[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 122 (Monday, September 9, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10054-S10058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    EMPLOYMENT NONDISCRIMINATION ACT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last Friday the Senate began an important 
debate on legislation to protect the civil rights of gays and lesbians. 
Senators on both sides of the aisle have expressed strong support for 
the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. We will vote tomorrow afternoon 
on that legislation. I am very hopeful that the Senate will support it.
  Last Friday, I reviewed the progress we have made as a country and as 
a society to free ourselves from discrimination. I spent a brief period 
of time reviewing what I think has been the enormous progress that this 
country has made to eliminate discrimination--at least to the extent we 
could eliminate such discrimination through legislation. After all, by 
including slavery, we enshrined discrimination in the Constitution of 
the United States. We fought a civil war in the 1860's on this issue 
but it was not until, I believe, Dr. King led a great movement in the 
late 1950's and the early 1960's, that the Nation was truly challenged 
to eradicate discrimination. Dr. King, using the philosophy of 
nonviolence, drew together Republicans and Democrats, business and 
labor, as well as church leaders all over the country, to begin a very 
important antidiscrimination grassroots effort. We made very 
substantial progress.
  On Friday, I pointed out the achievements of the Civil Rights Act of 
1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair 
Housing Act of 1968. Furthermore, in 1965 we changed the immigration 
laws, eliminating the national origin quota system that determined 
which immigrants would be able to come to the United States. We 
eliminated the Asian-Pacific triangle that restricted Asian immigration 
to 125 Asians a year, which was really a throwback to the period at the 
turn of the century known as the ``Great Period of the Yellow Peril.'' 
A period of great sadness and discrimination.
  We made progress on race. We made progress on ethnicity, religion, 
and national origin during that period of time. We also made progress 
with regard to issues of gender. We did not pass the equal rights 
amendment. We did not say there were ``founding mothers'' as well as 
Founding Fathers, but we took a series of steps that moved us in a very 
important and significant way toward recognizing the full rights of 
women in our society. That was enormously important.
  Some 6 years ago we passed the Americans With Disability Act to 
assert that having a disability does not mean a person is unable, even 
though for the better part of our Nation's history they suffered from 
discrimination.
  Just a few nights ago under the bipartisan leadership of Senator 
Domenici and Senator Wellstone, we began to take the first steps to 
include mental health in American health care considerations. We have 
long recognized the challenges that cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or 
other illnesses provide for us, but we have been extremely reluctant as 
a society to understand

[[Page S10055]]

that there are also diseases that affect the mind. Mental health is an 
area that needs attention, recognition, and respect, for those that are 
dealing with those challenges. We made a very small step but not an 
unimportant step to move beyond the types of discrimination confronting 
those with mental health illnesses.
  Tomorrow, we have an opportunity to see whether we as a country are 
prepared to free ourselves from discrimination toward gay men and 
lesbian women. I will make the point tomorrow, when we have greater 
attendance, that I daresay there are no Members in the Senate that 
would say we should repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or those who 
will say ``no,'' we should not permit women to play sports; or, ``no,'' 
we want a retreat on the kinds of rights we have been able to obtain 
for those with disabilities; or let us go back to the time when we 
found discrimination on mental health.
  On each and every one of these debates and discussions we have heard 
arguments that we do not need to take action at the Federal level, that 
if we take action it will be an intrusion by the Federal Government, 
there will be a proliferation of that will clog the courts, and the 
legislation will lead to all kinds of unintended consequences.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, I think one of the most 
proud parts of our history has been that we have been willing as a 
country and as a society--and this has been true by Republicans and 
Democrats--to make important progress in moving us beyond 
discrimination.
  Tomorrow, when we vote, we will have an opportunity to call the roll 
again, and hopefully we will continue the march toward progress. I 
believe it will demonstrate that Republicans and Democrats alike are 
joining shoulder to shoulder to try and move this country beyond 
discrimination in the workplace. That is what we are talking about 
today--discrimination in the workplace. We are talking about skilled 
men and women that are prepared to play by the rules, to work hard, and 
to be engaged in the workplace, but confront discrimination far too 
often. The sole reason they are losing their jobs or being fired is 
because of their sexual orientation. That is the issue that is before 
us. This bill is limited to workplace discrimination. It is an issue 
that we are well familiar with.

