Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I do not care how many times the Senator from Nevada waves that bill around, I remember there was a markup. I remember putting several people in our committee through a very difficult markup to pass legislation, which they did. My colleague says, if you do not like the loan guarantees, strike it. The point is, we did not have a committee markup. If we had had a committee markup, I would have had an opportunity to strike it in committee. We would have had 20 people around the committee who would have maybe participated in this hearing and maybe had some impact, but we did not have that chance. I pointed out the $10 billion loan guarantee because I do not know where it came from. The point is, it would have been nice to have a markup so we could have discussed it. Maybe I would support it. I do not doubt it is a real national energy plus if we can get all the gas reserves that are just being pumped into the ground to the lower 48. That would give us some energy security. That is positive. I would like to see that happen. But I know one thing: I did not have any chance in committee to debate should we have a loan guarantee? Should we have cost shares? what kind of protection do we have for the Government? Is that the best way to go? I am interested in these things. Is this the correct alternative? I do not believe the hearing was to consider which alternative is the best. Maybe it was, and maybe it was just too close to September 11 and there were other things going on. I am not sure. We did not have a markup, and I know if we had a markup and somebody offered amendments which said we are going to dictate which route we go, I think I would say why not let the marketplace decide which route to go. My colleague from Alaska may be exactly right, maybe the southern route is the way to go, but I am saying let's let the marketplace decide. We have pipelines running all over my State, and I have never voted once on where they should go. We have sort of let the marketplace work. Alaska is a little unique, but should we not find out how much these two routes cost? My colleague says if I do not like the $10 billion, strike it. Part of our problem right now is we are taking this whole bill up on the floor and now we have to try and fix it. It would have been nice to have had a markup where we could have debated this in committee instead of, oh, I am reading through the bill and, oh, there is a $10 billion loan guarantee. That is interesting. I wonder where that came from? It is very interesting some of the things one will find in this bill. I am going to be reading more of the bill, much to the chagrin of the manager of this bill. I hope we do not pass a bad bill. I question the wisdom of a $10 billion loan guarantee, but my point is we should have had a markup on it so these issues would have been resolved. If in the committee markup a loan guarantee was supported, I might have been convinced in the process it was the right thing to do so we would have bipartisan support for it, and maybe we do. The problem is no one knows. I asked my caucus: How many of you know there is a loan guarantee? Nobody, except for Senator Murkowski. The point is, we should have had a markup so we would not have to go through an educational process on the floor and go through a lot of this. Again, clearly the Senator from Alaska knows what he is talking about but I would imagine about 90-some percent of the rest of the Senate does not, and that is kind of unfortunate. I wish we would have had a markup on the entire bill. It would have eliminated a lot of the process and a lot of the mess that we are in trying to pass an energy package that is 590 pages and, in my opinion, still needs a lot of improvement before we are finished. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to answer the question, I think it was obvious the reason why we did not complete markup on the bill is because the votes were in the committee to have an ANWR provision, and I think obviously the majority leader did not want that to happen. So he basically told the committee not to mark up the bill. I ask for the yeas and nays on committee amendment No. 2917.

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered on amendment No. 2917.

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

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend and colleague. I tell my friend from Alaska, I have no desire whatsoever for him to depart this world at this particular moment or any time in the not too distant future. Also, it is not my intention to say that the northern route is preferable to the southern route. I just don't think we should mandate that it be the southern route. It may well be, due to the information our colleagues have had, the southern route is the preferred route. I am not saying it is not. I just don't think it should be mandated by this legislation that it be the southern route, when we may find out that it costs twice as much as some other alternative. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Allen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES. On the other side?

Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Kyl- Nickles-Gramm-Sessions amendment to make the death tax repeal permanent. To say we are going to reduce the death tax for the next 9 years, have it go to zero in the year 2010, and then in the year 2011 we are going to have a big increase and go back to death tax rates of 50 or 60 percent is absurd. We need to make it permanent. This is a sense of the Senate that says it should be permanent. I believe there is a competing resolution offered by my colleague that says: Wait a minute. This is going to take Social Security money. That is not correct. My colleague is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts. The facts are projected by OMB. The administration's estimate by OMB is that we are going to have a $99 billion surplus in the year 2010, $199 billion in the year 2011, and $395 billion in 2012. That is not counting Social Security. That is over and above Social Security. Those are the administration's estimates. So we ought to be factual. I don't mind the ``therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that the Social Security surplus funds should not be used to make currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful spending.'' Who is for wasteful spending? The part of this that says the $110 billion would be used to reduce Social Security is not factual. You should not be using a death tax to pay for Social Security in the first place. But it is not in this resolution or in the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Arizona. I urge my colleagues, let's do something for agriculture that would be positive and repeal the death tax. Talk to your farmers and ranchers and small businesspeople. Is there something you can do to help them? Yes, repeal the death tax. The Government should not take one-half of somebody's property just because they die. Let's make the death tax repeal permanent.

