Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) 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), 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 would like to correct the record, because I know I heard a number of my colleagues say the Republican budget is slashing education, it's at the lowest end, it's the last appropriation bill we are taking up. Let me correct the record. Let me give you some facts. One, the budget the Republicans passed earlier this year had an increase for education, not a decrease. The Appropriations Committee has yet to mark up the Labor-HHS bill. They are going to mark it up next week. I understand from Senator Specter and others they plan on appropriating $90 billion. The amount of money we have in the current fiscal year is $83.8 billion. So that is an increase of about $6.2 billion for FY2000. That is an increase of about 9 percent. That is well over inflation. I think it is too much. I think we should be freezing spending. We should not be increasing spending. But I just want to correct the record. It bothers me to think some people are trying to manipulate the facts, to build up their case. The Democrats are well aware that the Appropriations Committee is going to be marking up a bill that is going to have at least as much money this year as we spent last year in education. I hope we change the priorities. I hope we follow the guidance of my colleague from Washington, the Presiding Officer, and give the States some flexibility. I haven't heard anybody say ``Let's cut the total amount of funds going to education,'' but I have heard, ``Let's give the States, Governors and school boards more flexibility so they can do what they need to do in improving quality education. Let's hold them accountable to improve the quality of education. Let's not just come up with more Federal programs.'' I heard both of my colleagues say, ``Boy, we need more Federal teachers or more school buildings.'' Is that really the business of the Federal Government? Are we supposed to make that decision that this school district or this school needs more teachers, or this school should be repaired, or this school should be replaced? Is that a Federal decision? I don't think so. It just so happens that within the last hour I met with the Governor of Oklahoma, the Governor of Nevada and the Governor of Utah. They say they have already reduced class size and some of them have already made significant investments in schools. But, they need more help. They want flexibility. They want to be able to use the money for individual students with disabilities. We should give them that flexibility. But our colleagues seem to think, ``Oh, no, we have to have 100,000 Federal teachers. The Governor of Nevada said that in the city of Las Vegas alone they hire 18,000 new teachers every year. Why in the world should we be dictating? In last year's budget agreement we needed 30,000 teachers. Now we need to go to 100,000 teachers? Is that the Federal governments responsibility? I don't think so. I don't think the Federal Government should be dictating that this State or this school district needs to hire more teachers or build more buildings or put in more computers. Let's give them the money we spend--and altogether the Federal Government spends over $100 billion on education--let's give the States the flexibility to spend that money in ways that will really improve the quality of education. Maybe that will go to increasing the number of teachers or to buildings and construction. Maybe it will be in computers and in training. Maybe it will be in retention or it will be in bonuses for the best teachers. Why should we be making that decision? We don't know those schools. We don't know those districts. We don't know those superintendents. We are not serving on those PTAs. This really should not be a Federal responsibility. Let's give that responsibility to the local school boards and to the States and not have more dictates and more Federal programs. There are already over 760 Federal education programs to date. Our colleagues on the Democrat side would like to add even more programs, as if that is going to improve the quality of education. I don't think so. Just a couple more facts: Labor-HHS funding, which is the appropriations bill we are talking about, has been rising and growing dramatically. Yet I hear, ``Oh, they are slashing this bill by 17 percent.'' Wait a minute, let's get the bill on the floor before we start saying we are slashing the bill. What we passed and appropriated and spent in 1997 was $71 billion. In 1996, it was $64.4 billion. It went to $71 billion in 1997, that's over a 10 percent increase. From 1997 to 1998 it went from $71 billion to $80.7 billion, again well over a 10 percent increase. Last year it went from $80.7 to $83.9 billion, plus there were some advanced appropriations of about $6 billion. So, again there was a big increase from last year and we are talking about increasing it even further for next year, for the year 2000. So this rhetoric by the Democrats that is designed to scare people and to get people activated on the education bill, is not substantiated by the facts. I want to address a couple of other things we can do for education and for the American taxpayer. But the President has to help us do it by signing the tax bill that is now before him. We have $11 billion of tax relief targeted towards education in the tax bill. If the President wants to improve education he can sign the tax bill and I hope he will. We allow for student loans, greater deductions and we provide extended assistance for education. Right now, people can save $500 on educational savings accounts. We increase that to $2,000. It is vitally important that the President sign the tax bill. In addition, we have a lot of relief for taxpayers in the bill. I will just mention a couple of them. I have heard a lot of people, Democrats and Republicans, say the marriage penalty is unfair. It's unfair for the present day Tax Code to penalize a couple because they happen to be married. In other words, when they get married their combined tax load should not be greater then when they were single and paying separately. And it is. The marriage penalty averages out about $1,400. For the privilege of being married you have to pay an extra $1,400. A lot of us think that is grossly unfair. We want to change it. The President can change it. We, in Congress, have changed it. We sent the bill to the President's desk. If he signs it we will be eliminating the marriage penalty, for all practical purposes, for almost all married couples. We also want to give relief to individuals who, in many cases, are at the lowest end of the economic ladder in the tax bill. I have heard some people say, ``Oh, that tax cut package, that's a tax cut for the wealthiest people.'' That's hogwash. We cut taxes for taxpayers, people who are