Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) and are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I compliment my colleague for making the point of order, and I wish to join him in that point.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question concerning the cleanup at the Pentagon or at the World Trade Center? They are still cleaning up. Under the Senator's amendment, would that still be classified as a terrorist center, and, therefore, they would still be exempt? If the cleanup lasted a year, would the cleanup crews be exempt from taxation for a year?

Mr. NICKLES. I yield my colleague the remainder of my time, the 22 seconds in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining on this side?

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act against the pending amendment No. 2714 for exceeding the spending allocations of the Senate Committee on Finance.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague. I say to my colleagues who said they wanted to speak on the amendment, we will now have a vote on the Bond-Collins amendment at 12:35. If they still wish to speak, they need to be coming to the Chamber shortly. I thank my friend from Nevada.

Mr. NICKLES. I will not object to that.

Mr. NICKLES. If my memory serves me correctly, the Daschle amendment has an unemployment extension of 13 weeks, and that is about $8 billion, I believe. The cost of this is $15 billion. This amendment costs a lot of money, as can be expected, because when we hear people say it is going to benefit thousands of our constituents, from where is the money coming? It is coming from the Federal Government. This is primarily a State program. We have to decide: Are we going to have the Federal Government take over State management of this program? That is what we are doing with this amendment. This amendment determines what quarter or what eligibility period. In the past, States have always determined that. So we are going to tell every Governor: You are going to have to use the last quarter. We have not done that in the past. We are going to tell them: This is the quarter to use to determine eligibility and, incidentally, States, you could have provided assistance to temporary workers if you so chose, but now we are telling you you have to provide that assistance. How do we define ``temporary''? My daughter is a senior at Oklahoma State University. She works X number of hours a week. That is temporary. It is not 40 hours a week; it is less than 40 hours. Is she eligible? I think she would be. She might be very displeased with my vote in just a moment. This amendment costs a lot of money. A temporary worker is going to be eligible to receive the same weekly benefits as a full-time worker. Weekly benefits in New York are a whole lot more than in Oklahoma or a whole lot more than in North Dakota. In some States, unemployment benefits are as low as $105 and some are $400. I believe New York is closer to $400, and I believe some States are only over $100. Yet we are going to tell those States not only that they have to increase their benefit by at least 15 percent and/or $25, whichever is greater but, yes, now it applies to temporary employees. Do those temporary employees work 10 hours a week, 20 hours a week, 4 hours a week? How far are we going to go in micromanaging who is eligible? We are going to take a program primarily financed by the States-- States have always determined eligibility; States have always determined benefits--and we are going to adjust those figures and say Uncle Sam is going to pick it all up and it is going to cost $15 billion. I have serious reservations about that. I do not know that my daughter who is working part time to go to school should be qualifying for unemployment compensation. I do not think that is right. If the Federal Government assists her if she gets a student loan to go to school, that is one way. I do not think the unemployment system is the way we should be financing full-time students through part-time work. I think she would be eligible under this proposal. I do not think that is right. I do not think it is right for us to use the guise of a so-called stimulus package and say let's just expand the program greatly beyond what most States have done. Most States do not pay unemployment compensation for part-time workers. They decided that. They have a State legislature. They meet on this issue. They know how much it costs, and yet we are going to do it very quickly and there are probably not three Senators who know how much this will cost. We are going to tell the States they have to do it. I think it is a serious mistake. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. To alert my colleagues, I am going to make a budget point of order after the conclusion of the debate. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Grassley, for his statement. I will make a couple of points and echo some of the things he said. One point my colleague did not mention was how much this is going to cost. I have heard some people say this will cost $8 billion. I have heard other estimates that it will cost $10 billion. I ask my colleague from Illinois, is that $15 billion in addition to the underlying amendment or $15 billion total? He is indicating it is in addition. Am I correct, in addition? I do not know, and I will ask my colleague from Illinois if we have a CBO estimate on the cost of the amendment. I have not seen it.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would each vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I understand there are a couple more people on our side who wish to debate the issue. The chairman of the Finance Committee just suggested 30 minutes on each side. I know the Senator is also trying to work this around the two lunches. If he could modify his request and have 30 minutes on each side, that would be great.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I wish to compliment my colleagues, Senators Collins and Bond, for their leadership and persistence in saying, let's get something in this bill to help create jobs. Both Senators Bond and Collins have spoken of the growth in small business and the need for small business to be able to grow. This particular provision will create jobs. I compliment them. I don't see much in the underlying proposal that will create jobs. This one will create jobs because small business will be able to expense more items up to $40,000. For a person who has a small business that may have a few employees, that is a big deal. I used to have a janitor's service. It was my wife and myself and a few other people. If you allow me to expense everything, I don't have to amortize all the equipment I am purchasing because, frankly, it is less than $40,000. You get to expense it. You get to write it off when you write the check. Instead of spreading it out over several years, instead of taking 3, 5, 8 years to recoup your investments, you can recoup it in the year that you made the investment. That is a big deal for small business. Most of the jobs that will be created this year will be in small business. It is not going to be General Motors or in the big corporations, it is going to be in small business. You are saying, let's expense up to $40,000, an improvement from $24,000. It is an excellent amendment. It will help small business. By helping small business, we will be able to create more jobs. I thank both of my colleagues for their leadership. I believe this amendment is going to pass. I compliment them for that. This is one of the few things we have seen that will actually stimulate the economy. We have seen a lot of proposals. Let's write more checks, let's give people money who didn't pay taxes, expand unemployment compensation, pay people more not for working. This is a proposal that says, let's create an environment that will create jobs so people won't need unemployment compensation, so they won't be asking more from the Government. They will be getting a job. I thank my colleagues for their excellent proposal. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would each vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) would each vote ``aye.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and ask consent to call up amendment No. 2702 on behalf of Senator Allen.