  Our legislation prohibits job discrimination based on sexual 
orientation. Some Senators have questioned the need. What I have tried 
to do this afternoon is respond to some of the questions raised during 
the course of the debate last week. I know we will have additional 
points to be responded to on tomorrow.
  So, hopefully, if our colleagues review this legislation with open 
minds, as they responded to a questionnaire when it was sent out to 
them--I remind the Senate that our colleagues responded to a 
questionnaire about employment discrimination based on sexual 
orientation--they will support it. I believe this because 66 Senators 
and 241 Members of the House of Representatives have agreed with the 
following principle: ``Sexual orientation of an individual is not a 
consideration in the hiring, promoting, or termination of an employee 
in my office.''
  If we are able to get that kind of response in the U.S. Senate 
tomorrow, people will have made a very, very important contribution to 
making America, America. There are 66 Members of the Senate, some 241 
Members of the House that are effectively saying that discrimination 
based upon sexual orientation is wrong. Here is a clear statement that 
these Senators know that there is a lot of stereotyping and a lot of 
exaggeration, and there are a lot of misstatements and misinformation 
regarding antidiscrimination policies. When they were back in their 
offices and addressing this issue quietly and deliberately, 66 members 
were prepared to say there should not be discrimination on the basis of 
sexual orientation in the consideration of hiring, promoting, or 
terminating employees. We will find out now whether they are prepared 
to take that belief, that statement, that comment, and put it into 
reality by supporting our bipartisan legislation tomorrow.
  Mr. President, the main categories of discrimination under the 
Federal law are race, gender, religion, disability, and age. 
Classifications not included in Federal law include personal 
appearance, poverty, and level of education.
  In determining whether or not sexual orientation should be added to 
the list of federally protected classes, I ask my colleagues to 
determine whether sexual orientation is more like those categories 
already covered by Federal law or those that have not received Federal 
protection. I think that is a question on the minds of some of our 
colleagues. It is a fair question and it needs to be addressed.
  My colleagues should consider the question of immutability. Doctors 
do not know exactly what causes one's sexual orientation, but the 
leading theorists, including conservatives such as Judge Richard Posner 
and Prof. John Finnis, agree that sexual orientation is a feature of 
one's personality or makeup and not a conscious choice. Therefore, in 
this regard, it is more like national origin or religion.
  Similarly, sexual orientation, like race, gender, religion, national 
origin, disability, and age, is rarely, if ever, relevant to one's 
ability to perform in the workplace. Passage of the Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act would signal congressional support for this 
truism.
  Rarely do we see vicious assaults in the workplace against someone 
because of their weight or because of smoking or some other kind of 
activity. We are, however, well aware of the vicious assaults, 
epithets, taunts, and threats directed toward gay people. These cases 
very closely resemble the pervasive and flagrant discrimination 
directed toward racial and ethnic minorities, women, and people of 
various religious creeds. All we would have to do is reference the hate 
crimes legislation to see that such crimes are increasingly directed 
toward gay Americans.
  Discrimination against gay and lesbian people for characteristics 
they don't control or reflect their deep personal identity, that are 
irrelevant to their ability to do their job, and that provoke 
irrational animus among some of their coworkers is the classic case for 
Federal intervention.

