LB 1066 (1994)
April 7, 1994
SPEAKER WITHEM: LB 907 advances. LB 1066.
CLERK: Mr. President, may I read one item right before that? New resolution LR 502 offered by Senator Wesely. I have a communication from the Speaker regarding referral of LR 502. (See pages 1804-06 of the Legislative Journal.)
Mr. President, 1006 ... 1066, excuse me, E & R amendments have been adopted. Senators Hall, Lindsay and Chambers had offered an amendment to the bill. That amendment is currently pending. Senator, your amendment is on page 1256 of the Journal.
SPEAKER WITHEM: Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you.- Mr. President and members, the amendment on Journal page 1256 is the... the MacBride Principles. It is the bill that I introduced this year that is on General File. I...we had debated this issue, at least started to at the point in time we left LB 1066, and we are back at it, at this point. I apologize. I was off to the side. The issue is one of, as you know, Senator Chambers' bill strikes the sanctions against businesses that, as far as investment by the state, with regard to businesses that invested in South Africa, since the removal of apartheid in the form of government in South Africa. Senator Chambers brought in his bill, LB 1066, to repeal that section or that penalty, the prohibition, for investment. As I mentioned, on General File, this bill, I asked Senator Chambers if it might be possible to amend his bill, and fie said he would take a look at it between the... the time 1066 advanced beyond General File to Select. We did touch on this earlier, before we had to leave 1066 previously, but there was very little debate and it made sense to continue debate on this issue. I don't want to take an extended period of time here. I believe that the issue is an important one, it has been in the Legislature here, I think, since 1987, and we have dealt with it a I number of occasions. It has never been a priority issue and therefore it has never been adopted into statute. What it does is it
would put in place what is called the MacBride Principles, and it deals with the issue of, in essence, religious persecution in the Northern Ireland area. As you all know, there has been not only an increase of the awareness of it, but there has been an increase in the atrocities that have taken place over there. What this deals with specifically is businesses that would have operations in Northern Ireland. And it reads this way, says that, by January 1 of each year the State Investment Officer shall compile a list of corporations that directly, or through a subsidiary do business in Northern Ireland and in whose stocks or obligations the State Investment Officer has invested state funds. And, (b) determine whether each corporation on the list has, during the proceeding year, taken affirmative action to eliminate religious or ethnic discrimination in Northern Ireland. It says, in making the determination required by this section, the State Investment Officer should consider whether a .corporation has, during the proceeding year, taken substantial ,action designed to lead to achievement of the following goals known internationally as the MacBride Principles: (a) increasing representation of persons from under represented religious groups at all levels of its work force; (b) providing adequate security for employees who are members of minority religious groups both at the workplace and while traveling to and from work; (c) banning provocative religious political emblems from the workplace; (d) publicity advertising...publicly advertising all job openings and making special recruiting efforts to attract applicants from under-represented religious groups; (e) providing that layoffs, recall and termination procedures do not, in practice, favor workers who are members of particular religious groups; (f) abolishing job reservations, apprenticeship restrictions and differential employment criteria that discriminate on the basis of religious or ethnic origin; (g) developing new programs and expanding existing programs to prepare current employees who are members of minority religious groups for skilled jobs; (h) establishing procedures to assess, identify and recruit employees who are members of minority religious groups and who have potential for advancement- and
(i), appointing senior management employees to oversee affirmative action efforts in the setting of time tables for carrying out this section. And this is the portion of it that I think is most important, because it is unlike the South Africa provisions. The State Investment Officer shall provide to the Legislature a copy of his or her report and findings on the fir,-.#'- day of each regular session of the Legislature. With respect to corporations doing business in Northern Ireland, the
State Investment Officer shall, consistent with Section 72-1246, invest in corporate stocks or obligations in a manner to encourage corporations that in the State Investment Officer's determination pursue a policy of affirmative action in Northern Ireland. Whenever feasible, the Nebraska Investment Council shall sponsor, cosponsor, or support shareholder resolutions designed to encourage corporations in which the State Investment Officer has invested to pursue a policy of affirmative action in Northern Ireland. And, finally, nothing in Sections 144 to 146 of this act shall be construed to require the State Investment Officer dispose of existing investments. It is a very mild provision compared to what we were repealing from the statutes that was put in place by Senator Chambers, I believe, back in I think it was 1978. This provision is one that does not require divestment. It is one that says that the State Investment Council should sponsor or cosponsor affirmative action on the part of businesses that do conduct, transact business in Northern Ireland. It says that corporations that do business and their officers shall invest in a stocks or corporate stocks and obligations in a manner to encourage corporations that, in the State Investment Officer's determination, pursue a policy of affirmative action. It is not a mandate. It is not something that is required. It is a judgment call for the most part on the State Investment Officer, but it is a policy statement on the part of this body that the actions that are currently being... taking place in Northern Ireland with regard to the issue of religious persecution, the fact that the unemployment rate for Catholics in this area is 100 percent, 2 to 1 that of the Nationalists, is something that we should not, I believe, stand by and ignore. I think this statement that we can make with the adoption of the MacBride Principles, by placing it in statute would allow for us to join a number of other states, a
number of other local governments in at least stating that we
not t. bo doll done on m mU--iniiLionaL that it we have the ability to temper
that we would like to, through the investment by the state funds and those businesses that do recognize affirmative action as it relates to religious minorities is important. With that, Mr. President, I'd yield any balance of the opening, if there is any, to Senator Chambers.
SPEAKER WITHEM: Two Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Mr. President and members of the Legislature, the two minutes give me only enough time to indicate my strong
support for the amendment that is being offered and the MacBride Principles comprising that amendment. When Senator (sic) Pete Wilson, of California, signed a bill the other day by which California abolished its divestment legislation, he justified it by saying, unless there is employment, there cannot be political stability. With a high rate of unemployment you cannot have political stability. He ought to apply that to California and then he'd see the impact of unemployment on their lack of stability. But, nevertheless, because of the high rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland, along with other things, which is based strictly...
SPEAKER WITHEM: One minute.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: ...on discrimination based upon religious intolerance contributes to political instability. If people can work, people are in a position to provide for themselves and their families, and that will automatically drain away certain types of hostility. But beyond that, it gives people something to do with their time so they don't have it to spend in idleness, brooding over the injustices which they suffer, being totally incapable of doing anything to mitigate that suffering. If employment could be obtained a large step would be taken toward resolving the difficulties in Northern Ireland. That would not do it alone, but I'm sure it would defuse much of the violence that is being undertaken. And, by the way, it's two-way violence, not just Catholics, but from the other...
SPEAKER WITHEM: Time.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: ... side, too.
SPEAKER WITHEM: Senator Chambers, your light is the next one.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Thank you. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will ...
SPEAKER WITHEM: Pardon me, is there ... are there items here on the desk, Mr. Clerk?
CLERK: Senator Chambers would move to amend the Hall amendment, Mr. President. (FA538 appears on page 1806 of the Legislative Journal.)
SPEAKER WITHEM: Senator Chambers, on your amendment to the Hall
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Mr. President, members of the Legislature, this is not a difficult amendment to understand, but I think it is significant. If you look, if you're following, in the Journal on page 1156 you will see the portion of the Hall amendment that I am attempting to amend. In subparagraph (e) you will find this language: Providing that layoff, recall, and termination procedures do not in practice favor workers who are members of particular religious groups. After the word favor, I am inserting the words, or discriminate against. So what that provision would read is that the laying off, recalling, termination or whatever do not favor or discriminate against workers who are members of a particular religion. If we left it
.with just the favoring ring it would mean that the discrimination is not prohibited. What I see in this is what I saw when I was battling, and I did have help, or the bill wouldn't have passed that led to divestment, but battling to show that what was happening in South Africa to black people at the instance of the government was the type of thing which violated all of the principles for which Nebraska stands. The Constitution espouses principles of equality, fair play, due process before the law. The statutes say the same thing. Well, in this instance there is, in the U.S. Constitution and the Nebraska Constitution a provision guaranteeing freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof. If that principle is considered so important that it's enshrined in the Constitution of this state, as well as the federal government, nobody should say that what. we're talking about is something which is insignificant. Now, I don't have a religious bone in my body. I don't have a religious corpuscle in my body. I don't have a religious atom in my body. I don't have a religious nucleus, or electron of religion in my body. But whenever I see discrimination directed against people because of what they believe or what they are, it is something that if I'm in a position to *do something to correct it, I'm going to do it. I'm not being asked to become a Catholic. I'm not asking anybody else to become a Catholic. All I'm saying is that it is totally inappropriate for people to be denied-the wherewithal to earn a living and take care of their families because of their religion. There are certain things that every civilized society would deem to be a human right. Regardless of what a government says or does not say, certain rights attach to a person by virtue of being a human being. Naturally, self-preservation, which carries with it the right to self-defense, would be a dominant right. It might be taken to
be above all others, be-cause if you cannot provide for yourself you cease to be. You have to be entitled to the means to maintain yourself which means employment, the means to provide for your family. So if these things are indeed values that mean something to Americans, the adoption of this statement of principle is not inappropriate. We have already shown, by adopting the divestment language relative to South Africa, that Nebraska will not be unmindful of the suffering that people undergo for reasons that are totally inappropriate and ,unjustified. Here is what we are confronted with, I believe, in ..what Senator Hall and I are trying to do. We currently have in place a bill that requires divestment. What is being offered is a statement of principle which does not require divestment. it would not make sense to reject that which does not require divestment when it means that you retain that which does. This amendment specifically states that any investments which the state currently has in these corporations which may not be meeting the goals and standards specified in this amendment need not be given up. So this is not a divestment or disinvestment bill. It does not say that any stocks, bonds, securities, bank loans or anything else to which the state is a party would have to be withdrawn or given tip. That does not have to happen. The Investment Officer looks at corporations and invests in such a way as to-encourage them to do the things that they ought to do. What Senator Hall and I will ask for at some point is a division of the question so that we can deal with each aspect of this, because I see it as a very, very important thing, I see it as a significant step that is being taken, and I would like to discuss and justify each part of what is being offered and make sure that people understand what it is that we're saying . If there is a part of this amendment which is deemed to be inappropriate, I would like to hear people tell us why it's inappropriate. And because there are a number of specifications, the only way we can do it in a systematic or reasonable way is to allow each part to be considered. Then it's not saying that we brought an amendment that consists of several parts and subdivisions which people did not have the opportunity to understand. Any questions you're willing to put to me, or you want to put to me, I'm prepared to answer. I feel so strongly about this that I don't see how 1066 could pass without this statement of principle. Obtaining passage of 1066 is important. It's something that I would like to see occur. It would be the culmination of a public battle in Nebraska that did start as long ago as 1978. However, because a goal that I sought is on the verge of being achieved in the sense that we,
as a state, have done as much as we can to facilitate achieving that goal, I cannot say my basket is full, now I'm going to run home. There still is suffering in the world, there still are injustices being committed, and we, as the Legislature, have an opportunity to address that matter in Northern Ireland. if it were the other way around and Catholics were the oppressors, I would be doing the same thing. I've had disputes with people of the Jewish persuasion, and they have called me some of everything, and they got upset when I drew a picture of the auditor and transmogrified my drawing of him in the first panel to one that resembled a certain very unsavory character from Nazi Germany. They got very upset, but I've been called worse than what that picture depicted. However, when former President Reagan was going to pay a visit to Bitburg Cemetery, where members of the SS were buried, I offered a resolution* to the Legislature condemning that and suggesting that he ... well, we asked that lie not do it. The resolution did not get enough votes because there were Republicans in the body who were opposed to it because they thought it criticized a Republican president. After our resolution had been defeated, Bob Dole and leaders of the Republican party, at the national level, did the same thing. So my having had conflicts with leople...
SPEAKER WITHEM: One minute.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: ... has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, just as I might have conflict, well, have had conflicts with people on the floor. If a point is reached where you're doing something with which I agree, then I support you. So the fact that I'd never be a Catholic, never would be a Protestant, never would be a Muslim, never would be any religion, does not mean I am insensitive to what happens to-people who are grossly, unfairly treated and brutalized because of their religious convictions. The least we can do is adopt this statement of principles. But what I'm asking for now is the adoption of my little innocuous amendment that says there cannot be favoring or discriminating against workers when it comes to employment and so forth. So this is an innocuous amendment, and I hope that it will be adopted.
PRESIDENT ROBAK PRESIDING
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. Senator 'Crosby, your light is next.
SENATOR CROSBY: Thank you, Madam President and members. I'd like to preface what I'm going to say, first, with two remarks and then I'll go on to explain how I feel about this amendment. Your amendment, Senator Chambers, is... I'll probably vote for that. I'm not sure I'll vote for the Hall amendment. The first thing I want to say is if you ever become a Catholic, Senator Chambers, God save the Pope! (Laughter.) I don't know what would happen if you would be...I mean, things would really brighten up, probably. But the second thing I want everyone to know, all of my forbearers came from Ireland. They left because of the potato famine, the rebellions. I gave ... when we first discussed this, I think it was March 17th, and I gave to Senator Hall and Senator Lindsay and Senator Chambers a copy of an old Irish song, not an American Irish song, an Irish song called, "The Wearing of the Green", and the words are very emotional and talk about when... the 1 last line says, "They Ire hanging men and women there for wearing of the green." And that's what happened, and we all know that, and I can become very emotional about that because of my background and my ethnicity. But in this particular amendment, and I hope you read it through, I have the feeling we're interjecting ourselves into a country that I'm not sure Nebraska needs to set a policy to say or make a statement. If it were a resolution and we were making a statement I probably would feel differently about it, but we're putting this into a statute. And as I understand it, we do have a business here in Lincoln who has, a facility in Belfast, and I am told, on good authority, that over the last several years many of the MacBride Principles have been added to the employment laws in Northern Ireland, and they are all working very hard to try to make things better. I think we ought to allow that country to do that. And again, I have mixed emotions about it just because I understand what Senator Hall and Senator Chambers are saying, but I don't think I can support it. I feel like, as I said earlier , we're interjecting ourselves into a country simply to make a statement here that whether or not it will have any effect, and I read it clear through, Senator Hall, so I understand at the end about the fact that the Investment Officer doesn't... isn't really bound, so there again I'm not sure what we're doing here except, as I said earlier, making a statement. So I think before we rush into this, we should pay attention and listen to people who do know about Northern Ireland, who have been there, who have facilities there and who know how businesses are run. And they have assured me and shown me that they have to live up to many of these things that you have in here about discrimination against people because of
their religious beliefs. And we all see those photos and ail those newsreels, I still call them newsreels, on the news where children are shooting children in Ireland, and the bombs are thrown. I do not approve of what the IRA does, I'll tell you that right now, I do not approve of that. So I'll just finish tip by saying I don't think I'll support, but I wanted you to understand why. And as I try to think of other places, I guess nobody would want to invest any money in Sarajevo or Bosnia right now, but there is another country that's having great problems. And if we set something like this for that pla... for that particular country, I don't... in fact we had a resolution a year ago that was taken off the agenda because...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR CROSBY: ...it became so controversial, about Sarajevo. So, again, please remember all of my forbearers are Irish. If you ever see me in a real temper, you'll know that I'm Irish. But on the face of it I feel like we're interjecting, ourselves into something that we are not...we don't know enough about. And I'm sure Senator Hall and Senator Chambers feel that they do know enough about it, and if they feel that way, fine. I have no objections to their bringing it, but I just want them to know that I feel I have the privilege of not supporting it. Thank you.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Crosby. Senator Witek, your light is next.
SENATOR WITEK: Madam Chairman, members of the body, I don't get to say this very often, so I always relish when I get to say it. I support the Chambers amendment and I support the Hall amendment, and I have to tell O'Hara out there that Kathleen Ellen Briget McNally Witek had her light on before she got your note to put my light on. And the reasons being, and I have struggled with this because I don't want to interfere with business, and I know from people who visited in Ireland, and from people that are very dear to me from Ireland, that this does exist, that this truly does happen over there, and happens very regularly. I guess the reasons that I finally came to for supporting it was to acknowledge that here in Nebraska we support companies in Ireland that would maybe plant a seed there that of some of our American principles and some of the reasons that we exist as a country, and that we don't discriminate for religion, and we don't discriminate against individuals simply
because they're religious. And, Senator Chambers, I have to disagree, or maybe just let you know that you didn't mention protons, so your soul must be somewhere in your protons. (Laughter.) I'm sure it exists there somewhere. I do rise in support of this and thank Senator Hall for trying every year, I think, since he's been here to bring this out and to get this passed, and just thank Senator Chambers for allowing Senator Hall. to amend a somewhat controversial measure to a measure that probably would sail through without too much discussion, and to just say that the reasons I vote for this and would hope that you would do so, too, is I don't find this intrusive, I find this is just an opportunity for us to say, as the Legislature, that we would appreciate the American companies in Ireland to uphold the principles that we uphold here in, America, and to maybe just plant a seed for those other companies and to provide an example to those other companies. And maybe by just one company changing and going against the grain in adopting these principles, others will follow suit, and some of problems they've had for so many years in Ireland will start to be solved. And if I can help in any way, I'll do that and vote for these amendments and this bill. Thank you.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Witek. Senator Schimek, your light is next.
