Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Nickles pertaining to the introduction of S. 2060 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that would reverse President Clinton's recent District of Columbia welfare waiver which exempts the District of Columbia from the 5-year time limit for 10 years. It may shock our colleagues. President Clinton signed the welfare reform bill with a great deal of fanfare and said, ``We have ended welfare as we know it.'' What most people don't know is on the day he signed it, he signed a 10-year waiver for the District of Columbia, so it does not apply. The waiver will apply for 10 years. I am just amazed that he had the audacity to do that. I am somewhat amazed that a lot of people in the press, and maybe we in Congress, have not said much about it. Think of that. The cornerstone of the welfare reform bill was a bill with real time limits. I am quoting President Clinton. President Clinton said, ``We need to have real welfare reform, we need to end welfare as we know it, we need a bill with real teeth, a bill that has real time limits.'' What does he do on the same day? He signs the welfare bill. He gives a 10-year waiver, a 10-year exemption to the District of Columbia. It is interesting to note, he was able to grant the waiver within 14 days to the District of Columbia. He has had over 103 days to grant the waiver that was requested by the State of Wisconsin, which he mentioned in a political address on one of his Saturday morning addresses. He said, ``We need welfare reform like the State of Wisconsin. They have real workfare. They have time limits. We need to do it.'' It is interesting to note he has not granted that waiver yet. Maybe he made a speech and got some points for it, but the fact is, by his granting the DC waiver, maybe he is trying to placate some liberal people who did not like him signing the welfare reform bill. I do not know. But today, I am introducing legislation to reverse the 10-year exemption, or welfare waiver, that he granted to the District of Columbia. It basically says that any other waiver that would come forward must comply with the 5-year time limit on cash benefits that passed by an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate. Mr. President, I send that to the desk, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. It is my hope and it is my plan to pass this legislation before we go out of session this year.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that would reverse President Clinton's recent District of Columbia welfare waiver which exempts the District of Columbia from the 5-year time limit for 10 years. It may shock our colleagues. President Clinton signed the welfare reform bill with a great deal of fanfare and said, ``We have ended welfare as we know it.'' What most people don't know is on the day he signed it, he signed a 10-year waiver for the District of Columbia, so it does not apply. The waiver will apply for 10 years. I am just amazed that he had the audacity to do that. I am somewhat amazed that a lot of people in the press, and maybe we in Congress, have not said much about it. Think of that. The cornerstone of the welfare reform bill was a bill with real time limits. I am quoting President Clinton. President Clinton said, ``We need to have real welfare reform, we need to end welfare as we know it, we need a bill with real teeth, a bill that has real time limits.'' What does he do on the same day? He signs the welfare bill. He gives a 10-year waiver, a 10-year exemption to the District of Columbia. It is interesting to note, he was able to grant the waiver within 14 days to the District of Columbia. He has had over 103 days to grant the waiver that was requested by the State of Wisconsin, which he mentioned in a political address on one of his Saturday morning addresses. He said, ``We need welfare reform like the State of Wisconsin. They have real workfare. They have time limits. We need to do it.'' It is interesting to note he has not granted that waiver yet. Maybe he made a speech and got some points for it, but the fact is, by his granting the DC waiver, maybe he is trying to placate some liberal people who did not like him signing the welfare reform bill. I do not know. But today, I am introducing legislation to reverse the 10-year exemption, or welfare waiver, that he granted to the District of Columbia. It basically says that any other waiver that would come forward must comply with the 5-year time limit on cash benefits that passed by an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate. Mr. President, I send that to the desk, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. It is my hope and it is my plan to pass this legislation before we go out of session this year.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to respond to some of the statements that were made earlier today by some of our colleagues dealing with a variety of legislation, most important, the legislation that is called ENDA, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, that Senator Kennedy and some other people have alluded to. I heard comments such as, ``If this bill becomes law, employers will not be required to keep any information concerning sexual orientation.'' I totally disagree with this analysis. Granted, there is a section in ENDA that says no quotas, but also if you read the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to read the bill, if you look at section 11(A)(1), it grants to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the same powers with respect to sexual orientation it now has with respect to race, religion and sex. Under current law, employers are required to make, keep, and preserve records on their employment practices and to make reports to EEOC. That is under the United States Code 42, section 2000 e-8c. I read that code last Friday when we had the debate. I am amused, or interested, when people say, ``Well, that's just not factual. Employers, you won't have to do that.'' I am reading section 