Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to join with my colleague from Mississippi in urging our colleagues to vote no on the McCain amendment. Mr. President, the entire process dealing with base closure is a process that Congress entered into with the administration, a joint process where we said we would work together, set up a commission, a commission of experts, we call it BRAC, the Base Closing Commission, and they would make recommendations and send those to the President. The President would either accept it or reject it. He could not modify it. If the President did not agree with those recommendations, he could send it back to the Base Closing Commission and they could change it. But he has two options: He accepts it or rejects it. Same thing with Congress. Under the procedure that was set up--I might mention, it worked quite well the first three rounds. The President took the recommendations; then he would forward those on to Congress, and then Congress accepted them. We could not amend it. We could not say that it included a base from the Senator from Montana's home State, the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, so we will send that specific recommendation back, or maybe a recommendation to close a base in the home State of the Senator from South Carolina or Mississippi, those are powerful Senators, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the majority leader respectively. We did not touch those. We did not set it up that way. We set it up so an independent commission of experts, appointed and I might mention confirmed by the Senate, would work and work very hard. One of the toughest jobs around was for this commission to travel to all the bases on the so-called suspect list or the possibility list. They would visit these bases, and then they would make their recommendations. I might mention in the process, they would probably terrify the individual communities and all the individuals associated with those bases. They would terrify them because they were afraid they might lose their job, they were afraid they might be on the final base closure list, they were afraid they might lose a job they think is a pretty good job--in all likelihood it is a good job, and they do not want to lose it. So Congress had to--I don't know if it should be called collective wisdom, but we said, ``Let's put it on this group, these real experts, a lot of retired military people, people that are going to spend the time and really investigate and analyze which bases should be closed.'' We have too much base infrastructure, so we had to close them. So that was the process. And it worked quite well the first three rounds. Then in the fourth round President Clinton changed it. We had the same Base Closure Commission, a good commission. They made their recommendations, sent it to the President, and said accept it or reject it. President Clinton did neither. He said: Well, we're going to accept all the recommendations except for two, except for ones in California and Texas. There are a lot of electoral votes. We have an election coming up. So he did not accept the base closure recommendation. He tried to modify it. He said: ``Well, we won't close two bases. We'll privatize them and keep them in existence.'' That was not what the Base Closure Commission had said. Congress did not have that option. We were not able to say, ``Wait a minute, we want to close all these on the list except for--'' We did not do that. So the President, in my opinion, violated the law. And I think the law is very clear. Other people debated, ``Wait a minute. Does he have the flexibility? Does the Base Closing Commission give him the option to privatize in place or is this something he created?'' I think it is something he created. That was not the intent of the Base Closing Commission. Could he fudge? Could he interpret it that way? Well, he did. So far he has gotten away with it. But that was not what the base closing law called for. That was not the intent of the Base Closing Commission. And certainly the President circumvented the will of the BRAC, and of the base closing process. I think he destroyed a lot of good will in the process. A lot of people might have been willing to say, well, we might comply with another round, but I will tell you, you cannot comply with another round if you think the executive branch might violate that trust or politicize this process. And that is exactly what President Clinton did. I might even read for my colleagues an op-ed article from the Washington Post at that time, July 14, 1995. I will just read this part of it. Over the past couple of weeks [President] Clinton has been engaged in a highly publicized effort to ensure that many of the jobs at McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento will be privatized. That