  The current patchwork of protection for gays and lesbians--laws in 
nine States, executive orders in eight States, and ordinances in 
various cities and counties--is far from sufficient.
  I might mention the various States and point out for the membership 
the States that do provide protection. We also know that the majority 
of Americans support this legislation. We have this in a general poll, 
and opponents will have other types of polls. We will be glad to get 
into the battle of the polls should that be necessary during the debate 
tomorrow. An overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe that 
Americans in the workplace ought to be discriminated against on the 
basis of their sexual orientation; nine States passed laws prohibiting 
employment discrimination based on sexual orientation; eight States 
have executive orders for gays and lesbians--those could be altered or 
changed easily. And 166 cities and counties have passed laws 
prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. 
Also, 650 employers have nondiscrimination policies that include sexual 
orientation; the overwhelming majority of the Fortune 500, large and 
small companies. That is what is happening across the country. I will 
come back to how many times these laws have actually been challenged. 
Do these States have various laws that provide a series of challenges 
in the courts, and are they loading up the courts? They clearly are 
not.
  Congress has ample power under the commerce clause and 14th amendment 
of the Constitution to enact civil rights laws such as the Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act. That has been sustained--with regard to 
employment discrimination--repeatedly by the courts.
  America's workers keep America's commerce moving. Discrimination in 
the workplace prevents the Nation from reaching its full potential. As 
Paul Allaire, the CEO of Xerox said:

       We strive to create an atmosphere where all employees are 
     encouraged to contribute to their fullest potential. Fear of 
     reprisals on the basis of sexual orientation serves to 
     undermine that goal. Enhancing our work environment to 
     prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation 
     has not added any financial cost to our organization. 
     Instead, we believe our philosophy and practice of valuing 
     diversity brings financial benefits to

[[Page S10056]]

     the workplace by encouraging full and open participation by 
     all employees.

  In other words, it is good business for companies to free themselves 
from discrimination and discriminating against one particular group in 
a work force. And that particular statement and comment was made by 
many CEO's.

  I think most Americans would feel that we are a stronger economy and, 
most importantly, a stronger country when we free ourselves from 
discrimination and bigotry.
  Nothing in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act condones 
unprofessional conduct in the workplace. Employers may enforce 
evenhanded rules. Dress codes for heterosexuals and homosexuals must be 
enforced fairly and equally across the board--that meets any available 
criteria as long as the rules are applied uniformly to both 
heterosexuals and homosexuals.
  We have heard during the course of the debate--what will an employer 
do if a gay person acts inappropriately. The answer is that there is no 
problem. A code of conduct can be enforced equally across the board, 
and should be equally respected by the employees. We are not talking 
about creating special rights. We are talking about freeing the 
workplace from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That 
is it.
  Employers may clearly take appropriate action, if employees violate 
dress codes or other codes of conduct. The Employment Nondiscrimination 
Act outlaws job discrimination in hiring, firing, promotion, or 
compensation. As long as employers maintain a discrimination-free 
workplace and enforce policies that are sexual orientation-neutral, 
they will not violate the act.
  That is it; period. No matter how many times we state it, nor how 
clear it is in the legislation, there will be those that will 
misrepresent what this legislation does. That is it, as I have stated 
earlier.
  In addition, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act clearly states that 
``the fact that an employment practice has a disparate impact on the 
basis of sexual orientation does not establish a prima facie violation 
of the Act.'' The bill cannot be more clear. Employers have nothing to 
be concerned about on the issue of disparate impact lawsuits.
  The Employment Nondiscrimination Act, like the Americans With 
Disabilities Act, provides that the EEOC shall have the same 
enforcement powers as it has to enforce title VII. Employers do not 
have to keep any specific type of records. The EEOC simply requires 
that any records already kept must be preserved for 1 year. The EEOC 
will take the same approach under the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.
  The EEOC's only private sector reporting requirement is a form that 
employers of more than 100 workers must file annually. The form only 
requires information about race, gender, and national origin--not age 
and not disability. Like age and disability, there is no reason for an 
employer to know the sexual orientation of an employee, and that 
information is not required under the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. 
The act will not require employers to submit information on the sexual 
orientation of their employees, and the EEOC will not require it 
either.
  Let me repeat that. This act will not require employers to submit 
information on the sexual orientation of their employees, and the EEOC 
will not require it either.
  Adequate remedies for job discrimination are important in order to 
deal with violations of the civil rights laws. The remedies under the 
Employment Nondiscrimination Act are entirely appropriate. The act 
applies to clear cases of discrimination cases involving a smoking gun. 
Depending on the circumstances, a successful plaintiff should receive 
appropriate relief--reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, and 
even punitive damages in the most flagrant cases.
  Compensatory damages were capped by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 
Punitive damages are awarded only in cases in which the jury finds that 
the employer acted with ``malice or reckless indifference to a 
federally protected right.''
  You have to be able to prove that there was malice or reckless 
indifference to a federally protected right in order to be able to 
collect.
  Of the 284 EEOC cases settled by juries since July 1993, compensatory 
relief was awarded in only 59 cases and punitive relief was awarded in 
only 14 cases. The highest compensatory award was $450,000 and the 
average is $38,418.74. The highest punitive award was $255,000 and the 
average is $30,535.74. These awards include race and national origin 
discrimination cases, and compensatory awards in those cases, unlike 
cases settled under the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, are not 
capped.
  Some have expressed reservations about the Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act because of religious objections to homosexuality. 
But as Bishop Browning, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, has 
said:

