Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux, the assistant majority leader, Senator Nickles, and I would like to engage Chairman Roth in a brief colloquy on an issue that several members of the Finance Committee have become involved in over the past several months. I refer to the fact that in some cases the IRS has taken what I believe is an unreasonable and unrealistic position regarding the tax accounting of sales commissions paid by providers of commercial mobile telephone service for enrolling customers. In the cases I refer to, IRS has contended that these costs should be capitalized and amortized over the average customer life, rather than deducted.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I very much appreciate the chairman's thoughts and look forward to working with him and the Treasury to see this issue dealt with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong favor of the Conference agreement that will provide every single American a well deserved refund of the taxes they are now overpaying as the government runs a surplus. I especially want to commend Chairman Roth for the extraordinary work he did in what must be record time to produce this Conference report. My colleagues should recollect that barely 6 days ago today that the tax bill was adopted on the floor of Senate. And now we are here with a completed conference report. The work of the Chairman, Finance Committee staff and the Joint Tax Committee staff is to be applauded. They all labored long hours and the result is a bill that I am proud to support. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the total budget surplus over the next 10 years will be $2.9 trillion. Nearly a trillion dollars ($996 billion) of that surplus ($996 billion) comes from overpayments of income and estate taxes. What this tax bill does is return barely 25 percent of the surplus tax payments and return that money to the American taxpayer. All of the $1.9 trillion Social Security surplus will be used solely for preserving Social Security. And, as a result of this bill, we have more than $200 billion available for saving Medicare and paying down part of the debt. Mr. President, yesterday, President Clinton reiterated that he will veto this bill because he believes the tax refund is too large. The fact is that what the President wants to do is not provide a tax refund to the American public, but instead he wants to use the surplus to finance $1 trillion in new federal spending. And despite his claim that he wants to cut taxes by $300 billion, CBO scored the President's budget as actually raising taxes by $100 billion over the next 10 years. In other words, at a time when we are running real surpluses in the hundreds of billions, the President comes along and wants to impose even higher taxes on the American people so he can finance more big government. The bill before us should not be vetoed because it provides a tax refund to every single American who pays taxes. The lion's share of the tax cut--nearly $400 billion--results from cutting the 15 percent rate to 14 percent and the near elimination of the marriage penalty. Is that what President Clinton objects to--reducing the tax rate paid by the lowest income taxpayers? Or does the President object to elimination of the marriage penalty? That must be the case Mr. President, because if the President had his way and we cut taxes by $300 billion, we could not eliminate the marriage penalty; we could not cut the rate paid by the lowest income earners. The bill also provides rate relief for all bracket taxpayers over the next 10 years. A modest 1 percent reduction in all tax rates is surely something we can afford with a trillion dollar surplus. I find it hard to believe that the President would object to such a modest change. The conference report also contains the Senate provisions that up the limit on contributions to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to $5,000. Moreover, it retains the provision in our bill that allows increased contributions by people over 50. In recent months, we have seen that the American savings rate is actually a negative number. These incentives could well serve to increase our savings rate. Is that what President Clinton objects to-- enhancing retirement savings incentives? Or does the President object to the health care provisions in this bill. Health care changes that bring a much needed level of equity to the tax code? Allowing the self employed to deduct 100 percent of the cost of health insurance finally brings small business to parity with large corporations. And for the first time in our history, employees who pay for more than half of their own health insurance will be able to take an above- the-line deduction for those costs. I thought the President was so concerned about the uninsured? Why would he veto a tax bill that finally provides health equity to employees and small business owners? The conference report will also serve to continue the flow of money into equity markets by cutting the capital gains rate to 18 percent for all transactions that took place after January 1, 1999. I believe the capital gains rates should be even lower, but with the resources at hand this is an appropriate change. One of the most important changes in the conference report is the phase out and ultimately, in 2009 the elimination of the estate tax. This onerous tax punishes the hard work of many Americans and the death of this tax is long overdue. Confiscatory estate tax rates of 55 percent should, if this bill becomes law, finally be a relic of history. This conference report will be sent to the President when we return in September. He has one month to reconsider his reckless veto threat. The American people deserve a tax refund. This conference report provides very modest and long overdue relief. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I ask the President to reconsider his veto threat.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. We would like to ask Chairman Roth for his views on how this issue can be resolved expeditiously and efficiently.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. This issue is not addressed in the pending tax bill because the Treasury Department has indicated to the Finance Committee that it is in the process of reviewing the IRS's position. We have been assured by Treasury officials that they plan to resolve the issue this year. The Treasury apparently agrees that the IRS may have gone too far.