SENATOR SCHIMEK: Yes, thank you, Madam President, members of the body. I have to confess that I haven't heard all of the debate the first time on this amendment, but I certainly support it in spirit. But I had somebody from one of the labs here in town talk to me about it yesterday, and I have some questions, which I think would be helpful to the other members of the body, too, who may have some of these same questions. So I'd like Senator Hall, if he would ....
SENATOR HALL: Yes.
SENATOR SCHIMEK: ... to ... and I think that you may have already .said this once before, but are there not already laws in Great Britain that really govern these kinds of ... well, actually require reports regarding how many employees in a certain firm are Catholic, how many are Protestant, so on and so forth? And I believe that the lab I'm speaking of does quarterly reports. Is that accurate?
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President, members. Senator
Schimek, yes, the answer to your question is yes. There have been a number, I think approximately four different pieces of legislation that have passed through Parliament, the most recent, I believe, were modifications that were made in I think it was 1990 to what was passed in 1989, and that was an act that dealt with and established actually the Fair Employment Agency. That was established, I believe, in 1976, actually, is when that organization was established. There was legislation that was passed in '89, and then again, as I stated, modifications to that act in 19... first in '80, and then in '89. The problem is though taht there...they are just merely that, they are reports. It is a paper shuffle, and the lab... the Harris Lab that you speak of, they had representatives at the hearing on LB 705, which is what this manifests itself in the form of this amendment is. It is a provision in law that folks have debated in Ireland on this issue, and what they have said Is that even with the reporting that is done you currently still have, one example is the largest employer, Northern Ireland's... it's the Harland and Wolfe Shipyard, has 94.5 percent Protestant employment. The other employer has the second largest, is the RUC. They have 92.5 percent Protestant employment. They actively discriminate against Catholics. It is something that, in spite of the legislation that has passed, there is no teeth in that legislation. There is no ability or desire on the part of the British to control the discrimination that is. taking place, the largest of employers, and :here is no attempt even to require compliance with the smaller employer. So the answer to your question is, yes, the folks that you talked to from Harris Labs were absolutely right, there is a law on the books, there's bee.% a couple of them, they've been modified, they're ineffective, but they do require reporting. The information I have in front of you...in front of me, and I'll get you a copy of it, will spell that out a little clearer. I didn't duplicate it for members, but it clearly ...
SENATOR SCHIMEK: Okay, could I ...
SENATOR HALL: Go ahead.
SENATOR SCHIMEK: Could I ask a follow-up question then? One of the concerns of Harris Lab and others is that it will ...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR SCHIMEK: ... duplicate paperwork, and therefore why are
we doing it? I think I understand your point now, because, yes, it may be a duplication of paperwork, but with the investment policy there actually will be an impact here and will have more of an effect then than the laws that are already on the books. I guess my final question is, and we'll probably run out of time,...
SENATOR HALL: And I'll answer on my time.
SENATOR SCHIMEK: ... how much paperwork are we talking about here? Okay?
SENATOR HALL: Sure, thank you.
PRESIDENT RORAK: Thank you, Senator Schimek. Senator Hall, your light is next.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President, members. Senator Schimek, in response to your question, I doubt... actually what I think will probably take place is that the Nebraska Investment Officer will basically use the information that is. available on the current reporting that is done. So the duplication of information will only be that it will have to be copied and potentially submitted to the Nebraska Investment Officer, or the State Investment officer for purposes of their determination of whether or not the company in question believes, or actively pursues affirmative action in its employment standards in the Northern Ireland area. And I think that that is not too much to ask. It is not something that, you know, we basically ban in this amendment. What we do is we say that the discretion is up to the State Investment Officer. I think the exact language reads like this, it says, whenever feasible ... excuse me, it says, the officer shall, consistent with Section Which lit! the investment provisions, invest in corporate stocks or obligations in a manner to encourage corporations that, in the State Investment Officer's determination, pursue a policy of affirmative action in Northern Ireland. And then toward the end, in Section 146, we state, that nothing in this act shall be construed to require the State Investment Officer to dispose of existing investments. So there is not a divestment provision, and there is not an out and out ban, but it is a recommendation that the State Investment Officer look at the affirmative action policy of these corporations that we are investing state dollars in, and invest in those that, for the most part, have. adopted the affirmative
action policies that are expressed in the MacBride Principles. So it is not meant to be a handcuff or an ultimatum, if you will. It is a rather broad policy statement in that we would encourage them, actually encourage them to the point where they are, whenever feasible, requested to deal with this stuff, encourage those corporations to, if we're going to invest in our state dollars in them, to adopt these types of affirmative action policies. I think it's good public policy. I think it's well within the realm of this body's ability to do that, and I think it makes good sense for us to do that. So I hope that answers some of your questions. I do recognize again the fact that there are companies, right now, in Nebraska that have investments over there. Harris Labs is one of them. I applaud them for that. I think they are complying with the affirmative action policies expressed in the MacBride Principles. But I would say that there is no fear that we will divest from those investments, that is not something that's built into this legislation. That, probably more than any, clearly makes it a distinct difference between the original provisions in LB 1066 that are being struck by Senator Chambers' bill. With that again, I would again urge members to support the amendment to the ... Senator Chambers' bill and would ask for the adoption.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. Senator Haberman..
SENATOR HABERMAN: Madam President, members of the body, I don't exactly agree with everything Senator Chambers says about Catholics pertaining to Protestants, the percent, and I think what the bill does is already being done. I have here, for example, the Warnical (phonetic) Group Insurance, Incorporated of New York: Protestants, 47 percent; Catholic, 53 percent; MacBride agreement, no. They have no MacBride agreement, but they're hiring more Catholics than they are Protestants. I have here MacBride agreement, yes, VF Corp. from Pennsylvania: Protestant, 43; Catholic, 57. 1 have here Protestant 8.. 1 percent; Catholic, 99 percent; and they are no MacBride agreement. I have here another agreement: MacBride agreement, yes; Protestant, 14; Catholic, 4. 1 have another one here that says MacBride agreement, yes; Protestant, 63; Catholics, 37. 1 have another agreement here it says MacBride agreement, yes; Protestant, 88; Catholic, 12 percent. So, as you go through this report, which is already in the making, I don't believe exactly everything Senator Chambers is saying about the over influx of not hiring Protestants, or not hiring Catholics. Here's another one says Fruit of Loom, Incorporated: MacBride
agreement, yes; Protestant, 24 percent; Catholic, 76 percent.That doesn't agree with what you're saying, Senator Chambers. Here is a MacBride agreement, Digital Equipment Corporation, MacBride agreement, yes; Protestant, 53; Catholic, 47. MacBride agreement, yes; Protestant, 11; Catholic, 2. So, I don't agree with everything you're saying, Senator Chambers, about not hiring Catholics, and I believe this report shows that this work is being done at the present time. Thank you, Mr. President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator. Senator Chambers, your light is next, followed by Senator Crosby and Senator Hall.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Thank you, Madam President. Members of the Legislature, I have one question to ask of Senator Haberman, then I'll proceed with my comments. Senator Haberman, is it your intent to say that there is not discrimination of the most egregious kind against Catholics in Northern Ireland? Is that the point that you're making on behalf of the mighty British Empire?
SENATOR HABERMAN: I was answering your question ... your .philosophy and statement that they do not hire Catholics. You said that, Senator Chambers. I didn't.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: No, I didn't.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I was merely showing that some firms hire a bigger percent of Catholics than they do Protestants.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Thank you.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Other firms hire more Protestants than Catholics.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Thank you, Senator Haberman. Members of the Legislature, Senator Haberman did not hear me give statistics, Senator Hall gave statistics and his are correct. I did not say, they don't hire Catholics. I said they discriminate in a very inappropriate, and I probably used stronger words than that, against Catholics. I just mentioned a very high rate of unemployment without putting a figure to it. It is inescapable, it is undeniable that there is terrible, unconscionable discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland, and even the British Empire acknowledges that. Even those who say they won't support perhaps the amendment that Senator Hall and I are
offering acknowledge the discrimination. But they say that they think something is being done about it. They don't say it does not exist. But one thing I'd like to point out, if this amendment, and I wish more of my colleagues were here, if this amendment can bring Senator Witek and I together, don't you see the power that it has and the good that it can do which we are trying to achieve? But a-lot of times on big issues smaller disagreements can fade into the background and we look at the big picture. I want you all to know that I've had several calls in the last few days from the counsel general's office, the South African Counsel General's Office, concerned about the fate of LB 1006 (sic). There are various entities of government in this state who have been required to not make certain investments because of activities of corporations and other institutions in and with South Africa, and they are concerned that 1066 is not going to pass, and they need to be concerned. This statement of principles will have an impact because the mighty British Empire has hired a lobbyist to oppose this bill, and if it means nothing why will the British government hire a lobbyist? Because they know the impact of things such as this. On the international scene, on the international stage statements by governmental entities carry weight. Everybody knows Nebraska has no army, nor real navy, but a position taken by Nebraska has significance and impact. There was the head of a company called Hewlett Packard who, when we passed the divestment bill, said he wasn't concerned about what Nebraska did, he'd rather stay in the good graces of South Africa than Nebraska. He was like Adolph Eichman and the other Nazi's who were putting together their 1,000 year Reich when they thought that the way things were at that time was the way they would always be. And Eichman actually said, I will leap into my grave laughing with the knowledge that I have overseen the killing of six million Jews. But when they caught him and took him to Israel and placed him on trial he didn't know anything. He was just a mere clerk. So all these kind of statements are made by people who think that a present, unjust system from which they are profiting will always remain intact, and they will always profit.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: But that is not the case. And one thing I .want to indicate about this, the amendment that's before us now is not the whole amendment to the bill that we're offering but one that inserts words in one of the provisions to make it clear
that there can be neither favoring of, nor discrimination against, workers. That is the amendment to the amendment that we're considering, and I hope everybody will vote for that, then we'll have it in the form, the overall amendment, that I would discuss and ask you to adopt.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. Senator Crosby.
SENATOR CROSBY: Thank you, Madam President and members. And, Senator Chambers, when you and Senator Witek get together for me that's an unholy alliance, and so it scares me even more on this particular bill. But I want to ask Senator Hall a quick question. What is this alliance of Northern Ireland that came in against it, Senator Hall? I just want to know, who are they, or where do they come from?
SENATOR HALL: Senator,...Madam President and members....
SENATOR CROSBY: Are they American or...
SENATOR HALL: Madam President and members, Senator Crosby, they are an organization that were individuals that were from Ireland. They are based out of Chicago. They are fronted by the British government.
SENATOR CROSBY: What was their basic opposition, just because they're...
SENATOR HALL: Their basic opposition was that they are working on this issue, that the ... they-spoke to the types of laws that were passed to deal with this issue in terms of what Britain has done in fair employment areas,...
SENATOR CROSBY: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I was just curious as to who they were, because when I looked at the witness list,...
SENATOR HALL: They were bankrolled by the British government.
SENATOR CROSBY: They were being what?
SE14ATCR HALL: Bankrolled by the British government.
SENATOR CROSBY: Oh, okay, paid. All right, thank you. Yeah, well, I just ... I wanted to get that clear, and I did want to state again you talk about businesses in Northern Ireland that
are using perhaps the unrest, shall we call it, to their advantage. I don't think that's probably completely accurate. But knowing the way human beings operate, that probably is true in some instances. But I do think the fact that people are working, and I don't know who all those people are, but I know that they are working. I take... I understand what I'm being told, that the MacBride Principles, if you want to put that in quotes, they're working at putting that into their employment laws. And many of the businesses are living up to it and making the reports. And I don't know what Senator Haberman was reading from, but I do know it has to do with ratios, if a town is more Catholic or more Protestant then they have to work at being sure that the two religious groups are being employed in an equal way as far as that ratio. So, I do think again we are interjecting ourselves here. And, look, there is about ten people on the floor, so you can see how much people think of this issue and whether or not it really is an issue. I don't think it is a big issue for us. I don't think that it hurts for us to talk about it, because any injustices, anything that we see that we need to discuss, as I said a little while ago, earlier on another thing, we're a debating society, this is the place to talk about it. But I don't think we should interject ourselves into Northern Ireland, I don't think we should put a burden on the investment corporation, the Investment Council, I mean, in the State of Nebraska. I think we should be working at making Nebraska a better state and hope and pray that Ireland, one day, is one nation. Some of you may live to see that happen. So, thank you again. I'm not going to support the amendment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Crosby.
SENATOR CROSBY: I'm going to support your amendment, but I'm not going to support Senator Hall's amendment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Crosby. Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President, members. Again, I rise in support of Senator Chambers' amendment, I think it clarifies the thrust of what the original amendment is intended to do. And I would like to ask Senator Witek, if she would respond to a request. Senator Witek, would you, over the microphone, say your name again.
SENATOR WITEK: Kathleen Ellen Briget McNally Witek, ten brothers and sisters, even more than you, Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: No, I'm one of 15, Kate.
SENATOR WITEK: Oh, is it, close.
SENATOR HALL: But that's almost poetic, say that again, would you, please.
SENATOR WITEK: Give me a break.
SENATOR HALL: Please, pretty please.
SENATOR WITEK: (Laugh.) No.
SENATOR HALL: Okay. I'll take your vote, that's all right, any time I can get it. I don't expect you'll make a habit of it, but I do appreciate it. I think if you stay in the body long enough you will hopefully vote more often with me and Senator Chambers. But in any case, one day at a time, one vote at a time. But, thank you, and you do have a lovely name. In any case, Senator Crosby, I respectfully disagree. I think this is absolutely our responsibility. We're talking about state investment of state dollars that we have every right to determine how it should be invested. And I think that it is not for us to ignore how that is being invested. I think 'it is absolutely the kind of thing that we should take a look at. Oftentimes we overlook those things. We give those duties and those responsibilities to individuals like the State Investment Officer and we trust them to do that, but that does not mean. we should be limited merely to just asking them to do the job. What we ought to do is come back and look at how that's being done. If there are areas where we think there should be investments made, where there should be investments that should be curtailed, we ought to take a position on it, we ought to make a public policy stand, and that's what this amendment does, the overriding amendment. The Chambers amendment, again, I support to it. I think it bolsters the Hall-Chambers and Lindsay amendment. I, again, would urge folks to support this. It is an issue of equal opportunity as it relates to hiring practices, and that's what the MacBride ride Principles are. It does not penalize those corporations that Senator Haberman correctly points out when lie says that there are corporations that are currently abiding by those. They will not be penalized by those. Those are the types of corporations that I believe we should be investing in. Those are the types of corporations that the
Investment Officer says they are not only a good investment, but they are the type of corporation that has adopted affirmative action, that has adopted equal opportunity guidelines. Those are the folks we should be investing state dollars in so they bring us a fair return, but also represent the kind of ideals and opportunities that we want to see folks in Nebraska have as well. I think that it's clearly within our responsibility to give some direction to the State Investment Officer for purposes of these kinds of opportunities. And I don't think the fact that there are merely 10, or 12, or 15 people on the floor has any... is any indication of the support for this type of a measure. I think they're probably all listening, they do, they listen to us all the time when we're off the floor, and we'll ask them to scurry back with a call of the house so that they can support this proposal. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. Senator Crosby.
SENATOR CROSBY: Question. I call the question.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Do I see five hands? The question is, shall debate cease? All those in favor vote aye, all those opposed vote nay. Please record. Senator. There's been a request for a call of the house. All those in favor vote aye, all those opposed vote nay. Please record.
CLERK: 8 ayes, 0 nays to go under call, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: The house is under call. Will all senators please return to their seats. Will all unauthorized personnel please leave the floor and will senators check in. The house is under call. Senator Abboud, Senator Bohlke, Senator Bromm. Senator Ashford. Senator will accept call-in votes?
SENATOR CROSBY: Yes, I'll take call-in votes, yes.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator.
CLERK: Senator Hartnett voting yes. Senator McKenzie voting yes. Senator Cudaback voting yes. Senator Moore voting yes. Senator Jones voting yes. Senator Bohlke voting yes. Senator Engel voting yes. Senator Schmitt voting yes. Senator Wehrbein voting yes. Senator Schimek voting yes. Senator Day voting yes. Senator Will voting yes. Senator Schellpeper voting yes. Senator Janssen voting yes.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Please record.
CLERK: 25 ayes, 0 nays to cease debate.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Debate is ceased. Senator Chambers, do you wish to close on your amendment?
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Yes, Madam President and members of the Legislature, I will be very brief on this one. A copy of it is on your desk. One of the provisions indicates that when it comes to layoffs and so forth, that cannot be done in a way that favors any group. The words that I'm adding, and all that I'm adding, or discriminate against. So, we say that you can neither favor one because of his or her religion, nor discriminate against another because of his or hers. As the bill is drafted all it does is say you cannot favor, and this would say, or discriminate. If anybody has a question, it's too late to ask it. I hope that, because the amendment is so simple, I've made it clear, and to speak longer would probably confuse the issue.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. Senator McKenzie, will you check in. Senator Schellpeper, will you check in. Senators Ashford, Bohlke and Hudkins. The question before the body is the adoption of the Chambers amendment to the Hall amendment to LB 1066. All those in favor vote aye, all those opposed vote nay. Please record.
CLERK: 35 ayes, 0 nays, Madam President, on the adoption of Senator Chambers' amendment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: The Chambers amendment to the Hall amendment is adopted. I raise the call. Any further discussion of the Hall amendment?
