Don Nickles

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), is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Under the agreement you are about to propound, we will have a cloture vote at 4 o'clock. I am assuming we will still consider agriculture-related amendments until 4 o'clock.

Mr. NICKLES. May we have an agreement that we will alternate? We only have 3 hours to do amendments. I don't know if cloture will be invoked, but if it is invoked, that will preclude a great number of amendments. May we have an understanding that we will alternate between Democrats and Republicans?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to add to some of the statements that were made, I compliment my friend. He has assisted this Senator, and he has assisted other Senators, particularly on district court judges. If my numbers are correct, I believe we are now at 27 judges confirmed, which equals the number of judges that were confirmed in President Clinton's first year. President Clinton, nominated 47 individuals for judicial positions, and the Senate confirmed 27 of those in his first year. President Bush has made 64 judicial nominations at a time when there are a great number of vacancies. We have now confirmed 27, and I hope we will confirm some more. I say to my friend and colleague from Vermont, we have done pretty well on district court judges. However, we are way behind on circuit judges. President Bush nominated eleven circuit court judges in May. Of those eleven, eight have not even had a hearing. One of these nominees is Miguel Estrada, who is a Honduras immigrant who graduated with honors from Columbia and graduated at the top of his law school class from Harvard. Another is John Roberts, again a Harvard Law School grad. Among his many accomplishments, Mr. Roberts has argued 34 cases before the Supreme Court. I might also mention that Mr. Estrada has argued 14 cases before the Supreme Court. Both nominees are eminently qualified. I wonder if my friend and colleague from Vermont can tell us when we will begin considering or having hearings on some of these exceptionally qualified individuals, both rated unanimously well qualified by the ABA and who have bipartisan support, who were nominated in May of this year?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator be kind enough to add me as a cosponsor?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, a couple of comments: I appreciate Senator McCain's comments, the former chairman of the Commerce Committee, which deals with transportation. This also will potentially cost billions of dollars. We have bills where we wrestle every year or so on how we are going to allocate airport improvement funds. That is not on the Department of Defense bill. We have bills where we wrestle with how airport construction money is going to be allocated. Some airports get a lot, and maybe other airports will get a lot less. Those are decisions we make. That is fine. I am not an expert on that. That is not my committee. But it is also not the committee for the Department of Defense. I urge my colleagues, I don't think we have to get in a trance, and say I am for this and not for that. I don't think now is the time to make that decision. Let us make that decision when we are considering all airports and when O'Hare is debated and we are wrestling with other competing airports. We will have airport needs, demands, security, and a lot of challenges for all airports that we will be considering. To make one decision now say: Well, we favor basically greatly expanding Chicago against the will of one of the Senators from Illinois, and against the will of many of the Congressmen from Illinois, to do that on a Department of Defense bill is a mistake. I may well join my colleague from Illinois in support of this project when I know more about it. But I don't want to know more about it tonight. I want to finish the Department of Defense appropriations bill. I don't think we should ask Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens to be totally knowledgeable about a multibillion-dollar, multiyear project and try to resolve this issue in conference when they really need to be working on the Department of Defense bill. If this is germane, I guess we could probably offer it on the energy bill that Senator Murkowski has been working on for a long time. Maybe we should be considering that. When are we going to show some discipline around here so we can finish our work? I urge my colleague to maybe discuss the amendment a little bit further, and withdraw it, or possibly get a commitment from the chairman of the authorizing committee to have a hearing and to report a bill out so the Senate can consider it. I may well cosponsor the bill. I just do not think it belongs on this bill tonight. We have done this too many times where we get in the business of: Well, the year is running late, and I have something that I haven't completed on my agenda. I want to put it on even if it doesn't belong on the bill. This does not belong on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to withdraw the amendment and save all of us a lot of time. Hopefully, we can consider it when we are better prepared to consider aviation issues, do it through the appropriate committees, give it a fair hearing, give everybody a chance to find out what the impact would be on all the other airports in the country, and make the appropriate decisions. Maybe it would be a strongly supported position with which we could all be very comfortable. I am not comfortable with making multibillion-dollar decisions on airports tonight on a Department of Defense bill.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I yield for a question.

Mr. NICKLES. Yes.

