Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

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

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

Mr. NICKLES

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

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

Mr. NICKLES

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

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

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is necessarily absent.

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

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will transfer ownership of land owned by the Department of Energy (DOE) and known as the National Institute of Petroleum Energy Research (NIPER) to the City of Bartlesville for business and educational purposes. The NIPER facility was originally established in 1918 as the Petroleum Experiment Station by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Its purpose was to provide research targeted to oil and gas field problems. In 1936, as World War II approached, additions to the Work Project Administration building were erected. Its research was expanded to help the war effort. During the 1973-1974 energy crisis, the center was renamed the Bartlesville Energy Research Center. When the Center privatized in 1983, it was renamed the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research (NIPER). NIPER closed its operations on December 22, 1998. According to the Surplus Property Act of 1949, excess federal property is screened for use by the following: Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and local and state organizations including non-profit organizations. At the conclusion of the screening process, a negotiated sale is conducted. If the property is still undeclared it goes to auction. Unfortunately this process can take many years, thus preventing the city of Bartlesville from realizing any near-term economic boost from NIPER's redevelopment. Consequently, this legislation is needed to ensure that the NIPER facilities are redeveloped as quickly as possible in order to provide a prompt economic boost to the community. This legislation also will ensure that the NIPER facilities do not deteriorate while the property is being processed through the lengthy steps of the Surplus Property Act and therefore make re-use impossible. The City of Bartlesville intends to provide an educational facility and a place for business and industry that would facilitate job creation through technology and investment. The NIPER facility will also provide housing for administrative services for community development organization such as United Way, Women and Children in Crisis, and various homeless programs. This project enjoys the strong support of the Mayor of Bartlesville and other locally elected officials.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I have introduced legislation to clarify the proper depreciation of natural gas gathering lines. While depreciation is an arcane and technical area of the tax laws, continued uncertainty regarding the proper depreciation of these assets is having real and adverse impacts on members of the natural gas industry. The purpose of this bill is quite simple--to clarify that natural gas gathering lines are assets that are properly depreciated over seven years. The legislation would codify the seven-year treatment of these assets as well as providing a sufficient definition for the term ``natural gas gathering line'' to distinguish these lines from transmission pipelines for depreciation purposes. I believe that these assets should currently be depreciated over seven years under existing law, and that this is the long standing practice of members of the industry. However, it has come to my attention that the Internal Revenue Service has been asserting both on audits and in litigation that seven-year depreciation is available only for gathering assets owned by producers. The IRS has asserted that all other gathering equipment is to be depreciated as transmission pipelines over a fifteen-year period. This confounding position ignores not only the plain language of the asset class guidelines governing depreciation, but would result in disparate treatment of the same assets based upon ownership for no discernible policy reason. Moreover, this position ignores the fundamental distinction between gathering and transmission of natural gas long enshrined in energy regulation and recognized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as well as other state and federal regulatory bodies. Nonetheless, the IRS' position on this issue has resulted in the past in a division of authority among the lower courts. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that the seven-year cost recovery period was properly applied to natural gas gathering systems under existing law, this legislation is needed to provide certainty and uniformity regarding the proper depreciation of these assets throughout the country. With extensive gathering systems totaling many thousands of miles, we cannot afford to allow the proper depreciation of these substantial investments to remain subjects of dispute. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in securing the adoption of this important legislation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am happy to join Senator Bob Smith as a cosponsor of the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act of 1999. I believe Davis-Bacon repeal is long overdue. This 68-year-old legislation requires contractors to pay workers on federally-subsidized projects what the Labor Department determines is the local prevailing wage. What Davis-Bacon actually does is cost the Federal Government billions of dollars, divert funds out of vitally important projects, and limit opportunities for employment. In my own State of Oklahoma, it has been proven that many ``prevailing wages'' have been calculated using fictitious projects, ghost workers, and companies established to pay artificially high wages. Oklahoma officials have reported that many of the wage survey forms submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor to calculate Federal wage rates in Oklahoma were wrong or fraudulent. Records showed that an underground storage tank was built using 20 plumbers and pipefitters paid $21.05 an hour but no such tank was ever built. In another case, several asphalt machine operators were reported to have been employed at $15 an hour to build a parking lot but the lot was made of concrete, there were no asphalt operators, and the actual Davis-Bacon wage should have been $8 an hour. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Secretary of Labor established that at least two of the inflated Oklahoma reports were filled out by union officials. The Davis-Bacon Act also diverts urgently needed Federal funds. After the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, Mayor Ron Norick of Oklahoma City estimated that the city could have saved $15 million in construction costs had the President waived the Davis- Bacon Act. This money could have been used to provided additional assistance to those impacted by the bombing and to further rebuild the area around the Murrah site. The Federal role in disaster situations should be to empower communities and foster flexibility so that rebuilding efforts can proceed in the best manner possible. The Congress should repeal a law that discourages, rather than encourages, the employment of lower skilled or non-skilled workers. Davis-Bacon began as a way to keep small and minority businesses out of the government pie, and today it still does, reaching even further. Repeal of the act will take wage setting out of the hands of bureaucrats and return the determination of labor costs on construction projects to the efficiencies of the competitive marketplace. This would result in a more sound fiscal policy through payment of actual market- based local wage rates; more entry-level jobs in construction industry for youth, minorities, and women; and more small businesses bidding on Federal contracts. The Davis-Bacon Repeal Act will provide increased job opportunities for those who might not ordinarily have the chance to enter the workforce, the opportunity to learn a trade, and the opportunity to climb the economic ladder. I applaud Senator Smith for his efforts and appreciate the chance to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will transfer ownership of land owned by the Department of Energy (DOE) and known as the National Institute of Petroleum Energy Research (NIPER) to the City of Bartlesville for business and educational purposes. The NIPER facility was originally established in 1918 as the Petroleum Experiment Station by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Its purpose was to provide research targeted to oil and gas field problems. In 1936, as World War II approached, additions to the Work Project Administration building were erected. Its research was expanded to help the war effort. During the 1973-1974 energy crisis, the center was renamed the Bartlesville Energy Research Center. When the Center privatized in 1983, it was renamed the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research (NIPER). NIPER closed its operations on December 22, 1998. According to the Surplus Property Act of 1949, excess federal property is screened for use by the following: Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and local and state organizations including non-profit organizations. At the conclusion of the screening process, a negotiated sale is conducted. If the property is still undeclared it goes to auction. Unfortunately this process can take many years, thus preventing the city of Bartlesville from realizing any near-term economic boost from NIPER's redevelopment. Consequently, this legislation is needed to ensure that the NIPER facilities are redeveloped as quickly as possible in order to provide a prompt economic boost to the community. This legislation also will ensure that the NIPER facilities do not deteriorate while the property is being processed through the lengthy steps of the Surplus Property Act and therefore make re-use impossible. The City of Bartlesville intends to provide an educational facility and a place for business and industry that would facilitate job creation through technology and investment. The NIPER facility will also provide housing for administrative services for community development organization such as United Way, Women and Children in Crisis, and various homeless programs. This project enjoys the strong support of the Mayor of Bartlesville and other locally elected officials.