11(A) of the bill that says the EEOC has the same authority as currently under the Civil Rights Acts to require such records. So the net result is employers are going to have to find out what people's sexual orientation is. They are going to have to ask questions they never asked before that employers don't want to ask and employees don't want to be asked. They are going to have to ask those kinds of questions. Plus, people said, ``It is not really required. Disparate impact is not allowed to be considered under this bill. We're not going to allow disparate impact to be used.'' Well, how is an employer to defend himself or herself? If they are sued under the legislation--and sponsors of this bill do not deny they have the right to sue for punitive and compensatory damages--how is an employer able to prove they have not discriminated? They have to show they have employed homosexuals and bisexuals. How do they show that? They have to ask questions. That is their defense. It is the same defense employers have as far as race, as far as sex, as far as disability or age. They have to be able to show that is not their practice, they have not discriminated; therefore, they have employed people of whatever sexual orientation. So, for that defense, they are going to have to ask people, they are going to have to ask questions: ``What is your sexual orientation? Are you homosexual, are you bisexual, are you heterosexual,'' in order to defend themselves. Maybe some people don't agree with that, but I don't see any other way. So the net result of this legislation will require employers to ask questions about sexual orientation which are not desired by employees or by employers. Plus, Mr. President, I have heard people imply, ``Wait a minute, this is not a whole lot different than what several people in the Senate have signed on to, a statement put out by the Human Rights Campaign Fund which says: ``Sexual orientation is not a consideration in the hiring, promoting or terminating of employees in my office.'' And 66 Members of the Senate have signed this statement. I did not sign that statement, but I guess I could have, because it has never been a consideration in my office. I never asked anybody, I do not want to ask anybody what their sexual orientation is. I didn't sign it because I thought, well, what if a person who is leading a gay activist cause--and there are individuals like that and some are in Congress, and other people--if somebody who had a known propensity to be a very strong advocate of gay rights, I guess, if they came and asked for a job in my office, I don't think they would be compatible and, therefore, I wouldn't hire them. So I didn't sign that pledge. But I can see why Senators would. Basically, I could sign it. It has never, ever been any consideration in any of my employment decisions as a Senator or when I ran a manufacturing company in Oklahoma. But some people could interpret this language as the same as ``don't ask, don't tell.'' If you don't ask, they can't tell. It is not a consideration, so no big deal. But that is not what is underlying Senator Kennedy's bill. Under the bill that we have before us, ENDA would make it law of the land, ENDA would elevate sexual orientation to a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. What it would do is say if the school board, for example, did not want to hire a person who was openly homosexual or a gay activist and have that person be a teacher or a coach or physical education instructor, if they felt like that was an inappropriate type person to have as a role model, they are in trouble under this legislation because that school could be sued. That school board might want to take disciplinary action or might not want to employ a person who had that orientation as a role model or mentor to a grade school class. So they might say, ``We don't want to make that decision,'' and, frankly, they could be sued under this legislation. Recently, there was a case in West Virginia where a principal was found dressing in drag and actually soliciting sexual favors in West Virginia. It just happened a couple of days ago. Because the principal asked for money, it was in violation of the State's prostitution act and, therefore, illegal. But if he had not asked for money, you could have a person who would be cross-dressing and soliciting sex--and that might be their sexual orientation--and the school board could not take disciplinary action because of their sexual orientation if it is kept private. My point being, you could have a lot of repercussions that go beyond what individuals have thought about in this legislation. This legislation is not ``don't ask, don't tell.'' I look at this statement that many Senators signed. I think a lot of people thought, ``Hey, don't ask, don't tell. That's my policy. I'll stick by it.'' That is not what we will ask if this proposed bill became law. ENDA would elevate sexual orientation to a much higher level, giving Federal protection and sanction, almost a Federal acceptance to promiscuity. You might say, how would that be? The legislation says you cannot discriminate on account of someone's sexual orientation as defined by ``homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual.'' It does not say by individual conduct that is done in monogamous relationships in private. So you might have a homosexual or heterosexual that is very promiscuous, with lots and lots of partners, and a company or an individual or an organization, maybe with somewhat of a religious orientation or moral commitment, finds that behavior very repulsive. If such individual or organization did not want to hire such a person or continue their employment, they would find themselves subject to suit. If ENDA passes, the Federal Government will say: Wait a minute. You can't make any distinctions no matter what your religious beliefs are. You can't make any distinction on account of a person's sexual orientation. ``Bisexual'' by definition means promiscuous, having relations with both male and female. We are going to give that a Federal preferred protected status under this legislation. I think that is a serious mistake. What about that school board in West Virginia? What about a school board in Montana? What about a school board making decisions like this in Alabama where maybe this small community says we do not think we should have avowed open homosexual leaders, gay activists, as teachers in the fifth grade? