Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe we are already for a vote on this bill.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank Senator Specter, Senator Torricelli, and Senator Inhofe for bringing this bill to the floor, and also Senator Lott for bringing it to the floor this quickly. I think it is somewhat of a tragedy. I read in today's paper that an official of the Department of Veterans Affairs said that Tim McVeigh would be eligible to be buried in a national cemetery. I think that would be a desecration of our national cemeteries. I think it would be an affront to all the veterans who are buried in a national cemetery and to their families. And so I want to compliment my colleagues for bringing this to the floor so quickly. In looking at the statutes, there is a forfeiture of veterans benefits for a lot of crimes: mutiny, sedition, harboring and concealing persons who have committed espionage crimes, gathering classified information for a foreign government, treason, rebellion, insurrection, and advocating the overthrow of the Government. But there is not for a Federal capital offense. Mr. McVeigh was found guilty by a jury, with a unanimous verdict of murdering--actually, I think the verdict was murdering eight Federal agents, Federal officers. He is responsible for the murdering or the deaths of 168 individuals, including 19 children. He planned this terrorist attack. It was not done at the spur of the moment. He planned it for months, maybe for years. He was found guilty. The jury has made, in my opinion, the appropriate sentence, a sentence that is appropriate for a crime of this magnitude--the death sentence. Certainly it would be a dishonor to our national cemeteries and the veterans if he was accorded veterans benefits, both financial benefits as well as burial rights in our national cemetery. I think it would desecrate the cemetery. I think that is certainly sacred ground, hallowed ground, honoring our national veterans, individuals that gave their lives in service to their country, individuals who served our country and were willing to give their lives. To have Mr. McVeigh buried alongside our national heroes I think would be a serious, serious mistake and a real denigration to our national heroes. So, Mr. President, I am happy to cosponsor this legislation. I am happy with the leadership of the Senate and the leadership of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Specter, and Mr. Torricelli, for bringing this to the floor of the Senate. And I am hopeful that it will receive a unanimous vote in this Senate and also be adopted by our colleagues in the House. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthone], and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kemp- thorne] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, when the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production, and Regulation of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee filed its report on H.R. 363, to amend section 2118 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to extend the Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination program, the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office were not available. The report has now been received and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record for the information of the Senate and the public.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I did not want to stay for all of that, but I think the Senator from Mississippi, the majority leader, is being generous with time. If our colleagues are going to object to the offer that the majority leader made, I do not think they are showing good faith, and that does not increase the likelihood of getting things done. Now, correct me if I am wrong; I ask the majority leader this question, the majority leader asked permission for the committees to meet?

Mr. NICKLES. If I could just ask a question, because I understand our colleagues from North Dakota wish to speak on this issue. I know some colleagues on this side of the aisle would like to speak. Correct me if I am wrong; did you not offer to allow debate on this and other issues, maybe debate as late at 12 o'clock tonight? That is almost an additional 8 hours.

Mr. NICKLES. And stated his intentions to allow the Senate to be able to debate this and other issues on time equally divided; is that not correct?