CLERK: I have nothing further pending at this time, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Madam President and members of the Legislature, let me, what they call, cut to the chase. There are investment ... there are people who cannot invest and entities that cannot invest in corporations doing business in or with
South Africa because we have a law that requires divestment-and also one that prohibits any new investment. If 1066 does not pass, we have divestment existing as a matter of fact. There cannot be investment of the kind that we've prohibited with the existing law. If the MacBride Principles are adopted, we have merely a statement of principles which will not require divestment. So, here is what I offer today, do we accept a statement of principles which will not require divestment and by so doing eliminate a law that does require divestment, or will we reject the statement of principles which does not require divestment and keep in place the current law which requires it? When I decide to do' something like this it's because I've thought about it deeply, and I wouldn't do it if I didn't believe in it. And I believe in this more than I believe in the necessity of passing 1066. LB 1066 is my bill. I understand. there are utility companies and others who have expressed concern. The South African government is concerned, they want as much investment as they can. They want as many disinvestment bills repealed as possible. One reason I think I'm getting more calls now is because Nebraska was the first state to require divestment, or disinvestment, if you will. If the MacBride Principles are not adopted, LB 1066 is mine. And as the introducer I can ask that it be pulled from the agenda. And if the MacBride Principles are not adopted, in order that we won't delay and take additional time on it, 1 will pull 1066 from the agenda. And for another year Nebraska will have disinvestment. The Investment Officer will not be allowed to invest in a list of corporations. LB 1066 carries -the emergency clause, the reason it was added was so that if 1066 is passed by the Legislature and the Governor signs it, both of which things would happen ordinarily, it would take effect immediately, and no longer would there be a list of corporations in the investment universe in which the Investment Officer and every other entity affected by the existing state law could not invest. They could begin immediately making investments, if such investments comported with the prudent person rule, according to which all investments must be made by the state. Why would I do this? Because a year of additional disinvestment is the price that will be paid for not doing the right thing. We can come back next year and disinvest, but the South African government and others will not be able to point to the State of Nebraska as the one, which having been the first to require divestment, was among those repealing that requirement. I wish that you could read the amendment that is being offered and show me any part of it with which you disagree. If you would show me
that part and it was... and it's unreasonable in your opinion, and you could show me where it's unreasonable, then maybe I would agree with you. But if that is not presented the only thing that exists as a reason for not doing this is because the British government is opposed to it. People say it won't have any impact, but it will. Governments don't throw money...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: ... away on matters like this. They throw it away on other things, but they're not going to hire lobbyists to go around this country opposing the adoption of these principles, if their adoption means nothing. If the State of Nebraska is so inconsequential, Nebraska would be written off and forgotten. But Nebraska was very crucial in the South African divestment campaign, and it can be very crucial in nudging those powers that have the authority and the wherewithal to arrive at a just and equitable solution to the problems racking Northern Ireland.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. There are no further lights. Senator' Hall, would you like to close on your amendment.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President. The issue has been, I think, debated, it has been around. Senator Hartnett just came up here and he was one of the initial introducers of this proposal, arid he came up and he said, this isn't the same proposal that I had originally brought in a number of years ago, and it's not. It doesn't have the same kind of sanctions built into it. And I know Senator Haberman has always been a strong opponent of the original version of this proposal that did carry a number of sanctions, and did require divestment as the South African proposal that Senator Chambers put in place nearly 20 years ago now. The proposal in the MacBride Principles is merely nothing more than nine equal opportunity guidelines that individuals have the ability to help curb discrimination for purposes of employment. It is not meant to put a hammer over corporations. It is not meant to divest corporations, or Nebraska investment of corporations over there in Ireland. What it is meant to do is put Nebraska on record as saying we think the equal opportunity, the lack of equal opportunity in Northern Ireland, the lack of affirmative action in terms of hiring of minority, religious minorities in this case, is something that has to be addressed. And the way you, frankly, address things
on an international level is through economics. You do it much more effectively through economics than you do through war. War is merely just a form of economics, really. You ruin the economy of a country, you wipe it out, in effect, you tear it up, and- it has an economic impact, not to mention a human impact. But economic sanctions are probably the most effective. Clearly, they are as bloodless as you can get in terms of trying to bring about change in policy. And this is the kind of policy that deserves and cries out to be changed, I believe. I think Nebraska can take a great step by adopting this amendment, and then on to 1066, and then advancing it over to Final Reading. Madam President, I'd give the balance of the close to Senator Chambers.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Madam President, members of the Legislature, the bill is mine. I don't want to unduly delay us. So if the principles, if this amendment is not adopted, I'm going to pass over 1066, and we will have another year of disinvestment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. The question before the body is the adoption of the Hall amendment to LB 1066. All those in favor vote aye, all those opposed vote nay. Have you all voted? Have you all voted? Mr. Clerk... Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: I will ask for a call of the house, and I will accept call-ins.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: There's been a request for a call of the house. All those in favor...and Senator Hall will also accept the callins. There's been a request for a call of the house. All those in favor vote aye, all those opposed vote nay. Please record.
CLERK: 15 ayes, 0 nays to go under call.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: The house is under call. Will all senators please return to their seats. Will all unauthorized personnel please leave the floor, and will senators please check in. Will all senators please return to their seats, the house is under call. Senator Moore, Senator Ashford, Senator Beutler. Senator Cudaback, Senator Rasmussen, Senator Vrtiska. Senator Will, Senator Janssen, Senator Jones. Call-in votes are authorized.
Senator, you want a roll call on call of the house? Senator Moore. Senator Jones, will you check in, please. Waiting for Senator Moore. Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: (Roll call vote taken. See pages 1807-08 of the Legislative Journal.) 28 ayes, 2 nays on the adoption of the amendment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: The Hall amendment is adopted. I raise the call. Is there any further discussion...or, excuse, Mr. Clerk, is there anything further on the bill.
CLERK: Senator Haberman. Senator Haberman.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Which amendment do you have?
CLERK: Senator, I have ... I have all your amendments. I also have your priority motions.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Let's take the priority motions.
CLERK: Madam President, Senator Haberman would move to bracket LB 1066 until Feb ... or, I'm sorry, Until April 10, 1994.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: They're having a war in South Africa. it's not being settled until April, the 26th and 28th. That's when the elections are. They're having elections down there. So, they're having a war. It says gun-toting whites tout separate state. There are 40 million people in South Africa; 5 million are white, 35 million are black. The 5 million people are saying no peace, demands are ... or the demands are met and they're being said by Africans and Zulu allies... allies. Who is Zulus? That is Buthelezi. I was fortunate enough to have lunch with Mr. Buthelezi and he's not one to throw in the towel. So, they're going to have blood shed down there. So, I don't see how we can pass legislation that gets us involved at this time. So, I'll respectfully... respectfully ask that you bracket 1066 until April 10. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Haberman. Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President and members. I respectfully stand to oppose the bracket motion. I understand. And, Senator Haberman has been one of the leading opponents of the MacBride Principles on probably the same kind of public policy basis that... I guess I support them. He has... and we talked about this. And, I thought the... the debate was going to go differently. I thought we were going to divide the... the issue and it probably would, for lack to time, find itself falling by the wayside, because I had no intention of trying to hold up Senator Chambers' bill. And, I didn't want to delay the... the body to any great extent today. I thought we had moved quite a bit last night and that we've done some good work this morning, and we were moving down the Select File calendar. I'd rise to oppose the...the bracket motion, even though it's just till, I guess, Sunday. But, I do think that the... the divestment in South Africa, the repeal of that, makes sense at this time. I know that Senator Haberman has introduced a couple of resolutions to that effect, just in the last ten hours or so, that those are going to be debated on the floor, more than likely, toward the end of the session; and that there...he clearly has a concern in this area. But, I think he has also addressed the MacBride Principles. They are ... when they were originally brought in, as I stated earlier in the close on that amendment, they were much more stringent, much stricter, much more of a sanction than they. . . the policy statement that we have made by amending 1066. 1 don't think they are ... the ... anywhere re near what opponents of the measure had originally thought they were. They thought they were similar to the ... the old legislation that was brought in. But, I respectfully still stand to oppose the bracket. I think that the...both the adoption of the MacBride Principles and the repeal of the South Africa sanctions makes good sense at this point. They're both public policy statements that ... that I support, and I think the body should as well. With that, I would respectfully oppose Senator Haberman's bracket motion.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. Senator Schimek.
SENATOR SCHIMEK: Yes, Mr. (sic) President and members of the body, 1, too, stand to oppose the bracket motion. And... and, Senator Haberman, I ... I respect what you just said. I mean, I ... I think you make a good point and it concerns me also. I think it probably concerns Senator Chambers also. But, I'm going to follow his lead on this one because I think that what he did, in the first place, lie started this whole thing, and
April 1 7, 1994
really had a... a huge impact on the situation in South Africa, I believe. And, I trust his judgment on this one. And, I'm going to oppose the bracket motion and vote to advance the bill. Thank you.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Schimek. Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Madam President, members of the body', I was assured, I was told, not to worry about the MacBride Principles bill because the amendment was going to be pulled. So, I haven't said a word. I have not got up and rant and raved and screamed and hollered because I was told, and I believed. I'm naive. After being here 16 years, I'm still naive that 1 believed what I was told, that the amendment would be pulled. So, I sat here and waited and waited and waited for it to be pulled. I was told that, let Senator Chambers rant and rave for a while and use up some time, and then it'll be pulled. So, I have no other, course now but to go ahead and I have 19 amendments on this bill, three priority and 16 others. I have no other choice now but to go through and use all these amendments, use all this time. And that's what I was trying to do, was save time also. But after somebody tells you something face to face and it doesn't happen, what would you do? You would do the same thing. So how can this body shy to the South African people, although you're killing people down there, you're having riots, Zulus are using their swords, the white police are standing around Tatting them go, how can we interrupt and put our two bits' worth in to South Africa? I don't think it's right.. We shouldn't be sticking our nose in that until after the elections. Then, if we want to get involved, we can. If I remember correctly... I'm going to change the subject. If I remember correctly, Senator Chambers said he was going to pull 1066. Is that correct, Senator Chambers?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Chambers.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I...I think you said if the amendment was adopted, you're going to pull 1066. Is that correct?
SENATOR CHAMBERS: If the amendment was adopted? Ask me the quest ... no, I said if the amendment is not adopted, then I'm going to pull the bill. I said it means so much to me, and it's my bill, if the principles are not adopted, then I will pull the bill.
April 7. 1994
SENATOR HABERMAN: I'm sorry. I misinterpreted what you said, Senator Chambers. Thank you. To April 10 still gives this body time, it's on Select File, to go ahead and move this bill. So, I'd ask your support of the bracket of 1066. thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you. Senator Fisher.
SENATOR FISHER: Madam President and members, in light of the debate that I hear, I've heard and listened to, and the world news, I think Senator Haberman's motion to a bracket is quite in order. I think we might be out of place by allowing our financial ... and making a move to invest in South Africa. As we know, South Africa has terrible problems. I just don't think it's a sound and safe thing to even position ourself to be in a position to invest down there. So, I think, in light of all the world activities and the activity down there, I think we ought to support Senator Haberman's move to bracket, after all, it is only till the 10th, to let this thing settle a little bit and then we can go about and address this bill next week. I hope you vote to bracket it.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Fisher. Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Madam President and members of the Legislature, as a past mastre of the art of offering amendments, I will speak one time and suggest that we not adopt Senator Haberman's amendment. I know that Senator Pappas is the lobbyist for the British government on this bill. I'm not offended in the least. I don't want anybody to think that by him giving me some crackers and warm water, he thought he could influence me in any way because he knows he can't. So, 'we have a very good relationship, and his taking on a client does not impact on that one whit with me. Senator Fisher does not even know what we have been talking about, and what I would hope you'd do is let Senator Haberman talk as long as he-can. Let it ... vote down his bracket motion. He cannot continue to make repeated bracket motions under the rules. And, then let him argue each one of his ... his amendments. If there's no discussion, then he's got to carry it all by himself. And, since he has these strong beliefs, let him do it. But, Senator Haberman, I want to ask you a question. Senator Haberman, when apartheid was in its ... at its height, and we were considering a ,divestment bill, did you accept a trip to South Africa, paid for by the South African government?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I don't see where this has anything to do with the discussion, Senator Chambers....
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Did you...
SENATOR HABERMAN: ..but I went to South Africa as a guest of the South African government, yes.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Now, here's my next question?
SENATOR HABERMAN: Did you vote against the divestment bill?
SENATOR HABERMAN: Did I what?
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Did you...when we had a bill before the Legislature to require divestment, did you vote against that bill?
SENATOR HABERMAN: I don't recall.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Well, check the record. And, now he is saying that he is for divestment. This is a part of the opposition to the MacBri-de Principles, so I would suggest that since Senator Haberman is not conversant with what is happening in South Africa, some of the comments he has made already, as brief as they are, are not reflective in a factual way of what has happened there,* and I think the matter is too serious, too grave, for me to even dignify those kind of comments by pretending that it can be part of a serious discussion. I'm not even going to address them. All I'm going to say is this once. I'm going to oppose this motion. I hope the other members will simply vote against his motions as the point for a vote will be reached.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President and members, again I ,rise in opposition of the bracket motion. Senator Haberman's comments with regard to being told that the amendment would be pulled are true. I said that if the debate was extended, if we ended up dividing the issue, that it was... that if it became a... a long drawn-out proposition, that I was not going to waste
the body's time on that; that if individuals were opposed to the individual components of' the MacBride Principles, and there was a lot of debate, that I was ... that I would pull the motion. That did not happen. We did not divide it. There was little opponition to the issue. And I, for one, felt that there wits no need to pull it. It was ... it came before the body to a vote. And it was not a... an effort on my part to deceive Senator Haberman. That... that clearly is not the way I operate and if he feels that way, for that, I apologize, but it was not my intent and the amendment is adopted now., It is not the kind of provision that has been before this body before. I really do not think that there needs to be opposition to it. It... it is not the onerous sanctions that have been here before in the past. It is clearly a public policy statement in terms of investment, for those types of companies that deal with affirmative action in Northern Ireland and I believe that's where the... the opposition is based, not 'on the...the issue of South Africa, although I do respect his freedom to address that issue. With that, again I rise to oppose the bracket motion.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Madam President, members of the body, Senator Chambers, I have the facts here in front. of me, and you don't. This is In the World-Herald, March 27. 'rile country's first all-race elections April 26 to the 28th. Whites make up 12 percent of South Africa's 40 million people. Buthelezi says I want free voting. These are facts. These aren't just getting up and screaming, hollering and ... and saying things that aren't true, Senator Chambers. I have here another one, April 6. White South Africans hoarding supplies. And it goes on and tell how the white people are scared to death. Now, if that isn't war, if that isn't going to turn into killing, then I'm wrong, and I'll admit that I'm wrong. I just... I just don't understand... oh... if... if Senator Pappas being a lobbyist bothers you so much, or doesn't bother you, why do you bring it up all the time? This is the third time I've heard this, so why bring it up all the time? Sure, he's a lobbyist. If you were up against Senator Hall and Senator Ernie Chambers, wouldn't you holler for help? Well, I hollered for help and I got help. I hope the help comes through. So it doesn't bother me that Senator Pappas is hired. We hired a lobbyist last time, Senator Chambers, when Senator Hartnett has this ball ... has this bill. We hired a lobbyist for that, so I don't think there's anything wrong with hiring a lobbyist if you need help and I need help,
lots of help. I still say we have. no business investing in South Africa, or not investing in South Africa, and saying nothing about South Africa. We ought to stay out of it until after the elections. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator. There's no further discussion on the motion to bracket. Senator, do you wish to close?
SENATOR HABERMAN: I'll ask for a call of the house.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: There's been a request for a call of the house. All those in favor, vote aye. All those opposed, vote nay. Please record.
CLERK: 13 ayes, 0 nays to go under call, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: The house is under call. Will all senators please return to their seats. Will all unauthorized personnel please leave the floor. Will senators please check in. The house is under call, Senator Matzke, Senator Bohlke, Senator Preister, Senator Rasmussen, Senator Cudaback. Senators Elmer, Janssen, Wesely. Senator Kristensen, will you check in, please. Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: May I be allowed to close, please.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Please, Senator.
SENATOR HABERMAN: The motion we're discussing, and what we're going to vote on, is a motion to bracket 1066 to April the 10th. Now, what we're doing is we're saying Nebraska is going to stay out of the South African fight, if there is one. And, there is one, folks, believe me. We're not going to get involved until after the elections and the elections will be held the 26th and 28th. Then we can get involved if we want to. What we're going to do is if we defeat, if we bracket this bill, it can still be considered, and if it's not still considered, we've lost nothing. We have lost nothing because we can't invest there now. So, I ... I can't see the concern for why we should pass the bill. We can't invest in South Africa now. If we throw on the mantle of the MacBride Principles on people, this is going to hurt investments. And ... Mac...MacBride Principles are in the bill I read a list of American firms that had the Mac ... MacBride Principles. Some of them hired a larger percent
of Catholics than Protestants, some of them didn't, but they all had the MacBride Principles, so we're doing here a... a exercise in futility. Madam President, I ask for a roll call vote.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Haberman. Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Do I have any time left?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: No... you ... your time just ran out. It ran out as you...
