Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise to report on an agreement reached today between Senator Inouye and myself regarding the Fort Reno Agriculture Research Station at El Reno, Oklahoma. Our agreement delays any decision on the ARS until the next Administration. It also preserves the right of Congress to play a role in the future of the ARS. Our agreement ensures that any decision made about the research station will be made based on the merits of the work performed there rather than a decision based on November political considerations. The agreement should not be read to mean that the research station will be eliminated, nor that the lands at Fort Reno should or will be returned to the Cheyenne-Arapaho tribe of Oklahoma. I do not want the status of the Agriculture Research Station to be influenced by presidential politics, which has been the case in the past. This agreement will help prevent the future of the research station from becoming an election-year tool and better protect both the tribe and the research station from pressures surrounding the November election.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3919

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I don't have all day. I need to run, but I would like to make a comment. I don't know where the Senator got his chart, but I am telling him that factually any couple that made $52,000 under the bill we passed yesterday, the Republican bill, with 8 or 9 Democrats who voted with you, would get tax relief exactly--exactly as I announced on the floor or I will eat the paper. It is $1,125, plus $212, and that is 1,300 and some odd dollars, not $300. So the Senator's chart is factually incorrect.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed legislation providing tax relief for married couples. We passed a bill that basically eliminates the marriage penalty tax for most married couples. The cost of the bill was $55.6 billion over 5 years and over ten years. The cost of the bill was incorrectly reported in several newspapers despite the fact that on the floor of the Senate and in a press conference later, we stated clearly that the bill that we passed was a 5-year bill, and the cost of the bill was estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to be $56 billion. You wouldn't know that if you read the New York Times. In today's paper: ``Senate Approves Tax Cut To Help Married Couples. Clinton Threatens Veto.'' That much is correct, but the next line says, ``$248 billion measure would aid even those who do not pay marriage penalty.'' I dispute that claim, because it is absolutely false. The $248 billion cost they attribute to our bill is false. It is not correct. In the article, the second paragraph says the vote was 61-38; eight Democrats joined Republicans to approve the measure which would reduce income taxes for nearly all married couples by a total of $248 billion over 10 years. The facts are, the bill that we passed was $56 billion over the next 5 years and the next 10 years. Maybe some people didn't know that. Maybe if some Senators knew that they would have voted differently. I don't know. I want accuracy. I want people to know the facts. The Washington Post had an article as well, and it had a chart that bothers me. The Washington Post headline said the ``Senate Votes ``Marriage Penalty' Relief.'' That statement is true. Then it says, GOP continues tax cutting drive and the President threatens to veto it. It talks of the bill being $248 billion and included a chart from the Citizens for Tax Justice. The chart asks the question: Who would benefit? It says the benefit for couples who make between $50,000 and $75,000 is $344. That is not correct. The Citizens for Tax Justice has a reputation of being quite a liberal group. Regardless, they are entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. I want my colleagues and the American people to know what the facts are. Under the Senate-passed bill, people who have taxable incomes from zero to $43,000 could get a maximum tax benefit from earned income credit changes of $527, and a maximum tax benefit from the standard deduction adjustment of $218, for a total maximum tax cut of $745. For couples with taxable income between $43,000 and $52,500, they also have a standard deduction tax cut worth $218, and because of changes to the 15 percent income tax bracket they could also get a maximum tax cut of $1,125, for total maximum tax relief for married couples earning up to $52,500 of $1,342. These are facts about the bill we passed. The Washington Post chart says people who make $40,000 to $50,000 have tax relief of $148. I believe the facts are that it could be as much as $1,342. There is a big difference. Citizens for Tax Justice happens to be wrong. I don't know if they are using some unreasonable type of income classification that greatly inflates income so that everyone seems rich. That's what the Clinton administration does when it wants to attack our tax cuts. I don't know what they are doing. It bothers me. Maybe it shouldn't. Maybe I am a stickler for facts. We should stick to the facts. We passed a tax bill yesterday that I believe will become law. If the President will sign it, married couples with taxable income of $52,500 will get $1,342 worth of tax relief. That is a fairly significant tax cut. For the local paper the next day to say that couples making between $40,000 and $50,000 get $148 is wrong, way wrong. It is $1,000 off. The Washington Post tries to imply that the real benefits of this tax cut go to people making $200,000 or more. That is not the case, either. I will have printed in the Record a table for the information of our colleagues and the information of the press, if they happen to be interested in what we passed. This table shows the maximum tax benefit that anyone would receive under our bill by provision and by taxable income. A couple with taxable income of approximately $127,000 gets the maximum benefit, which is $2,165. People who made over $127,000 get less, and that amount would be $1,759. One might say, why? The difference is because they lose the standard deduction. Under the law that passed in 1990, they lost a standard deduction after their income is above a certain level. We didn't change that. Maybe we should have, but we didn't. Citizens for Tax Justice says, and the Washington Post says, people making over $200,000 get a much bigger benefit. They missed it by a mile. They imply that those over $200,000 get more of a benefit than those with income between $75,000 and $100,000. They missed it again. They are wrong. Factually incorrect. They ought to know better. If they are going to put this information in one of the largest newspapers in the country, they ought to do a better job and let the American people know what we voted on. Then maybe they can make the appropriate judgment: Was this a good bill or a bad bill? I happen to think it is a good bill. I am delighted we had 61 votes. I wish we would have had 99 votes. Unfortunately, we didn't. I hope the President will sign this bill. He should sign this bill. I will predict he will sign the bill. We are working in conference and we will come out with a bill that