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I certainly agree that if we're going to make any major changes to the program, we need to do so in a way that encourages more private investment and that we had better make sure we consult with the Governors and utilities and get it right. I would certainly oppose making such fundamental changes in the pending bill. I hope the floor managers can give us assurance that the Senate Conferees will convey our concerns to their House counterparts and reject this language in Conference. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee if the Senate conferees on this legislation will keep in mind the concerns of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in mind and move to strike the House language?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is certainly true. The Committee currently has no analysis of the need for such a cost share nor of the state-by-state or national impact of such a requirement. Although the State of Alaska has established a state ``Trust Fund'' to contribute a significant amount to the State's Weatherization efforts, it would be imperative that we ascertain the ability of other States to undertake such commitments before deciding on a change that could bring an end to Weatherization services throughout the nation. Of course, a federal program that can leverage non-federal funds and attract other partners always has a stronger case for appropriations. Is the Senator from New Mexico informed as to whether any states have many such resources in their Weatherization program?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chairman. marbled murrelets

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on August 3, 1999, I filed Report 134 to accompany S. 1330, a bill to give the city of Mesquite, NV, the right to purchase at fair market value certain parcels of public land in the city, that had been ordered favorably reported on July 28, 1999. At the time the report was filed, the estimates by Congressional Budget Office were not available. The estimate is now available and concludes that enactment of S. 1330 ``would increase direct spending by about $500,000 over the 2000-2004 period.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the CBO estimate be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a constituent of mine, Mr. Christopher Cueva of Anchorage, Alaska, for his selection to attend the Research Science Institute's intensive six- week summer program. The program, held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in conjunction with the Center for Excellence in Education, prepares students to be future world leaders, advancing science and technology on every level. Christopher was one of 50 high school students selected for this program from across the country. All of the students considered for the program scored in the top one percent of those taking the PSAT exam. He shows extremely well rounded extra-curricular activities along with a strong academic background. I am proud to see young people such as Christopher attaining academic success at a young age. It gives me hope and faith to see our education system producing individuals that have the capability to lead our country into the next millennium. I believe it is important that we congratulate Christopher and all the students selected for this elite program. I also want to congratulate the Center for Excellence in Education and MIT for continuing their work of advancing our country's work in science and technology. I am confident that Christopher will take full advantage of the opportunities before him, and again my congratulations to him.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on July 30, 1999, I filed Report 106- 130 to accompany S. 244, the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 1999, that had been ordered favorable reported on July 28, 1999. At the time the report was filed, the estimate by the Congressional Budget Office was not available. The estimate is now available and concludes that enactment of S. 244, which authorizes the appropriation of $244 million to the Department of the Interior to make grants to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, would cost $62 million over the 2000-2004 period, with the rest of the authorized spending coming after 2004. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the CBO estimate be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony regarding S. 1052, to implement further the Act (Public Law 94-241) approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, and for other purposes. The Governor of the Commonwealth and the Administration will be the only witnesses. Other individuals wishing to testify will be asked to submit their testimony for the record. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, September 14, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please call James Beirne, Deputy Chief Counsel at (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224-0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to receive testimony regarding S. 1052, To implement further the Act (Public Law 94-241) approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, and for other purposes,'' has been postponed and will be rescheduled at a later date. For further information, please call James Beirne, Deputy Chief Counsel (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt, Staff Assistant at (202) 224- 0765.