Mr. NICKLES. My comment would be to the majority leader that I think you are being very generous and I hope our colleagues will cooperate.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Inhofe to establish the Oklahoma City National Memorial and create the Oklahoma City Memorial Trust. The memorial will commemorate the national tragedy ingrained in all of our minds that occurred in downtown Oklahoma City at 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 1995, in which 168 Americans lost their lives and countless thousands more lost family members and friends. The Oklahoma City National Memorial, to be established as a unit of the National Park Service, will serve as a monument to those whose lives were taken and others will bear the physical and mental scars for the rest of their days. It will stand as a testament to the hope, generosity, and courage shown by Oklahomans and fellow Americans across the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. This will be a place of remembrance, peace, spirituality, comfort, and learning. The memorial complex will include a special place for children, 19 of whom were killed in the blast, to assure them that the world holds far more good than bad. The memorial site will encompass the footprint of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Fifth Street between Robinson and Harvey, the site of the Water Resources Building, and the Journal Record Building. Both Park Service and non-Park Service personnel will staff the memorial grounds and interpretive center on the site. The Memorial Trust, comprised of nine unpaid trustees, will administer the operation, maintenance, management, and interpretation of the memorial. While the thousands of family members and friends of those killed in the bombing will forever bear scars of having their loved ones taken away, the Oklahoma City National Memorial will revere the memory of those lost and venerate the bonds that drew us all closer together as a result. I welcome all Members to cosponsor this important piece of legislation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Inhofe to establish the Oklahoma City National Memorial and create the Oklahoma City Memorial Trust. The memorial will commemorate the national tragedy ingrained in all of our minds that occurred in downtown Oklahoma City at 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 1995, in which 168 Americans lost their lives and countless thousands more lost family members and friends. The Oklahoma City National Memorial, to be established as a unit of the National Park Service, will serve as a monument to those whose lives were taken and others will bear the physical and mental scars for the rest of their days. It will stand as a testament to the hope, generosity, and courage shown by Oklahomans and fellow Americans across the country following the Oklahoma City bombing. This will be a place of remembrance, peace, spirituality, comfort, and learning. The memorial complex will include a special place for children, 19 of whom were killed in the blast, to assure them that the world holds far more good than bad. The memorial site will encompass the footprint of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Fifth Street between Robinson and Harvey, the site of the Water Resources Building, and the Journal Record Building. Both Park Service and non-Park Service personnel will staff the memorial grounds and interpretive center on the site. The Memorial Trust, comprised of nine unpaid trustees, will administer the operation, maintenance, management, and interpretation of the memorial. While the thousands of family members and friends of those killed in the bombing will forever bear scars of having their loved ones taken away, the Oklahoma City National Memorial will revere the memory of those lost and venerate the bonds that drew us all closer together as a result. I welcome all Members to cosponsor this important piece of legislation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield at this point.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, first, I objected to the unanimous- consent consideration. My friend and colleague from North Dakota expected it. He knew I would do so. He basically tried to pass the bill as designed by one Senator. That is not the way the legislative body works. The way the legislative body works is that there are procedures. It goes through committees. Senators add amendments trying to influence the behavior of Congress, trying to influence the behavior of Government, trying to set policy. That is what happened in this bill. I might tell my colleague from North Dakota I did not vote for the bill anyway. I think this bill was not just a disaster bill. This bill grew, and it grew too much. The President submitted a bill in, I think, early May, for approximately $4 billion. This bill grew to over $9 billion. I voted against it. Now, the President vetoed the bill, and he vetoed it supposedly because Congress put in a provision that says if, for whatever reason, we do not get an appropriation bill passed by the end of September, we will continue operating at this year's level of funding. I happen to think that is a perfectly responsible thing to do. The President does not like it. Maybe some Democrats do not like it, I guess because they want to spend a lot more money than this year's level. I think it was a responsible thing to do so we would avoid a shutdown, so Government employees, Government agencies, everyone would know that if in the event we did not pass an appropriation bill, we could continue operating at this year's level. I think that is proper. They did not. The President vetoed the bill. I wish he had not vetoed it for that reason. If I was President, I would have vetoed it because it spent too much money. That is one of the reasons why we have divisions of power. We happen to be equal branches. We do not just write an appropriation bill just designed by the President. If so, we would not have a Congress. We would just let the President write the bill. But that is not the way the system works. We have equal branches of Government. So the President can submit his proposal, and then we will act on it. He vetoed it, and we have a couple of options. We can vote to override the veto--in all likelihood, we do not have the votes to override the veto, and so then we will work with colleagues to see if we can come up with a proposal that will pass and get his signature. And that is the proper way to do it. It is not the proper way to do it to try to pass it by unanimous consent, a bill designed by one Senator. I, for one, would object because I think it spends too much money not even related to the two objections that my colleague from North Dakota had outlined.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, what was the request?