in the lowest end of the income-tax schedule. They get a 7 percent reduction because we reduced the rate from 15 percent to 14 percent. It doesn't sound like much, but that is a 7 percent reduction for somebody on the lowest end of the economic ladder. That is a significant tax reduction. Wait a minute, what are you doing for the wealthier people? We are reducing the rate from 39.6 to 38.6, and we do not do that until the outyears. That doesn't happen until several years later. That would amount to a little less than 3 percent. So we give a much greater percentage reduction in tax cuts to the people on the lower end of the scale. We actually make the tax schedule a little more progressive. We provide a tax cut for taxpayers, and honestly it is not very much of one. Somebody says that's too much, you have cut taxes too much. Think about this for a second. When President Clinton was sworn into office in January of 1993, the maximum tax bracket for any American, personal income tax, was 31 percent. The Democrat controlled Congress, with a tie vote broken by Vice President Gore acting as President of the Senate--increased the maximum tax bracket from 31 percent to 39.6. So, at the end of 10 years we reduce that 39.6 to 38.6, wow, we have reduced it about one tenth as much as he increased it. And that is too much? We are being too fair to the rich? Wait a minute, they increased the rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent; and we reduce it to 38.6 percent. It is still a whole lot higher than it was when President Clinton was elected. That is too much? The President claims that if you cut taxes that much, you won't be able to pay for all these programs. We take two-thirds of the surplus and use it to pay down debt, to pay down our national debt by over $2 trillion. We take two-thirds of it and we pay down the national debt with the Social Security surplus. You cannot spend one dime of it for anything else. In the President's original budget he said he wanted to spend billions for other things. We said, no we are not going to do that. We want to use 100 percent of the Social Security surplus to pay down the debt, period--no ifs and or buts about it. The President wanted to try to raid the fund and we said no. Then we said, out of the surplus we want two thirds of it to pay down debt, one-fourth of it can go back to taxpayers. We do not want the taxpayers to have to send all of their hard earned money to Washington, DC. We certainly do not want to have to return it, we want them to keep it in the first place. It is theirs. It is not ours. It is not the Government's to spend. If they are sending in too much in taxes, let them keep it, why should they have to filter it through Washington, DC, and hope they get something back in the form of a so-called targeted tax cut? President Clinton--his definition of ``targeted'' means: It applies to somebody--not you, not me, not anybody I know--so targeted that, in effect it is Government deciding who wins and who loses. It is Government making economic decisions. I think that is a mistake. I would hope the President would sign the tax bill that we have on his desk that makes these changes and includes many more. I also believe we should be repealing this so-called death tax. I do not think it is right to have a death tax of 55 percent on somebody's estate that they worked their entire life on, and the Government comes in and says: Because you passed away, and you are trying to give this to your kids or grandkids, the Federal Government is entitled to take 55 percent of it. That is the present law. If you have a taxable estate of $3 million, the Government gets 55 percent. So people who have those estates, they spend their lives trying to figure out ways to minimize this tax or get around this tax. You do not have to be very wealthy to be paying a lot. You can have a taxable estate of $1 million, and the Government gets 39 percent. So that is 39 percent for a taxable estate of $1 million. Uncle Sam says: Hey, give me about half of it. This tax bill repeals that. Mr. President, I urge you to sign this tax bill. I know you have said that you are going to veto it. I know you would rather spend the money. You think you can spend the money better than the taxpayers. I remember the statement you made in New York, in February I believe, that said: Well, wait a minute, I guess we could give it back to the taxpayers, and let them keep it, but what if they don't spend it right? Obviously, there are lots of ways that this President wants to spend the money. There is no limit. And there is no doubt Congress will find lots of ways to spend the money as well. A lot of us believe it is the people's money. They should be the ones making the decision. If they want to spend it on education, or if they want to spend it on housing, or if they want to spend it on a vacation, or if they want to spend it on helping their family in different ways, let people make that decision instead of Washington, DC. We think it would help the economy more and certainly be more pro-family. Let the families make those decisions, not politicians. So, Mr. President, again, I urge you to sign this bill. I do not have any doubt you are going to veto the bill and the real losers are going to be the taxpayers. I also remember we passed a tax cut in 1995. The President vetoed it. We came back in 1997 and passed another tax cut, and he eventually signed it. He did not want to sign it, but he did. As a matter of fact, in that tax bill, in 1997, we reduced the capital gains from 28 percent to 20 percent. Secretary Rubin was against it and the President was against it although he eventually signed it. He did not want to increase the estate tax exemption. We had a small exemption rate from $650,000 to a $1 million. He was not in favor of it, but he eventually signed it. Those very things have helped the economy. They have helped grow the economy at a faster rate than people anticipated. And now we are in a position to make further gains. In the bill we have on your desk, Mr. President, we cut capital gains from 20 percent to 18 percent, and index it for inflation in the future. That will help the economy. That will make the economy grow faster. That will increase jobs. That will probably raise more money for the Federal Government. So, Mr. President, we once again, urge you to sign this tax bill. It will be a good thing for the economy. It will be a good thing for American taxpayers. It will be a good thing for American families. Let's get rid of the marriage penalty. Let's get rid of the death tax. Let's cut taxes across the board for taxpayers. We do that in the tax bill and still save over two-thirds of the budget for debt reduction. So, Mr. President, let's allow taxpayers to have one-fourth of the surplus. Let's let them keep it. I urge you to rise to the challenge and sign the bill. I yield the floor.

