Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 12 noon on Monday, March 3. I further ask that immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and there be a period of morning business with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each except for the following: Senator Hutchison of Texas, 15 minutes, and Senator Johnson, 15 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Record remain open until 3 p.m. this afternoon for bill introductions and statements.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in session on Monday for a period of morning business. As announced earlier, there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session of the Senate. Under a previous order, the Senate will resume the balanced budget amendment debate on Tuesday. By a previous order, the vote will occur on passage of the constitutional balanced budget amendment on Tuesday at 5:15 p.m. For the information of my colleagues, this will be the next rollcall vote. Again, the next rollcall vote will be Tuesday at 5:15 p.m.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield me 8 minutes?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I wish to compliment my colleague, Senator Hatch from Utah, for his leadership in this bill as well as Senator Domenici for his excellent statement. I hope our colleagues had a chance to listen to the Senator from New Mexico. He probably knows more about the budget than most all of us. He made an outstanding presentation. I urge our colleagues to vote against this amendment. I recognize this amendment may be good politics. It sounds kind of good. I have heard some people say, ``If you vote for this amendment you are going to protect Social Security.'' I totally disagree. As a matter of fact, I think it may have just the opposite result, or opposite conclusion. But it looks good. And, if it is reported by the press, ``Well this one amendment was trying to protect Social Security,'' if they write it like that, some people are going to assume that is correct. I think it has just the opposite result. I think, if we pass a constitutional amendment that says we are going to balance the budget, we are not going to spend any more than we take in but, oh, incidentally, we are going to exempt the largest and most popular program in Government, in other words we want to be in balance except for this very important, popular program, you just gutted the balanced budget amendment. There is no reason to have a balanced budget amendment. The amendment would say we are going to exclude the old age and survivors and Federal disability insurance program. You could include a lot of other things. Why not include Medicare? A lot of people think Medicare is the same thing as Social Security. It is all paid for by a payroll tax. Right now American citizens pay 12.4 percent for Social Security, which includes retirement and disability. And they pay another 2.9 percent in Medicare. There is no reason why we would not include that. You could define that as Social Security. As a matter of fact, in the President's budget he takes home health care--basically he takes it out of the Medicare trust fund and moves it over from part A to part B, and then says it is all going to be paid for by the Federal Government. My point is, you can shift around trust funds and I think you would find a multitude of programs running to be defined as Social Security. Let us throw in Medicare. Let us throw in welfare. Let us throw in anything else, and it will all be exempt from the balanced budget amendment requirement. That makes the balanced budget amendment a facade, it makes it a fraud, it makes it worthless. I am not saying this is from the sponsor of the amendment, but I think a lot of people who are going to vote for the amendment want that to happen. There are a whole lot of people who are going to vote for the amendment of the Senator from Nevada--not that they hope it will pass, they do not support a balanced budget amendment anyway. And I would include President Clinton in this category. He does not support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. But now he raises the specter of Social Security, maybe to scare people into thinking that is a good way to kill the amendment; to kill the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I regret that. I looked at a statement President Clinton made on January 28 at a press conference. He said, dealing with whether or not we should exclude Social Security that we couldn't right now. ``Neither the Republicans nor I [and the Congress] could produce a balanced budget amendment tomorrow that could pass if Social Security funds cannot be counted,'' if you will, as part of the budget. So the President is saying: Wait a minute, I use Social Security surpluses right now in my budget to get down to zero in the year 2002. So do the Republicans. President Clinton has in every single budget that he has had in the past. So have other Presidents. My point being he is now saying we will try to pass that amendment because he knows it is a killer amendment, not because he believes it is good policy. He knows it is bad policy. I think everybody, if they were asked legitimately, is this good policy, they would say, ``No.'' Is it good politics? They may say, ``Well, it may be.'' It might be good politics but it certainly is bad, bad policy. You should not have a constitutional amendment that says we are not going to spend any more than we take in and exclude the largest program in Government. You should not open it up to a program that is not really defined by the Constitution, and therefore every other program in Government could be added as part of Social Security. All of which would be excluded from the constitutional requirement. I think, frankly, when you are talking about the Constitution you should not be trying to write in the Constitution an exclusion for a particular Federal program. That does not