is rather disingenuous. If the privatization is real, it will merely perpetuate the expensive overcapacity that the base closing is supposed to reduce. If the private- sector jobs rapidly fade away after another election or two, the people who held them will rightly consider the whole effort a sham. What he had was an effort to win votes, and again violate the process. And so should we have another couple of base closing rounds? I do not think so. No, not as long as there is not an understanding that we are all going to be in this boat together, the President is going to abide by the law and Congress is going to abide by the law. The President certainly did circumvent the law in this case. I will read to you a quote from a speech President Clinton made in Texas. He said: On July 1st, you were dealt a serious blow when the Independent Base Closing Commission said that we ought to shut Kelly down. At my insistence and my refusal to go along with that specific recommendation, the Air Force developed the Privatization In Place Plan that will keep thousands of jobs here at this depot. That was made October 17, 1995. President Clinton is exactly right, he refused to go along with the specific recommendation of the Base Closing Commission. The point is, if he wanted to disavow the Base Closing Commission decision, he could have sent it back to the Commission. He said, ``I will agree with all these, but not these two.'' And that would have been the process to follow; he could have sent it back to the Base Closing Commission. Maybe they would have reconsidered; maybe they would not have. But he did not do that. He said: I am going to accept and amend. And the law did not give him that right. So he violated the process, and created a new process, and one, in my opinion, where he undermined the credibility that we have under this law that worked in the first three rounds and did not work in the fourth round. He politicized the process. Should we just have another two rounds? I do not think so. I just cannot see that Congress would allow another round or another two rounds and terrorize all these communities if they think, and the individual Members of Congress think, ``Well, wait a minute. Maybe we're not going to do this on military value. Maybe we're going to do it on politics. Because politics entered the last round, maybe politics will be in the next round.'' The President found a clever way of doing it. We do not have to close any base. We will just privatize in place. We do not have to lose any jobs. He promised in California--there were 8,700 jobs the day the base closures were announced, and he said, we will have 8,700 jobs in the year 2001. We will have 5,000 jobs a few years later than that. We will promise you jobs forever. That is not privatization in place. That is electoral politics. And it is a real shame he introduced election politics into the base closing process, some real violation of trust for every single Member that had a base closed in any round--any round. If you were willing to say, OK, we will put our bases at risk since we are all doing it together for the good of the country, for the good of national defense, I am willing to leave my rights alone as a Senator to participate in this process for the good of national defense and the good of our country because we know we have to do it, we know we have to reduce excess base capacity, if we are not going to play politics a lot of people said they are willing to do that. Then President Clinton plays politics. So, Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on the McCain amendment. We should not have additional base closing rounds in this Senator's opinion until and unless we comply and until or unless we make absolutely, totally, completely, sure that politics will not be involved in any future round. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], the Senator from Akansas [Mr. Hutchinson], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. David Stewart and millions of workers like him, who hold their political freedoms in this country in the highest regard, I send the June 25, 1997 Rules Committee testimony of Mr. David Stewart of Owasso, Oklahoma to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator from Michigan would yield, I want to echo the concerns of my friend from Michigan. In fact we were prepared to offer an amendment along with several other colleagues but out of deference to the desire of the chairman to complete action on the bill, we agreed to work with the chairman. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Finance Committee is aware of these concerns and has expressed his intention to resolve this controversy in conference. Would the chairman confirm his intentions regarding the proposed tax on the domestic portion of international journeys?