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I was under the impression we were talking on different sides of the amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair, and I shall not take the full 10 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the issue before us today is whether we should replace the Finance Committee's tax relief bill with a smaller $500 billion tax relief bill. I commend the authors of the amendment for their effort to provide tax relief to the American people, but I believe very strongly that the Finance Committee bill is a better, balanced approach. Let's examine it for a moment. For example, middle-class families would receive far less relief under the $500 billion amendment because the 15-percent bracket is not reduced. Moreover, the marriage penalty relief in this amendment will not affect the 30 percent of married couples who itemize deductions. The biggest flaw in the authors' approach is their belief that this $500 billion tax cut would be approved by our President. He has stated already he would not sign a tax bill, a $500 billion tax bill that cuts taxes by more than $300 billion. And the Director of the OMB has indicated that a $500 billion tax cut would be vetoed. So we have a veto threat. We also have a responsibility to the American taxpayer. As a member of the Finance Committee, I rise in strong support of the Taxpayer Refund Act as proposed by Finance Chairman Roth. I commend his chairmanship, the professional staff, and the Joint Tax Committee staff who have worked so hard in putting this together. It has been very difficult, but it is fair, it is balanced, and it is growing in support, as Americans and Members of this body recognize its contribution from the standpoint of fairness and equity. Everybody shares. Everybody benefits. It is a great opportunity for the American people to share in this prosperity associated with the surplus. The Roth bill gives the overtaxed American family a refund of the taxes they are now overpaying to the Federal Government which has resulted in the surplus. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the total budget surplus over the next 10 years will be $2.9 trillion. Nearly $1 trillion--that is, about $996 billion--of that surplus comes from overpayments of income and estate taxes. The American people should share. They know to whom this refund belongs. It is an obligation of this body to give some of it back. What Senator Roth and my colleagues on the Finance Committee have done in this bill is to take about $791 billion of those tax overpayments and return that money to the American people, the hard- working American taxpayers. All of the $1.9 trillion Social Security surplus will be used solely for preserving Social Security. As a result of this bill, we will have more than $200 billion available for saving Medicare and paying down part of the debt. We have heard from the President that he will veto this bill because the tax refund is too large, and the liberal Washington press mindlessly parrot the President's statement and argue that we should not provide such a large refund. First of all, the President wasn't very supportive of any kind of a refund. He is coming around now. Think of the media, the media that parrot an argument that has no foundation, that somehow it is wrong for the American people to have a tax refund. Think about that for a moment. What is wrong with the American people sharing in this surplus? After all, it belongs to them. What do you do if you get a tax refund? What do you do if your taxes are reduced? Well, you have a couple of alternatives. You can save it, or you can go out and buy something, spend something. That is going to increase somebody's inventory. Go out and buy a new bicycle; somebody has to put in more bicycles. The point is that it addresses an alternative for the American people. We should save more. We are going to have an opportunity to save more. The Democrats automatically jump to a conclusion: Interest rates are going to go up. There is no proof of that. There is no indication of that. That is scare tactics, Mr. President. What is wrong with the American people having more dollars in their jeans to spend or save if they wish?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will yield at the end of my statement. I will be happy to at that time. We only have to go back to December of 1980, under the Carter administration. Some people have forgotten. Do you remember what the inflation rate was? The inflation rate was better than 11 percent. Interest on the prime rate in this country was 20.5 percent. Imagine that. What was that due to? Partially the oil shock. So here we have an opportunity where we can have a significant refund, and the beneficiary is the American people. The fact is that what the President wants us to do is not to provide a tax refund to the American people. Instead, he wants to take that surplus to finance $1 trillion in new spending. Despite his claim that he wants to cut taxes by $300 billion, CBO has scored the President's budget as actually raising taxes by $100 billion over the next 10 years. In other words, at a time when we are running a real surplus in the hundreds of billions of dollars, this President comes along and wants to impose even more higher taxes on the American people so he can finance a big and growing Government. The bill before us should not be vetoed because it provides a tax refund to every single American who pays taxes. The lion's share of the tax cut, more than $410 billion, results from cutting the 15-percent rate to the 14-percent rate and the almost total elimination of the marriage penalty. Is that what President Clinton objects to--reducing the tax rate paid by the lowest income taxpayer? Or does the President object to elimination of the marriage penalty? That must be the case, because if our President had his way and we cut taxes by $300 billion, we could not eliminate the marriage penalty, we could not cut the rate paid by the lowest income earners. When the baby boomers are set to retire in 11 years, this bill expands retirement incentives, allows increased competition by people over 50 years of age. I commend the chairman, Mr. Roth, for upping the limit on contributions to IRAs to $5,000. It has been over 20 years since we raised the $2,000 IRA limit. Upping the limit to $5,000 is long overdue, and it is incentive for the American people to save for retirement. In recent months we have seen that America's savings rate is actually a negative number. These incentives could well serve to increase our savings rate. Is that what President Clinton objects to--retirement savings incentives? Or does the President object to the health care provisions in this bill, health care changes that bring a much-needed level of equity to the Tax Code? Allowing the self-employed to deduct 100 percent of the cost of health insurance finally brings small businesses to parity with large corporations. What is wrong with that? For the first time in our history, under the bill, employees who pay for more than half of their own health insurance will be able to take an above-the-line deduction for those costs. It sounds fair to me. I thought the President was so concerned about the uninsured. Why would he, if he was that concerned, veto a tax bill that finally provides health equity to employees and small business owners? I ask that question of the President. Much overlooked in this bill are the more than $12 billion in educational changes that will make it easier for graduates to pay for their student loans. In addition, more than $1 billion of this bill will help communities construct new schools. Does the President object to that?