Mr. NICKLES. I am not familiar with the exact paragraph the Senator is talking about. I have already heard somebody say this might be a germaneness paragraph. But I am not trying to raise a technical point of order. My point is this is not a commerce bill. This is not a Transportation appropriations bill.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), is necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I make a general comment. I am not aware of the details of the amendment offered by our friend from Illinois. However, I am not aware this is a transportation bill. I thought we were on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. I don't see why this amendment is on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. It may be a good amendment. My colleague and friend from Iowa spoke on behalf of it. I see my other colleague from Iowa is getting ready to speak. My colleague from Illinois has some reservations about it and is opposed to it. I don't know any of the details, to say it should pass or not pass, except I believe it does not belong on this bill. It is 6:30 on a Friday night. Some Members have responsibilities and want to finish this bill. We want to finish all the appropriation bills. Now, if this was relevant, it should have been in the Transportation appropriations bill. It should have come out of the authorizing committee, from the Commerce Committee. This is not a transportation bill. This is not an air transportation bill. This is not a bill that came out of the Commerce Committee. This is the Defense appropriations bill. I know there are very strong opinions. I was contacted by my colleague and friend from the House, Congressman Hyde. He strongly opposes this particular amendment and opposes it being added to the Department of Defense appropriations bill. I do not know enough about the legislation. I know it can cost billions and billions of dollars. So I would like it to have not just a signoff on behalf of the Governor and mayor but maybe go through the authorizing committees and the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee rather than having it thrown out late at night on a Friday, thinking maybe we can run this through and authorize billions of dollars or begin the process to authorize billions on a Department of Defense bill. I have the greatest respect in the world for Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens who will be chairman and ranking member on the Department of Defense bill, but I doubt they know very much about Chicago O'Hare Airport. Yet to entrust them and make them deal with this issue in conference is a mistake. I urge my colleague and friend from Illinois to withdraw this amendment, bring it back either as an independent item, as reported out of the Commerce Committee, using regular order, or to bring it up in an appropriations bill, through the appropriations process, in committee, on the Transportation bill, not on the Department of Defense bill. I am happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. I share the concerns of Senator Inhofe and I, too, believe that we need to fully fund the program. The Crusader is meeting performance tests; it is on schedule and on budget. We must address the funding requirements in conference.