SENATOR HABERMAN: I'm a week late and a dollar short anyway, SO...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Cudaback. We're waiting for Senator Cudaback. We're waiting for Senator Cudaback. Senator Haberman. I'm sorry. I thought you had raised your ... you have...I thought that you wanted to speak. I'm sorry.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I do.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Would you like to proceed, or would you like to wait for Senator Cudaback?
SENATOR HABERMAN: Do I get to speak?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: I'm sorry, Senator.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Do I get to speak or not?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: No, Senator. Senator Cudaback is on his way here. Would you like to proceed before he gets here? Thank you, Senator. Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Is there a machine vote?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: A machine vote? May we proceed? Thank you, Senator. The question before the body is whether to bracket LB 1066 or not. All those in favor, vote aye. All those opposed, vote nay. Have you all voted? Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Roll call vote, please.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Please ... there's been a request for A roll
call vote. Mr. Clerk.
CLERK: (Roll call vote taken. See page 1808 of the Legislative Journal.) 8 ayes, 29 nays, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Motion to bracket fails. I raise the call. Anything further on the bill, Mr. Clerk?
CLERK: Madam President, Senator Haberman. Want to go to the other priorities, Senator. Okay, Senator Haberman would move to refer... recommit the bill to the Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Madam President, when this bill was put out ,of the committee, some of the committee members, as I understand it, did not understand what they were voting on. At that time, the problem in So South Africa was not so violent as it is now. The rules say that we can take a bill, send it back to the committee, have the committee study it and look at it, and again make a decision. Now, I don't think that all the members of the committee understood exactly what they were doing. I have some of them that told me, if we had known what we were voting on, I wouldn't have voted for it. Folks, it wouldn't have got out of committee. So, what...what I'm trying to do is... Well, first of all, you were told that if the MacBride Principles haven't ... was ... takes a long time, a lot to debate ... a lot of debate, the amendment would be pulled. You were told that. I was told don't make people mad. Don't rock the boat. Don't make people mad, I'm going to pull the amendment. Now... and Senator Hall admitted to this body that he told me that. I trust Senator Hall, I trusted Senator Hall, I like Senator Hall, but when he changes his ... what he said to me right out in the hallway I don't know what to think. He said, if there's a lot of debate, I'll pull the amendment. Well, there was debate, but he didn't say to me he'd pull the amendment if there's a lot of debate. He said, we'll let Senator Chambers rant and rave for a while, then I'll pull the amendment. Don't shake your head, no. That's what you told me, Tim Hall. That's what you told me. And, he said, also, don't make people mad, so I said nothing. I said nothing. I did not get up and talk about the MacBride Principles. So, folks, I guess I'm... I'm kind of frustrated, but if we want to play games, if we want to let Senator Chambers tie this body up into knots, intimidate people, scream and
holler, I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that, I can do it also. He's been a good teacher. He's been a good teacher. So we'll go through the amendments, one by one by one. Oh, also, I would like to... I would like to throw this into the Lincoln senators. The Harris Laboratories have an investment in Ireland. They're opposed to the MacBride Principles that are in the bill. Right here in Lincoln they're opposed to the MacBride, Principles. There are other firms, I read the other firms, they're opposed to the bill. Now, you know, there's one other thing I can do. Being as I did not vote, I can move to reconsider Hall's amendment to 1066 and we can go through the exercise again, so I think I'll do that. I'm going to move to reconsider AM 3685 to the Chamber's amendment. So, if I could have a Page, please.
CLERK: Do you want to withdraw your motion that we're on?
SENATOR HABERMAN: No, I don't want to withdraw my motion.,
CLERK: Okay. Then we're on this motion. We'll do that.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Yes. We'll do that one later.
SENATOR HABERMAN: What I'm asking in this motion that we're talking about now is to recommit 1066 to the Banking and Insurance Committee, so they can take another look. They could even have a committee meeting while we're still in session. They could do this tomorrow or the next day. They could have a committee meeting. And they could have me come down and Senator Chambers come down and Senator Hall come down and everybody talk, try to convince the committee yes or no, they should put the bill out or they shouldn't. That's fair. That's up front. I'm... I'm being honest with you. I'm not telling you one thing and doing something else. so, we're ... we're going to really get through this thing. We're going to... If this takes three or four hours, I don't care. I've had a good teacher. Senator Chambers taught me well how to do this. All you have to do is keep talking and make noise and hat's what I'm going to do, is keep talking and make noise. So, this motion is to recommit to the Banking, Insurance and Commerce (sic) Committee from where it came from, LB 1066. Now, what we're talking about investing down in South Africa. That's what we're talking about. We have... I have newspaper stories. I haven't been to South Africa
because I can't tell you this firsthand, lately, whether these things are true, but they wouldn't be in the press if they weren't true, because the press does not print anything that is not true. So we'll go through here and we'll kind of let you people know what's going on down in South Africa. The headlines say: "Panic Rises as Elections Near", Johannesburg, South Africa. In the white suburbs of this city, supermarket shelves are beginning to suggest Moscow rather than "mink and manure belt," the South African term for wealthy neighborhoods where fur coats and show horses are status symbols. Panicked by the approach of all-race elections, whites are stockpiling canned tuna, candles, water purification tablets, electric generators in preparation for the black majority rule. Now don't forget, folks, it's 10 million to 5 million down there. No... it's...I'm sorry...it's ... the ratio is 40 million people, 5 million of whites and 35 million blacks. Now, these whites are... are afraid. I don't blame them. I'd be afraid, too. They're different than the blacks we have in our country. They're ,different. They're even different than the black we have in the Legislature. He's different. They're different. Camping equipment stores report a run on portable cooking stoves and gas canisters by first-time users, while at gun shops ammunition sales have skyrocketed. At gun shops, they're selling more ammunition they ever have before. Now, what does that tell us? Speeded by FAX, photocopier fliers and word-of-mouth, rumors about the post-election abound. Striking black workers will cripple deliveries and force supermarkets to close. White right wing organizations will sabotage the national power grid, and con... contaminate water supplies. Gas stations will run out of gas. Hospitals and pharmacies will run out of medicine. Now, if that isn't a problem, I'll throw in with you. That is a problem, and I don't think that we have any business getting involved, which we will with 1066, down in South Africa. And it goes on to say, we have always been told to believe that if the blacks come to power it would destroy South Africa. They will have a "kill the whites day.," That after 1960, the Charlottesville Massacre, the Sowetto (phonetic) Riots of 1976, and the declaration of nationwide state of emergencies. The alarm harks back to "kill the wizards," the war cry attributed to the 19th century Zulu king. Ironically, panic-buying may be a positive sign that a majority of whites would rather stay than flee.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR HABERMAN: So, we'll go on. Here is says, at the start of the rally, the square was ringed by sixteen hundred armed khakiclad whites in military formation. Police watched from nearby and made no attempt, made no attempt to disarm the participants. Whites make up about 12 percent of South Africa's 40 million. That's where I'm getting my figures of 35 million blacks to 5 million whites. It demonstrates to the world that we will have the unit ... uni ... uni ... unity ... unity to get our state, unity to get our state. We stand here to say to the world this is Africa nation. We are not aggressive, but we've built this country with sweat and sacrifices ...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time.
SENATOR HABERMAN: ..and we'll never let it be taken away from US. That's the white African speaking. Now, if that doesn't show...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time, Senator.
SENATOR HABERMAN: we shouldn't get in involved in Africa, what does?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time is up.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Senator Chambers stands here and says, we're not... they're not...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time, Senator. Senator Hall, your light is next.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President. I rise to oppose the motion to refer the bill back to committee. The committee members who supported advancement of the bill were... the vote .was five to two. If you look at the committee statement, there was one present and not voting. Four of the five voted for the amendment. Another one did not vote. I don't think that the committee was unaware of what they were voting on. It was clearly something that had been before the committee a number of times, although in a... a different form. It was an issue that we had talked about on a couple of different occasions and, when there was a... a full complement of members of the committee, we made the motion to advance and it was advanced to the full floor of the Legislature in the form of LB 705. 1 don't think referring it back to the committee would provide any additional
information that the committee hasn't already dealt with, nor do I believe that the... the vote on the advancement, should it be referred back, would be any different. I do think that the proposal in the form of the MacBride Principles that were adopted in 1066 should stay in the bill. If the bill fails to ... to move, it fails to move, Senator. It is Senator Chambers' bill. fie has the ... the luxury of dealing with it in any manner lie chooses. I don't think the motion to refer to committee, though, would provide any different result if it were sent back there. So, I would urge the body not to support that motion to refer back to committee. I ...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Madam Chairman, I wonder if Senator Hall would answer a question for me, please.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Uh-huh.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Senator Hall, should we include Israel in this bill?
SENATOR HALL: No.
SENATOR HABERMAN: And why not?
SENATOR HALL: Because we haven't had a hearing on those issues.'
SENATOR HABERMAN: Oh, we haven't had a hearing. Oh, okay. I didn't think about that. Thank you, Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: You're welcome.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Thank you for calling that to my attention. But, it wouldn't be discrimination, would it?
SENATOR HALL: I'm -.0vi-J, Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Being as we are not going to include Israel because we didn't have a hearing, we're not talking about discrimination, are we?
SENATOR HALL: No, clearly we are talking about discrimination.
I mean, we might not be talking about all the discrimination that's taking place across the world, but we are talking about discrimination.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Would you like to include Israel in this bill, you, personally?
SENATOR HALL: It ... not in this bill. I don't that ... what form it would manifest itself in, but I ... I would address that issue in a separate piece of legislation. Sure.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Well, you didn't answer my question. I said, would you like to include Israel in this bill?
SENATOR HALL: No. No.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Thank you. Senator Witek, answer a question, please?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Haberman, go ahead.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Should we include Israel in this bill?
SENATOR WITEK: Oh, Senator Haberman, I was fine with the bill. the way it was.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Do you... answer me yes or no, please.
SENATOR WITEK: No.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Well, why not?
SENATOR WITEK: I'm sorry. I wasn't following the discussion.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I'm saying, should we include Israel in this bill?
SENATOR WITEK: And what were your reasons for including Israel in, this bill?
SENATOR HABERMAN: Pardon?
SENATOR WITEK: Did you have ... given reasons ... have you given your reasons?
SENATOR HABERMAN: I asked you a question. Just answer me yes or no.
SENATOR WITEK: No.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Why? Why not?
SENATOR WITEK: Because I believe that this bill is to just affect South Africa and Ireland at this time. If you'd like to bring a bill that would affect Israel, I'm sure that the body would be open to that suggestion if that came through the same channels that these two bills came through.
SENATOR HABERMAN: So you would not support putting Israel in the bill?
SENATOR WITEK: Not at this time.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Would you tomorrow?
SENATOR WITEK: No.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Thank you, Senator Witek. Senator Chambers isn't here, so I can't ask him. What are we having, warm water and crackers, Senator Hall? Oh, it's crunch time. Okay. Senator Chambers isn't here, so I'll answer for him. No, he would not like to enter... include ... Senator Chambers would not like to include Israel in this bill because it's racist. We ... we should include everybody or no one. But we'll get to this point sooner or later as we go through these amendments, one by one by one. I have been told some people think I can't talk that long. Well, we're going to find out that they're wrong. I'm been sitting here for 16 years wanting-watching Senator Hall. I've been sitting here for 12 years watching Senator Land... What have you ... got something to say, Senator Hall? Go ahead, use my time and say it.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President and members, Senator Haberman, I was just going to say, I came in here, you were kicking my tail; you're leaving and you're kicking my tail on the way out, so I'm... the more things change, the more they stay the same. So...
SENATOR HABERMAN: Well, sometimes your tail needs kicking, Senator Hall, and, being's I'm the only one that's going to kick
it, I'll' kick it for you. I'll even kick Senator Chambers' ticket for... or hall...or butt for him if he wants it kicked. But that has nothing to do with recommitting the bill, I guess. I'm just using up time ... oops...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Just about just turned my light on. I get to speak three times. Thank you, Madam Chairman. (Inaudible) on this first... second time. We heard Senator Hall say that the members of the committee, five of them voted yes. I talked to one member of the committee and he told me, personally, he didn't know what he was doing. Didn't understand, and he would have voted no, so that gives them a four vote, Senator Hall. It wouldn't have gotten out of the committee. So don't stand there and ..and tell us that ... well, you could tell us your opinion, anything you want to and ... but I'm not going to take your opinion for granted anymore. I'm sorry about that. I'm sorry that the session's going to end because I could really be on your case more than I can now, in the last three or four days. But, to go on, it says more than 5,000 while extremists dressed in khaki and packing guns...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time..
SENATOR HABERMAN: ..burned the flag of the new South Africa and swore Saturday to fight for an independent whites only state.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: You're welcome.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: You're the next speaker.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I've never had such attention. The quietness just thrills me. Usually, it's so noisy in here you can't hear what you're saying. But I'm glad to see my friend, Senator Hall, sitting over there eating crackers and drinking warm...warm water because I...I may get some conversation out of him yet. There ... you got something else to say, Senator Chambers, or Senator Hall? Senator Pedersen, are you leaving us? Well, let's go on here and talk some more. It says two of South Africa's four provinces, plus a part of northern Natal, to provide a corridor to the Indian Ocean. Johannesburg, the largest city in Transvaal, would be
excluded, along with several black homelands, the right wing leader said. The white wing ... the white right wing and Zulu nationalists oppose the constitution negotiated. Now, let's talk about the Zulus. They're the largest black entity within the black entity in South Africa and they're tough. They are tough. We had a picture in the paper the other day of the Zulus and their... and their swords. They're great ones to use swords... or use ... not swords, but they use ... what is the word, what am I thinking about, Senator Hall? They use ... spears... that's right. Thank you, Senator Hall. I'm ... I'm glad, to see you're getting into the spirit of the thing. It shows these Zulus with the heads of their spears, about this long, thousands of them, putting on a demonstration. And, the white police are supposed to stop all of this. They didn't do it because they know that those Zulus would have turned on them and used those spearheads. So ... we don't know what's going on down there, really. I think Senator Chambers might have a point. We don't know what's going on down there, but what's going on down there is wrong. It's wrong for this country to get involved and we are getting involved by, having 1066. So let's refer it back to the committee, have the committee make some phone calls, find out what's going on in South Africa. Then, if the committee feels that they should advance it, we have plenty of time to do that. We can "expediate" the bill, expedite -the bill, and we can get it through this year. So I would say that let's recommit 1066 to the Banking, Insurance, Commerce (sic) Committee and that's all I have to say on this particular motion, Mr. President (sic)...Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Haberman. There are no further lights. Senator Haberman, do you wish to close on your motion?
SENATOR HABERMAN: What do I have, four or five minutes?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Five, Senator.
SENATOR HABERMAN: And it's now 5:24, so it's 5:29?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: That's correct, Senator.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Okay. Thank you. I'll close. Senator Schimek, may I ask you a question, please? Should we include Israel in this bill?
SENATOR SCHIMEK: Pardon me.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Should we include Israel in this bill?
SENATOR SCHIMEK: No.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Why not?
SENATOR SCHIMEK: For all the reasons you've already heard.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Why? What were they?
SENATOR SCHIMEK: If you want Israel included in this kind of a policy, you should bring a bill, have... let it have a hearing, and I ... like Senator Witek, I haven't heard your reasons for wanting to do that, Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Well, I'm asking you. What's your reason for not including them.
SENATOR SCHIMEK: And I'm just telling you.
SENATOR HABERMAN': Well, that's.. that's all you have to do then.
SENATOR SCHIMEK: Thank you.
SENATOR HABERMAN: You're welcome. Senator Vrtiska.
SENATOR VRTISKA: Yes, sir.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Should we include Israel in this bill, and why or why not?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator.
SENATOR VRTISKA: Well, would it be all right if I say I don't know?
SENATOR HABERMAN: Sure. That's fine.
SENATOR VRTISKA: I don't know.
SENATOR HABERMAN: You don't know?
SENATOR VRTISKA: No.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Could you tell me yes or no? Should we or shouldn't we?
SENATOR VRTISKA: I don't know.
SENATOR HABERMAN: You know what the bill does. I'm sure you know what the bill does.
SENATOR VRTISKA: Not very much.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Thank you for being so honest with me. I think that might be the problem with the majority of the people in the body. Oh, wait a minute. I forgot my- friend, Senator Robinson. Should we include Israel in this bill, Senator Robinson?
SENATOR ROBINSON: Explain that a little to me.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Should we include Israel in this bill?
SENATOR ROBINSON: Well, could you give-me a little background on this.
SENATOR HABERMAN: And, if not, why not?
SENATOR ROBINSON: Could you give me a little background-could you fill me in just a little on it?
SENATOR HABERMAN: No, you can just tell me yes or no.
SENATOR ROBINSON: Well, that's pretty hard to be a yes or no question.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Why?
SENATOR ROBINSON: Well ...
SENATOR HABERMAN: When you're out campaigning, people say, Senator Robinson,
SENATOR ROBINSON: There are... there are a lot of ramifications. There are a lot of ramifications to it.
SENATOR HABERMAN: ... what do you feel about this? And, you say yes or no, don't you?
SENATOR ROBINSON: There's a lot of ramifications to it.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Well, tell me what ire some of the ramifications.
SENATOR ROBINSON: Well...what time ... what period of time in history are you talking about?
SENATOR HABERMAN: Now.
SENATOR ROBINSON: Well, I don't know. I'm not... I'm not up-to-date on now. Now, years ago I was. I'm a... I'm older.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Tell me about years ago.
