Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, regular order. Amendment No. 1813

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

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) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, the Gorton amendment is a pro-education amendment, if you believe people in the local school districts know what they need. Maybe they need more teachers. Maybe they need more computers. Maybe they need to enhance the benefits for teachers that are there so they can keep them there. Maybe they need it for recruitment. Let's give them the flexibility. I, along with several other Senators, met with some Governors and asked them what they wanted, and they said they wanted flexibility and they wanted Congress to help them meet the unfunded obligations of IDEA. I said: What about this proposal that some people have made that says let's have 100,000 new teachers paid for by the Federal Government? That was not their request. They said: No, just give us flexibility; there are hundreds of Federal programs, some of which work, some of which do not work, a lot have mandates; give us the flexibility to work on those programs; give us some of the money without the strings attached; you do not need to tell us we have to hire so many teachers. Frankly, they do not have to hire teachers and have them paid for by the Federal Government. Some States have already taken significant action to reduce class size. I compliment them for it. Some are way ahead of others. Should we punish those States that have moved ahead earlier than other States? I don't think so. How in the world do we in the Federal Government have that kind of knowledge that allows us to dictate, to mandate that we need 30,000 teachers, or 100,000 teachers? In my State, it comes to 348 teachers. We have 605 school districts, so each school district gets half a teacher. Nationwide, there are 14,000 school districts, so I guess we get 2 teachers for each school district. Some people are saying that is the solution for better education, for the Federal Government to hire two teachers for each school district? That is ridiculous. We have a lot of programs. The Senator from Pennsylvania has already mentioned there is a significant increase for education. Let's allow some flexibility, as proposed by the Gorton amendment, by people who run the schools who know--the local school boards and the States--what they need most. Let them make that decision. Maybe it is four more teachers. Great, I am all for it. Maybe it is for retention of teachers. That is fantastic. Maybe it is for computers. Let's have them make the decisions and not dictate that Washington, DC, knows best. I reiterate, a vote for the Gorton amendment is pro-education, and a vote against the Murray amendment, in my opinion, is pro-education if you happen to believe people on the local school boards and the PTAs within the States have an interest in improving the quality of education and might know better than some bureaucrat in the Department of Education. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to say by voting for the Gorton amendment we are voting for education. In voting against the Murray amendment you are not voting against education, you are voting for allowing--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 4 minutes off the time of the proponents of the Gorton amendment.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. NICKLES. I would to address a question to my friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. This continuing resolution essentially funds government programs and operations at fiscal year 1999 levels under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. Since Congress has not yet completed its work on the fiscal year 2000 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill, I would conclude that Department of Interior agencies, programs and activities will be funded under this resolution at fiscal year 1999 levels under the policies and restrictions in effect during fiscal year 1999.

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 Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) 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. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is exactly right. I appreciate the clarification. That is the point I am making. When you hear the opponents of this amendment basing almost everything on this disgruntled employee, it just doesn't make sense. I didn't sit in on the case. I wasn't a juror. I was not involved in this case of 14 years. But I know the Exxon company won. Big oil won. The jurors decided that this disgruntled employee wasn't telling the truth, or didn't have a case. When you look at the MMS proposed royalty scheme, you can say mistakes have been made. I will promise you that if we pass this MMS proposal as it now stands before us, you will have more litigation, more mistakes. It is an invitation for litigation. Sure, there will be some settlements and some wins and some losses. But this is not a workable situation. I will mention that the present law is not as good as it should be and we certainly shouldn't make it worse. You shouldn't be changing the rules of the game and changing contracts. Every law of the land says royalty is based on the value of oil at the lease. Now you have the MMS saying: Let's include ``duty to market.'' What does that mean? We have had 50 years or more of experience--ever since we have been producing oil. We have the experience of collecting royalties based on the value of the oil at the lease. We don't know what ``duty to market'' means. This is something new from the Clinton administration that I will assure you, if it becomes law will create more problems. If it does go into effect, two things will be wrong: One, MMS is not supposed to make law. We are the legislators. We are supposed to be the ones who make the law and not some unelected bureaucrat at MMS. It shouldn't become law, period. If this rule becomes final and is implemented, it wouldn't raise more money. It would create more litigation. What I want on royalties is for them to be fair and simple and for the companies to pay exactly what they owe--no more, no less. The royalty rate is 12\1/2\ percent. If we want to raise it to 13 or 14 percent, that is a decision this Congress can make. But to say we are going to keep the same percentage, yet we are going to have a new obligation called ``duty to market,'' which includes marketing the oil away from the lease and other new obligations--which are kind of hard to define--but, we will try to work that out. There is some ambiguity. It is an invitation to litigation. All that will happen is that the lawyers will make more money. Speaking of lawyers, I want to raise one other thing. It is very troublesome to me to think that you have two Federal employees--one now a former Federal employee--actually getting paid $350,000 for their involvement in this issue. They were somewhat involved in implementing this rule. Think of this. Here you have individuals involved in writing the rule. These same people help groups that sue these companies, or sue on behalf of the Government, and get paid a bunch of money--Federal employees. Are we going to allow IRS agents to get a percentage of the take if they go after some big company? If they get a big settlement, are two or three employees supposed to get a percentage of that? That sounds like corruption to me. We have had two people that received $350,000 and we have an administration that wouldn't even say it was wrong. This is the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. Yesterday we had the FBI testify that this administration completely thwarted their efforts to investigate campaign finance abuses. We had an FBI agent who served for 25 years who said never in his history did he have an investigation in which he was not thwarted, time and time again, by the Justice Department during this administration. In addition to that we have an administration that grants clemency to 16 terrorists, while the FBI and others said: Don't do it. These are terrorists. They are a threat to the United States. Did the administration listen to the FBI? No. Did they even consult with the FBI? The FBI said no. That was a mistake. This administration's corruption, including two employees who were involved in this rulemaking and ended up getting paid $350,000, is deplorable. It is despicable. It shouldn't be applauded. It shouldn't be rewarded. But most importantly, article I of the Constitution says that Congress shall pass the laws and says Congress shall raise the taxes. It doesn't say unelected bureaucrats at MMS can rewrite the rules, raise royalty rates, or raise taxes. They do not have that right. That belongs to elected officials. Then if we do a bad job, people can kick us out. They can vote us down. They can say: We don't like the laws you passed. What recourse do they have against unelected bureaucrats? None. There is a reason our forefathers gave us this system of government. They gave us a good system of government, and we should never allow some bureaucracy the opportunity to set rules and regulations that gives them the force and the power to raise taxes. Should we have royalties that are fair? Yes. Should we have royalties that are accurate and a royalty system that people can understand? You bet. Should people pay exactly what they owe? Certainly. Members might wonder where I am getting my information. I am chairman of the subcommittee, and we held a hearing regarding this issue. We had a lot of experts in the field saying this is not workable. It is not the money. It is not the money in any way, shape, or form.