Mr. NICKLES. You said I wanted to put it off and put it off. That is not what I said. I said I would urge my colleague to withdraw the amendment, have it go through the Commerce Committee, bring it up in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation; go through the regular process. I may well support it. I go through Chicago all the time. I am just concerned about us reallocating the airport improvement funds on a Department of Defense bill. I think that is a mistake. I am not wanting to get into the details of whether or not my colleague from Illinois is right. I may want to support the project at some time, but it just does not belong on this bill.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am concerned about the funding reductions to the Crusader program, and the impact that may have on the procurement of long lead items for the Crusader. The Crusader is an important new weapon system for the Army and we should not do anything that could delay this important program during this critical time that we are now in.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, first I wish to compliment our colleagues for this debate, and particularly Senator Stevens. It is not easy when one takes on the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I have great respect for my friend and colleague from West Virginia. I do not happen to agree with him on this particular issue. I agree with him on a lot of issues. This is not one I agree with him on, and I will state why. I have heard some colleagues imply if we do not support this, we are not in favor of New York, or we are not in favor of rebuilding, and I just totally disagree with that. I think every one of us wants to help New York, wants to help Virginia, wants to help our country, wants to provide for national security, wants to provide for a defense bill. I am trying to look at where we are in regard to helping New York and helping our national defense. We have to have a bill that is going to be signed by the President of the United States. I read the President's statement of policy, and it does not equivocate. It says if the final bill presented to the President exceeds either of the agreed-upon spending levels, the President will veto the bill--the spending levels of $686 billion that he agreed to. And I might mention he increased that spending level to get an agreement. He had an agreement with Members of Congress, Democrats, and Republicans. I might mention the Democrats in the House insisted he put it in writing. It was put in writing on October 2. That agreement was for $686 billion in discretionary spending. That was for a growth level of over 7 percent. The President agreed with that. Subsequent to that, the President agreed to an emergency spending bill of $40 billion. I might mention we were marking up the bill--I am sure my colleague from West Virginia remembers this--and the bill was $20 billion. At one time, some people were saying maybe it should be less than that, but it was at $20 billion. Then our colleagues from New York and the Governor and the mayor of New York prevailed upon the President to make the $20 billion $40 billion. So in one afternoon, in a period of hours, right before the very day we were passing the emergency assistance bill, it was $40 billion. That bill was passed unanimously. It was done in a bipartisan fashion. We all agreed, let us make it $40 billion. We were basically saying let us work together on this. I questioned whether or not at that time it needed to be $40 billion. I was saying, why do we not do $20 billion now, and if we need another $20 billion, we will do it? But we all agreed, let us do $40 billion. We had a significant discussion about how that first $20 billion would be controlled, and we agreed basically $10 billion at the President's discretion, the other $10 billion the President would submit his request to the appropriators and they would sign off on it. They had 15 days to do that. Then we said the additional $20 billion would be subject to a separate appropriations bill, and that is what we have in the Department of Defense bill. Some people might be wondering why this is being done in the Defense bill in the first place. It did not have to be in Defense. We just said it will be in a subsequent bill. It could have been an independent bill or it could have been in an appropriations bill. So that is the $20 billion. The President agreed with that. Both parties agreed with that, and it was passed. That is all we have agreed on. The President says that is enough for now. The President said he is willing to make whatever considerations are needed in the future. The President's letter also said the administration spent less than 16 percent of the $40 billion designated by Congress to respond to the September 11 attacks. Yet some people are saying let us make the $40 billion $55 billion, even though we have only spent 16 percent of the original $40 billion. I think that is moving a little aggressively, maybe a little too fast, and maybe not giving us a chance to figure out the cleanup costs. Both Senator Stevens' bill and Senator Byrd's bill have a lot of money for FEMA. I do not know, and I do not know that anybody knows, how much FEMA is going to need for cleanup costs for Virginia and New York, but we are paying every bill that FEMA has been requested to pay. I contacted the mayor's office in New York City and they said every single bill they have submitted to this administration has been paid within 5 days. That was from the mayor's office as recently as a few days ago. So if every bill has been paid, they are making good on their commitment. Why not give the administration a chance to look at the total costs. Governor Ridge was appointed to be head of this task force. We give him enormous responsibility. Let him make recommendations. Then we will consider those recommendations. I am sure we will pass almost all of them. We may modify them. We have that right. To say we will preempt and move ahead, we are wasting our time. The President says he will veto it. I tell my friends, we have the vote to sustain the veto; why go through this exercise? Finally, some have implied we are not doing anything for the victims in New York. This disaster happened September 11 and it is December 6 and we have not enacted legislation. Let me correct that. At least compare it to what we did in Oklahoma City. We had a disaster in Oklahoma City. It killed 169 people. That is not as bad as 3,000 or 4,000 but it is still pretty bad. What did we do? For New York City, by the end of the week or hopefully by the end of next week, we will pass legislation that will say victims who were killed, their families will not have to pay any tax on income earned this year or the previous year. That is a benefit preserved primarily for the military. We will make that apply for the people who were killed as a result of the September 11 disaster. We never did that for the people in Oklahoma City 6 years ago, but we will do it in this case, and I strongly support it. Very good. That is positive. Some of the families, the survivors of families were lobbying for that. I compliment them for that. We are going to deliver. That will be valued assistance. They will get back all the taxes they paid last year and all the taxes they paid this year. That will happen soon. They will not go through bureaucracy. That will happen. I am happy we can provide that assistance. We have also already passed a victim's compensation fund and we have appointed a special master. The Attorney General appointed a special master who is trying to come up with an adequate compensation system for people who lost a family member as a result of the disaster. That moved quickly. We never did that in Oklahoma City. Some people estimate they will receive large payments. I don't know. I think it has something to do with how much compensation they receive or how much they will receive from the insurance companies. That is very significant. Congress has already acted on that. Hopefully, checks will go out to the families and those in need of assistance will get that quickly. It would be shortsighted to say we are not taking care of families. I think they have significant assistance through the Tax Code by this Congress, this year, and I think they will get something through the victim's compensation fund which Congress has already enacted. That should happen pretty quickly. Congress has been moving. Maybe we don't move as fast as some think we should, but that is pretty quick. What about rebuilding New York City? Oklahoma City just had a dedication to rebuild the Murrah Building destroyed 6 years ago. They just had the groundbreaking today. Again, everybody is wanting to move full speed ahead, but use a little common sense. Work with Governor Ridge. Let him have some input on what is needed. Let the President of the United States have some input on what is needed. Let's work together in a bipartisan fashion to figure out what is needed, not one party saying this is what we will insist upon. Let's work together. We did it for the initial $40 billion. I think we can do it for the future. We can do it working with the administration. It will not happen in this bill, trying to jam $15 billion on the President, saying he will not sign it and we will sustain the veto. That will not happen. I urge my colleagues to vote no on waiving the budget point of order. The budget point of order is well made. Let us work today. When we waive the budget, we should do it when we are working together. If we waive the budget and say budget rules don't apply, do it when we are all on the same bandwagon, when we are working together, not for partisan advantage trying to make some look as if we don't care about New York or care about fighting terrorism. That is false. Every Member serving, House and Senate, cares about New York and cares about fighting terrorism. I urge my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan fashion, work with the administration, work with Governor Ridge to come up with something mutually acceptable that will provide the Nation security and make sense economically and not break the bank at the same time. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that on the table. The motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.