Mr. NICKLES. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the number of that amendment?

Mr. NICKLES. Is there an amendment pending by Senator Allen?

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent this be the next Republican amendment filed in the normal course of business.

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Bond, Senators Collins, Enzi, Allen, and Senator Nickles.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague. The committee has done a wonderful job on district court judges, and I urge them to consider some of the circuit court nominees.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleagues from Vermont and Utah for their comments. On the issue of judges, I think the Senate, and particularly with the leadership of both Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch, did very well on district court judges. We moved a total of 28 judges last year, and 2 now, so that is 30 judges we have confirmed this Congress, 6 of whom were circuit court judges and the rest were district court judges. So I compliment them. The percentage of district court judges has been a good percentage for the number who were nominated through the summer. So that was good. On circuit court judges, the record is not quite so good. We have confirmed six. President Bush has nominated 29. I comment to the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee, there are 23 circuit court judges, only 1 of whom has had a hearing. In the 23 who are pending, there are some outstanding nominees. For example, Miguel Estrada is a native Honduran who came to the United States. He graduated top of his class from Columbia and Harvard Law School. He has argued 16 cases before the Supreme Court. I hope we have a hearing for him. He was nominated in May, so I again ask the chairman of the committee, before he leaves--before he leaves, I wanted to again compliment him for the work he has done on district court judges. I think we have made good progress, but on circuit court judges there are 23 who are pending, 1 of whom has had a hearing, Judge Pickering, but of the 22 who have not had a hearing, several are outstanding, many of whom were nominated in May. I believe eight were nominated in May. I urge my friend and colleague to take a look at such outstanding individuals. I mentioned Miguel Estrada, John Roberts. Miguel Estrada argued 16 cases before the Supreme Court; John Roberts, also for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, argued 36 cases before the Supreme Court. Undoubtedly, they are two of the most well-qualified individuals anywhere in the country. They have yet to have a hearing scheduled. I say thank you. The Senator has moved all of the district court judges from Oklahoma. I am pleased about that. All four were sworn in and will be good consensus judges. I ask and urge my colleague to move forward as quickly as possible on the 23 circuit court nominees, schedule their hearings, and see if we cannot move some of those nominees through as soon as possible.