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I have introduced legislation to clarify the proper depreciation of natural gas gathering lines. While depreciation is an arcane and technical area of the tax laws, continued uncertainty regarding the proper depreciation of these assets is having real and adverse impacts on members of the natural gas industry. The purpose of this bill is quite simple--to clarify that natural gas gathering lines are assets that are properly depreciated over seven years. The legislation would codify the seven-year treatment of these assets as well as providing a sufficient definition for the term ``natural gas gathering line'' to distinguish these lines from transmission pipelines for depreciation purposes. I believe that these assets should currently be depreciated over seven years under existing law, and that this is the long standing practice of members of the industry. However, it has come to my attention that the Internal Revenue Service has been asserting both on audits and in litigation that seven-year depreciation is available only for gathering assets owned by producers. The IRS has asserted that all other gathering equipment is to be depreciated as transmission pipelines over a fifteen-year period. This confounding position ignores not only the plain language of the asset class guidelines governing depreciation, but would result in disparate treatment of the same assets based upon ownership for no discernible policy reason. Moreover, this position ignores the fundamental distinction between gathering and transmission of natural gas long enshrined in energy regulation and recognized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as well as other state and federal regulatory bodies. Nonetheless, the IRS' position on this issue has resulted in the past in a division of authority among the lower courts. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that the seven-year cost recovery period was properly applied to natural gas gathering systems under existing law, this legislation is needed to provide certainty and uniformity regarding the proper depreciation of these assets throughout the country. With extensive gathering systems totaling many thousands of miles, we cannot afford to allow the proper depreciation of these substantial investments to remain subjects of dispute. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in securing the adoption of this important legislation.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am happy to join Senator Bob Smith as a cosponsor of the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act of 1999. I believe Davis-Bacon repeal is long overdue. This 68-year-old legislation requires contractors to pay workers on federally-subsidized projects what the Labor Department determines is the local prevailing wage. What Davis-Bacon actually does is cost the Federal Government billions of dollars, divert funds out of vitally important projects, and limit opportunities for employment. In my own State of Oklahoma, it has been proven that many ``prevailing wages'' have been calculated using fictitious projects, ghost workers, and companies established to pay artificially high wages. Oklahoma officials have reported that many of the wage survey forms submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor to calculate Federal wage rates in Oklahoma were wrong or fraudulent. Records showed that an underground storage tank was built using 20 plumbers and pipefitters paid $21.05 an hour but no such tank was ever built. In another case, several asphalt machine operators were reported to have been employed at $15 an hour to build a parking lot but the lot was made of concrete, there were no asphalt operators, and the actual Davis-Bacon wage should have been $8 an hour. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Secretary of Labor established that at least two of the inflated Oklahoma reports were filled out by union officials. The Davis-Bacon Act also diverts urgently needed Federal funds. After the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City, Mayor Ron Norick of Oklahoma City estimated that the city could have saved $15 million in construction costs had the President waived the Davis- Bacon Act. This money could have been used to provided additional assistance to those impacted by the bombing and to further rebuild the area around the Murrah site. The Federal role in disaster situations should be to empower communities and foster flexibility so that rebuilding efforts can proceed in the best manner possible. The Congress should repeal a law that discourages, rather than encourages, the employment of lower skilled or non-skilled workers. Davis-Bacon began as a way to keep small and minority businesses out of the government pie, and today it still does, reaching even further. Repeal of the act will take wage setting out of the hands of bureaucrats and return the determination of labor costs on construction projects to the efficiencies of the competitive marketplace. This would result in a more sound fiscal policy through payment of actual market- based local wage rates; more entry-level jobs in construction industry for youth, minorities, and women; and more small businesses bidding on Federal contracts. The Davis-Bacon Repeal Act will provide increased job opportunities for those who might not ordinarily have the chance to enter the workforce, the opportunity to learn a trade, and the opportunity to climb the economic ladder. I applaud Senator Smith for his efforts and appreciate the chance to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment Senator Smith for his remarks. I join him in urging our colleagues to vote ``yes'' in favor of the tabling motion, to vote ``no'' on the Murray amendment. Abortion is not a fringe benefit. People talk about a benefit that other people have. Abortion is the taking of a human life, so it should not be just a fringe benefit that is provided for at Government expense or provided for in Government hospitals. These are military hospitals. They do not have abortionists working in those hospitals. They have not been allowed through 1992. It was a change in the Executive order by the Clinton administration in 1993, saying we are going to have those. In 1993 and 1994, because of an Executive order--not because of a change in Congress--the Clinton administration said we want to provide abortions at military hospitals. Guess what. They could not find abortionists. They could not find doctors to perform abortions at military hospitals, because they had been prohibited for at least 10 years, if not 12 years before, when that was not the case. The Hyde amendment said we are not going to use Federal funds to provide abortions. We did not have abortions performed at military hospitals. The Clinton administration tried to change that. They did not have anybody to do it. They tried to recruit them. We changed the law in 1995. The Murray amendment would change it back by saying to military hospitals: You must provide abortions--a fringe benefit. Granted, maybe the person receiving the abortion now would have to pay a little bit, but the military is going to have to find somebody to perform them. They are going to have to make sure they have somebody who is trained to do it, and trained to do it right. So they are going to have to hire people to perform abortions, people right now they do not have--they have not been able to find them. Frankly, in 1993 and 1994 we changed the law. Congress changed the law in 1995, and I think they were right in doing so. I think it would be a mistake for Congress to overrule that now and say we think that should be a standard benefit that is provided in Government military hospitals all across the world, so it could be basically a fringe benefit, it could be standard operating procedure-- yes, anybody can get an abortion in a military hospital. It would be a method of birth control. I think that would be a serious mistake. We have to realize, it is not a fringe benefit; it is the taking of an innocent human being's life. So I urge my colleagues to support Senator Smith in the tabling motion with respect to the Murray amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) 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. 395