SENATOR ROBINSON: Well, probably yes, then, years ago.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Probably yes, but if things have deteriorated and gotten worse?
SENATOR ROBINSON: Well, I think they're doing pretty good over there now.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Where?, In South Africa?
SENATOR ROBINSON: Well, I thought you were talking about Israel.
SENATOR HABERMAN: No. We're talking about South Africa.
SENATOR ROBINSON: Ch. I ... you had me confused.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I'm trying to confuse you, Senator Robinson.
SENATOR ROBINSON: I saw the Zulus coming down Main Street of Johannesburg the other night on T.V.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Did they look mean?
SENATOR ROBINSON: I'm glad I wasn't on the main street of Johannesburg.
SENATOR HABERMAN: And they were black, weren't they?
SENATOR ROBINSON: Well, well ... they're a minority.
SENATOR HABERMAN: They had spears? They had spears?
SENATOR ROBINSON: Yeah, they. . . some of them did have spears.
SENATOR HABERMAN: They're not the minority. No, they're in the majority.
SENATOR ROBINSON: Well, and... I guess in South Africa they are. Yeah. Yeah... yeah, that...
SENATOR HABERMAN: Now,* we'll get back to Israel.' You wanted me to explain something to you. Well, let me see. If we're going to discriminate ... if... if ... if we're discriminating in 1066 in South Africa and in Ireland, aren't we discriminating in Israel, if we don't include them?
SENATOR ROBINSON: Who ... who you got ... who are you discriminating against?
SENATOR HABERMAN: The Israelites. They're not being hired either. They're fighting. They're fighting.
SENATOR ROBINSON: How about the Palestinians?
SENATOR HABERMAN: Well, we'll include them too, then.
SENATOR ROBINSON: Seems like...seems to me they're the ones that are getting killed over there..
SENATOR HABERMAN: Well, then, that's discrimination then.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR ROBINSON: Well, if they're getting killed, it seems to me they're getting discriminated against.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Senator Robinson, thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate it. Do you have something else you want to say? Senator Schmitt, would you answer a question for me?
SENATOR SCHMITT: I will try, Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: As long as you try, that's all that I ask. Should we include Israel in this bill and, if not, why not?
SENATOR SCHMITT: Well, I guess I really don't know, Rex. I really don't have any money to invest, so I really don't care where we put it.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Even if we don't discriminate, you don't care? Or, if we do discriminate, you don't care?
SENATOR SCHMITT: Well, I don't think we should probably discriminate, but I don't care where we put it.
SENATOR HABERMAN: All right. Thank you, Senator Schmitt. That'll end my closing on this bill.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time. Thank you, Senator. The question before the body is the... is the priority motion to refer this, LB 1066, to committee. All those in favor, vote aye; all those opposed, vote nay. Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I ask for a call of the house.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: There's been a request for a call of the house. All those in favor vote aye. All those opposed vote nay. Have you all voted? Please record.
CLERK: 9 ayes, 3 nays to go under call.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: The house is under call. Will all senators please return to their seats. Will all unauthorized personnel please leave the floor and will senators please check in. Senator Avery, Senator Matzke, Senator Monen. Senator Moore, Senator Chambers, Senator Withem. Waiting for Senator Withem. The question before the body is the adoption of the motion to, refer 1066 to committee. All those in favor vote aye; all those opposed vote nay. Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I'd like to ask for a roll call vote, please.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Mr. Clerk.
ASSISTANT CLERK: Senator Abboud.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: (Gavel.) Could we please have order? Thank you.
ASSISTANT CLERK: (Roll call vote taken. See page 1809 of the Legislative Journal.) 14 ayes, 25 nays on the motion to recommit the bill to the Banking Committee.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Haberman's motion fails. I raise the call. Mr. Clerk, some items for the record.
CLERK: Madam President, thank you. The Committee on Enrollment .and Review respectfully reports they've carefully examined and reviewed LB 72 and recommend same be placed on Select File, LB 1349, LB 1349A, LB 1022, LB 901, those bills all on Select File, some of which have Enrollment and Review amendments attached. Senator Will has amendments to be printed to LB 137. And Enrollment and Review also reports LB 1160 and LB 1160A as correctly engrossed. (See pages 1810-1813 of the Legislative Journal.)
And, Madam President, communication from the Governor to the Clerk, Engrossed LB 1107, LB 1139, LB 1153, LB 1183 received in my office on April 5, and Engrossed LB 1074, LB 1074A, LB 1250, LB 1306, LB 1306A were received in my office on April 6. These bills were signed by me on April 7 and delivered to the Secretary of State.
Madam President, Senator, the reconsider or the bracket motion? Senator Haberman would move to bracket the bill until April 11.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Haberman. I The 1 1. ?? b(.- being Monday.
SENATOR HABERMAN: HOW, let's talk a minute about whose money are we spending. Are we spending Senator Hall's money' No. My money? No. Senator Witek's money? No. We're spending the school retirement money. We're spending the state patrol retirement money. We're spending the judges' retirement money. We're put ... we're spending the permanent school fund money, and we're spending the veterans' aid money. Now, we're...we're taking ... we're saying to this investment officer, you don't ... you can take this money and put it down there in South Africa, and they're going to blow up. We don't care what happens to the money. It's not our money. Tile
Ford Motor Company has not adopted the MacBride Principles; however, their employees are 53 percent Protestant and 41 percent are Catholic, and 6 percent other.- Proctor and Gamble and Exxon have not adopted the MacBride Principles, and they have 16 Protestants and 20 Catholics. General Motors have also not adopted the MacBride Principles and has only 14... So, we're getting into something here, the MacBride Principles and the South African investments that we don't have any business getting into. The School Retirement Fund, the State Patrol Retirement Fund, the Judges Retirement Fund, the Permanent School Fund, Veterans Aid. We have veterans, schools, judges, state patrol and school retirement. We're fooling with their ,investments, with their money, not our money. We're telling the Investment officer to go down there and invest money although they're going to have a war, an internal war. That's not right. I'll go a step further. It was said on this floor on Saint Patrick's Day, if you want to take a day to be Irish, you have to stand around and see British occupation troops standing in your country. Ireland right now is divided and it shouldn't be. The division of Ireland is not the issue here, and it's not. That's never going to be decided by ... by Nebraska and it shouldn't be. They have parades, folks, on Saint Pat's Day in Ireland. They wear the green in Ireland. They have parades. Sure, they have- soldiers standing around and watching. They have soldiers standing around and watching every day. But they do have parades. They do celebrate Saint Pat's Day. So... so this body ... we're ... we have an... an investment officer who has a staff and ... and he tells us that the only thing the Hall amendment does is hurt Nebraska. Well, I think that's true. The MacBride Principles hurt Nebraska's investment. And it would require an ... an expenditure of funds that is unnecessary, so this is a bad bill, folks. Let's take another look. Let's get some more information and let's bracket it until Monday.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR HABERMAN: All Irish, Northerners and Southerners, celebrate Saint Pat's Day. Saint Patrick is a patron saint of all Ireland. Sure, they celebrate there. Well, you were cold on this floor that we don't. They can't celebrate. We were told that on Saint Pat's Day. That's not true, folks. That's not true. 1066 was needed without 705 to eliminate the South African law which has cost the state a lot of money. It's going to cost us a lot of money if we put money back in there when they're having a war. And I don't understand why this body
April 1 7, 1994
insists on sticking its nose in South Africa when they're going to have internal war. They're going to be fighting, killing, burning, looting; blacks and whites, whites and blacks. And we're going to say to our investment officer....
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time.
SENATOR HABERMAN: ..invest money.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Haberman. Senator Hall, your light is next.
SENATOR HALL: Madam President, could I. ask for a ... members... could I ask for a ruling from the Chair? This is a second motion to a date certain in the same day and I would ask whether the motion to bracket to April 11 is not out of order. And, to be honest with you... I'm not sure... I can't remember ... I.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: I will look at the rules.
SENATOR HALL: Okay. Madam President, I believe it's Rule 7, subsection (sic) 6.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: You're right, Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: I would then ask for a... for a ruling from the Chair that the motion is, in fact, out of order.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Hall, I agree. The motion's out of order. Senator Haberman, I believe that Rule 7, Section 6 says that once a motion to postpone to a time certain has been decided that no motion to postpone to a time certain can be heard again on the day at the same stage of ... of the bill. The motion's out of order. Mr. Clerk, we'll go to the next motion, please.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I ... I would like to reconsider the vote on the... Go ahead with the next motion.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Mr. Clerk, next motion.
ASSISTANT CLERK: Next motion I have is from Senator Haberman. He would move to reconsider AM3685 to LB 1066.
April 1 7, 1994
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Madam Chairman, members of the body ... yes. Would you please read that again, Mr. Clerk.
ASSISTANT CLERK: It says, I move to reconsider AM3685 to
SENATOR HABERMAN: That's a... Senator Hall's amendment, is it not?
ASSISTANT CLERK: Yes, it is.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I would like to ask for... the Chair for a ruling on the germaneness of that motion.
SENATOR HALL: That motion is out of order, I would argue.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator ...
SENATOR HABERMAN: How come his micronhone is on?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Haberman, I...the... the question is out of order simply because we've already passed that... that motion. If you want to reconsider the motion at this point in time, you may, but... but the decision has been made.
SENATOR HABERMAN: In other words, what you're saying is, though, okay... Where are we now, Mr. Clerk? What motion are we on?
ASSISTANT CLERK: Your motion to reconsider.
SENATOR HABERMAN:. The motion to reconsider is fine, but the motion to ask whether it's germane is not?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Your ... your... that's correct, Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Oh, I think. okay. Fine. I think we ought to reconsider this motion and let me explain something to you folks. Under Rule 7, germane ... no motion, proposition or subject different from that tinder consideration shall be admitted under color of an amendment. Any amendment that is not germane is out of order. Germane amendments relate only to
details of the specific subject matter of the bill, and must be in a natural and logical sequence of the subject matter of the original proposal. LB 1066 specifically deals with restrictions on investments of state funds and institutions and corporations doing business in or with Republic of South Africa. Senator Hall's amendment dealt only with North Ireland investments. Senator Hall's bill deals with the repeal of restrictions on investments in the Republic of South Africa--specific subject matter. So, I should have asked this question sooner, but it's not even germane. Senator Hall's amendment is not germane. So, I think the constitution says something about.... Well, no, let me ask a question. Senator Hall, can you explain to me the Nebraska Capital Expansion Act?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Madam President, members, Senator Haberman, no.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Can you explain the Nebraska State Funds Investment Act?
SENATOR HALL: Madam President, members, Senator Haberman, no.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Did you know we had these two acts?
SENATOR HALL: Madam President, members, Senator Haberman, yes.
SENATOR HABERMAN: But you can't explain what they do?
SENATOR HALL: That's correct, Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Well, 1066 repeals or touches on all of these. It puts the Nebraska Capital Expansion Act and the Nebraska State Funds Investment Act in the bill.
SENATOR HALL: That's correct.
SENATOR HABERMAN: It touches on those all the time.
SENATOR HALL: That's correct.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Now, the Nebraska Capital Expansion Act... thank you, Senator Hall ...
SENATOR HALL: You're welcome.
SENATOR HABERMAN: ... allows state funds that are available for investment to be deposited into commercial banking channels and building and loan channels so long as such institutions provide a bond for the safekeeping of payments of such deposits. The Nebraska State Funds Investment Act created the Nebraska Investment Council to oversee... to oversee the investment of state funds and the purchase, sale or exchange of securities. We created the Nebraska Investment Council to oversee what we're meddling in. We ... we ... we hired experts. We passed legislation to oversee what we're meddling in. I think that's wrong. I think that we should reconsider, because we've had good debate... I've had good debate. I've had all of my say. I have some to say. I didn't ex... I didn't pass out to you and explain to you what are the MacBride Principles, I'll be glad ;o do that, but the MacBride Principles call for American companies operating in Northern Ireland to increase minority repre... representation in the work force. So, we're telling these people, you have to go out and hire minorities. You have ,to do this. Provide for security, minority work force at work, and traveling to and from work, which means that we have to go oat and hire people to protect these people when they go home from work in their cars, on the vans and the buses, and we have to have people hired to protect them when they go back to work. That's what it means. And it bans religious or political emblems. (Inaudible) You have to spend money for special advertising to recruit minority job applicants. So, what-what we're saying to these businesses, you have to do these things regardless. And the business says, well, I can't do these ,things a hundred percent and make any money. But we're saying in the MacBride Principles, you shall do it. You shall do it. You shall develop a training program and improve the skills of minority workers. Maybe the minority doesn't want to work. We have some minorities here in this great State of Nebraska that doesn't want to work. We have to pass legislation that if you don't work, you're not going to get paid. But we're telling these people in Northern Ireland, you shall go get so much minority people, and you shall make them work. Well, they can't do that. They can't do that. Now, what laws are currently enforced by the British government to compact ... combat religious discrimination? The electrical ... the Electoral Law Act of Northern Ireland and the Local Government Act of Northern Ireland, both enacted in '69, reformed voting rights ... reformed voting rights by eliminating the property franchise and establishing an independent body to designate district election
boundaries. They've already done that. The Northern. Ireland Housing Executive was established in 1971. That's 24 years ago, to serve as independent housing allocating body, insulated from partisan local pressures. They've been trying to do this for years. The Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973 outlawed religious discrimination in legislation and by public authorities. The English government. has already done these things. Which American corporations are directly involved in Northern Ireland? There are currently 24 American companies with direct investment in Northern Ireland, representing some of the safest and most profitable stock investments on Wall Street, providing for employment for over 11,000 people. so we're saying to these companies, you're going to do these things now, if you're not doing them. I read a list of those that aren't doing them. The minority doesn't want to be the majority in these companies. They're happy the way they are but, no, we're saying to them, we Irishmen want you to do this or you're not going to get our business. How would American corporate a... adherence to the Mac ... MacBride Principles conflict with the ad. . . the adherence to the British law? Well, you can figure that one out. You can figure that one out. Who are the proponents and opponents of the MacBride Principles? There are five major political parties active in Northern Ireland, only one of which, Sinn Fein, has backed the MacBride Principles. Results from the 1987 General Election display that significant ly less than one in six members of the electoral board supports political parties which advocate the enforcement of the MacBride Principles. Party...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Pardon.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute, Senator.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Party Ultraunionists, Protestant votes, 37 percent; Social Democrats, Catholic, 21 percent; Democrat Unionists, 11-Protestant, 11 percent; Sinn Fein Catholic, 11 percent; Alliance, mixed, 10 percent; other parties, mixed, 8 percent. No trade unions in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland support the MacBride Principles, no trade unions. They don't support the MacBride Principles, Senator Hall. How, you're from a firm ... you're from a town that has trade unions. You speak in favor of the trade unions. But they don't support them in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. The
Transport and General Workers Union, which is the largest trade union in Northern Ireland, has publicly declared its opposition to the MacBride Principles. But you stand there and endorse them.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time. Thank you, Senator. Senator Withem, your light is next. Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: The Congressional Friends of Ireland, which counts Senator Ted Kennedy and Daniel Moynihan as members, has also privately expressed opposition to the MacBride Principles. I've given you reason after ter reason why we don't need the MacBride Principles. Yet, this body refuses to accept those facts, for some reason. I've told you whose money we're fooling with. I've told you why I'm going through this ex ... exercise of...we'll call it a filibuster if you want to. It's because I was told out in the hallway, keep your mouth shut, don't rock the boat, I'm going to withdraw the amendment. You heard this. It was said on the floor. The person who said this said, I said it, but, he added, if there's a filibuster and much time spent. He didn't tell me that in the hall. He said there will be enough time spent, I will withdraw the amendment, don't rock the boat, don't make people mad, so I said nothing. Now, this has all been in the record, stated publicly. I can't help it. I. was naive enough to say, -1 believe you. I'll do what you say because I firmly believe we have no business, none whatsoever, with the MacBride Principles or the investments in South Africa, especially* when we're dealing with somebody else's money, the School Retirement Fund, the State Patrol Retirement Fund, the Judges Retirement Fund, the Permanent School Fund, and the Veterans Aid Fund. Now, if those folks knew that we're going to squander their money in South Africa where they're going to have a war, they'd be in here telling us about it. They'd be demonstrating out in the street, but they don't know that. They don't know that. I have some more floor debate in my hands and this floor debate says the bill, in political terms, -is called MacBvide Principles. It is an investment piece of legislation that would 'Le adopted to Senator Chamber's repeal of the South African sanctions. What it does is, it says that for-purposes of investment in companies that are in Northern Ireland that the investment officer will...of the state, will look at those corporations doing business in Northern Ireland. It says that they will invest in corporate stocks or obligations in a manner to encourage corporations that in state investment officer determine pursue a policy Of affirmative action. So, we're
saying to them, in the floor debate...we're saying to them... to the investment officer, you go over there and tell these people we're not going to invest unless they adopt the MacBride Principles. What business do we have to do that? We don't have any business to do that. We don't have a bit of business to doing that. So I'd like to reconsider the vote, which we're going to do. Then, I have some more information for you a little later on. I ... I'm looking here and I ...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR HABERMAN: One minute? Thank you, Madam President. Do I have another time to talk on this issue?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Excuse me, Senator.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Do I have another opportunity to talk on this issue before we vote?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One... one more time, Senator.