       Since 1976, the Episcopal Church has been committed 
     publicly to the notion of guaranteeing equal protection for 
     all citizens, including homosexual persons, under the law.
       Employment Non-Discrimination Act explicitly fulfills that 
     mandate, and I urge Members of Congress to move swiftly to 
     pass this amendment, and the President to sign it into law. . 
     .
       My warm embrace of this legislation, of course, reflects 
     more than my standing as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal 
     Church. It represents my deep, personal belief in the 
     intrinsic dignity of all God's children.
       That dignity demands that all citizens have a full and 
     equal claim upon the promise of the American ideal, which 
     includes equal civil rights protection against unfair 
     employment discrimination.

  Many other religious leaders support the Employment Nondiscrimination 
Act. They believe that the religious exemption in the bill 
appropriately protects religious liberty. The American Jewish 
Committee, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Evangelical 
Lutheran Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association, United 
Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Anti-Defamation 
League, and the National Council of Churches have written:

       A general civil rights bill should not exempt individuals 
     because those individuals have reasons based on their 
     religious beliefs for discriminating.
       There is a substantial difference between a business 
     operating in the arena of commerce and a religious 
     corporation which exists to serve an explicitly religious 
     mission. . . There are profound differences in religious 
     perspectives on th[e subject of homosexuality]. Individuals 
     are, of course, free to believe what they will. But this does 
     not necessarily mean that they are free to discriminate on 
     the basis of those beliefs.

  Individuals who share these beliefs, including my Senate colleagues, 
are not bigots. There is a great deal of misinformation regarding 
homosexuals and given that information, I recognize that some of my 
colleagues have concerns about this legislation. I do believe that as 
we learn from one another and realize that many of our peers, friends, 
and family members are homosexual, the misinformation will be replaced 
with greater understanding. Until that time, however, we need 
legislation like the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. This simple, 
straightforward bill will address the egregious discrimination faced by 
so many gays and lesbians in the workplace.

  African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, native Americans, women, 
the elderly, the disabled, Jews, Catholics, and many other Americans 
know what we are talking about here. I remember a time when it was said 
that a Catholic could not be President. I remember ``Help Wanted'' 
signs in stores when I was growing up saying ``No Irish Need Apply.'' 
Thankfully, we have made a great deal of progress in ending that kind 
of racial, religious, and ethnic bigotry. The Employment 
Nondiscrimination Act is the next great step on the American journey to 
fulfill opportunity and freedom from discrimination for all our 
citizens, and I urge the Senate to enact it.
  Mr. President, there is a statement that was made by a business when 
they fired Cheryl Summerville, a former cook. ``This employment is 
being terminated due to violation of company policy. This employee is 
gay.''
  That says it all. That says it all. I remember this was an employee 
who had worked hard; an outstanding cook who worked at a Cracker Barrel 
restaurant for many, many years; highly regarded, respected, and hard 
working; but, nonetheless, was effectively terminated; lost her job 
because she was gay and for that reason only.
  Here we have the statement by Barry Goldwater. It is an interesting 
and a

