Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. To clarify, I did not yield back the remainder of the time. I yielded the floor, just for the information of my colleagues.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES. Through the Chair, I want to caution my colleague. I have been close to making a rule XIX order. It is against the rules of the Senate to impugn the motives or the intentions of Senators, and the Senator from California has been very close to doing that, both to the Senator from Ohio and now to the Senator from Oklahoma. I wanted to make her aware of that.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. The answer to your question is no.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield on the time of the Senator from California.

Mr. NICKLES. On legislative procedure, I have advised my colleagues on both sides to go through the Chair. I think it is somewhat demeaning to the Senate to not have exchanges through the Chair. There is a reason for the rule. I will make a couple of comments concerning this issue. I compliment my friend and colleague from Ohio for raising the issue. This is not about how someone spends their own money, I say to my colleague from New York. Anybody can spend their own money. A Federal employee can spend their own money and pay for an abortion. It says ``no funds appropriated under this act.'' In other words, no taxpayer money shall be used to pay for abortion. That has been the law of the land. We have passed that many times. This administration wants to overturn it. They have not been successful. I heard one of my colleagues, I believe my colleague from Washington, say it is only a minority, a radical minority. I am not sure if the word ``radical'' was used, but a small minority that wants to impose its will. That is not the case. There was a poll taken some time ago that asked, ``Should the Government subsidize health care plans to pay for abortion?'' and 72 percent said no. I have heard people say: You are trying to outlaw abortion. That is not the case. The purpose of the amendment is, we do not want to subsidize abortion and we don't want it to be a fringe benefit. I heard a colleague saying this is a ``benefit.'' It shouldn't be a benefit. Abortion should not be a fringe benefit that is provided for and subsidized, three-fourths of which is paid for by the Federal Government. Remember what we are talking about. Abortion happens to take the life of an unborn child. I heard a colleague say we need a full range of reproductive services, we need reproductive health. What about health of the unborn child? Are we going to have the taxpayers pay to destroy the life of an unborn child? The majority in Congress and overwhelming majority of the American people have said no. That is what our colleague's amendment does. It does not take away a woman's right to choose. It does not outlaw abortion. It just says we should not subsidize it. We should not be using taxpayers' money to provide a fringe benefit in the Federal employees' health care plans to help subsidize the destruction of innocent, unborn children. So I compliment my colleague for the amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment when we vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) and the Senate from Florida (Mr. Mack), are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack), is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in executive session.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. For the information of all Senators, Wednesday the Senate will convene at 9:30 and will begin consideration of the foreign operations appropriations bill. Amendments to that bill are expected, and therefore votes are to be expected throughout the day. Due to the agreement reached regarding health care reform, it is hoped the Senate can complete action on a number of appropriations bills prior to the Fourth of July recess.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate complete its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 30. I further ask that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate then begin consideration of S. 1234, the foreign operations appropriations legislation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I now withdraw the motion to proceed.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, I regret the objection from our Democrat colleagues to allow the Senate to proceed to the very vital issue of the Social Security lockbox issue. With the objection in place, I had no other alternative than to file a cloture motion on the motion to proceed. This cloture vote will occur on Thursday, 1 hour after the Senate convenes, unless changed by unanimous consent. All Senators will be notified as to the exact time of the cloture vote. Call Of The Roll In the meantime, I ask consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. NICKLES. In light of the objection, I now move to proceed to Senate bill 557, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn to Calendar No. 89, S. 557, regarding the budget process to which the so-called lockbox issue is pending as an amendment.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, to introduce legislation to reform the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. Congress created the AMT in 1986 to prevent businesses from using tax loopholes, such as the investment tax credit or safe harbor leasing, to pay little or no tax. The use of these tax preferences sometimes resulted in companies reporting healthy ``book'' income to their shareholders but little taxable income to the government. Therefore, to create a perception of fairness, Congress created the AMT. The AMT requires taxpayers to calculate their taxes once under regular tax rules, and again under AMT rules which deny accelerated depreciation, net operating losses, foreign tax credits, and other deductions and credits. The taxpayer then pays the higher amount, and the difference between their AMT tax and their regular tax is ``credited' to offset future regular tax liability if it eventually falls below their AMT tax liability. Unfortunately, the AMT has had a negative, unanticipated impact on many U.S. businesses. As it is currently structured, the AMT is a complicated, parallel tax code which places a particularly heavy burden on capital intensive companies. Corporations must now plan for and comply with two tax codes instead of one. Further, the AMT's elimination of important cost-recovery tax incentives increases the cost of investment and makes U.S. businesses uncompetitive with foreign companies. Mr. President, I am proud to say that several AMT reforms I began pushing in 1995 were eventually enacted in 1997. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 exempted small corporations from the AMT, and conformed the depreciation cost-recovery periods for AMT and the regular corporate tax. The depreciation provisions in particular will relieve much of the AMT's negative impact on capital-intensive businesses. However, even with these changes, some businesses continue to be chronic AMT taxpayers, a situation that was not contemplated when the AMT was created. These companies continue to pay AMT year after year, accumulating millions in unused AMT credits. These credits are a tax on future, unearned revenues which may never materialize, and because of the time-value of money their value to the taxpayer decreases every year. The legislation Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing today helps AMT taxpayers recover their AMT credits in a more reasonable time frame than under current law. Our bill would allow businesses with AMT credits which are three years old or older to offset up to 50 percent of their current-year tentative minimum tax. This provision will help chronic AMT taxpayers dig their way out of the AMT and allow them to recoup at least a portion of these ``accelerated tax payments'' in a reasonable time-frame. Mr. President, our legislation does not repeal the AMT, and it will not allow taxpayers to ``zero out'' their tax liability. This bill specifically addresses the problems faced by companies that are buried in AMT credits they might otherwise never be able to utilize. I encourage the Senate Finance Committee to consider our bill when drafting this year's tax reconciliation legislation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate that. For further clarification, I understand why the minority leader asked for that, but I will state--I stated it on the floor--it was never anyone's intention on this side, to my knowledge, to filibuster the bill. I do think 3 hours is a very limited time. I do think it is possible, though, you can discuss the bill during amendment time, so I am not going to object. Then the other major change was a reduction from 120 minutes to 100 minutes. That, of course, is to facilitate a greater number of amendments and that is understandable as well. So I have no objection.