will be between the House bill and the Senate bill. The House passed permanent marriage tax relief that cost $180 billion over 10 years. The Senate bill was sunset at 5 years, and cost $56 billion over 5 years and 10 years. We are very close to working out a compromise somewhere between the House and the Senate. We will make that announcement probably at some point tomorrow. I urge the President: Do not just issue veto threats; provide tax relief for American families. The President can help eliminate the marriage penalty by signing this bill. He should sign this bill. This bill will provide tax relief in the neighborhood of $1,300 for married couples making up to $52,000. He should sign that bill and give them tax relief. I also urge the media to look at their reports. They are distorted. In the case of the chart in the Washington Post, it is totally, factually incorrect. When we announce our conference agreement tomorrow, I hope people take another look at it and see that it is fair tax relief that should become law. My prediction is it will become law. My prediction is the President will sign it. If not, I hope there will be an overwhelming vote in the House and the Senate to override his veto. I believe in accuracy. We should have accuracy in reporting. We, in the Senate, should be accurate when we present our case. I don't think it is necessary to embellish one's case by using inaccurate statements or inaccurate figures. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the chart included in the Washington Post, a table of the revenue impact of the Senate bill, and also a table that I have assembled showing the maximum tax benefit under the Senate bill by taxable income. If the Washington Post wants some help, maybe they should take a look at this information. It might be more informative for their readers. I ask unanimous consent to have all three printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I just inform my colleague from Illinois, I had printed in the Record the joint tax statement that had the 5-year cost at $56 billion and had the 10-year cost at $56 billion, my point being we ought to be accurate. For some people to imply the bill we passed was $248 is factually incorrect.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments by my friend and colleague from Michigan regarding the death of our friend and colleague, Paul Coverdell. Yesterday was a very, very sad day for the Senate. I was at this desk when the majority leader announced that Paul Coverdell passed away at 6:10 yesterday. Majority Leader Trent Lott was a very close friend of Paul, as was I and many other Senators. This is a tough, trying time because we lost a very good friend and an outstanding Senator. It is sad to see the vacant chair right behind me that Paul Coverdell sat in. It demonstrates an enormous void his death leaves behind here in our body. I had the pleasure of getting to know Paul Coverdell for the last 8 years. He did an outstanding job. Paul Coverdell was the type of Senator who would do any work assigned, and often times, work not assigned. He was the type of Senator who could enlighten the room, the type who could work with all Members and make things happen. He was the type of person who would be willing to take on tough tasks and always say yes, and take them across the finish line. He was the kind of person you would want to have on your team at all times. Paul was the kind of person who really added a lot to this institution. It makes me proud to say he was my colleague. He contributed so much in so many ways. His death is an almost unspeakable loss for us, for the State of Georgia, and for the country. He showed great leadership on a lot of issues, with a hallmark brand of analysis and execution that identified a challenge for our conference, pulled out all the views among our colleagues, and built consensus and success to the betterment of not just our party, but our country. For example, take primary and secondary education--something overlooked for many years. He focused on that in the last few years, and headed up a task force that cut across committee lines, seniority lines, and philosophical lines, to bring us together. He wanted us to do positive things to improve education across the nation. He successfully blended our different viewpoints together, and together we painted a vision on education that not only do many Americans support, but holds out real hope for change and improvement when it comes to educating our kids for the challenges of the 21st century. Further, many elements of his efforts brought along our colleagues across the aisle. Or, take our war on drugs. Senator Coverdell has worked hard with colleagues to address this challenge, here in the United States, and with the House and the administration to carry the fight overseas. In waging those battles, we came to realize that he was intense, he was serious, dedicated, and sincere. He was also successful, and many families today and in the future should be gratified in his success. And these are just a few examples of the many areas where Paul placed his tremendous energies. He was so involved in so many different issues, I even teased him last year. I said, ``We are enacting all Coverdell legislation, all the time'' because he had his name and fingerprints all over so many things were doing, because he was so proactive in trying to come up with positive solutions to challenging problems in education, or fighting the war on drugs here and overseas, or spending the country's money wisely, or returning the tax surplus to the people. Paul also didn't hesitate to join us in standing up on behalf of the Constitution, our system of checks and balances, of keeping the order we stand to defend. From the beginning to the end of his time in the Senate, rarely a day went by when he did not cast a thoughtful eye on the activism and activities of the executive, cognizant of the vision of our Founders who believed in a limited central government. When you got to know him, you would discover that he had a real intensity, a keen curiosity to learn, understand, grapple with issues great and small. And he had such a great, congenial working spirit that made all of us better, that built us all up. His personality was infectious, his energy was admirable, his thoughtfulness was considerable, and his friendship was valuable. We want to let Paul's wife Nancy know that she is very much in our thoughts and prayers. We are comforted by the fact and have great confidence in the fact that Paul Coverdell now resides in a wonderful mansion, eternally. Our sympathies and prayers go with Nancy, and to the Coverdell family. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Louisiana be recognized.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Kansas, and I wish to reiterate the statement that all of us are praying for the Coverdell family.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) is absent due to illness.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) is absent due to illness.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) is absent due to illness.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) is absent due to illness.