[[Page S10057]]

powerful statement and it is a very worthwhile statement of which we 
should remind ourselves. I will just read it:

       It's time America realized that there was no gay exemption 
     in the ``right to life, liberty and the pursuit of 
     happiness'' in the Declaration of Independence. Anybody who 
     cares about real moral values understands that this isn't 
     about granting special rights--it's about protecting basic 
     rights.

  That is why Barry Goldwater as well as Coretta Scott King are 
strongly in support of this legislation.
  Finally, Mr. President, as I mentioned before, there are many things 
this bill does not do. There are no quotas or preferential treatment.
  I have addressed the issue about quotas, about maintaining 
information or statistics. We do not require quotas in this very 
carefully drafted legislation. We say no quotas and preferential 
treatment:

       A covered entity shall not adopt or implement a quota on 
     the basis of sexual orientation. A covered entity shall not 
     give preferential treatment to an individual on the basis of 
     sexual orientation.

  That is about as clear as you could make it in the English language. 
We invited others who were concerned about this to propose other 
language, and there were many who were concerned about it. We feel that 
the language included in the legislation addresses that issue about as 
clearly as you possibly could. It is not only our intention but it is 
included as language in the bill.
  We also say:

       No cases based merely on disparate impact claims. The fact 
     that an employment practice has a disparate impact, as the 
     term ``disparate impact'' was used under Section 703(k) of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the basis of sexual 
     discrimination, does not establish a prima facie violation of 
     this title.

  Briefly, Mr. President--I will not take a lot of time on this--what 
the law generally says with regard to disparate impact cases is, if you 
have, for example, a 100-man work force and that work force is carrying 
150-pound cement bags, the employer may have a policy that employees be 
able to lift a certain weight. As a result, that employer may not hire 
many women, even though there exists a pool of women who might want 
that job. The employer may be able to support the policy resulting in a 
disparate impact on the pool of women applying for the job. On the 
other hand, if you have 100 computer experts and you have 100 men and 
100 women who have similar qualifications, you are not expecting that 
particular employer's policy to result in the hiring of 100 men. You 
can make a case of disparate impact demonstrating that the employer's 
policy or practice had a disparate impact on the pool of qualified 
people. At that point, the burden shifts to the employer, who must 
present evidence supporting their policy. The plaintiff will probably 
be able to show that there are other, nondiscriminatory policies or 
practices that the employer may use. That is effectively the way the 
law goes.
  This time we are saying that no disparate impact case will be made, 
which sustains the position that people do not have to keep statistics 
on the sexuality of their employees. Even though that has been 
represented during the early course of the debate on Friday, that is 
not the case. We have made that very, very clear in the language of the 
bill. Accordingly, employers do not have to maintain records on the 
sexual orientation of their employees.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a written statement from 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding record keeping 
requirements under the Employment Nondiscrimination Act be printed in 
the Record at the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. There is no coverage for the armed services. There is no 
coverage for the not-for-profit religious organizations. There were 
some questions about the for-profit religious organizations. We think 
they are more involved in the secular activities than nonsecular 
activities and that they, therefore, would be covered. You may be able 
to nit-pick this and find a particular individual or a particular 
location or a job which might be of particular appeal, but nonetheless 
this is the way that this legislation is crafted for the reasons that 
we have outlined in the general presentation.

  We have pointed out:

       Religious organizations are defined as corporations, 
     associations, societies, colleges, schools, universities or 
     educational institutions.