fit. Again, it may fit for political purposes but it does not fit in the Constitution. It does not belong in the Constitution. So, Mr. President, I mention this, I have the greatest respect for my colleague and friend from Nevada. I am afraid a lot of people will be looking at this amendment and saying it has a lot of political appeal but substantively it should not be in the Constitution. We are dealing with serious business. We are right on the throes of having the vote to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I hope that we will in the next few days. We will not, in my opinion, I will tell my colleagues, we will not if we come up with this amendment. I have heard some people say if we just agree to this amendment I would vote for it in a minute. I don't think they would, not if they looked at what the results would be, not if they looked at the changes that would have to be made. I don't think that is accurate. This Senator would not vote for it because I think of it as a fraud. I think it would be misleading the American people and I don't want to do that. I think we should be serious in our legislating and I think we should be doubly serious when we are talking about a constitutional amendment in any form, and certainly one to balance the budget. So, Mr. President, with all respect I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Reid amendment and, hopefully, it will go down and then we will be able to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget in the next few days. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont. I ask his assistance. Hopefully we can get to a vote in the Senate on this other resolution. It is a different idea. Let me just compare the two so all our colleagues can see exactly what we are talking about. This is the current law. It says, basically, we are going to spend $420 million on international family planning funds. Under the administration's resolution, that will increase by $120 million. For 4 months there will be $30 million more per month. This is a convoluted way to do this. I was not involved in coming up with the consent agreement that arranged this. My sympathies go to my colleague from Vermont and the Senator from Kentucky, because they wrestled with this for a long time. I know Mr. Panetta was involved in this. We had a real impasse. Maybe I will give a little background in between, so our colleagues might remember, but there is a difference in philosophy on what we should do with international family planning money. The House felt very strongly we should continue the Mexico City restrictions, the Mexico City restrictions being restrictions that these moneys could not be used by an organization, international family planning organization, if they had involvement with abortion. Not only could they not use the U.S. taxpayer funds, but they could not use their own funds for abortion services, and they also could not promote changes in a country's laws dealing with abortions. Those are the two main restrictions known as the Mexico City policy, which was the policy in the United States from 1984 through, I believe, 1993. It was changed by the Clinton administration. So, it was the law of the land for 10 years. I might mention also that, under that policy, a significant number of organizations followed that policy. From 1984 to 1993 we had 350 foreign organizations that complied with the Mexico City policy. In other words, they accepted the money. They said the money will be used for family planning but not for abortions. They would not use our money, U.S. taxpayers' money, they would not use their own money, and they also would not advocate changing laws in other countries. Unfortunately, this was repealed by the Clinton administration shortly after he took office. The House of Representatives felt strongly it should be reinstated. After the House had a change of leadership in 1994, they reinstated the Mexico City policy. The Senate did not go along. So we had, if I remember, 10, 11, maybe even 12 votes in the last Congress over this issue, the Senate basically saying we want to reinstate our position of no prohibition on how the international family planning organizations use their money. If they want to use their money for abortion, they can use it for abortion. If they want to use their own money to advocate changing laws in other countries dealing with abortion--because a lot of countries have laws restricting abortions that this administration does not agree with and, frankly, the International Planned Parenthood Federation does not agree with, and they want to change it. So the Senate was concurring with the administration and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The House was saying no, we should stay with the Mexico City policy. So we had a dozen votes, both sides insisting on maintaining their own positions. The net result was we came up with this terrible arrangement which basically said we will continue this policy at 35- percent less money--which, incidentally, I might mention we had a 35- percent reduction overall in the bill. Mr. Panetta said, let's have it the same way, and then we will dole the money out on a monthly basis and then we will have a vote in the next Congress over when that money will be released. That is what we are going to be voting on tomorrow. So, if we maintain current law, the amount of money will be $420 million. If we adopt the administration's resolution, it will be $543 million. Under these provisions there is no restriction on abortion in this and no restriction on organizations' lobbying capability. The House passed H.R. 531, the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde resolution that had a couple of million dollars more, about $170 million more. But the money had restrictions. The money has those restrictions that were, in effect, the law of the land from 1984 to 1993, that said these groups cannot use the money for