times broke the story 14 days ago, Congress had not seen this written, signed agreement between the Vice President and the Russian Prime Minister. In open session hearing yesterday, I asked them to deny this, that this had been conveyed to the Congress. What we heard was that the administration had ``telegraphed'' the contents of the agreement, that they had ``briefed'' but they were unable to say that they had transmitted this document to the Congress, as they were required to do. In essence, they said to us: Look, we were telling you that the Vice President was meeting with Mr. Chernomyrdin. We told you that they were discussing a number of issues. That should be good enough. Well, it isn't. Now we are saying to the administration: Show us the documents that have now been--some of them have been leaked to the press. Tell us what the agreement was. Because we want to determine whether or not laws were violated. To date, they have continued to stonewall and to refuse to provide the documents to us. We provided, as I stated, a closed session for them to provide it to us in case there were national security concerns. They refused to do so. The decision to allow Russia to escape the consequences of providing Iran with conventional weapons is one which affects not only the security of the American military personnel in the gulf but also the security of our allies in the region. This is not the type of agreement which should have been kept from the American people, and it certainly is not something that Members of Congress should have learned about first in the press. The Vice President is saying this deal with Russia slowed down and prevented more weapons transfers from Russia to Iran. The fact is that the Russians did not keep their side of the bargain. I have held a number of hearings on Russian arms transfers to Iran over the last 4 years. As a matter of fact, I held six hearings on the topic of Iran's weaponry buildup. At each of these hearings we have seen and have had experts cite the level and the amount of weaponry that has been transferred from Russia to Iran. At almost all these hearings--as a matter of fact, I think all of them--we had an administration witness there. We said to them: Stop this flow of weaponry from Russia to Iran. We are going to face this weaponry or our allies in the region are going to face this weaponry. At each of these hearings the administration would say: Yes, it is terrible that Russia is conveying this weaponry to Iran. We are trying to stop it. Then I would ask: Are you sanctioning Russia for doing this? They would say: Well, no, we are not doing this. We are not sure it rises to that level. We are not sure we should do this. And all along, there was this secret agreement in the background that they had agreed to--the Vice President had--that they would not sanction Russia. And they did not disclose that at any of these hearings nor even allude to the fact that that existed. Until we found out about it 14 days ago in the New York Times, I did not know this existed. This should have been conveyed to the Congress. We should have been brought in so we could appraise whether or not these sanctions should have happened with this level of weaponry that has been flowing from Russia to Iran. I have a compilation now, from open sources, of some of the weapons that have been transferred. These are all weapons which pose a direct threat to our forces in the gulf as well as to our allies. This is a list gleaned from various press sources and other open sources. And we do not have the list of the weapons the administration agreed to let Russia supply to Iran. Yes, the press is reporting there was an annex to the Gore- Chernomyrdin agreement that listed the level of weaponry, the amount of weapons that could be conveyed from Russia to Iran, and that this would not be sanctioned. We need to see that annex. We need to see what was agreed to be allowed to be conveyed. We know some of what has been conveyed because of open sources in the press. We do not know what was in the agreement between Vice President Gore and Mr. Chernomyrdin. So the Congress is continuing to be left in the dark about what laws, if any, have been broken. The administration claims that the weaponry is not destabilizing and therefore not subject to sanctions anyway. When you look at the list, the public list, I submit that any and all of these weapons pose a direct threat to our soldiers and sailors in this region. They include submarines. They include attack helicopters. They include attack aircraft, mines, and torpedoes. I think that would be and is destabilizing in the region. It is destabilizing. It is clear that this so-called deal did not stop these transfers from occurring. The main problem here, that I am complaining about this evening, is not the weaponry, although I think that is a terrible problem and one we are going to have to face. It is going to be very problematic for us and our allies to face in the future. The main problem is we are not being given the opportunity to look at these documents--the agreement-- ourselves, to determine the legality of this deal and whether or not it falls into the categories of an agreement that should have been transmitted to Congress by law, and then whether, in fact, this deal allowed Russia to circumvent the law. By stonewalling on providing us with the material to allow us to see their side of this issue, the administration is raising even more questions than were raised by the initial New York Times article. Why are they refusing to provide these documents? Is there something they are hiding? Provide it to us in closed session. Yet they have continued to refuse to do that. The administration has an obligation to submit these agreements to the Congress. They never revealed there was a written and signed agreement which binds both sides and binds the United States into skirting U.S. laws. Now, a couple of laws I think are in play here, whether or not they have been violated. We have not heard from the administration about these. They say they have not, overall, been violated. But the Gore- McCain Act is one, I believe--as we look at it and study it, if we are able to get the information--that was probably violated. Allowing Iran to have this sort of weaponry is one that would violate this law. Mr. President, I want to go through a series of charts here to maybe put down clearly what has taken place to date. Fourteen days ago, there was an article that appeared in the New York Times. I am summarizing here about what took place. Fourteen days ago, an article appeared in the New York Times