  So we have attempted to draft this legislation in a way to be 
targeted, to be limited, to be focused, in a way that deals with the 
problem. There is a problem in the American workplace. Discrimination 
based upon sexual orientation exists. It is taking place today. We 
referred to the various studies and, if necessary, we will come back 
into those studies in the more general debate either tonight or 
tomorrow morning if there is any question about it.
  I think any Member of the Senate who reads through the various 
Department of Justice studies on the hate crimes could not possibly 
question that animus toward gays and lesbians exists today. Other 
studies prove that this is taking place in America's work force. It is 
out there.
  Although we know the problem exists, there are no rules, regulations, 
or laws to protect people. That is the sad fact. There are limited laws 
in limited States to protect people, but it is not enough that as an 
American you are free from discrimination in one jurisdiction but are 
going to be subject to discrimination in another. We should free our 
country from that type of travesty.
  So there is a problem. There are not adequate solutions. Do we have a 
carefully crafted or targeted program just to deal with this danger? 
The answer is yes.
  Finally, I want to just mention the number of cases filed in State 
courts in the nine States which have laws, as I mentioned last Friday. 
We are talking about two or three or four cases. I just mention these. 
In the nine States, California, since 1992, has had five cases; 
Connecticut, four cases; Hawaii, since 1991, no cases; Massachusetts, 
two cases; Minnesota, three cases; New Jersey, zero; Rhode Island, 
zero; Vermont, one; Wisconsin, one.
  So this idea that there is going to be a vast proliferation in the 
Federal courts just does not stand up. When you look at the EEOC 
record, as I mentioned earlier, and the whole range of discrimination, 
on gender, on race, on disability, on religious discrimination, and 
national origin, we are talking about a very limited number of cases 
that have taken place. When you look at what is happening in the 
States, you will find that these laws have not been the problem. When 
people know what is expected of them and the forms of discrimination, 
they will respond to it. What is called for is a clear statement about 
rights and liberties and about bigotry and discrimination. This law 
does it. I am very hopeful that we will accept this legislation on 
tomorrow afternoon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

             EEOC Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

       1. ENDA provides that the EEOC shall have the same powers 
     to enforce ENDA as it has to enforce Title VII. This tracks 
     the enforcement structure of the Americans With Disabilities 
     Act.
       2. EEOC's recordkeeping requirements under Title VII are 
     set out at 29 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 1602.12-1602.14. In these 
     sections, EEOC provides that it ``has not adopted any 
     requirement, generally applicable to employers, that records 
     be made or kept.'' Sec. 1602.12. Rather, EEOC requires that 
     ``[a]ny personnel or employment record made or kept by an 
     employer . . . shall be reserved by the employer for a period 
     of one year from the date of the making of the record or the 
     personnel action involved, whichever occurs later'' or until 
     the disposition of a charge of discrimination or lawsuit 
     regarding such action.
       3. It is likely that EEOC would take the same approach if 
     ENDA were to be enacted into law, requiring employers to keep 
     for specified time periods whatever records they already 
     keep. There is no reason to believe that EEOC would change 
     its longstanding approach to recordkeeping and require the 
     creation or maintenance of any specified records.
       4. EEOC's only reporting requirement applicable to private 
     sector employers is the EEO-1 form. See 29 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 1602.7. Employers of 100 or more employees are required 
     to file annually a form setting out certain aggregate 
     information about the race, national origin and gender of 
     their employees. The EEO-1 form does not request information 
     regarding age or whether employees have disabilities. Since 
     there is no reason for an employer to know the sexual 
     orientation of an employees in order to comply with ENDA, it 
     is highly unlikely that the EEOC would require employers to 
     gather or submit information regarding the sexual orientation 
     of their employees.

[[Page S10058]]

       5. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection also 
     include certain recordkeeping requirements. 29 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 1607. These guidelines--which address issues of 
     disparate impact discrimination--apply to discrimination on 
     the bases of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 
     Since ENDA specifically does not recognize a cause of action 
     for disparate impact discrimination, the Uniform Guidelines 
     would have no applicability.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been noted. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 is under control of the 
distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell].
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that will be 
under my control or a designee, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________