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. First, I wish to compliment the Senator from Kansas for her statement and also Senator Hatch for his statement as well. Mr. President, No. 1, I did not expect this debate this morning. This debate is the result of the unanimous-consent agreement that was entered into last night. I supported that agreement. So we will be voting on this bill and we will be voting on the Defense of Marriage Act on Tuesday. So at least we will be able to bring up and dispose of two pieces of legislation. I believe the legislation that we are debating this morning called ENDA, Employment Nondiscrimination Act, introduced by Senator Kennedy and others, is a very significant piece of legislation. I happen to disagree with it. I happen to think it is a very dangerous piece of legislation. I am pleased it is not going to be offered as an amendment to the Defense of Marriage Act. I perceived it as a killer amendment. In all likelihood, if it had been adopted on the Defense of Marriage Act, it would have killed it. So I viewed it as an attempt to defeat the Defense of Marriage Act. So I am pleased that we are at least reviewing it or considering it separately. Mr. President, this is not an easy subject to talk about, not an easy subject for most of us, because we do not talk about it very often. We are talking about amending the Civil Rights Act and adding sexual orientation to the list of items now under the Civil Rights Act which have protection. We state under the Civil Rights Act there should be no discrimination on account of gender, on account of race, on account of your ethnic background, or disabilities or age or religion, and now if this amendment becomes law, we would add sexual orientation, and ``sexual orientation'' would be defined as homosexuality and bisexuality and heterosexuality. It actually would elevate homosexuality and bisexuality as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Many, many people across America, because of their backgrounds--and maybe that background is a Jewish background or Christian background or Muslim background--have religious beliefs that homosexuality or bisexuality or promiscuity is immoral. To elevate that type of conduct into a protected status or class under the Civil Rights Act I think would be offensive. What would be the result? Senator Kassebaum and Senator Hatch mentioned the fact that it would certainly bring about a lot of litigation. There is no question about that. A lot of individuals and a lot of firms would be sued based on sexual orientation claims if this bill becomes law. There are exemptions under the bill, and appropriately so. Do we really want to say that people should be sued because they have religious convictions that go back to the Bible, or go back to their Muslim tenets or beliefs or their Koran, all of which say that this behavior is wrong? If they believe that in their hearts, and they do not want to have that conduct in their office or in their place of employment, should they be sued? Now, we are talking about real life situations. I do not doubt that there has been some discrimination, unwarranted, in many cases. I do not find that right. I heard somebody say nine States, including the State of Massachusetts, have laws that prohibit discrimination on account of sexual orientation. Fine, I do not care if each and every State does, if that is that State's choice. If 9 States have done it that means 41 States have not. Maybe those 41 States will. They have the right to enact such laws. I would not step in their way one iota if the State wishes to make that decision. They can reverse it if they do not like that decision. That is their right. To elevate discrimination on account of sexual orientation and make it national and to make it a protected class under the Civil Rights Act I think would be a serious, serious mistake and one that we should not do. What would be the result? I mentioned the litigation. What would be the practical result? I think if some organizations said they did not want to have openly gay or homosexual people as role models or mentors for young people--Boy Scouts come to mind; maybe other organizations, churches, then they should not have to hire them. I guess there is an exemption for churches and religious organizations that are nonprofit. Where do you draw the line at a church? If you leave church on a Sunday morning at noon, does that mean you are no longer affiliated with the church? A lot of us think of church as a body of believers and we do not believe it is just a building you attend once a week. If you have heartfelt convictions and beliefs should you, once you step out of church, be forced to hire someone whose sexual orientation offends you? What about somebody that believes they are part of a body of followers of Christ, or maybe of Jewish belief, and tenets that they believe in, 7 days a week 24 hours a day? Do you have to leave those beliefs at home? Do you have to check those beliefs at the door when you leave church? There is an exemption for churches. What about a Christian bookstore, for example? A Christian bookstore for profit does not fall under the exemption. So here you have a business with very strongly felt convictions, but it is a for-profit Christian bookstore, Jewish bookstore, or Muslim bookstore they would be liable to be sued if they did not hire somebody who was openly gay. That may be very reprehensible to them and their basic beliefs, yet they can be sued. What about the Boy Scouts? They have had a policy not to have homosexual Scoutmasters and they have been sued--they have been sued