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I urge support of the Finance Committee chairman's bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is deja vu all over again, with the exception of the former Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers, who obviously led this charge before. I have heard things on the floor of the Senate tonight that are so inaccurate that I am surprised. Some have suggested that cyanide is poured on the grounds of our mines in this country, that there are 12,000 streams that have been polluted and damaged from our mining industry--and ruined, I think was the terminology used. These are totally inaccurate, false statements. They are rock. There is no cyanide from the mining industry leaching out in the area where mining has occurred. They are all closed systems. These are emotional appeals based not on fact but on fiction. They are directed by misleading environmentalists who have decided the mining industry and America's can-do spirit and technology can't take resources from the ground and do it properly. We are not talking about a mining bill. We are talking about the proposal of the Senator from Washington which would limit what the Solicitor has proposed--one site, one mill site in a mining claim. The reality is we will shut down the industry. That is all there is to it. Companies cannot operate the industry on that kind of a land availability. They generalize in their criticism. They talk about Superfund, the ground water contamination. There are 55,650 sites. These are sites where mining has occurred. Let's look at their record. Reclaimed or benign, 34 percent, 194,000; landscaped disturbances, the landscape retakes its ability for regeneration, 41 percent; safety hazard, 116,000, 20 percent; surface water contamination, 2.6 percent; ground water contamination, eighty-nine one-hundredths; Superfund, eighty-nine one-hundredths. My point is this is not a crass dereliction of responsibility. This is the mining industry's history as evaluated by the U.S. Abandoned Mines. Certainly we have exceptions on past practices. To suggest cyanide is leaching out, to suggest we have an irresponsible industry, to suggest the States are not doing their jobs--and the States obviously oversee reclamation; they oversee the mining permits--and to try to kill the industry with a proposal that is absolutely inaccurate, impractical, and unrealistic is beyond me. I don't think it deserves the time of the Senate today. Nevertheless, that is where we are. This creates an impossible situation. If we want to run the mining industry offshore, this is the way to do it. Canada did it by a gross royalty. Mexico did it by taxing them. What is the matter with this body? There are 58,000 U.S. jobs, good paying jobs. We need to be a resource-developed country. Otherwise, we will bring them in from South Africa. What happened in South Africa? It speaks for itself. I hope my colleagues recognize what this does. This kills the mining industry and exports the jobs offshore.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have one brief statement, and then I will yield. It is my hope we will overturn this precedent and return the Senate to the way it has operated for nearly all of its history. Otherwise, we might just as well abandon our authorizing committees and enlarge the size of the Appropriations Committee to all 100 Members. I believe my friend from Nevada has a question.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I think this is one of the most significant opportunities this body has had in some time to address an internal disregard for our responsibility. As a consequence, I rise in strong support of S. Res. 160, the resolution, that would overturn the rule XVI precedent the Senate adopted on March 16, 1995, which effectively hijacked the authorization process by allowing Senators to routinely offer legislative amendments on general appropriations bills. Doing a little research, it was less than a year ago when the Senate voted on the 4,000-page, 40-pound, $540 billion omnibus appropriations bill. Not only did that bill contain funding for various Federal agencies including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, State, and Justice, the District of Columbia, Foreign Ops, Interior, and Labor- HHS; but it also included numerous authorization bills. A few of them contained in that package were the American Competitiveness Act, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the Internet Decency Act, the Vacancies Act, the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug Free Workplace Act, the Drug Demand Reauthorization Act, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act--I could go on and on. In addition, that monstrosity of a bill included tax extender legislation and more than $20 billion of so-called emergency spending. One has to ask the question why we need authorizing committees when we allow appropriations bills to include authorizing legislation. Why should the Finance Committee, for example, exist if the appropriators can include tax legislation in their bills? Why should the Commerce Committee hold meetings when the American Competitiveness Act can be included in an appropriations bill? We have example after example. I recall not so long ago the battle we fought over the fiscal 1998 Interior appropriations. The Clinton administration at that time decided on its own to acquire the Headwaters Forest in northern California--that was at a cost of $315 million--further, the Administration also decided to acquire