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I compliment my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for outstanding work on this issue, and also several other people who have spoken on the issue, including Senator Domenici and Senator Gramm from Texas. I have been a little disappointed in the tenor of the debate by people on the other side of this issue. In the Senate, we certainly have the right to have disagreements on issues, but in some cases sometimes debate is not a credit to the Senate. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But certainly some of the insinuations that have been made on the floor today--that people are doing this because they owe big oil or they received contributions--is very offensive to this Senator. I think Senators need to be very cognizant of the rules of the Senate not to impugn the integrity or the intentions of Senators. In 1996, this Congress passed legislation called the Royalty Fairness and Simplification Act by an overwhelming margin with bipartisan support in the Senate. I sponsored the bill and it was supported by Democrats and signed by President Clinton. The purpose of that legislation was to simplify the royalty process. The MMS rule proposal flies in the face of that action. The President signed the bill in 1996. The proposal now put out by the MMS is the opposite, it is not a simplification. If you look at this chart, you can see that this rule is not workable. To insinuate that people who oppose this rule are beholding to big oil, or they are against schoolkids is wrong. The MMS proposal on royalties simply will not work and to state on the floor that it is going to waste millions of dollars, and we are depriving kids is not factual. If this rule goes into effect, it will be an invitation for litigation. Instead of the States getting more money, or cities getting more money, they will get more litigation. The attorneys handling the cases might make more money. Then they imply that maybe they have evidence from whistleblowers showing intent to deceive. We know there are whistleblowers. In the recent case where one ``whistleblower'' testified, I hate to tell you that before a jury trial in Long Beach it was decided against the plaintiffs, against the city of Long Beach against the supposed whistleblower. That was a 14-year case. There have been three decisions, all of which big oil won. I doubt that the jury was trying to decide the case in favor of big oil. It so happens the jury decided that the claimants in this case were wrong.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to join with you in welcoming our guest Chaplain of the day, Wendell Estep. The President pro tempore introduced Pastor Estep as being from South Carolina. However, we still consider him a native of Oklahoma. Pastor Estep was one of the leading pastors in my State. He led one of the largest churches in the State, Council Roads Baptist Church. Before that, he was at the First Baptist Church in Pawhuska, OK, which is pretty close to my home town of Ponca City. He is really one of the most respected leaders we have had in our state, and we still consider him an Oklahoman. We are delighted to have him as guest Chaplain and very much appreciate his opening our day with a beautiful prayer this morning. I thank Pastor Estep for joining us.

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. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding Oklahoman, John Lopez, whose achievements have just earned him a major award--his firm, Lopez Foods, has been selected by the U.S. Department of Commerce as the 1999 National Minority Manufacturer Firm of the Year. John spent several years honing his business skills as an independent owner-operator of four thriving McDonald's restaurants. Seven years ago, he sold his restaurants and purchased controlling interest in the company that now bears his name. John is Chairman and CEO of Lopez Foods, an Oklahoma City meat producer that is among the select few beef and pork suppliers for McDonald's 25,000 restaurants. John took a struggling company and turned it into a vital force in Oklahoma's economy. He has had tempting offers to relocate to other states but has remained steadfastly loyal to Oklahoma and his workers. Leveraging his understanding of McDonald's standards and management philosophy, he has continually expanded and modernized his operation, bringing it to the forefront in food safety, worker conditions, and diversity. Today, a $160 million business with over 300 employees, Lopez Foods is ranked third among all U.S. Hispanic-owned manufacturing companies. A long time champion of minority employment opportunities, he has strengthened his diversity program, such that minorities now make up nearly 55 percent of his workforce. John was selected by the National Hispanic Employees' Association as its 1997 Entrepreneur of the Year. John also actively supports charitable endeavors that give back to the community, notably the Ronald McDonald House Charities. The United Way and the Jim Thorpe Rehabilitation Foundation benefit from his support as well. Mr. President, the Commerce Department's award is a fitting tribute to a dynamic Oklahoman who continues to make a difference for our state and our nation. Congratulations to John Lopez, community leader, compassionate citizen, and founder and head of the National Minority Manufacturer Firm of the Year.