even without having sexual orientation included under the Civil Rights Act, and yet they are in court and have been in court, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to maintain their policy. They do not want to have openly gay homosexuals as their Scoutmasters and leaders and employees in their organization. Now, sexual orientation is not even included in the Civil Rights Act and yet they still have been sued. They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending their right to maintain their policy. Under at least the original Kennedy legislation that was introduced that policy would have to be changed or they would be sued. Somebody informed me there was an amendment added in the last couple of days to try to correct this. I am not sure it would correct this. They were being sued before consideration of this legislation. My guess is they will be sued after this legislation, should it become law. I am hopeful and optimistic it will not become law. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes

Mr. NICKLES. Ten minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. What about a public school? They have contact with kids. They are not exempt under this legislation, as I understand it. Say you have kids, and a homosexual or bisexual grade school teacher, maybe that is fine in some schools in some districts, because it is very acceptable, but in some areas it might not be. Take, for example, a school board in rural Alabama finds out their fifth grade teacher is an open homosexual, or it is well-known that this person is a homosexual, he admitted it to the school board. They inquired and he said that he has had relations with lots of people. Maybe he is bisexual. This bill covers or protects bisexuals. Maybe he had relations not only with his wife but has several boyfriends or something like that. The school board says that is not really the type of leadership mentor that they want to have in a school official, coach, or somebody who is working with kids. So that is not acceptable behavior. Under this bill, as I see it, the school board could be sued. Maybe just the threat of the suit would prohibit the school board from taking such action. Do we really want to do that? Do we want to interfere with the school boards in rural Alabama, West Virginia, Montana, or Iowa? Do we really want to mandate it? If those States want to do it, more power to them, let them do it. But do we really want to give the level of protection, special protection, under the Civil Rights Act--I do not think that is wise--and open that school board up to unbelievable litigation or open that Christian bookstore up to litigation and say, ``Sorry, you did not fall under the exemptions. You are a for-profit Christian bookstore.'' Therefore, tough luck if you do not hire this person even though they might be wearing a T-shirt that says ``I am gay and proud of it and let's make love,'' you would have to hire them. You are subjected to unbelievable litigation, punitive damages--not just compensatory damage, but punitive damages. Then I heard my colleagues say this bill has no quotas. I read that section. It says there is no quotas. Wait a minute. Under the Civil Rights Act, the EEOC is charged with enforcing it and they are able to collect data. Senator Hatch mentioned this and he is far more knowledgeable than I. They have to collect data. If someone files a suit against a company and says, ``You did not hire me because I was openly gay,'' and that company says, ``Well, that was not the real reason why we did not, and we have hired gays in the past.'' And they say, ``Well, how do I prove it?'' You have to prove it. How do you prove it? You have to survey your employees to make sure you can stand up on your argument and say we do not have that policy, we have never discriminated against gays. The employer has never asked anybody but all of a sudden now somebody came in that was openly gay and you did not hire them and they say that is the reason why you did not hire them, so for your defense you have to prove that you have hired gays in the past. Now you have to survey your employees. You never had to do that before. Now you have to survey every employee. What is your sexual orientation? None of your business. Employers do not want to ask that question. I have employed a lot of people. I have never asked that question, would not dream of asking that question. Yet now for a defense to prove that you were not discriminating if this should become law, to prove you were not discriminating on account of sexual orientation, you are going to have to defend yourself. So now you have to prove that you have hired some homosexuals or bisexuals even though you did not even know it, it was not your business, you did not care, you do not want to get involved in their private lives. But to protect yourself from this litigation you would have to make those decisions. Let me give you a couple of other examples. In my days as an employer, I had a sales force. Sales people spend a lot of time together. They go on the road together. They travel together. They go to conventions together. They spend weeks together. What if an employer found out this person is a good salesman, has a good reputation, but he openly admits that he is bisexual. Now, that may be fine in some sales organizations but in some other sales organizations it will not be very popular. It will not be very popular. It will not be very popular with some of the spouses, maybe male and female. If an employer says, ``Well, no, that person really will not fit into our organization. We do not think we should have promiscuous people in our sales team because of the time spent away from home, the time and travel, so I think that as a policy we will not do that.'' You say, wait a minute, this bill does not protect that. Wait a minute, this bill protects homosexuals and bisexuals. The very definition of bisexual means you are promiscuous. You are having sex with males and females. Bisexuals are protected under this bill. That