Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I want, one, to compliment my colleague from Alaska for his statement on this amendment. I would like to make a couple comments in general about our energy policies. There has been somewhat of an oil shortage, so there has been an increase in gasoline prices. A lot of Americans, a lot of our constituents, have said: Well, what are you going to do about it? Gasoline prices are going up. OPEC is strengthening their hand. The administration has sent Secretary Richardson to go over and beg OPEC countries to please increase their production. Some of us on this side have complained about the administration not having an energy policy. I have tried to correct them. I think the administration has an energy policy. I have looked at and reviewed the Clinton-Gore administration's energy policy for the last 7 years. It is fairly consistent. In 1993, they came up with a Btu tax. They were going to have a tax surcharge on Btu's. In 1993 the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, but that did not pass anyway. We defeated it. They did pass a gasoline tax increase. As a matter of fact, Vice President Gore broke the tie. They increased gasoline taxes. You might think that was for roads and highways and infrastructure. No. It was for general revenues. So they could spend more money and it passed by one vote, the Vice President's vote. In addition, the administration has done nothing to increase domestic oil production. So our reliance on imports has grown significantly. It has grown very dramatically. They did sign the Kyoto accord. Though it is truly a treaty, they will not call it a treaty and they have not sent it to the Senate for ratification. One of the reasons is, in the Senate we had a vote of 95- 5 that said we would not ratify a treaty that was particularly punitive to this country and did not apply to many countries, ``little'' countries like China, Mexico, and India. It is a very poorly thought out agreement that Vice President Gore is very proud of and that this administration wants us to comply with, but they will not send it to us for ratification. It is the equivalent of increasing costs on all fuels, particularly oil- related fuels. The administration, likewise, has had the policy of restricting access to public lands as far as drilling. They want to expand the moratorium on offshore drilling. That is the administration's position. Vice President Gore, in a political speech in New Hampshire, said he wanted to ban offshore drilling. I guess that sells well in New Hampshire. But that would mean our reliance on imported oil would grow even more. They have a policy, but their policy has been a disaster. As a result of that policy we are much more dependent on foreign sources. What has happened? I mentioned the administration and the Secretary running around begging OPEC countries to produce more oil. Frankly, one of the biggest increases in oil production of any country worldwide is Iraq. What has the administration done with Iraqi oil? We have had an embargo on Iraqi oil production since the war in 1991 where we lost about 147 American lives, where we spent billions of dollars, where we had 550,000 troops in Iraq. We fought a war to get Iraq out of Kuwait, to stop their aggression, and their efforts to take over not only Kuwait but probably to expand throughout the Persian Gulf region. We stopped that. We also wanted to stop their aggression in building weapons of mass destruction. So we set up a compliance regime that said: We are going to have onsite inspectors to make sure Iraqis were not building nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, or biological weapons. We are going to enforce that. Those inspectors are going to make sure they are not building those weapons so they could not continue to threaten their neighbors. Saddam Hussein threatened to burn Israel with the use of chemical and biological weapons. We had arms control inspectors, and said: We are going to keep the strangle hold on their exports, including oil, unless they allow an arms control regime. We had arms control inspectors for years in Iraq. What has this administration done? Year after year, the administration allowed the Iraqis to produce more with less access for inspectors. Today, Iraq can produce all the oil it wants, thanks to support from the Clinton-Gore administration. And there are no arms control inspectors--none, zero--in Iraq today. None. We have not had an arms control inspector in Iraq for over a year. Keep in mind that we have bombed them. This administration has bombed Iraq time and time again. Yet, we have no arms control inspectors there. The real leverage, aside from bombing, was the fuel export valves. The administration just said: Open up. As a matter of fact, they just supported a resolution that said: We want to assist them in making their production facilities grow even more. So now they are producing 700,000 barrels of oil and we are going to help them produce a lot more, but we still do not have one arms control inspector in Iraq. I think the administration's policy dealing with energy, dealing with Iraq, has been a disaster. What can we do? One of the things the administration is supposed to be doing is opening up ANWR. I saw this beautiful picture shown by my colleague from California of this pristine area of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I do not doubt that it is absolutely