SENATOR HABERMAN: One more time.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator, are you finished speaking?
SENATOR HABERMAN: No, I'm not. I'm not going to be finished speaking for quite a while. It says here in the floor debate MacBride Principles, basically as stated in the amendment, an affirmative action measure for purpose of individuals who happen to be members of a religious minority--Catholics in Northern Ireland. Presently, the unemployment rate for the minority religious group is two-and-a-half to every one of the nation ... national's that are presently in terms of employment. I wonder where he got those figures, the person who said this on the floor. My figures don't show that. Well, what does that mean? It means maybe the minority doesn't want to work. Maybe it means that. I don't know. I don't where he got his figures. The problem with having employment made available to these folk s is a longstanding issue in Ireland. Thank you. It goes back to the 1920s.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time. Thank you, Senator Haberman. Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President and members. I rise
in opposition of the motion to reconsider, but this is a legitimate motion. It is the one that we probably should have started with on the ... on the substantive issue of the... the Hall amendment, Hall, Lindsay and Chambers amendment, that was the MacBride Principles that was adopted to 1066. The proposal is one that we've talked about and, again, I apologize to Senator Haberman if I misled him. I did not mean to. What I said was that I would not delay the advancement of this bill or take up time on the amendment, that there was a motion before the body to divide the question on it, that I had no intention, on the amendment, I had no intention, if it was going to be long, drawn out debate to bring that to a vote, I would pull the amendment before that happened. What happened was, there was no debate, for the most part, outside of...or at least opposition, outside of I believe it was Senator Crosby and there were some questions by Senator Schimek of the issues contained in the amendment. I know that Senator Haberman has opposed this. He approached me on it. He has known that this is before the body since mid-March when we had this as a discussion on General File and that there was comments made that we would address this on Select File as an amendment. He has talked to me a couple times about it and said, you know, what are you going to do with it? I said I'm going to run the amendment, I want to run the amendment, but I'm not going to do it to the detriment of either Senator Chambers' bill or to the detriment of using up time here on the body. I won't... I wouldn't do that. It appears that we're going to use up time here in the body. To reconsider the motion is probably the fairest approach to address that. If the body chooses to reconsider the adoption of the Hall amendment, so be it. If they pull the MacBride Principles out of 1066, if folks feel that that is the way to solve this problem, to have Senator Haberman win the day and have us basically remove the policy decision in the MacBride Principles from 1066, that's fine, I'll live with that. I don't...I'm not going to fall on my own petard on this issue. I believe that it's important. I believe it's clearly germane to this issue. I'%'-. deals with the investment practices of this state, as did 1066. That is not a question that is appropriate at this time since we've adopted the amendment to the bill. What the amendment says and what the MacBride Principles do is they say that the investment officer of the state should look at companies that have adopted affirmative action plans in Northern Ireland before investing in them. We recommend that that is what they do. We also say that there is not divestment necessary, so there is really no punitive measure in this proposal. it is about as lukewarm as
you can get and still put a public policy statement out there in the statutes. It is not the kind of sanctions that have been brought in in the past and there is, frankly, no reason for anyone, Senator Haberman, the Brits, or anyone else to oppose this measure. It is simply a statement on our part, on a ... proactively on whether or not we should make a statement as it relates to investment and what that statement is going to be as it relates to Northern Ireland. I think it's a positive statement. I think it's one that ought to be kept in this proposal. I think it's one that ought to be made part of the statutes. I do not think we should reconsider this motion, but if we do, if the body chooses...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR HALL: ... to reconsider the Hal'.. amendment, then we will have it back in front of us. I will make one speech on the issue and make my case and then we can go to a vote on whether or not we should pull it out of the bill, or whether it should be or shouldn't or should not be adopted to it. That's fine. I'm rot going to waste any time. Didn't want to waste any time this afternoon. I thought it was going to be fairly quick. I wasn't sure. If it wasn't, I wasn't going to waste a lot of time. We appear to have spent a few hours on this measure, I think, unnecessarily. What I will do is, again, oppose the motion to reconsider. I will ... if we have it back in front of us, I will support the adoption of the amendment because I believe strongly in it and I would urge the body to do the same. But if the body chooses to do otherwise, then we should advance 1066 as it was before us and go about bur business. I apologize to the body.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time.
SENATOR HALL: I did not mean to cause any delay.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. Senator Withem.
SPEAKER WITHEM: Madam President and members of the body, I'm going to talk about this more as a procedural matter than anything else. I am going to support the motion to reconsider and I think everybody in here should. I'm going to tell you why. I think what is unfolding here today is exactly the same sort of situation that we complained about yesterday and that we complained about the day before. There has been an honest
misunderstanding that took place. Honorable people, as we all know, from the debate and discussions we've heard the last couple of days, correct their mistakes. Senator Haberman, for whatever reason, had an honest understanding that this was an amendment that was just going to be discussed for a short time, period. He may have been right. He may have been wrong. He operated under that assumption. For that reason, he did not challenge the germaneness. I think he has a very good point on germaneness. I agree with Senator... I understand Senator Hall's argument, it is not a clear cut, but I think lie has a very good case. He chose not to do that, to not take too much tire. Consequently ... then the amendment was, in fact, adopted, somewhat easily but a surprise to a lot of people as easy as it was adopted. I voted for it. On an up or down vote on the MacBride Principles, I'm for the MacBride Principles, at least as I understand them at this point. He's now in a position though where the amendment has been adopted that he thought was going to be pulled and he is not in any... and lie gave up his opportunity to ask a very legitimate question about germaneness. So I'm going to vote for the reconsideration motion and I think everybody in here should also for the same reasons that have been given the 'Last two days when vie talk about we, as a body, that trust one another, when mistakes are made, when there are misunderstandings, we move to correct those. And I believe that that should be done. I also am becoming concerned about the process. We've done, I think, a pretty good job this last week or two of working the agenda and working the legitimate priorities. As the person setting the agenda, I'm beset on an hourly basis with people who have ideas to leapfrog the system, and, by and large, I've been ... been discouraging those. The MacBride Principle was a bill. It was introduced. It could have been prioritized. I'm... I'm not comfortable with using our precious few last hours when we do have lots of priority bills ahead of us that have not been considered on a matter that has not been prioritized. Senator Chambers did prioritize his bill and the concept of the South African ... the repeal of that language is appropriate to be before the body. I question using this time in this manner to deal with a matter that has not been prioritized. I am going to vote for the reconsideration motion. I think Senator Haberman deserves a fair shot at his question of germaneness. If the reconsideration passes, it is as if the amendment had not been before us. It will be reoffered. At that point, it will be legitimate to ask the germaneness issue. I think he deserves a fair shot at that. And I also think that... I'm also mildly concerned that some people evidently
don't consider this measure to be of importance enough that we're supposed to leave Senator Haberman hanging out here on the floor while the rest of us go over and eat and have a good time. I think we ought to give him the courtesy of at least getting this issue of the reconsideration resolved before we do stand at ease. So, with that, I will be supporting Senator Haberman's motion.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Withem. Senator Ashford.
SENATOR HALL: Objection. Only two people...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Three people have spoken. I agree with Senator Hall., there has not been a full debate. That's correct, Senator. Senator Ashford, do you wish to speak?- No. I'm sorry, Senator. Senator Haberman, your light is next.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Pass.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Madam President and members of the Legislature, the body, as I always say, can do whatever it chooses. I can understand Senator Withem's suggestion and I can understand what the British government wants. And you can give the British government-what it wants and Senator Haberman's talking about this bill is going to compel the investment officer to invest in South Africa if 1066 passes. It doesn't compel the investment officer to do anything, not anything. It just means that those corporations which right now, on the verboten list, would be brought back within the universe of possible divestments. The investment officer would review them and if a prudent person would make such investments, they can be made but there is nothing in the passage of 1066 that directs the divestment...the investment officer to invest anywhere. But I'm telling you all the divestment bill is a monument to me in the statute. So if you all want to continue allowing divestment to be in place and those corporations unavailable 'for Nebraska divestment, it's all right with me. If the MacBride Principles are stripped from the bill and that remains the will of the body, I will do as I said. Senator Withem, our word should mean something and I will withdraw the bill.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator. Senator Monen has guests visiting the Legislature this evening. Children of his
Administrative Assistant Lisa Hergert are here. Kelli, Joe and Tommy Hergert are all under the south balcony. Will you all stand and be recognized, please. Thank you. Senator Hall, your light is next.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President, and members, again I rise in opposition to the motion to reconsider and I take exception, although I understand Senator Withem's position, I take exception to his comments. Because, frankly, Senator Withem, I have kept my word to Senator Haberman. If Senator Haberman can't understand English, that is not my fault. The issue of germaneness is one that was never approached by him to me. He never asked me about that. I never objected to him speaking in opposition to the amendment when it was' before us. He never pushed his button, not even to ask is this amendment going to be withdrawn. What I explained to him was this, that there was a motion up there to divide the question. Senator Chambers had put that up there, that if we were going to get into a protracted debate about the issue of dividing the question, the various parts, that I would withdraw that. I also spoke to the Clerk and said the same thing and he said, well, once it's divided, you're going to have a little difficulty. And I said, I will have to withdraw each part. I said the same thing to Senator Chambers. My position has been very clear. The only one whose. opinion. if it is clouded is Senator Haberman's. He did not think it necessary to speak to the ':)ill, to the amendment when it was before us. He did not question germaneness which was clearly his prerogative. Based on nothing that I said to him could he have drawn a conclusion that he now is under that he was somehow cheated out of an opportunity to speak to this issue. He now chooses, after the adoption of the amendment, to delay the body's time. I have never done that and this amendment has been on file, I believe, since something like March 13th. It is not new to the body. Granted, it was not prioritized. It could have been taken care of in approximately 55 minutes which is about the amount of time it took to adopt the amendment. We could have had debate on it. Those opposed to it could have made their pitch instead of waiting to walk through some ridiculous motions of referring it back to committee. This is a legitimate motion. I said that when I first stood to oppose it. Ron, I understand the tough position you're in. I don't like this any better than you do. But we adopted the amendment. Senator Haberman didn't speak to it. He didn't stand once to oppose it. Now he stands up and offers motions to reconsider. He offers motions to return. He offers
two bracket motions to time certain, outside the rules. That is not my position. I don't care if we reconsider. I'm going to vote no. I don't care if the body reconsiders it, we pull it out, that's fine. If Senator Chambers pulls his bill, so be it. But it was decided on a vote, a vote that was virtually 28, 1 believe, to about 5, or 28 to 7, in support of adoption of the MacBride Principles. There was no deception. There was no misunderstanding on anyone's part except for Senator Haberman's. And the issue before us is now do we reconsidiar, pull it out and then move on? I don't have any problem moving on. I didn't want to be here on this issue for the last two hours. I don't care if the body reconsiders it. That is not the point of my speaking again on this issue. I've not, I don't believe, asked for any special treatment of any because I don't have any bills out there that need special treatment.- I don't like to see us waste this precious time either. And I am sitting here in my chair right beside Senator Haberman. As he's been debating his issues, I've answered his questions, I've spoke to the various motions. I have continued to be a part of this process because, I guess, I am responsible for it in some form or fashion. But that's fine.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.,
SENATOR HALL: I still believe that the adoption of the amendment was done in very much a forthright, up-front manner. The germaneness question could have been raised. No one spoke of that until after the amendment was adopted. At least it was not raised with me, because I would never deny someone the opportunity to question germaneness on the issue. And if I wanted to fight it, I could have moved to overrule the Chair. It's a simple procedure. We have it available to us. That's not the question. The question before us is why did Senator Haberman wait till after the amendment was adopted to decide to oppose it? He had every opportunity before him. He knew the amendment was not going to be divided. He knew that I said that we were going to not waste time on it. We didn't waste any time adopting it. Maybe he was caught off guard by that. I don't know. I said if he misunderstood what I said, I apologized twice already on the microphone, not a third time. I don't think we should reconsider the motion. Whatever the body does, we will live with it. The...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time.
SENATOR HALL: ... proposal will go forward one way or another.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Senator Hall, how did I know that it was not going to be divided? I didn't know that. You just got through saying that I knew it. How did I know that?
SENATOR HALL: A question?
SENATOR HABERMAN: No, I'm saying, how did I know that? I didn't know that it was not going to be divided because the motion was up there. Then you say, why did I wait. Senator Hall, did I discuss with you the MacBride Principles two or three times before this? Yes.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Madam President and members, Senator Haberman, if you would listen to what I say,...
SENATOR HABERMAN: Did I discuss with you the MacBride Principles two or three times before?
SENATOR HALL: I said... I said, in an earlier discussion with at least two or three times. you, I said that we discussed it at So the answer to your question is yes.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Thank you. Now the idea that I am in the wrong...
SENATOR HALL: Remember that...
SENATOR HABERMAN: ... now just a minute, you, answered my question. Thank you, Senator Hall. All of the blame is mine. I have broad shoulders, Senator Hall. I have broad shoulders.. I'll take the blame if you want to lay it to me. Lay the blame on me. But I was told out in that hall by you, in person, the divide the question issue will be debated , it will go on for a while, and then I'll withdraw my amendment, don't rock the boat. So I didn't ask the germane question. That is not... and I don't swear. Go ahead, what are you saying, Senator Hall? Well, that's a terrible thing to say. That's a terrible thing to say. You... you deny meeting me out there talking to me, you deny talking to me in the hall? Did I talk to you and you talked to
me in the hall? Yes.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Madam President and members, you damn right we talked in the hall.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Well, now just a minute, you answer my question.
SENATOR HALL: Oh, no, no, no.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Now wait a minute, did you tell me...
SENATOR HALL: Come on, "Rexie,"...
SENATOR HABERMAN: Did you tell me...
SENATOR HALL: ... lay it out right.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Did you tell me that...
SENATOR HALL: Lay it out the way it happened, Rex.
SENATOR HABERMAN: All right
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: (Not at the microphone.)
SENATOR HABERMAN: You're on my time, Senator Hall. You're on my time.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. Senator Haberman, please continue. Senator Haberman, it's your time.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I would like to thank Senator Withem and his trying for honesty and sincerity and openness because I would have asked the question of germaneness. I have it all written out here. It's dated March the 22nd. But I was told by Senator Hall, don't rock the boat, don't make people mad. That's what I was told. And I don't have to use swear words to describe what I was told. I was told the question to be divided in eight parts was up there, we're going to have some discussion' that won't take too ... maybe a half an hour, we let Ernie shoot his
mouth off, then I'll withdraw the amendment. I have never heard him say I will withdraw the amendments. I've been sitting here waiting for you. I'm going to say that that's not the truth, Senator Hall. I'm not going to call you a liar, I'm just going to say it's not the truth. Pardon? What did you say? So I'm going to suggest that we follow Senator Withem's advice and reconsider the motion. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator. Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Members of the Legislature, if it's going to become a free for all, there are people who know how to do that. And it's a situation where, as I stated, if you want to pull the amendments, and this goes for Senator Pappas out there too, take it off and I'll just pull the bill. That's all that I will do. See, I've had people who work with the power companies who said they need 1066. Others say they need it. I don't need it. if you all want to do it this way and you want to let some foolishness result in the bill being pulled, here's what I told Senator Withem, this that just happened is not a reason to pull the bill, otherwise anybody can do that and the bill that's being handled in that way has to be pulled. If the rule that Senator Withem wants to put in place now is that when any bill takes the amount of tide that 1066 has had today and it's still before us, it will be pulled from the agenda, I will not object to pulling 1066 right this minute, but that's what it has to be. If people are offended at what I have done in the past, and I say this to Senator Withem, one time he told me, I hope you're listening, I hope you're listening, Senator Withem, everything I -lid was within the rules, everything. People can make motions to cease debate and I didn't say don't do that. They invoke cloture. At no time when we were on one of those bills did you say things have reached the point where we're going to pull it. That's the crime bill and the welfare bill that I'm talking about. It was not done on any bill. Suddenly, at this point, people's nerves are frayed, which I understand thoroughly, but there are certain things which if one man says to another he can expect a certain reaction. And, by the way, I understand somebody said they'd kick my rear end, and whenever anybody wants to try that, because I didn't hear it, I'm available and they better bring some company with them and be ready all day long. And if that's what the session has been reduced to, that is fine with me. I'm like Senator Lynch, there's nobody in here that I'm afraid of. And whoever strikes the first blow at me or raises his hand like he's going to strike the first blow at me,
he'd better be ready for everything I'm going to lay on him. I'll whip him worse than his parents ever did. And that's what I mean. If people are sick, stay in a sick man's position and don't try that mess with me, and I mean it. And if Senator Withem is going to call a bill every time, that has to be the way with every bill, all of you all's bills too. So, here is my proposal. We can check the amount of time that 1066 has had and if that is all the time that any bill will be given for the rest of the session, I will not object, Senator Withem, to pulling 1066 right now and I will not ask that it be put on the agenda again. That, I will agree to do. And I can understand the feeling that you have because you're somewhat like the captain of the ship and you see it headed for the shoals so you try to do what you think is necessary to save the ship. But you have a recalcigent ... recalcitrant crew and they're not going to agree with what you see as being necessary to be done being done. But when people start making certain types of statements and there Are consequences that flow from those statements, it's not your fault, and, Senator Withem, you cannot treat grown men in here as though they're your children and feel a responsibility...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: ... to stop certain things from happening if those things are provoked. And that's what people need to understand. Now if... if Senator Pappas is doing this because he feels he has to make his money, he has made his money. And I've said earlier and I'll say it again, his doing this does not alter my relationship with him. I still like Jim. This is the tactic that he, as a lobbyist, feels is necessary to serve his client, which is the British government. And you all know that and I know it. But it's up to us to just go ahead and let this thing work itself out. Have you heard me try to call the question one time? Not one, and if it was called, I wouldn't vote for it.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President and members, I apologize to the body if I got a little out of line. I'm not having a good ... I'm not having a good year. Let's reconsider it. I will withdraw the amendment. But, Rex, don't ever talk to me again.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Withem.