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

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

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

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, for his speech, as well as the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, because they have laid it out very plainly and very clearly to the American people. When we repealed this tax, it was temporary. Some people asked, Why? We did it under a reconciliation instruction. Most Americans don't have a clue what that means. Basically, that instruction was given to Congress, saying you can pass a bill for 10 years. In other words, it had a sunset. We passed the bill that increased the exemption basically from about $750,000 up to about $4 million. It took 9 years to do that. On the 10 years, we said we will just eliminate the tax which is unfair. It is unfair to have a tax on death. It is unfair for the Federal Government to say: When somebody dies, we want half of their estate. We don't care if they built up a big business. Maybe they built up Microsoft, or maybe they built up a series of restaurants, or maybe they built up a manufacturing facility, or maybe they have a large ranch or a large farm which they have had in their family for two or three generations. We said even if you are fairly large, we don't think the Federal Government should come in and take half of it because you happen to pass away. So we changed it. We said the taxable event will not be death; it will be when the property is sold. That is what we passed. So the taxable rate, when and if that property is sold, will be at the capital gains rate. It will be at 20 percent, which is plenty of tax, and the taxable event will be figured when the property is sold, when there is money available to pay that tax. That made good, eminent sense. The bad news is it will be sunset. Presently, we take the exemption of last year. This year, because of the tax changes we made last year, the exemption is $1 million. There is no death tax by the Federal Government if you pass away this year and the taxable estate is less than $1 million. That is an improvement. We gradually increased that over a period of time. For 2009, we go up to a $3.5 million exemption. We gradually reduce the rate, which is presently 50 percent--last year it was 55--to 45 percent by the year 2009, and there is a $3.5 million exemption. For the year 2010, we said we are going to eliminate it. There will be no taxable event on death. The taxable event will be when the property is sold. The tax rate will be at the capital gains rate, which is 20 percent, instead of the rate of 45 percent. It makes good sense. It is good sense. Unfortunately, because of the sunset in the year 2011, bingo, nothing happens. So we revert back to last year's law. Instead of having a $3.5 million exemption, we have an exemption of about $1 million. Instead of having the rate at 45 percent, we are going to go back to the rate of 55 or 60 percent. But there was a little 5-percent kicker rate for estates that were between $10 million and $17 million. We go back to a maximum rate in the year 2011 of 60 percent. That is absurd. A lot of us said we should make the death tax repeal permanent. That is what the sense of the Senate is. Somebody asked, Why isn't this real? We tried to do it on the tax bill we had pending before the Senate--the so-called stimulus package. Senator Daschle pulled that bill down. He didn't want a vote on the amendment of my colleague from Arizona and me. Maybe it is because we are going to win. Maybe it is because we are going to change the tax law and do some real good so people can count on it. We didn't get a vote on it. That is the reason we are here today. We are on the farm bill. We voted on a lot of amendments dealing with agriculture, none of which is as strongly supported as this amendment we are going to vote on tomorrow. I have spoken to my fair share of agricultural groups--ones that want very little Government involvement and ones that want a lot more than I want. But they are unanimous. When you ask them if they want to repeal the tax, they are in support because they realize that the so-called death tax is one of the most punitive things you can do to American agriculture. That is telling somebody, who in many cases is asset rich and cash poor: We want half your assets. So they may be trying to pass their farm or ranch on to their kids or to their grandkids, but Uncle Sam says: No, you can't do that because the value of your estate is over $1 million. And you don't have to have a very big farm or ranch for that to happen where the Federal Government wants half. The Federal Government is entitled to take half? That is going to be the law unless we make repeal permanent. So that is why this is important to agriculture. That is why it is important that the amendment be adopted. What about the underlying amendment or the ``let's confuse the American public'' amendment that was offered by our friends on the Democratic side. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I don't have a problem with the conclusion. It says: Therefore it is the Sense of the Senate that no Social Security surplus funds should be used to pay to make currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful spending. I do not want them to be used for wasteful spending. And ``permanent tax cuts,'' let's see, do we do that in our amendment? The answer is no. So I guess I could support the ``therefore,'' which is the only thing people really read in these resolutions. If you read the sentence above that, it is just factually incorrect. It says: Since permanent extension of the inheritance tax repeal would cost, according to the Administration's estimate, approximately $104 billion over the next 10 years, all of which would further reduce the Social Security surplus. . .. That is factually incorrect. I am a stickler for facts. I think people are entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts. If you use the administration's estimate, they estimate that the surplus will exceed Social Security by about $51 billion in the year 2010, $99 billion in the year 2011--the first year this would have real impact--$199 billion in the year 2012, and $395 billion--these are surpluses over and above Social Security. In other words, they are enormous surpluses in the outyears. You may say this does not really have an impact until the years 2011, 2012, and 2013 because that is when the death tax is repealed, and those are years we have enormous surpluses, including Social Security. So the amendment is trying to confuse people and bring in Social Security, and so on. Maybe it is confusing, but it is not accurate. It is factually inaccurate. I want people to know that. I do not care how you vote on it. It doesn't mean anything. The sense of Senate says we are not going to use Social Security to pay for permanent tax cuts. This amendment that Senator Kyl and I and Senator Gramm and Senator Sessions have offered does not do that. Are we for wasteful spending? No. It is interesting to note that people start drawing out Social Security every time we have a tax cut that is real or a tax cut that is proposed as real. But they couldn't care less about spending. Evidently, it is OK to spend money--Social Security money--on anything and everything, and, oh, we will waive the Budget Act to do so, but, oh, in the outyears, when we have enormous surpluses far exceeding Social Security, don't you dare do it. We are going to waive the Social Security flag. It is a false flag. It is false cover. Maybe it makes people feel good. I can care less how people vote on that amendment. I hope people will vote in favor of the sense of the Senate that says we should make the repeal of the death tax permanent. We should do it. We can afford it. We must do it. It makes no sense, whatsoever, to have a death tax where the Federal Government is coming in and taking a significant portion of somebody's farm or ranch or business, saying: Oh, we want to take it and use it to pay for other programs, and so on. That does not make sense. So I compliment my colleagues from Arizona and Texas and Alabama for their work on this amendment. I am happy to cosponsor this amendment. I urge my colleagues, tomorrow morning, to vote in favor of this sense-of-the-Senate amendment to permanently repeal the death tax. Probably the best thing we can do for agriculture in this entire bill is to make repeal of the death tax permanent. Mr. President, I yield the floor.