gorgeous. I have been there where they are going to drill, hopefully, eventually, in the ANWR area, and it is not that picture, unless it has changed dramatically--and I do not see how it could in the area I saw. Don't get me wrong, I think Alaska is one of the most beautiful States anywhere in the country. It is one of the most beautiful places anywhere in the world. It is beautiful, gorgeous. But Alaska is a great, big State. ANWR covers a lot of land. ANWR, is approximately 19 million acres, about the size of South Carolina, a little less than about half the size of my State of Oklahoma. That is ANWR, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. That is a big area: 19 million acres. That is a lot of land. That is a big refuge. I am sure it has some beautiful areas in it. Where they are proposing to drill comprises about 2,000 acres; and that area is not at all like the picture just shown. While most of Alaska is gorgeous, this area is not the most prestine. Drilling can be accommodated there without hurting the environment. There are people who say: Wait a minute. Drilling in Prudoe Bay, that has been disastrous for the environment. Drilling in Endicott Field, which is not too far away from there, has been disastrous for the environment. I disagree. That is not the case. They say: Drilling in that area would be bad for the caribou. That is not factually borne out. The caribou around the Alaska oil pipeline has been a very big plus. The only place we really have not seen a lot of caribou is in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge; they are all over by the Alaska oil pipeline. There are a lot of caribou. I am all for the caribou. I am strongly in favor of wildlife development. We have more visitors in the Oklahoma Wildlife Refuge than any other wildlife refuge in the country. We are proud of it. It is a beautiful area and a treasure in our state. I want to encourage that. I want to encourage it in Alaska. But you can do this in a sound, environmental way, and also reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources. We can do this and increase production domestically so we will not be so dependent, so our Energy Secretary will not have to have to hold a tin cup saying: Please give us more. We can do so much more. We can do so much better. We can do it in an environmentally sensitive manner. We can do it in a way that is compatible with the caribou, compatible with wildlife, compatible with all the beautiful scenery that we have in Alaska, and not do any damage whatsoever to the environment. We can have a more sensible, sane energy policy where we are not just spending billions and billions of dollars overseas. Our dependence on foreign sources has grown so dramatically that we are a lot more vulnerable than anyone realizes. We had shortages in 1973 and 1979. We were importing something like 36 percent in 1973. Today we are importing 56 percent. That number is growing every year. We will be at two-thirds probably in another 10 or 15 years. We had shortages in 1973 when we imported 36 percent. Today we are importing 56 percent. In 1979, we had a shortage, and the shortage was significant. That meant we had brownouts. That meant factories had to close. That meant there were gas lines galore. People were lined up. Their biggest problem was getting through gas lines in their cars so they could get to work, if their factories were opened because there was an energy shortage. We do not want to replay that. We do not want to become that dependent. Yet we are marching on a dependency line that is unbelievable. We can do things to prevent it. One of things we could do is supplement Alaska production, which has been declining dramatically. I am sure every person who has been speaking about how bad it would be to drill in ANWR would also be opposed to Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay was at one time producing 2 million barrels of oil at its peak. Today, it is declining. Now it is down to about 1.2 million barrels of oil a day and continues to decline. We need to supplement that or else we will have an even greater dependency. As Alaska pipeline Prudhoe Bay production continues to decline, our dependency will only rise. We can open up ANWR to help prevent this. I urge my colleagues to think about the future. It is going to take years to get this on line, to alleviate some of the shortages and curtailments and dependency we will have 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now. If we stay on this present course, we will be importing 60 percent or 70 percent of our oil needs and be very dependent, frankly, in some cases on unreliable, unstable sources such as Iraq, such as Iran, some of the other Middle East countries that may get mad at us for whatever reason. Again, I compliment my colleague from Alaska. I urge our colleagues to vote no on the underlying amendment, the Roth amendment, tomorrow. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES. I ask my colleague from Alaska to yield me up to 15 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, sadly this week the Senate has lost another member of our family. On Monday, Larry Harrison, a retired Senate staffer, passed away in Washington, DC. Before his retirement in June of 1997, Larry had over 36 years of Federal service. Most of my colleagues will remember Larry's hard work as a Chamber attendant. His dedication to the upkeep of the Chamber and the surrounding rooms will be remembered. On Tuesday evening, former Senator Bob Dole fondly remembered Larry during the Leader's Lecture Series. Like many of the support staff who work for this institution, Larry arrived at work long before the Senate convened and frequently left the Chamber long after adjournment. Many Senators will recall Larry's passion for golf. I certainly do. As a matter of fact, Larry was one of the founders of the ``Cloakroom Open.'' This golf tournament was organized by Larry to enable many of the Senate staff who work around the Senate Chamber an opportunity to play a round of golf together. It was a chance for a little camaraderie without the discussion of party or politics. Many may know that Larry's step son, Mike Henry, also works for the Senate and has worked for the Senate for a long time. I have had the pleasure of knowing Mike. I think highly of Mike and his family. Mike's wife, Cookie, also works for the House of Representatives. This is a family who has dedicated decades of service to the Congress and to the Senate. I join with all of my colleagues in expressing sympathy to Larry's family and our hearts and prayers go out to them at this time. I know all Members will join me in saying, ``Thank you, Larry, for your service, and keep hitting 'em straight.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in regard to the legislation just passed, I compliment the chairman of the committee, Senator Gramm, and also Senator Conrad Burns, for their leadership. They worked on this legislation for a long time. I compliment them on passing a good bill and passing it overwhelmingly.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues, Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan because they work so well together. Today, we are going to pass something that will have a positive impact on millions of Americans. I say millions--some people say there are only 800,000 people who are currently paying the Social Security earnings penalty. There are millions of people who want to work, maybe have to work, but basically their taxes are so punitive that they cannot work; it does not make sense to work. Their taxes are so high they have to work more for government than they work for themselves. These are senior citizens, not particularly wealthy people. You can be a senior citizen and have, as an individual, an earned income of $30,000. You are in the 28-percent tax bracket. Because of the earnings penalty on Social Security, that is an additional 33-percent tax bracket. Add those two together and you are at 61 percent. You have to pay Social Security tax. If you are self-employed, you add 15 percent to that. That is 76 percent, and you have not even paid taxes to the State. For most States, that is 6 or 7 percent. You can have a marginal tax rate of 80 percent; you work four times more for the Government than you do for yourself. That is way too high. This 33-percent penalty for seniors between the ages of 65 and 70 who want to have earned income--maybe need to have earned income--is long past overdue for repeal. I am delighted that today we are going to fulfill what the House has done. I compliment Chairman Archer in the House. I compliment Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan. I remember Senator McCain speaking on this issue for years. I remember Senator Ashcroft making tireless speeches, saying we need to repeal the earnings penalty. Over the years, we have raised the amount people can save before the penalty takes effect, but the penalty still takes effect for any income above $17,000. The real solution is to repeal it. That is what we are going to do today. We are going to open up economic opportunity for millions of Americans who are at age 65 and maybe do not want to retire. They might be a Strom Thurmond; they who may have another 50 years of very energetic hard work ahead of them and they don't want to say they want to retire. We should not force them to retire. The earnings penalty forces many of these people to retire--some of our most productive citizens in America. I think it is wrong. This tax penalty is wrong. We are going to repeal it today. We are repealing it with bipartisan support. It is going to become the law of the land. Again, I compliment our leader for proving we can get some good things done that will have a positive impact on millions--frankly, on all of us, because a lot of us want to work beyond the age of 65. Now we are telling seniors they can do so. Again, my congratulations to the leaders for making this happen. I think this will make Social Security policy better and, frankly, it will make economic policy better for all Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production, and Regulation. The hearing will take place on Friday, March 31, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in room SH-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to review the Department of Energy's findings at the Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky and to receive testimony regarding the Department of Energy's plans for cleanup at the site. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production, and Regulation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510- 6150. For futher information, please call Trici Heninger, Staff Assistant or Colleen Deegan, Counsel at (202) 224-8115.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is necessarily absent.