SPEAKER WITHEM: Excuse me. Madam President, members of the body, I was reacting not against the bill or against the amendment or against anything, I was reacting at what I saw as perhaps one of the biggest breaches of personal conduct that I've seen in the body and the body cannot allow that to continue to go forward. And that was why I was reacting, saying that the bill should be pulled. Evidently, that moment is past us and I think we ought to go ahead with the bill. And, Senator Chambers, one other thing I would like to say is in reference to... to threatening to kick your rear end or something like that, I don't think Senator McKenzie really meant that when she said that. So want to... want to make that clear. I'm really sorry things have got to this point. I'm really sorry we've got to the step of name calling. Senator Chambers, you say I can't take responsibility and, obviously, I can't. The body has to deal with issues as it sees before it, but I do feel some responsibility in arranging the agenda to set the parameters around which we will consider matters. My concern about 1066 isn't that the legitimate issues around 1066 ought not to be discussed, my concern is that an issue that is a nonpriority issue is taking...is taking the time. If the MacBride Principles were what had been prioritized and we were discussing and debating the MacBride Principles, I would be on the side of those supporting them, and I would be saying we will take the time necessary as long as the bill is before us, with the exception of the other... the other scheduling parameters that I ... that I've put into effect and have been following on the other... on the other issues. I do think the right step to take at this time is to reconsider the adoption of the MacBride Principles. I do think at that time, and I don't know if Senator Hall was ... was accurate in what he said, it's up to him as to whether he wants to continue to offer those, but I think the body needs to get back to where it was before. And I would urge people to vote for the motion to reconsider.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Withem. Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Madam President, Senator Crosby had a bill which she prioritized. Some nonprioritized items, such as the judges' salary, an additional juvenile court judge and other things that had not been prioritized and they were highly controversial, were put into that bill. Hers was the priority bill, not these other things that were added, and we battled on those things. In fact, part of the battle resulted in the
resignation or not standing for retention of a current juvenile judge in Omaha. Do don't tell me there was not contention. Don't tell me there was not controversy. Don't tell me there was not anger. Even Senator Monen, who has not felt the need to speak a great deal this session, felt the need to comment on a position I was taking with reference to a proposed amendment to her bill, that -because some judge was not doing as I thought should be done, that was no need to say we should not add another judge. I remember things that happen. Other people may lose track. But this is not the first time that an item which was not prioritized has been offered and, in fact, attached to another bill. Senator Crosby's bill now sits on Final Reading and I don't know one person who said that we ought to bring that bill back and strip out all of these other things because they were not prioritized and they led to controversy. What I have counseled ever since the start of the session is that we learn how not to let these things that come up get inside of us and eat us and cause us to lose all control. I express indignation express hostility, but I always know where I am. And I don't captain the ship but I'm always in control of the little part of the ship that I occupy -id I know what I'm doing and I know what I'm saying and I don't have people in the lobby pulling strings on me and that's why I don't-come off sounding like a jackass, because I know what it is I intend to do and I don't have to get instructions or take orders. I don't have to pretend to know an issue and try to read papers and figures and can't even road ad them coherently because it might be the first time I saw it or it's a subject with which I'm totally unfamiliar. I don't get up trying to talk about another country, I mispronounce the names of the people, I mispronounce the names of countries. I don't know the difference between a country and a tribe, I don't know any of these things, but I'm presenting myself as an authority on the issue. When people are showing that they are profoundly ignorant the thing to do is what Solomon said, answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be likened to him. And I follow Solomon. Solomon was wise. When you find one who is wise, follow him or her when they have given advice that is appropriate to a situation. So I will not accept what Senator Withem said in terms of the problem being that a nonprioritized item is being attached to one that is prioritized and it is controversial. The MacBride Principles were added. There was an opportunity to discuss it. And if they make the pretense of saying that it's not germane when it deals with investment policy and that's precisely what 1066 deals with, an investment policy which no longer is to be the policy of the state, it. is a
way to get around having to deal with the issue. But I say again, after all this discussion, after all the anger and the flare-ups I still know where I am, I still know what I said and I mean at this minute what I said some minutes ago because I meant it then. I didn't say it in anger or in a fit of pique and I don't talk without knowing what it is that 1 say, and I remember what I say. And I said if the MacBride Principles are not attached to the bill I will pull it. Senator Hall came to me and he said if it looks like... and this is while we were debating, he said if it looks like this is not going to go, then I don't want to do anything to hinder the bill. And I told Senator Hall it's my bill. I believe in these principles and if they are not attached to the bill, I will pull it.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: He said that's a decision that you would have to make. I said, well, what do you think? He said that's a decision you have to make. He didn't try to get me to do that and, in fact, if it was not my decision, he could not have persuaded me to do it. Despite the fact that this is a bill to undo divestment, it took some work. So it's not just saying it's insignificant, inconsequential and I'll throw it aside. But when I feel that a principle is at stake and it's an important principle other things take a lower priority. So if you want to maintain Nebraska in a position of requiring divestment, that's all right with me. Bonds they thought they could deal with, investments they thought they could make, stocks they thought they could buy, they just can't do that, and that has been the policy ever since the current law was in place, so let it stay there. Reconsider if you follow Senator Withem's lead. Senator Hall could not pull the amendment...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: ... and then I'll pull the bill.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. There are no further lights. Senator Haberman, do you wish to close on your motion to reconsider? No closing. The question before the body is the motion to reconsider the Hall amendment to LB 1066. All those in favor vote aye. All those opposed vote nay. Have you all voted? Please record.
CLERK: 26 ayes, 2 nays, Madam President, on the motion to
PRESIDENT ROBAK: The motion to reconsider passes. Now we are on the Hall amendment to LB 1066. Senator Landis.
SENATOR LANDIS: I have my light but I want to...I guess I'll take an opportunity to speak now because I don't want it to come and go and fail to have a chance to talk about this. In the event the reconsideration is successful, and I think the vote that was just took... taken has indicated that that's a possibility, I want to appeal to Senator Chambers to leave 1066 on Select File and advance it. This is an important issue and Senator Chambers came to the Banking Committee and made an impassioned statement about the history of divestment and used the bill as a chance to exact some promises and those promises were forthcoming, and then said this was an opportunity for some healing. The fact that the... the blood and discrimination and wrong occurs in North Ireland, as it does demonstrably and beyond question occurs, should not be used, I think, to coerce the body to either support or not support the MacBride Principles at the stake of risking the chance to recognize the healing in LB 1066. 1 think we have to be allowed, should consider the prospect of recognizing those issues one at a time and I think when the divestment has run its course and Senator Chambers brought to the body this idea and the body has endorsed his decade-long labors and the request of many representatives of black people in South Africa as to the prospect of a new dawning, that we should go forward with 1066 without regard to the legitimate case that can be made on behalf of the MacBride Principles. There are a number, perhaps an endless list of wrongs around the globe. The fact that we have a chance to do something good about one of them shouldn't be precluded because we failed to do something good about another one. LB 1066 is the right bill at the right time and needs to be acted on this year without regard to what happens on the MacBride Principles. Reconsider them, if you will, adopt them, if you will, there's a legitimate case to be made for them, I'm sure, in the time that I've been gone it was made. I certainly saw it in the public hearing. On the other hand, if you wish to reconsider it, that's all right, but at the heart of 1066 is something that the Legislature needs to do this year and I prevail upon my colleague, Senator Chambers, who has led that fight for so long that he should be charge of the healing as he promised the committee and this body in carrying forward this question. This body's ready to follow and endorse his line of argument that lie
has followed for a decade and I hope lie won't step aside from that position of leadership with respect to the underlying issue which is up here without dissent and with the approval of the body prepared to make a demonstrative voice on behalf of freedom, on behalf of the end of apartheid, on behalf of the dawning of a real democracy in South Africa. I hope we're not...I hope we don't lose the chance to make that in a fit of pique and in an effort to force the body to take a similar position on the MacBride Principles.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Landis. Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President, and members, I misspoke earlier when I said I would withdraw the amendment, not that I didn't intend to. I can't. The amendment had been amended by Senator Chambers and, therefore, I don't have the ability to withdraw it. Otherwise, I would right now so it wouldn't be in front of us. With that, I would urge you to vote no on the amendment, even though I firmly believe in what the MacBride Principles embody. I think it's the right thing. I think it's the right public policy for this state. I don't think debate on the MacBride Principles was time wasted. We spent very little time after they were adopted debating, but we wasted a lot of time.. I don't take any ownership in that. The fact of the matter is though I would concur, for the Most part, what Senator Landis said. I would hope, Senator Chambers, that you would not withdraw the bill. I think it's an important piece of legislation. I don't want to see it wait another year. I would hope -that we could pull the MacBride Principles, get on about the process, advance LB 1066. That's it. Every once in a while we do some things that eats at each of us and eats a little bit at a time of the clock. I don't know that it's necessarily time wasted, but, in this case, I think that the ... the better course is to reject the Hall amendment and then advance 1066 to Final Reading. Ernie, I would hope you would allow us an opportunity to do that because I think that's a good piece of legislation.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Madam President and members of the Legislature, I'm going to tell my Thomas Moore story again. Thomas Moore was being asked to sign a paper which others had signed approving of what Henry the VIII had done, and the one sitting at the table wanted to point out that they had signed
it. And Thomas told them, you can sign the paper without violating your conscience; if I sign it, I violate mine. And, Senator Landis, you were not here the other day so maybe it's the first time you've heard me tell it. Thomas told them... then the friend at the table told him, Thoms, that he ought to sign it for companionship's sake, to be with everybody else who had done it. And he said, when we die and we're going to be standing before God to get our reward and you go to heaven because you didn't violate your conscience and I am ordered to hell because I did violate mine, will you then go to hell with me for companionship's sake? And I said that because I was very disturbed that Senator Beutler had agreed to allow an amendment to be pulled from a bill because he did not want to hurt that bill. I stated that I was opposed to its being done but I understood the things that made him do it. And I cannot be another man or woman's conscience. We each have our own, whatever conscience means to us, whatever that guiding principle is, we should have a core of values around which our life is built. To you all it's a bill that deals with divestment. To me, it has become a matter of principle and what I call my honor. I didn't say what I was going to do with this bill as a strategy or stratagem. Had I not believed that the MacBride Principles are right-and correct and the adding them to a piece of legislation was the right thing to do, I would not have supported them and I certainly would not have supported them being added to a bill that I did have to do some work on. But the most important thing to me is what I think of me and not anybody else. Senator Landis, there are groups and organizations and individuals with whom I've worked and fellowshipped with on this issue down through the years and they'd be so happy when this bill passes. But they know that I'm the kind of person that I am and were not I what I am, we never would have had divestment in the first place. And now I'm being asked to cease being what I am for the convenience of investing some money, and my answer to that is no. brought the bill. I said what my-position on all of this is, and it was not in a fit of pique because I had told people this days ago that it's important enough to me to say that if this other item which I feel is right and proper to be addressed is not, then this bill does not go anywhere and all these people who have been knocking on doors and saying we need to be able to invest again can just wait a year, they're not going to die. But if you vote to take the MacBride Principles off, that is your prerogative. But 28 people voted to put them on, and we knew what we were doing. Well, because some are saying now that one
person didn't know what he was doing, we all have to do it again. And I'm suggesting that we do now what we did a few minutes ago. It is just as right now as it was then, but I stand by what I said...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: ... and you can test me. You can test me to see if the things I say I merely say because I don't expect you to say, Ernie, I call, spread on the table what you've got. Call my hand, let me spread what I've got on the table, and you will see that I mean what I said. I will just pull the bill, then we spare any more antagonistic argument. We spare Senator Withem trying to figure what in the world can be done to get around this impasse, Senator Pappas has his money, because he works for the British Empire, that's what I mean, as a lobbyist, he was paid to do a job, that's what I mean. And the British Empire got its way. So everybody will have gotten what was available for, them to get out of this whole thing. And I tell you all at this point what I've always said, as much time as I spend trying to be a good legislator, the Legislature is not my life nor my wife. Whatever is not done this year, I will be back...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Time.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: ... which is more than some can say.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. Senator Landis.
SENATOR LANDIS: Thank you, Madam President, and members of the Legislature, I listened a second time to the senator recite the story of Sir rhoima,; Moore, and there's a very big difference. Sir v Thomas Moore was asked to take a position 0.--; I I that his - conscience would not permit him to Lake. fie was asked to say words he did not believe. He was asked to take an oath he did not share. Senator Chambers believes in 1066. These are not words that are foreign to him. This is not an oath that he is in opposition to or a position that is contrary to him, in fact, lie's the author of this language. Apparently the argument is, look, if you won't do as much good as I think you should do, I won't let you do any good. LB 1066 is good. It's good law at a good point, prevailed upon us by legitimate representatives of the black community in South Africa as well as the South African government. Nelson Mandela, specifically, has spoken to the
topic of disinvestment and has said now is the right time. And, frankly, I wish to follow Nelson Mandela's words in this case even more than I do my colleague, Ernie Chambers. Let me suggest, Senator Chambers, that if 1066 rankles at this moment because of the MacBride Principles, I've gone up to the floor, I've gotten an indication that I have asked to have my name added as a cosponsor. If 1066 does not, like a rough pebble in the mouth, sit well, permit me to put my name on as a cosponsor and if you wish to withdraw your name should the reconsideration succeed, do so. But otherwise what you do is you rob this body of the opportunity to make an appropriate and legitimate act of public good because you disagree with the body failing to take a bigger step towards good than you wish we would take. The body is ready to take a positive step. I hope that you will allow us to do that without regard to the MacBride Principles. I would ask that you consider to sign this before the outcome of the vote and allow me to file it so that no matter what happens on the reconsideration the body will have a chance to address 1066. It's the time to do it and we shouldn't be foreclosed from that because of the problem of the MacBride Principles. And I also don't want to have my vote coerced at the expense of, look, I won't let you do anything good about South Africa unless you take the position that I want you to on North Ireland. And with the kind of way that this is now coming down, I'm put into that box and I hope the body is not put into that box that we have, in fact, free choice as to what we intend to do with our votes rather than coerced choice which is what I think Senator Chambers does to us with this admonition.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Landis. Senator Lindsay.