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 Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I compliment my friend and colleague from Ohio for the statement he made. Frankly, the announcement he made that this tragedy called partial-birth abortion is happening today and it is happening very frequently--I appreciate him calling attention to it. I hope our colleagues listened and I hope our colleagues this year will pass a ban on that very gruesome procedure which is the murder of a child as it is being born. I thank my friend and colleague. I hope and expect Congress will pass it this year. Maybe with the votes necessary to overturn the President's veto. I thank him for his statement.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham, as well as Senator DeWine from Ohio, for their statements. They are exactly right. I do not need to repeat their statements, but I think it is vitally important that they prevail in beating this amendment. I hope my colleagues will pay attention. This is not an esoteric amendment. As the Senator from Ohio said, there are lives at stake. Do we really think we can have a big increase in the corporate average fuel economy standards mandated on sport utility vehicles without having economic consequences? There are going to be consequences. Vehicles may cost more. It is quite likely they will have to reduce the weight of the vehicles. The vehicles will not be as safe. We are superimposing Government wisdom on manufacturers and on consumers. The sales of these vehicles are going quite well because consumers want them. Nobody is forcing them to buy them. Yet if we come up with a Government-mandated higher fuel economy standard, presumably with the idea that this is going to be more fuel efficient, it may make the vehicles more expensive. It may make the vehicles more unsafe. It may cost lives. It has significant economic consequences on families. So I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment that is pending. I again compliment my friends and colleagues, including Senator Levin, as well as Senator Abraham and Senator DeWine, for their excellent statements. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on past and present worker safety issues in DOE facilities at the Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky. The hearing will take place on Monday, September 20, 1999 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the Paducah Community College Fine Arts Auditorium in Paducah, Kentucky. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written 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, DC, 20510-6150. For further information, please call Kristin Phillips, Staff Assistant, or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, so we will have all Senators on record voting either for or against the Hutchison amendment, I move to table the Hutchison amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to table. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the majority leader's time for 1 minute.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Texas for her statement of yesterday and today, and also for the chart. I hope my colleagues will look at the chart because that is what MMS is proposing and it is not workable. People who work in this field all the time have come before our committee, a committee of Congress, and said this proposal is not workable. They told that to myself, they told that to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, as well as Senator Domenici, also from New Mexico. They said it is not workable. I have two or three problems. I am going to touch on them briefly. One, I have a problem with the Senator from California saying she doesn't like the amendment so she is going to filibuster the amendment. I earlier said: Let's vote on the amendment an hour from now, or 5 hours from now. No, no, we are not going to have a vote on the amendment; she's going to filibuster the amendment. If we are going to filibuster every amendment coming along on an appropriations bill, we are never going to get it done. If we do this, we are never going to be able to get finished. People can talk all they want about a do-nothing Congress, but if we have members of one party or the other, or individual Members, who say: I don't like that provision in the transportation bill so I am going to filibuster the transportation bill--we have already seen that happen today--or I don't like this provision so we are going to filibuster it so we are not going to get an Interior bill unless I get my way, or get a supermajority--to say we need to have 60 votes to pass any amendment, I think that is a mistake. So we should get away from that. Let me touch on the subject of this amendment. We passed in 1996 a bill, the Federal Royalty Fairness and Simplification Act, of which I was one of the principal sponsors, in a bipartisan way to simplify royalty collection. We did that. It passed overwhelmingly. The President signed it. It was a good bill. The chart Senator Hutchison shows, the proposed MMS regs, is just the opposite of royalty simplification and fairness. If we follow the MMS proposal, what we have is an invitation for litigation. You have litigation nightmares already going on. The Senator from Texas already mentioned the testimony of the ARCO employee. His testimony was not persuasive. The issue of royalty under payments went before a jury of twelve in California in a case that had been ongoing for 14 years, and guess what? The jury decided in favor of the oil companies. They decided that the oil company was right. This company litigated the issue of underpayments for 14 years. A lot of companies decided it was not worth the expense. It was not worth the bad press. It was not worth these editorials that really do not know what they are talking about, that know nothing about oil valuation and the complexity of it. So maybe they do settle. That does not mean they are guilty, that they are stealing. That is like somebody who says, wait a minute, the IRS audited your taxes and you owe some more money. Does that mean you are stealing? There are some things wrong with the current royalty valuation program. We had two government employees who were involved in these developing the new MMS regulations and all of a sudden they got paid $350,000 each by an outside group who supports the proposed regulations. That is pretty corrupt. That is like having an IRS agent say: I audited your return and as a result we found out you owed more money. I want half of it. That is what happened in this case.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?