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. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will right a wrong that has been in the tax code for too long. This legislation will clarify the U.S. tax treatment of foreign pipeline transportation income. This legislation is needed because current tax law causes active foreign pipeline transportation income to be unintentionally trapped within the anti-abuse tax rules of Subpart F. These anti-abuse rules were originally established to prevent companies from avoiding payment of U.S. tax on easily movable and passive income. Pipeline transportation income, however, is neither passive nor easily movable. Pipes are located where the natural resources and energy needs are--they cannot be placed just anywhere. Further, one a pipe is in the ground, it is tough to move. Referring to the legislative history, we find that Congress did not intend these anti-abuse rules to target foreign pipeline transportation income. Rather, these rules were intended to reach the significant revenues derived by highly profitable oil related activities that were sourced to a low-tax country as opposed to the country in which the oil or gas was extracted or ultimately consumed. Furthermore, it is important to note that when these anti-abuse rules were being considered and then put into place, pipeline companies were not engaged in international development activities, rather they were focused solely on domestic infrastructure development. Today, pipeline companies are continuing to actively pursue all development opportunities domestically, yet they are somewhat limited. The real growth for U.S. pipeline companies, however, is in the international arena. These new opportunities have arisen from fairly recent efforts by foreign countries to privatize their energy sectors. Enabling U.S. pipeline companies to engage in energy infrastructure projects abroad will result in tremendous benefits back home. For example, more U.S. employees will be needed to craft and close deals, to build the plants and pipelines, and to operate the facilities. New investment overseas also will bring new demands for U.S. equipment. Yet before any of these benefits can be realized, U.S. companies must be able to defeat their foreign competitors and win projects. Unfortunately, current U.S. tax laws significantly hinder the ability of U.S. companies to win such projects. We must act now if we are to ensure that U.S. companies remain competitive players in the international marketplace. There are incremental, low cost, reforms that we can and must make. My legislation--to clarify that U.S. tax treatment of foreign pipeline transportation income--is one such low-cost reform. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to bring current U.S. tax law in line with good tax policy. It is up to us to do all we can to keep America competitive in the global economy.