abortion, they could not use the money for lobbying other governments to change their policies. I happen to think the Mexico City policy was right. If we are going to be giving money to international family planning organizations, it should be for family planning. It should not be for abortions. Somebody said, ``You are not using U.S. taxpayer dollars for abortions. They are using their own money.'' Some of these groups, like the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation, are advocates of abortion. If we give them so much money, U.S. money, they can say, we do not use a dime of that for abortion. Sure, we will use some of our other money for abortion. And sure we will use some of our other money to advocate changes in other countries' laws that we don't agree with. So, really, you have U.S. taxpayer dollars subsidizing international organizations that are, in effect, lobbying other countries to change their laws because they deem them too restrictive on abortion. That is kind of offensive. It is not just these international groups that are doing it; it is the administration as well. I will just make a couple of comments. Donald Warwick of the Harvard Institute of International Development has written that the International Planned Parenthood Federation ``has in word and deed been one of the foremost lobbyists for abortion in developing countries.'' They are promoting abortion in developing countries, even to the extent of changing their laws. The International Planned Parenthood Federation has made it clear that legalizing abortion and expansion of abortion networks is one of its primary goals. Their 1992 mission statement Strategic Plan--Vision 2000 repeatedly and unambiguously instructs its 140 national affiliate organizations to work to legalize abortion as part of a mandate to ``advocate for changes in restrictive national laws, policies, practices and traditions.'' So, we are supporting and giving money to the International Planned Parenthood Federation so they can use that money, or other money, to lobby, to tell some countries that happen to have pro-life laws that they have to change their law. That bothers me. What makes us so self- righteous that we know that other countries should be changing their laws dealing with abortion? How can we be so self-righteous? Then we find out it is not only some International Planned Parenthood organization, but we see it from our own State Department. On March 16, 1994, through Secretary of State Warren Christopher in a classified action cable to all overseas diplomatic posts, the State Department announced, ``The United States believes access to safe, legal and voluntary abortion is a fundamental right of all women,'' and called for ``senior level diplomatic intervention'' to garner support for the U.S. position at the September U.N. conference on population in Cairo. On May 12, 1993, Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth expounded the policy in a detailed speech at the United Nations, stating, ``A government which is violating basic human rights should not hide behind the defense of sovereignty * * * Our position is to support reproductive choice, including access to safe abortion.'' Why in the world would we have the Under Secretary of State make a speech to the United Nations telling other countries we think we know better, you should change your laws. We think you should have pro- choice laws in countries such as El Salvador or other countries that have maybe a predominantly Catholic population and have pro-life laws or laws restricting abortions? Why in the world would we be so self- righteous or sanctimonious that we should be telling those countries, We know best. Change your laws. We think you should have legal abortion. Maybe we think you should subsidize it. That, to me, is offensive, to think that the Secretary of State or Under Secretary of State would have that position. April 1, 1993, White House Deputy Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers noted the administration regards abortion as ``part of the overall approach to population control.'' And if we don't enact H.R. 581, the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde language, then what we are doing is giving this administration a blank check to give money to international organizations that have no restrictions whatsoever on how they use their money on abortion or changing laws in other countries. I think that is wrong. So for my colleagues, just to summarize, we have a couple of options. We can accelerate the money with no restrictions whatsoever or, if you happen to be in favor of more family planning money, if you want more family planning money to go out internationally and you think that might reduce the incidents of abortion, you can do that, you can support the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde language. We are going to try to get a vote on it. The House already passed it. Tomorrow it will be pending at the Senate desk. We hope to get a time agreement. I understand some people say, ``We want to filibuster that.'' Why? What is the matter with having a vote? Let's find out where the votes are. There is more money. This has $713 million for family planning. House Joint Resolution 36, which will be voted on tomorrow, has $543 million. There is $170 million more money for international family planning, but it has restrictions. You will not be able to use that money or your money for abortion. So, if you want less abortions, you should support the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde language, and if you think it is wrong for our country to be advocating that other countries change their laws dealing with abortions, then you need to support that resolution as well. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution we will have pending tomorrow, House Joint Resolution 36. Vote ``no'' on that and then vote in favor of H.R. 581, the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde language, which will have more money for international family planning and no money for abortion and no money for advocating changes in other countries' abortion laws. I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from Vermont.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, when the House of Representatives passed the resolution, House Joint Resolution 36, which allowed for the releasing of funds, $30 million per month for 4 months, 4 months earlier than under current law--after they passed that resolution they also passed another resolution. It is called the Smith-Oberstar-Hyde Resolution, H.R. 581. H.R. 581 actually releases more money for international family planning, but it does have restrictions to make sure that none of that money would be used for abortion purposes. Since the House has already passed H.R. 581 and these are related issues, I would like now, at this point, to ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on final passage on H.R. 581 at a time not later than Friday of this week.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today, and begin with these words: ``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' These profound words are possibly the most known words from our Declaration of Independence. They state a principle that is fundamental to who we are as a nation; life itself is a gift from our Creator, and it is a right that can not be taken away. We are a nation whose core philosophy is to care for its people. As public servants, we deal with issues that affect the lives of people every day. Caring for people is the underlying aspect of almost every piece of legislation dealt with in the Senate, and nearly every issue we confront as a country. But while we work to build up America, something is at work in the country, eating away at fundamentals we used to take for granted: in this case, the sanctity of life. It is no secret that I place a high value on life at its conception. But a disturbing trend has developed over the past few years, a devaluation of life as it nears its end. Two years ago, I offered legislation banning the use of Medicaid and Medicare funds for assisted suicide in the 1995 balanced budget act. Unfortunately the President vetoed this legislation. Today, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation offered by Senators Ashcroft and Dorgan, which prohibits any Federal funds from being used for assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. This means that hospitals, medical institutions, or health care providers are not required to participate in procedures they morally or ethically oppose. The large majority of people oppose assisted suicide. In a Wirthlin poll taken November 5, 1996, 87 percent of the people asked said tax dollars should not be spent to pay for the cost of assisting suicide or euthanasia. A recent study by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, found that seriously ill cancer patients in severe pain are unlikely to ``approve of, or desire'' euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, instead they desire ``only relief from their pain''. Even the medical profession is opposed to assisted suicide. An amicus brief filed by the American Medical Association to the Supreme Court on November 12, 1996, contends assisted suicide ``will create profound danger for many ill persons with undiagnosed depression and inadequately treat pain, for whom assisted suicide rather than good palliative care could become the norm. At greatest risk would be those with the least access to palliative care--the poor, the elderly and members of minority groups.'' The brief concludes, ``Although, for some patients it might appear compassionate to hasten death, institutionalizing physician-assisted suicide as a medical treatment would put many more patients at serious risk for unwanted and unnecessary death.'' Dr. Joanne Lynn, board member of the American Geriatrics Society and director of the Center to Improve Care of the Dying at George Washington University said--Health Line, Jan. 8, 1997--``No one needs to be alone or in pain or beg a doctor to put an end to misery. Good care is possible.'' As Tracy Miller, former head of the New York Task Force on Life and Law said, ``It is far easier to assist patients in killing themselves than it is to care for them at life's end.'' The bill before us today is a major step in continuing to provide the care our elderly, poor, and seriously ill need and deserve. The bill would assure that the programs designed to support human life and health would not be transformed into implements of death. I commend the work of Senator Ashcroft and Senator Dorgan in writing this legislation, compliment them upon its introduction today, and pledge to work with them to see it to passage in the 105th Congress. Our country deserves no less.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today, and begin with these words: ``We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' These profound words are possibly the most known words from our Declaration of Independence. They state a principle that is fundamental to who we are as a nation; life itself is a gift from our Creator, and it is a right that can not be taken away. We are a nation whose core philosophy is to care for its people. As public servants, we deal with issues that affect the lives of people every day. Caring for people is the underlying aspect of almost every piece of legislation dealt with in the Senate, and nearly every issue we confront as a country. But while we work to build up America, something is at work in the country, eating away at fundamentals we used to take for granted: in this case, the sanctity of life. It is no secret that I place a high value on life at its conception. But a disturbing trend has developed over the past few years, a devaluation of life as it nears its end. Two years ago, I offered legislation