SENATOR LINDSAY: Thank you, Madam President, and members, I would like to, I guess, refocus the debate a little bit away from whether or not Senator Chambers will or will not allow the advancement of 1066 and get to what the issue is and that is the ... whether or not the MacBride Principles should or should not be adopted. Senator Chambers, a decade ago, came with and Made a compelling case, as Senator Landis mentioned, that there was a problem in South Africa, that the rights of the majority in South Africa were being trampled upon. The same thing is happening today, right now in Northern Ireland. A portion of Ireland that is being occupied by foreign troops which is, I thin!:, most of us one of the most abhorrent things we could imagine-an occupation force telling you what you will and will not do. The country has been split in two and has been ... has
been separated Irish against Irish. If we look at what the MacBride Principles do, they don't go as far as the' sanctions against South Africa. Section 4 of the MacBride Principles says nothing in the act shall be construed to require to dispose of existing investments. We're not talking about a disinvestment policy. What we're talking about is compiling that and being... compiling the human rights violations of those corporations who are doing business in Northern Ireland. We're talking about knowing whether or not these corporations adhere to basic human rights, human rights that we all, as we sit here, have taken... taken for granted and will continue to take for granted, that simply do not exist because you happen to worship God in one way or the other in Northern Ireland, and, frankly, there's a lot more than religion going on there, it's simply a matter of loyalty or nonloyalty to the crown of the foreign country. And that is what's going on there now, and people are dying. As we sit here today, we will see more people getting injured. We will see more deaths go on in the next year while we're waiting to not do some good or do some good. And the MacBride Principles may have no impact whatsoever but they are a peaceful, nonviolent proposed solution or at least some pressure to call attention to a horrible wrong that has been going on since 1969. The violence has been going on since before many of the Pages were born, and we've turned an eye and Senator Landis has told us we should turn an eye again. Let's worry about it next year because what goes on over there is too far distant for us to imagine. I suggest to you that those ... those of us who do have some Irish ancestry, who do follow the issue, know that there's a problem, think something should be done and even if it's this little, small thing, which is almost an ... which is almost a voluntary. act on the part of the state investment officer as opposed to the heavy sanctions that are ... that are trying to be reversed in 1066, it's something that we can do. I suggest that small steps should be taken. I don't think it's anything that's ... that's going to send corporations running crazy because we ... we call attention to the fact that they are taking advantage of ... of a portion of the Irish population that's being downtrodden right now in a portion of Ireland. I think the MacBride Principles are sound and I intend to support them.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Lindsay. Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Members of the Legislature, Senator Landis is a very capable speaker and what he said would be very good if he
were talking to or debating with somebody about what it is that I'm doing. But it's not effective when he tries to tell me how I should react to what my conscience tells me that I must do... I shouldn't even use the word conscience, tells me that how I ought to behave in a situation. I will not agree to his signing onto this bill because I'm not going to take the pilot way out and say, pour some water over my hands and I'm not guilty of this. I know what I'm doing and whatever the consequences are, I will bear them. There are groups with whom I'm working, I'm telling you, who may be very disappointed in me, but what I did in the first instance was not because of those groups. We happened to be going the same direction and 1 happened to get something done before any of them could. But we were in harmony in terms of our orientation and our ultimate goal. But they cannot tell me what I ought to do when it is a matter of what my principles mean to me. Nelson Mandela, as much as I respect him, is not the arbiter of or for my principles. He must do what he feels is necessary for him to do under the circumstances he finds himself faced with. I am going to do what is the right thing for me to do. Now, the body is not helpless in this matter. The body attached the MacBride Principles. They did that already. That decision was made and there was not the rancorous arguing and de... and other things that took place. That came afterward as a tactic by the representatives of the British government who don't like the MacBride Principles. How much did you all have to listen to about South Africa when the real objection was to the MacBride Principles? You all saw through that but you were being kind and generous and for that I applaud you. We all do what we feel is the thing to do and we have different reasons for doing those things. Mine is based on principle. Mine are not elastic. They don't expand and contract as convenience or expediency would indicate would be in my best personal advantage to make me look good to somebody or look noble to somebody or any of this. The MacBride Principles I believe in. And, remember, I am not a Catholic, so there is no religious underpinning to mine whatsoever. It is an issue with me of what is right and what is wrong. It was not easy to persuade this Legislature to accept divestment. It was a battle, so don't get the impression and people start feeling self-righteous that we declared that bad things were happening in South Africa and we ought to do the right thing. The South African's governments representatives were here trying to stop that and they did pall for some senators to go to South Africa and gave them a good time and they came back here speaking against divestment and talking about all the good things being
done in South Africa.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: They forget, but I don't. All the good things being done there, and if their judgment and attempt to assess what is happening in Northern Ireland is as flawed and erroneous as what they said about South Africa, and you're viewing that now with 20/20 hindsight, why do you accept their so-called leadership, their direction? You did the right thing when you attached the principles, in my opinion. I say, stick to what you did. I'm certainly going to stick by what I said I shall do and what I must do. And, Senator Landis , I'm not asked to sign a piece of paper or say words that I don't believe in that way, but I'm asking ... being asked to do something which I don't believe is right for me to do. If it's right for you, do' it; wrong for me, I shall not.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. Senator Monen.
SENATOR MONEN: Madam President, I guess this is a point of order. And I don't know if-it's timely or not. I'm...there's some suggestion that LB 1066 would be pulled, is the word used. Is that the same as a withdrawal? And I'm wondering if under Rule 5, Section 11, it can be pulled or withdrawn without the consent of the members.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Monen.
SENATOR MONEN: Yes.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: That issue is not ripe.
SENATOR MONEN: All right, thank you.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator. Senator Ashford.
SENATOR ASHFORD: Are there any other speakers?.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: There are no other speakers, Senator.
SENATOR ASHFORD: Just very briefly, I rise ... I guess where we are now is in support of the MacBride Principles and against any effort to take them out. I had...have had in my lifetime a unique experience of spending a great deal of time in Ireland
and spent a number of ... when I was ... during college had a great-tremendous experience, at least one year, of spending it with a family that had been involved in the creation of the Irish state in 1916 and then the evolution of that ... that nation over the... since that time till now. And have also... I have also had the opportunity to visit on a number of occasions Northern Ireland and my... and contrary, to some extent, with what Senator Lindsay has said, actually and, quite frankly, in conformity with really what Senator Haberman has argued with his statistics, is that the Catholics in Northern Ireland, to a great extent, are doing quite well. And, actually, the... and ... and, to a great extent, the government of Southern Ireland, the 26 counties of Southern Ireland, is, to a great extent, opposing any rush to uniting Northern and Southern Ireland into one country. It... it really is the ... the Irish Republican army and Sinn Fein, the political arm of the Irish Republican army, that is forcing, at this point, discussions about a union. But, given all that, my experience leads me to the conclusion, my experience in studying about about Irish history and the fight that has been going on in Ireland for a number of years that is that there is no question in my mind that... that the eventual unification of... of Ireland is ... is not only something that I support, but it is something that should be supported by this country, not only because of the number of ... of Irish citizens that live here bit also because, traditionally, ever since the creation of Irish... the Irish Republic in the ... in the forties, this country has had a policy that has been generally encouraging that that happen. This is a very pivotal time in the history of Ireland because...and it's interesting, because I ... when I was there in November there was a terrible bombing in Northern Ireland where 11 people were in killed in an IRA bombing, and then there were several reprisals after that. And then, subsequent to that, there was a real movement towards peace that occurred. Jerry Adams, the President of...Sinn Fein, came out of hiding and there was a discussion. He came to the United States. There was dis... there was the beginning of discussions between the...the Irish party in Parliament and the Irish Prime Minister and the British Prime Minister, and those ... those discussions are extremely encouraging. And it's the first real movement towards unification in a peaceful manner than has occurred in a number of years, certainly since 1969. This adoption of these MacBride Principles is ... and in the way they are drafted now, which is basically a statement of policy as opposed to any sanctions, is a ...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR ASHFORD: ... very positive thing for us to do, because...and it, quite frankly, they... these MacBride... the MacBride Principles which are named after Sean MacBride who won the Nobel Peace Prize, are an effort to encourage the government of Northern Ireland, in essence, and the British government to accept the reality of the united Ireland and in a political sense. It isn't so much that there is, so much economic deprivation in Northern Ireland or in Southern Ireland because that's not the case. But Ireland should be united. The MacBride Principles move Ireland and Britain in that direction. It is... it is absolutely a predetermined event. It will happen. And, for those reasons, I would... I stand in wholehearted support of the MacBride Principles and am going to vote to maintain those principles in LB 1066. Thank you.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Ashford. We have guests of Senator Matzke here this evening. Anne and Bob Binhammer from Omaha. Dr. Binhammer is on the faculty at UNMC and they are under the south balcony. Will you both stand and be recognized, please. Thank you very much. Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Madam President, this is my third and last time that I can speak on this proposition that's before us now. And 1 hope that we do not vote to take these principles off the bill. The earth did not move under our feet and the sky did not tumble down when we took the vote which was about 28 to a very few negative votes to attach these principles. Nothing has changed. There has been anger but we've seen it before this session and, I assure you, we're going to see more of it before the session is over. But that is not a reason to undo what has been done. This bill ... and I would say these things in response somewhat to the comments of Senator Landis, this bill is not the beginning and end all of anything. It is not. I will be back next Year, Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I just thought I would throw that in, and we can get rid of the divestment legislation. But for Senator Landis to suggest for one minute that I would shirk my responsibility by turning it over to him and letting him do that which I feel is wrong for me to do, is not going to be the right thing and it's not going to absolve, me of responsibility and he, of all people, knows that very well. If I set a chain of events in motion and I know what is at the end of that chain of events and I know there's going to be no
intervening force to bring that chain of events to a halt, then I have to be held accountable for the end result and it can be said that I intended that result because that is the only thing that can come from what I set in motion. So if I set the chain of events in motion and I step aside and Senator Landis stands where I am, the responsibility is not his, it's still mine, and I'm trying to shirk it if I move aside and try to get somebody else to take the rap. The MacBride Principles were discussed by us, when they were legitimate before us, in depth and we stayed on that subject. Senator Crosby expressed her opposition and told why. I gave the reasons I supported it and so did others, talking about the amendment which contained the MacBride Principles and we voted to add them to the bill. Nothing has changed. We should vote against stripping this amendment from the bill. If something earthshaking about which we did not know was brought to our attention, that could be a justification perhaps for reversing ourselves. But when a person is going to make a 190 degree turn just because there has been some contention on the floor of the Legislature, I think that would be a mistake. I still support the principles. What this might be a lesson that all the members of the Legislature should pay attention to is don't persuade we to go along with something that you believe in if a point might come when you think or feel that there is too much controversy about it and we need to back away from it. Once I become convinced that this is right, it is now my conviction and not my...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: supporting something you believe in because I believe in you and go along with it. The conviction. is mine. The belief is mine and I'm. standing by it, and I hope those who voted for the amendment, in the first instance, will stand by it. In the Journal, there will not be pages between that first vote which is a matter of record and the 'vote which will be taken now, and there will be no explanatory material between those votes to tell why people who said very strongly, yea, this minute and then the next minute nay. I hope you will stand firm.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. Senator Withem, your light is next.
SPEAKER WITHEM: Excuse me, Senator Bernard- Stevens. Yeah, I was going to call the question, but I think there is now a
procedural question before the body and, Madam President, don't worry, I think we have...we have that handled. So don't worry about that. There seems to be a procedural confusion and I hear in some of the... the language that people are using as they're speaking, they're saying, don't strip the Hall amendment, don't reconsider or please do reconsider. We already have reconsidered. The state of LB 1066 right now is there is... there are no MacBride Principles in them. I believe that is correct. I ask for verification from the Presiding Officer.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: That's correct, Senator.
SENATOR WITHEM: That is the case. So, as you vote on this, if you want to vote the MacBride Principles, you will need to vote yes. If you would prefer not to have them then it will be a no vote. With that, let me yield the rest of my time to Senator Lindsay to make some points.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Lindsay.
SENATOR LINDSAY: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Withem, members. I guess I still ... I want to get back to... to the issue that we're voting on because it is just a basic human rights issue. And I think we have steered away from that, unfortunately, because of some of the other reasons that we would or would not vote for this. The MacBride Principles, as Senator Ashford mentioned, came about through the work of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Sean MacBride, because he recognized early on what many of...many parts of the world have not closed their eyes to. In other parts, like here in Nebraska, we have. The fact that if you're Catholic in Northern Ireland, you're part of that segment that has the highest unemployment rate in the European community, at over 40 percent. And we complain here in Nebraska that it gets up as high as 3 percent or 4 percent. Over 40 percent unemployment among Catholics in Northern Ireland; the highest infant mortality rate-in western Europe; has the highest lack of housing, the lowest standard of living, the lowest standard of education; actual segregation, actual segregation in the schools. You go to the good schools if you're ... if you're a Protestant, you go to the bad schools if you're a Catholic, things that we, again, take for granted. The highest level of violent crime is among Catholics in Northern Ireland. These are all...if you look at the worst conditions, that's where they're occurring. The highest jail population in the European community, it's the same. The final thing that I
would mention is the fact again, talking about taking things for granted, reminding us that. since 1970 civil rights have been suspended. The little things that we take for granted, like a trial, don't exist. You're not guaranteed those rights anymore. You can be held indefinitely because ... because it's basically a martial law sort of situation. It's absolutely unthinkable that this Legislature, in stating a voluntary set of principles that is not going to require just investment, that's simply a statement that says this Legislature believes that these basic human rights should not be denied on the basis of one's religion, something that if it was happening here in Nebraska we would be going absolutely crazy trying to correct. But because it's happening on the other side of the globe, we don't care. I think it's simply abhorrent that we would not accept these. I think defense ... or, excuse me, defending against the adoption of the MacBride Principles is absolutely untenable. We've heard no reason why they should not be adopted in this entire debate, no reason why we should... they should not be adopted, except that we can do some other good in South Africa. I suggest to you there's a lot of good we can do...
PRESIDENT ROBAK: One minute.
SENATOR LINDSAY: ... in Northern Ireland without harming anybody. Let's make that statement. Let's... you've heard Senator Withem, if we want the MacBride Principles, you must vote yes on this amendment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Lindsay, your light is on again, do you wish to speak further?
SENATOR LINDSAY: Question.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: There's no need for the question. There are no further lights. Senator Hall, would you like to close on your amendment? I will say that after the vote on this amendment we will stand at ease for dinner.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President, and members, the issue before the body is the adoption of the Hall amendment which contains the MacBride Principles. I voted for reconsideration, but I cannot vote against the amendment. The amendment, I think, is extremely important. I, frankly, wish I had prioritized it, that's how strongly I feel about it. Senator Chambers, I, frankly, feel that the amendment will fail
and I respect your decision to pull your bill at that time. And I don't object to that. I would not ask you to do anything less than you felt was what your conscience thought you must do. So, for that request earlier, I apologize. I should have known better. The issue of the MacBride Principles though is one simply that is how people are dealt with in terms of employment. It is how we, as a public body, decide we want to invest our dollars. There was much talk about they weren't our dollars, they were someone else's dollars. The state participates in those retirement funds. The state does that through tax dollars. Those are our tax dollars, they're each and every one of our tax dollars, everyone that we represent. Those are investments that we also make, along with the individuals who are parts of those retirement plans. I believe that this is good policy for the state. I believe it is the kind of thing that we, as a public policy body, should do more of, not less, that we should be involved in on a day-to-day basis in addition to the mundane things that we do from time to time. These are the, many times, important things that are overlooked that we are involved in. When we invest in those companies we are involved in that. And, with that, I would urge the adoption of the amendment, knowing full well that it is going to fail and that we will have 1066 pulled from the agenda, but I can live with that. The MacBride Principles will be back and, hopefully, they will be policy with regard to investment in this state before the end of session- next year. Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. The question before the body is the adoption of the Hall amendment to LB 1066. All those in favor vote aye. All those opposed to the Hall amendment vote nay. Have you all voted? Mr. Clerk. There's been a request for a call of the house. All those in favor vote aye. All those opposed vote nay. Please record.
CLERK: 29 ayes, 0 nays to go under call, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: The house is under call. Will all senators please return to their seats and check in. Will all unauthorized personnel please leave the floor. The house is under call. There's been a request for a roll call vote. Senator Schimek, will you check in, please. Senator Ashford, would you check in, please. Senator Hillman, will you check in, please. Senator Robinson, Senator Wesely and Senator Janssen. We're looking for Senator Wesely and Senator Robinson.
Mr. Clerk, roll call vote.
CLERK: (Roll call vote taken. See page 1814 of the Legislative Journal.) 28 ayes, 8 nays, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: The Hall amendment is adopted. I raise the call. We stand at ease for dinner for one-half hour till ten till eight.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: call the body back to order, please. Mr. Clerk, items for the record.
CLERK: Madam President, I do, thank you. Communication from the Governor. (Read communication regarding LB 1287 and LB 1287A.) Madam President, Senator Hartnett would like to print amendments to LB 630 and Senator Elmer to LB 1034. 1 have a Reference Report referring certain resolutions to Standing Committees for public hearing purposes. (See pages 1814-16 of the Legislative Journal.) That's all that I have, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Is there anything further on LB 1066?
CLERK: LB 1066, Madam President, Senator Haberman has a series of amendments pending.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Madam President, I believe I have 17 amendments up there and it's eight o'clock so we should be through around midnight. Is that all right, Madam Chairman?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Whatever the body wishes to do, Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: I would respectfully withdraw those amendments so we can get on with the business of the state. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you very much, Senator Haberman. Is there anything further on LB 1066? 1 have nothing further pending on the bill, Madam President.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Chambers. Senator McKenzie. Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Madam President, I would move that LB 1066 be advanced to E & R for engrossment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. Any discussion? Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to take a moment. Senator Haberman, would you respond to a question?
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Senator Haberman.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Senator Haberman, will you talk to me if I will talk to you?
SENATOR HABERMAN: Well, you told me you weren't going to talk to me anymore
SENATOR HALL: I know.
SENATOR HABERMAN: ... so this is kind of a surprise.
SENATOR HALL: Well, I changed my mind.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Sure, I'll talk to you, Senator Hall.
SENATOR HALL: Rex, I apologize. I shouldn't have got out of hand. I apologize for that. I ... I got asked to sit next to you when I came to the body ten years ago because the Clerk told me he couldn't find anybody who would sit next to you, and I said, oh, there's nobody I can't get along with. And so I sat next to you and then you moved away from me.
SENATOR HABERMAN: Well, Senator Hall, your body odor was terrible, that's the only reason I moved.
SENATOR HALL: Now, Rex, you know I have good hygiene, now what are you talking about? Rex, I apologize. Let's go have a drink when this is all over tonight. I'll buy. Madam President and
members, I believe that 1066 is a good proposal. I appreciate the fact that Senator Haberman has withdrawn his amendments. I think with the sanctions that -re removed under Senator Chambers' original bill, along with the incorporation of the MacBride Principles, that it is a good public policy for the state in both instances and I would urge its advancement to E & R for engrossment.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Hall. Senator Chambers.
SENATOR CHAMBERS: Madam President and members of the Legislature, I just want to thank the members of the Legislature for staying here through this, the tempest, because as many as we have had so far, and we've had some this session, we, as A group, have worked through them and arrived on the other side achieving something one way or the other. So now that we are at the point where the bill can move, I'm in a position...I'm sorry Senator Landis is not here to see this, to say that I'm willing to support the advancement of the bill.
PRESIDENT ROBAK: Thank you, Senator Chambers. Any further discussion on the advancement of LB 1066? Seeing none, all those in favor vote aye ... say aye. All those opposed nay. LB 1066 advances. Move now to LB 1044.