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I understand my colleague did not like two provisions. Maybe the President did not like two provisions. It may well be the President will look at the rest of the bill and he will not like other provisions. My point being, we have two branches of Government, both equal, and the President can make a request and Congress disposes of it and he has the right to veto it. Evidently he has done that. I understand the majority leader of the Senate is trying to get in contact with him today and maybe some discussions will ensue. I also just happened to be looking at this report. The initial request was $4.5 billion in discretionary outlays. The committee report, the committee report as it came out of the Senate was $7.6 billion, so, in other words, $3 billion more than originally requested. The conference report, after it went to conference, was $8.6 billion. And if you add budget authority with the mandatory it was over $9.5 billion. So this, like a lot of urgent supplementals, grew, and many times they grow at the request of the administration. They did not make it in their initial request, but they asked for more money, and somebody else said, well, I think we should fund this and everyone was in agreement, both Democrats and Republicans, so we go ahead and fund it. What we wind up doing is we fund things in an urgent supplemental that, frankly, should be funded in the normal appropriations process. We should be in the process of passing normal appropriations bills now for next year so they do not have to be in the supplemental; we do not have to prefund them. We should fund it through the process. And I, for one, since evidently the President's vetoed this bill, hope we come in with a very streamlined, strictly urgent supplemental bill. And I, for one, have serious questions whether or not we should be funding Bosnia assistance in this. How can the Bosnia assistance be urgent? We have had the troops over there. We have known about it. You cannot say that is not expected. We have known the troops are over there. I know that they are raiding operation and maintenance accounts; they are drawing down those funds. We have underfunded defense in the past. But we have known we have had a significant peacekeeping force in Bosnia and we do not fund it. And so then we start saying, well, we need to fund it all of a sudden because we did not put enough money in for defense last time. We have known those troops are over there and should be funded. But the costs have risen significantly. We should get control of those costs. I have some reservations about whether or not we should have had those troops in the international peacekeeping force in the first place. The President puts them over there, underfunds them and asks us to bail him out with an urgent supplemental. I have some reservations about it. Mr. President, there is only two issues of dispute. One is on the census language, one is on whether or not we would have a continuing resolution to keep the Government open should we reach an impasse on appropriations. Just a couple of final comments. We have reached an impasse in appropriations the last 2 years, in 1995 and in 1996, prior to the last election. The way that was solved in 1996, prior to the election, was the President basically said I am going to shut Government down unless you give me a lot more money. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we succumbed to that temptation; we gave the President about $8.5 billion so we could get out of town. I hope we do not repeat that failure. Who was the real loser in that? Maybe Congressmen and Senators weren't, but I think the taxpayers lost. We wrote big checks. Discretionary spending really went up. It went up in some cases, Madam President, even more than the President requested so we could get out of town. I hope we do not replay that. So the essence of this continuing resolution was, if for whatever reason we have an impasse, let us at least continue operations at this year's level so we will avoid that disaster, so we will not have the curtailment, so we will not have the shutdown, and I still think it is good policy. I regret the President vetoing it for that reason. I think that was a mistake. He has that right to do it. I think it is important we follow constitutional procedures and keep in mind constitutional prerogatives. The President is President. He does not have the right to dictate every detail in an appropriation bill. He can veto every appropriation bill he does not like. I want to preserve that right. But likewise, we are an equal branch of Government and we have a right to put on language that a majority of Senators are supportive of. So I will work with my colleagues from North Dakota. I see another colleague, Senator Conrad, is here and wishes to speak on the issue, and I will not detain him. I know he has very strong feelings, as Senator Dorgan does, as well. And so I will work with my colleagues. Hopefully, we will be able to come up with another bill, one that will not cost taxpayers as much as the previous bill, and hopefully we will be able to break the impasse and provide needed relief in a timely manner. I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I object.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Jeffords], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Jeffords] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] is necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] would vote ``yea.''