the New World Mine site in Montana, at a cost of $65 million. I am not going to speak to the merits of these acquisitions, but I am going to speak to the manner in which they were done because here you have an administration that prides itself on public participation. These decisions were made with no congressional involvement. The administration sought to bypass the authorizing committees entirely and have the appropriators essentially just write a check for the purchase of those properties, and that is just what they did. I happen to be chairman of the authorizing committee with jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I wanted the opportunity for the committee to carefully review the merits of these acquisitions. We tried, but the argument failed, and the authorization and funding were included in the 1998 Interior appropriations bill. That was much to the administration's delight. They got their way. But the public, the process, the committee of jurisdiction, had no opportunity to review these significant purchases, no opportunity to hold hearings, no opportunity for open debate or any type of public review. That is what is wrong with this system. Today we have an opportunity to begin to change that. Moreover, what has happened since this precedent was changed in 1995 is that appropriations bills become far more difficult to pass. As we know--we have seen it lately--they are held hostage to nonappropriations issues, and the delays in getting them completed raise the specter of a Government shutdown at the end of each session. We saw it just 3 weeks ago, an example of how authorizing legislation stands in the way of the appropriations process. For nearly a full week, the agriculture appropriations bill was stalled because Members on the other side of the aisle demanded we consider the Patients' Bill of Rights. As a result, the Senate had to stop the appropriations process for an entire week as we debated this important health issue. I happen to support the Patients' Bill of Rights that was adopted by the Senate. I believe we should, first of all, have completed all of the appropriations bills before we engaged in that debate and other debates. As of today, we still have not moved forward on the agriculture bill. Because of the delays in the appropriations process, what has been happening in recent years is that when the end of the fiscal year approaches, the appropriators and the leadership have to come together to engage in a negotiation with the White House to ensure the Government continues to function. As was demonstrated last year, authorizing bills and appropriations bills get mixed in together in a single omnibus bill which is negotiated by a hand-picked group of people. Authorizers do not participate in the process and, therefore, have no say in the substance of the legislation. This is wrong. This is not the way the Senate was set up to function. As a consequence, as we look at where we are today, the founders intended the Senate to operate with a representative process with the authorizing committees doing their job. They were not created simply to provide oversight. Those committees do important things such as holding hearings, drafting legislation based on their knowledge gained from such hearings, and that is why we have the structure of the authorization committees because they have expertise and their professional staffs have an expertise on much of the complicated issues before us. If we continue to allow appropriations bills to be laden with authorization legislation, I can assure my colleagues we are going to see a repeat of last year's last-minute omnibus bill. In closing, I will make a reference to how we are seen by the administration, and I am speaking as an authorizer, as chairman of an authorizing committee. One Secretary, Secretary Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, has become adept at circumventing the Congress. Babbitt has indicated that he is proud of his procedure and proud of the way he is doing it. I quote: . . . ``We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively,'' says Babbitt. That is the National Journal, May 22, 1999. A further quote from Secretary Babbitt: One of the hardest things to divine is the intent of Congress because most of the time . . . legislation is put together usually in kind of a House/Senate kind of thing where it's the munchkins-- The munchkins, Mr. President-- who actually draft this legislation at midnight in a conference committee and it goes out. It is a statement from Cobel v. Babbitt, page 3668. Lastly, from Secretary Babbitt: I am on record around this town as saying that the real business on these issues is done in the appropriation committees, and I, I am a regular and frequent participant at all levels in those. That's, that's where the action is, that's where things get done. The authorizing committees are partisan wrangles of the first order. I mean, nothing ever gets done on any level in the authorizing committees. Cobel v. Babbitt, page 3811-3812.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Further, it is my understanding this interpretation of the rule would allow a Senator to make a point of order against any amendment to an appropriations bill that is not germane to appropriations.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. So in effect it would not allow a Senator to legislate policy changes on appropriations bills if a point of order was made against the amendment?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding the order of business is S. Res. 160, a resolution to restore an interpretation of rule XVI of the Senate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I very much appreciate my friend from Nevada highlighting the inequity associated with the responsibility of the authorizers because, as I indicated in my statement, we get down to a situation where we are out of time and, as I stated, a few hand-picked individuals come together with the White House and basically negotiate a resolve with no participation from the authorizers. As a consequence, as he pointed out, we cannot read the material. It is basically put together simultaneously with the process of negotiation. We are shortchanging our responsibility. I very much appreciate his attention given to this matter.