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator has accurately described the change to her amendment that I suggested. I believe that employers should be allowed to require employees to contribute 1 percent of their 401(k) contributions to company assets. However, as a member of the Finance Committee and possible conferee on this bill, I will urge my colleagues not to increase the 1-percent cap.

Mr. NICKLES. I would be pleased to answer any questions that the Senator from California may have.

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

Mr. NICKLES. There wasn't a second.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act that the amendment results in the Finance Committee exceeding its spending allocation under section 602 of the Budget Act. Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, much to my colleague's surprise, there is very serious opposition. I hope we can vote this down by a voice vote. This amendment would add outlays and increase Uncle Sam's writing of checks for the first 5 years of $9 billion and over 10 years of $19 billion. And this amendment would say that we stack these in order that people get the income education credit, the wage credit, and the tax credit that we are adding to the bill and the EIC. And on top of that, for a family with two children already gets $3,680. Uncle Sam will write the check. We would also give $1,000 on top of it. I want to raise a point of order.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. I understand there will be a voice vote. Mr. President, this proposal is, in essence, converting an education infrastructure grant program into a tax credit. In my opinion, that is not a good idea. The administration, while they originally proposed having the $5 billion for schools, during the negotiation they dropped that. That wasn't part of the agreed-upon package. I might also mention that the Department of Education said, ``The Department recommends that Congress rescind the 1995 appropriations for this program and provide no funding for 1996.'' That was the infrastructure program. So, Mr. President, I urge colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I make the point of order that the amendment is not relevant under the Budget Act, subject to germaneness.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on Senator Kennedy's amendment. I am bothered by the amendment to some extent. I heard the Senator say the administration supports the amendment. The administration agreed to $16 billion for the so-called KIDCARE Program. That was the agreement. And then to see a letter by the administration that says now they support this amendment, that is ridiculous. The Finance Committee increased from $16 billion to $24 billion, more than I think is necessary for the program. The Finance Committee said, ``That is all we will do.'' Now we see the administration say they support this. When is a deal a deal? We can't trust this administration any more than a day. That is beyond belief. So now we have a program. Senator Kennedy introduced it as a $20 billion program. We are now financing it at $24 billion, 120 percent of what he originally asked for. He should say, ``Hey, we won,'' and now he comes back and says he wants another $12 billion, to make it $36 billion. The administration agreed to $16 billion. Now they are trying to make it $36 billion. Taxpayers cannot afford it. Finally, the net tax cut, if this amendment is passed, will be 60, not 85. It will be 60.

Mr. NICKLES. That is not correct. Parliamentary inquiry. I think the Senator sent an amendment from the Senator from Vermont. It has not been disposed of.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am advised by the Senator from New Mexico that the low-income family with two children under the EITC Program, if they have incomes of about $14,000, receive a refundable tax credit of $3,680, a lot more than their total tax liability. The Senator from Massachusetts wants to add to that and increase outlays by $22 billion. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge any colleagues to vote no on the Kerry amendment. This is really an amendment to make the credit refundable. Another way of saying that, this is a way for the Federal Government to spend more money. Costed out, the outlays will increase in this bill under this amendment by $22 billion over 5 years, by $47 billion over 10 years. I might mention, refundable credits are one of the most fraudulent in government. The EITC program has exploded. It has an error rate of over 25 percent. This is an amendment to redistribute wealth, and it denies tax credits for families that have incomes above $60,000. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Thurmond be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Hagel, Senator Abraham, Senator Domenici, and others, the amendment that we proposed last night we have modified. We did receive some requests from Senators to delete the provision that dealt with corporate deductibility of tax exempts. That was not a major portion of the amendment. We did delete that. I might mention I think it is a good provision. It is a provision that is in the House bill, so it will be in conference. Mr. President, this amendment accelerates self-employed deductibility for insurance. It allows self-employed individuals to be able to deduct a greater proportion of their health insurance needs. It increases it. For example, in 1997, current law is 40 percent; it increases it to 50 percent. In 1999 it increases it to 60 percent. And so on. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague, Senator Gramm. We tried to do this in the Finance Committee. Unfortunately, we fell a couple votes short. But the basic principle is we want to tell everybody their kids are going to get the $500 tax credit, not to say, well, it only applies to people 13 or younger, that if you are older you have to put it into an educational IRA. I think educational IRA's are a good idea. I compliment Senator Roth because he has been the champion of IRA's, but it should be an option. It should not be mandatory. We should allow them to have this choice. I hope a lot of them choose it before age 13. I think it would be a great idea for a parent, if they can do it, if they can afford it, to put the $500 into an IRA for their child and let that accumulate and do that every year so they have a nest egg for their college expenses. It would be a positive thing for them and our country. But we should not mandate it. Presently, under the bill we mandate it for kids that are 14, 15, 16, 17 years old. I compliment my colleague from Texas and the cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to allow parents to choose whether they get the $500 tax credit to spend as they choose or whether or not to put it into an IRA. They should make that choice. We should not mandate it from Washington, DC. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. I have completed my statement. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thurmond be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. NICKLES. I hope so.

Mr. NICKLES. Certainly.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of all my colleagues, I think under the unanimous-consent request, already agreed to by the leader, it has been agreed upon that we will vote on this amendment, I believe it will be the first amendment we will vote on at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.