stating that a secret agreement had been reached between Vice President Gore and then-Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin allowing Russia to avoid sanctions required under U.S. weapons proliferation laws for selling arms to Iran. This is what was in the newspaper, signed by Al Gore and Viktor Chernomyrdin. There is attached to this--we have not seen it, but it has been reported--an annex listing weaponry that can be conveyed. They are saying here: In light of the undertakings contained in this joint statement--in the aide-memoire--the United States is prepared to take appropriate steps to avoid any penalties to Russia that might otherwise arise under domestic law with respect to the completion of the transfers disclosed in the annex for so long as the Russian Federation acts in accordance with these commitments. So here is the Vice President of the United States signing an agreement with Mr. Chernomyrdin saying we are going to not enforce U.S. domestic law on these transfers. Now my question to you, to all of the people, and to the administration, is: Does the Vice President have this authority to waive these sanctions? No, he does not have the authority to waive these sanctions. Under the law, they have to issue the sanctions. Now they can choose later to find a way out, to waive them afterwards, but they cannot just waive these sanctions. The Vice President does not have the authority to do this. He enters into an agreement saying: We will take appropriate steps to avoid any penalties to Russia that might otherwise arise under domestic law with respect to the completion of the transfers disclosed in the annex for so long as the Russian Federation acts in accordance with these commitments. I want to go to Secretary Albright's letter to Ivan Ivanov, the Foreign Minister of Russia, about this aide memoire where she says: Without the aide memoire which we just looked at-- This is the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement-- Russia's conventional arms sales to Iran would have been subject to sanctions based on various provisions of our laws. This is her letter to the Russian Foreign Minister, January 13 of this year. The Secretary of State is saying, if we hadn't agreed in this signed secret agreement that we would not sanction you, you would have been subject to sanctions. The Secretary of State is saying it. You would ``have been subject to sanctions based on various provisions of our laws.'' This is the other part that was in the secret agreement with Chernomyrdin, that ``we are prepared to take steps'' that I previously read. The administration itself is saying, look, we agreed with you not to sanction you, but if we hadn't agreed to it, you would have been subject to U.S. sanctions law. Does the Vice President have the authority to waive U.S. sanctions? He doesn't have that authority to do this. Yet that is what he did. I want to show you some of what we are talking about, the weaponry that has been conveyed. This is one piece of equipment, Russian attack submarines for Iran, three Kilo-class attack submarines have been conveyed under this agreement. We have, as I mentioned, attack helicopters, airplanes. The administration was saying, look, we are not going to sanction you because we have secretly agreed not to sanction you. I don't want to go on a long time about this. I just want to continue to raise this issue because I am deeply troubled about a couple of things. No. 1, for 4 years I have been holding hearings about conveyance of weaponry from Russia to Iran and pressing the administration, what are you doing to stop this conveyance of weaponry from Russia to Iran, because our allies will face this equipment in the future. They wring their hands and say, it is terrible what is going on. And then nothing would happen. Now, 14 days ago, I found out the reason nothing is going to happen-- a secret agreement was agreed to that they weren't going to sanction Russia. They were going to let it go ahead and continue to happen. Now we face heightened danger in the Persian Gulf. This equipment is there, and some of it is still being conveyed. No. 2, we have asked the administration, show us the agreement. You should have shown it to us when it took place so we could understand what this is. I believe there was a violation of the law then. We need to see these documents now. They say nothing illegal has taken place. OK, then, fine. Show us the documents. A letter was sent today. We want to see the documents of this agreement. We don't want to continue to read about it in the newspaper. We want to see the documents. Convey them to us; send it in a closed session. If there is national security interests, we want to see these documents. That is what we are saying now. What I am also saying is, what I have stated this evening, if we don't have these by noon on Monday, we will seek a subpoena to receive these documents and get them from the administration. I think this is highly suspect, what has taken place by the administration. We are only now finding out about it. We need to see what it was that the administration agreed to, what it is that is still taking place between Russia and Iran, and why the United States is not stepping in to stop this. I believe you will be hearing more about this unless the administration comes forward and comes clean. I hope they do. I hope they tell us: Here it is, and here is all of what we agreed to. Here is why we agreed to all of this. Here is why we think this is working, rather than it isn't. But right now, all we have are secret deals that somehow are getting leaked out to the newspapers, and we don't even know what the agreement is. We don't know what it is. We deserve to know what that agreement is.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany H.R. 4868.

Mr. BROWNBACK

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 156, submitted by Senator Murkowski.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. For the information all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the tax legislation tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. Debate is expected to take place throughout the morning with a vote expected in the early afternoon. The Senate is also expected to have a vote on the motion to proceed to the conference report to accompany the D.C. appropriations bill, which contains the Commerce-State-Justice language. After a short period for debate, a vote on adoption of the conference report will occur. Therefore, including a vote on a continuing resolution, Senators can expect four votes during tomorrow's afternoon session.