employer, if you decided not to hire that person because they were bisexual, you are on very thin ice. You are going to be sued, and not only sued and required to give the person their job back, but sued for punitive damages as well--unbelievable litigation expenses. You could go on. I have a daughter that is a cheerleader. She attends cheerleading camp. Now, I thought, wait a minute, that is not school and it is for profit, they make money off of it. I actually have a daughter that worked for such a camp, the National Cheerleaders Association, this summer. A bunch of youngsters worked with a bunch of high school kids. These kids and their teachers and coaches are mentors. Now, maybe the person who owns this company is a Christian, maybe they are not, or maybe they are Jewish. Maybe they have religious beliefs that they would rather not hire openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual people as coaches or leaders. Fine. If they have that policy, that personal conviction from their religious background or their beliefs, and they don't want to hire somebody who is openly gay or bisexual, or lesbian, so they don't hire them, then somebody might say, ``Wait a minute, you didn't hire me because I was bisexual; therefore, I am going to sue you.'' What about the individuals sending those kids to that camp? I think they would have a very legitimate complaint. That employer should not be forced to hire somebody that is bisexual if they feel like they don't want to, and if it would interfere with the role model or image they are trying to portray in their company. What about a day care center? What about that? If somebody says, well--I guess if it is a nonprofit religious-affiliated day care center, like the First Baptist Day Care Center in South Dakota, they will be exempt. But what if you have one that makes money and they are for profit, but maybe they have a religious affiliation and want to have a real positive family image, and they really don't want to have activist gay, lesbian, or bisexual teachers or employees teaching the kids? I am afraid, under this legislation, they could be sued. As a matter of fact, they could be sued. People need to know that. I know a lot of people, when they think of gays and lesbians, they think of individuals they know that are monogamous, and they are great employees, super people to work with, very productive. I know that. But there are also a lot of very active people, who work to pursue an activist agenda, and they would like to use the courts, as they have in many ways, to pursue their agenda. That is the reason why they are suing the Boy Scouts. That is the reason why they have sued in the State of Hawaii. We will talk about that on Tuesday, to try to define marriage, and about allowing same-sex partners. So there are many people who are very active who use the courts and, in some cases, abuse the courts, to pursue a very radical agenda. I am afraid this legislation, if we add sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act, will help them a lot. We have elevated what many, many people believe, because of their religious convictions in their heart, to be immoral acts--we will have elevated that to a protected special status under the Civil Rights Act if we add sexual orientation defined as homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual. If we add that to the Civil Rights Act, Mr. President, I think we are making a serious mistake. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment on Tuesday. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to thank our colleague from Georgia for his statement. He mentioned the fact that he was an employer and he did not ask questions in the past concerning people's sexual orientation. I have been an employer. I never asked that question. I do not want to ask that question. I am afraid if this bill became law, you would have to ask that question. Looking at the statutes under title VII, it talks about the power of the EEOC to conduct investigations under section 2000e-8. It basically says: ``Every employer, employment agency * * * subject to this subchapter shall''--not ``may''--``shall (1) make and keep such records relevant to the determinations of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, (2) preserve such records for such periods, and (3) make such reports therefrom as the Commission shall prescribe by regulation or orders thereunder.'' And so on. In other words, the EEOC is going to say keep records. They now have to keep records. Employers have to keep records on their employment practices, on people they hire, on their race, on their sex, on their gender, and now we would include sexual orientation. What does that mean? It means employers are going to have to ask their employees, ``What is your sexual orientation? Are you a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual?'' I can envision some of the people I used to work with in a particular machine shop, and you might be punched out for asking that question. I mean, that is really none of your business. And yet, now the Government would be asking, I believe in compliance with this EEOC, to keep those records. Sponsors of this bill will say, well, we do not have quotas, but frankly the records, I think, are going to be asked for. I think that is very intrusive. Then are you going to ask somebody, wait a minute; we found out here you have 100 employees and nobody said that they were homosexual because maybe that would not be well received in the particular place of employment. Maybe that is not true. Are you going to go back to people and say, wait a minute; we want you to tell the truth because we are afraid we might be sued, and we have to prove we have people that are homosexual or bisexual, in other words, to prove we were not discriminating. So you are going to ask people again, wait a minute; we heard you are * * * This is very intrusive, big Government coming in, meddling in areas that it has no business asking questions about, it should not be asking about. I hope our colleagues are aware of it. I want to touch on the Boy Scouts. Sponsors of this bill have said, that they are excluding the Boy Scouts. Boy Scouts have been sued without this bill becoming the law, without sexual orientation being added to the civil rights statutes or protections. They have been sued because of their policies, because they did not want to have open homosexuals as Scoutmasters. That is present law, a present suit. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. You have a lot of organizations that maybe are not the Boy Scouts but also work with young people that would like to maintain a similar type of policy of having role models that are not avowed or open homosexuals or bisexuals and yet they would be sued. One comment, on exempting Christian organizations. This bill does not exempt Christian for-profit organizations. If you have a Christian bookstore and you are trying to sell something in Scottsdale, AZ, sell books in your Christian bookstore, and you have somebody come in that is openly gay, maybe it is written on their T-shirt or somehow it is very much communicated and you do not want to hire them, you are subject to suit. You can be sued not only for compensatory damages but for punitive damages. The big hand of the Federal Government will come in and say, ``Mr. Employer of XYZ Christian bookstore or Jewish bookstore, you must employ this person even though their sexual orientation is very contradictory to your personal and religious convictions. You must employ them or you can be sued.'' I find that very offensive. I hope we will not go so far as to do that. I am afraid that is exactly what we would do if we pass this bill. I understand some of the motivation that some of the people have. I think this debate has been conducted very well. I just want to say that people who oppose this legislation I do not believe are bigoted. I think they are trying to protect an individual's right to protect their religious convictions and organizations--organizations like the Boy Scouts, organizations like a cheerleading camp or a children's camp or a day care center, or Christian bookstore. We want to at least protect their right that if they want to make sure they have role models who are not bisexual or openly homosexual amongst kids and so on, they would have the right to have that and maintain their policies, without the big hand of the Federal Government coming in and saying, ``No, you are subjected to not only compensatory damages but punitive damages and all the legal fees that would come with that.'' I urge my colleagues when we vote on Tuesday to please vote ``no'' on this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, am I correct that when we are talking about the Defense of Marriage Act on Tuesday, that will be a vote on final passage as well?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. NICKLES. Also, does the request say ``up to 4 hours''?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I was not going to object. The Senator from South Dakota can object if he wants to. I think 4 hours is too long. I think if we have an interest in passing this bill, we need to move forward on several amendments and we need to move forward expeditiously. Four hours on one amendment does not seem appropriate if that is our goal and objective to finish. If people want to string it out, I do not doubt we could spend all day on an amendment and probably spend all day on several amendments, but that does not finish the bill and does not get the work done. We happen to have five appropriations bills that we need to finish just through the Senate. Again, this Senator is not going to object to the request. But I think all Senators are going to have to realize, if they have an amendment on the list and they really desire to bring it up--and I know there are some amendments on there that people do not intend to offer, and I hope that is the case--we need to shorten our sights, make speeches maybe later in the evening or something, but move forward expeditiously on these amendments, vote on the amendments and dispose of them. I shall not object to the unaminous-consent.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I just ask the managers of the bill, if we spend 4 hours on this amendment--and there are a dozen amendments pending, or something like that--it certainly is our hope we could finish the bill today. If we are going to spend 4 hours on one amendment, that does not make that look very likely. I do not understand why it would take 4 hours. I do not understand why it would take more than an hour.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], would vote ``yea''.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. It has now been more than a year since the tragic and senseless bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Last year, this Congress, with the support of the administration, approved $39 million in disaster relief specifically for the recovery of Oklahoma City. This funding was for community development assistance to repair public and private facilities damaged by the blast. For that I, along with the people of Oklahoma, am grateful. In the aftermath of this disaster, a full evaluation of its impact on downtown Oklahoma City indicates that if the area is to adequately recover, additional Federal assistance is needed. To this end, I asked the Appropriations Committee in May to consider supplementing last year's funding to cover additional damage claims plus loan and grant funds to assist businesses as they re-enter the damaged area. The administration, while not officially requesting these funds, has indicated its support for the additional funding during recent discussions with Oklahoma City officials. The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has worked with me in trying to accommodate this request. Can he assure me that he will continue this cooperative effort to meet these ongoing needs arising from the bombing?

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''