banning the use of Medicaid and Medicare funds for assisted suicide in the 1995 balanced budget act. Unfortunately the President vetoed this legislation. Today, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation offered by Senators Ashcroft and Dorgan, which prohibits any Federal funds from being used for assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. This means that hospitals, medical institutions, or health care providers are not required to participate in procedures they morally or ethically oppose. The large majority of people oppose assisted suicide. In a Wirthlin poll taken November 5, 1996, 87 percent of the people asked said tax dollars should not be spent to pay for the cost of assisting suicide or euthanasia. A recent study by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, found that seriously ill cancer patients in severe pain are unlikely to ``approve of, or desire'' euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, instead they desire ``only relief from their pain''. Even the medical profession is opposed to assisted suicide. An amicus brief filed by the American Medical Association to the Supreme Court on November 12, 1996, contends assisted suicide ``will create profound danger for many ill persons with undiagnosed depression and inadequately treat pain, for whom assisted suicide rather than good palliative care could become the norm. At greatest risk would be those with the least access to palliative care--the poor, the elderly and members of minority groups.'' The brief concludes, ``Although, for some patients it might appear compassionate to hasten death, institutionalizing physician-assisted suicide as a medical treatment would put many more patients at serious risk for unwanted and unnecessary death.'' Dr. Joanne Lynn, board member of the American Geriatrics Society and director of the Center to Improve Care of the Dying at George Washington University said--Health Line, Jan. 8, 1997--``No one needs to be alone or in pain or beg a doctor to put an end to misery. Good care is possible.'' As Tracy Miller, former head of the New York Task Force on Life and Law said, ``It is far easier to assist patients in killing themselves than it is to care for them at life's end.'' The bill before us today is a major step in continuing to provide the care our elderly, poor, and seriously ill need and deserve. The bill would assure that the programs designed to support human life and health would not be transformed into implements of death. I commend the work of Senator Ashcroft and Senator Dorgan in writing this legislation, compliment them upon its introduction today, and pledge to work with them to see it to passage in the 105th Congress. Our country deserves no less.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Journal of the Senate of September 30, 1996 be amended to reflect the indefinite postponement of H.R. 4278.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I wish to thank the Chaplain again for a beautiful prayer. As always, he is very eloquent, very inspirational, and I think it would certainly behoove all of us to pay tribute and guidance to his lesson this morning.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1 o'clock this afternoon. At 1 o'clock, the Senate will resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1, the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. By unanimous consent, Senator Wellstone will be recognized to offer an amendment or two at 1 p.m. We hope to be able to complete all debate on Senator Wellstone's amendments today. However, any votes ordered on those amendments will occur during Tuesday's session. Beginning at 3:30 today, the Senate will resume 2 hours of debate on Senator Durbin's amendment regarding economic hardship. Under the order, a vote will occur on or in relation to the Durbin amendment at 5:30 this afternoon. I want to repeat that there will be a rollcall vote at 5:30 this afternoon. I also remind my colleagues that the Senate is scheduled to adjourn for the President's Day recess on Thursday of this week. In addition, tomorrow President Clinton is coming to the Capitol for a meeting, and also for Senators' information, the funeral for Ambassador Harriman is scheduled for Thursday. Therefore, this week will be busy as we continue to make progress on the balanced budget amendment and consider any nominations that may become available. I might mention that it is possible we could have a vote on the U.S. Trade Representative this week, and it's even possible on Congressman Richardson, who is up for U.N. Representative. As always, we will try to keep all Senators advised on the schedule for the remainder of the week, as well as any ordered rollcall votes. There is a vote this evening at 5:30 in relation to the Durbin amendment. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, thank you.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding the order of the Senate of January 24, 1901, that on Monday, February 24, 1997, immediately following the prayer and the disposition of the Journal, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place and that the Chair be authorized to appoint a Senator to perform that task.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will continue the debate on the balanced budget amendment on Tuesday. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume debate on the Wellstone amendment at 2:15 p.m. with a vote occurring on or in relation to that amendment at approximately 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday. Senators, therefore, can expect the next rollcall vote on Tuesday, February 11, at approximately 3:15 p.m. Also it is my hope we will be able to confirm the nomination of Congressman Richardson to be U.N. Ambassador shortly after the nomination is reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that Senate bill 24 be star printed with the changes that are at the desk.