Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, during the debate, I mentioned my interest and desire to include language that would be like the language that we voted on 2 years ago that would really be like the so-called Hyde language, which says no money shall be used for abortion except that necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. That is the language I have now submitted. That is the language I wanted to get into the bill last night and earlier today and was unsuccessful. I know my colleague from Maryland has a different idea. She would like to have her amendment. I just mention that we have debated this for a long time. I am happy to vote up or down on my amendment and happy to vote up or down on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland. I do not know that we need any time. I think every person in this body knows exactly how they are going to vote on my amendment. They may or may not know how they will vote on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland. But it is not my intention or desire, I tell my friend from Nebraska, to delay this bill any longer. I was willing to agree to an hour time agreement on the first amendment. I am happy to enter into a very short time agreement on this amendment, on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland. If the Senator from Maryland has two amendments, that is the Senator's right and prerogative. And I am happy to enter into time agreements and see where the votes are.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, may we have order?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I apologize. I had every intention of trying to yield back time. The debate became a little hotter and that was not to happen. Let me clarify where we are. I heard my colleague from Maryland. She urged defeat of the amendment. We are voting on a committee amendment that struck the House language. I hope people will vote ``no'' because I want to preserve the House language. I want to preserve the House language that says no funds will be used for Federal employees to buy health insurance unless necessary to protect the life of the mother. I also planned on amending that language and putting in a rape and incest exception. I would do it now but am prohibited from doing that. I understand that. I want to protect the lives of unborn children. Senator Smith from New Hampshire said before we had this prohibition, the Federal Government paid for 17,000 abortions. Then we placed a restriction in 1983. The language we are trying to insert now, or keep alive the House language, is the exact same language that this Government had for 10 years between 1984 and 1993. It saved thousands of lives. Somebody said, well, it saved money. My interest is not the money so much as I want to save lives. I do not want taxpayers to have to subsidize abortion as a fringe benefit. Take a poll of people, ask any poll, Do you think taxpayers' funds should be used to subsidize abortion, and the answer is no. Overwhelmingly no. Not close, Mr. President, 70 to 80 percent. I heard my colleague say, get the Government out of this area. I want the Government to quit financing abortions. That is the reason we have this amendment. I urge my colleague to vote no on the committee amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. No, I do not think that is defined well. I think we know what rape and incest mean. Medically necessary is ambiguous. I would not agree.

Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Indiana 6 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. NICKLES. I mentioned at the beginning we may wish to yield back some time. I hope we can do so. I notify my colleagues to plan on a vote, hopefully, shortly before 12 o'clock.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to get to the amendment that we have at hand, the House-passed Treasury, Postal appropriations bill had language that said no funds would be used to pay for abortions as a benefit for Federal employees. This was the policy of our country from 1984 to 1993. It was reversed by the Clinton administration. I might mention it was reversed after heated discussion and debate in the Senate, in which it was decided by two votes. The side that prevailed in that vote, the Clinton administration, said that we should have taxpayers' funds used to subsidize abortion for Federal employees. Many of us fought to maintain that prohibition. We felt that Federal employees should have rights, should have benefits, but we did not think a benefit should be included for abortion to be subsidized, the majority of which is paid for by taxpayers. If they wanted to get an abortion, that is their right, they can purchase it. It costs about $250. But we did not think that taxpayers should have to subsidize it. And so that is the reason why we tried to maintain the prohibition which had been in effect from 1984 up until 1993. The House reinstated that prohibition. The committee amendment struck that prohibition. The amendment we have right now says we disagree with the committee amendment. We would like to have that House language in there. We may want to modify it. I may want to modify it. The Senator from Maryland may want to modify it. But I would like to at least have that language in so we are going to say in effect that we will not use taxpayers' funds to pay for abortion for Federal employees. My reason for yielding 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Wyoming is it does not take that long to say it. It is pretty simple. It is something most everybody has voted on. I know it is a tough issue for a lot of people. It is a very serious issue. It is an issue because we are talking about life and death. It is an issue which says what should be in a fringe benefit package. You have a lot of things--all employees do. Most employees have health benefits, and they may have vacations and pensions and days off, and so on. Those are a package of benefits. Should that package of benefits include the right to an abortion? I do not think so, especially not subsidized by the taxpayer, especially not when we ask taxpayers right now to pay 72 percent of the cost, 60 percent of the premium. Should taxpayers have to pay for that? Remember what we are talking about. We are not talking about dental exams or medical checkups. We are not talking about annual physicals. We are talking about an abortion. Should taxpayers have to pay for that? I do not think so. And that was the policy of this country for 10 years. It was reversed by the Clinton administration--I think a serious mistake, a serious mistake, again, one that deals with life. Should people be able to go down and say, ``Well, I want to get an abortion. It is covered by my insurance policy. I know it is paid for by the taxpayers, the majority of it is. I can get one. Here is my card.'' And so the person getting one maybe pays very little, if anything. That is a fringe benefit provided for by the Federal Government. I do not think abortion should be a fringe benefit provided for by the Government. It is really just about that simple. It is serious. I respect my colleagues on the other side who have a difference of opinion. They feel very strongly. I happen to feel very strongly. A lot of people--I think a majority of Americans, if you ask them the question, do you support abortion? Maybe one way or another. But, do you support taxpayers paying for it? I think a strong majority of Americans say, ``No. Don't use our dollars in that way. If somebody wants to get one, maybe that is their right. Let them spend their own money. But don't have it part of the Federal employee benefit package, which basically makes it a fringe benefit.'' That is what the issue is about. I hope that my colleagues will concur and join me in supporting the House language. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. I think if all time was used, the vote would occur at about 12:10.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, before my colleague from North Dakota leaves, let me just try to tell my friend from North Dakota--who just left--that this Senator has tried, unsuccessfully now for 2 or 3 hours last night and for a little while this morning, to put in a rape and incest exception. I tell my colleagues that the language I offered 2 years ago had a rape and incest exception and life of the mother. The unanimous-consent agreement does not allow that at this time. That is the reason I said we may well have to have another amendment, because that is my intention. That is my belief. I happen to think that is where the votes are in this body. I do not know where the votes are exactly on this language right now on adopting the House language. The House language is exactly the policy we had from 1984 to 1993, exactly the same, and that is what they adopted in the House. They adopted it with a 50-vote margin. I stated to my friends on both sides of this issue that I thought where the votes were was to ensure that no funds could be used for abortion by Federal employees from their health insurance unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. I have endeavored to try to introduce this amendment. I have been denied that opportunity. The way the unanimous consent is drafted, I am not able to do it at this point. That is the reason I said, well, if this amendment is not agreed to, we may have to do that later. This amendment would keep the House language and it is amendable. And I might mention it is amendable by this side; it is amendable by the other side. I know my friend from Maryland--I have great respect for my friend from Maryland because we have worked on a lot of things over the years, and we have always done it very civilly--I know she has a different opinion, and I respect that. She has a right to offer an amendment. There is no time agreement, there is no limitation on amendments, and so if people have different ideas, they are certainly welcome to offer those. I just wanted my friend from North Dakota to know, I wanted my friend from Maine, Senator Snowe, to know--and I mentioned that to them; they were the only two people who mentioned rape and incest in the debate--I just wanted them to know it is my intention to try to accommodate that language. That is the same language that we had 2 years ago.

Mr. NICKLES. I will just make a couple comments. And I am not surprised that an objection was heard because I have been trying to get this done for the last many hours--2 or 3 hours last night, a couple hours today. My friend from Nebraska tells me as manager of the bill he thinks we can get it included. I want to tell my colleagues that want rape and incest in there, I think he is right. I think it will be included. So I hope nobody votes ``no'' because rape and incest is not in there. If they do, we are going to give them a chance to vote for it later with it in there if this does not prevail. I also want to comment on Senator McCain's comment. We do need to return to a little more civil approach to legislating. Last night on the DOD bill, it was not pretty. This is not pretty the way we are legislating now. Senators have the right to offer amendments. We need to protect that right. I will protect the right of anybody on this side of the aisle to offer an amendment and anybody on that side of the aisle to offer an amendment and to modify their amendments. I think that is an important principle. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Texas 3 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. I will tell my friend from Maryland, my friend from California, and my friend from North Dakota, I have an amendment I would like to send to the desk. It would add rape and incest to the underlying language. I think most people in this body would support this language. I will tell my colleagues from Maryland and California, if this is included we will only have one vote. And so, Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Withhold for a moment and I will be happy to yield. If we do not have some restrictions, then you can have Federal Government taxpayers' funding of abortion for any reason--any reason. You would have abortion on demand paid for by the Federal employees health care plan, and it can be for sex selection. If you find out the fetus is a different sex than you desire, you can have it aborted, and it will be paid for by your health care plan, or you can have a late- term abortion and have that terminated. Or maybe you find out that your fetus has a health problem of some kind, you can have the baby destroyed. Any reason, no restriction, no restriction whatsoever, and all you have to do is say, ``Here's my health card.'' Some people in the private sector have that option. Lots of people in the private sector do not have that option. We should not use taxpayer funds to make that so readily available. I heard some people say they want abortion to be safe, they want it legal and want it to be rare. If you make this a common fringe benefit in health care plans, three-fourths paid by the Federal Government, it does not cost very much, it is pretty easy and oh, yes, it is paid for by the Government, it must be OK, it has the sanction of the Government. This is a fringe benefit provided for by the Federal Government, so your out-of-pocket costs are going to be what? If an abortion costs $200 or $300 and you had to pay 20 percent or 10 percent, maybe it cost $20, $30, or $40. The majority of abortions that are done in the District of Columbia are repeat abortions, and the majority of those are done because of convenience. As a matter of fact, one of the statements made earlier in the debate by Senator Smith said 90-some odd percent. I believe the figure is 98 percent of the abortions performed are done because it is inconvenient, not because of rape, not because of incest, not because the mother's life is in danger, but because it is inconvenient. Maybe the pregnancy was not planned. I will admit, I was not a planned pregnancy, but I am thankful my mother decided to go ahead to term. She debates it right now. Mr. President, we are here because our mothers made decisions to bring us to term. I hate to think that we are going to make a fringe benefit so available, so commonplace, so ordinary and minimize the cost for anyone to have abortions so routine--``Oh, yes it is covered by health care insurance, let's just go do it.'' Oh, incidentally, your health care insurance is paid 72 percent by Uncle Sam. That is Uncle Sam encouraging the policy. For a couple of our colleagues who stated we want to get the Government out, we do not want the Government in our bedroom--and we do not want the Government in our wallets, we are trying to say Government taxpayers should not subsidize abortion. If they still want to have an abortion, they can get it and pay for it with their own money, but we should not have Uncle Sam saying, ``We will pay it for you.'' That is the whole issue of what we are talking about, should we have Federal subsidies; do we want the Federal Government to subsidize. On Medicaid, we said no. On Medicaid, we have the Hyde language. We do not provide abortions for Medicaid-eligible people unless it is necessary to save their life or in cases of rape or incest. That is what this language is. We are saying the same thing should apply for Federal employees. I will be happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, responding to my friend and colleague from Nebraska, the answer is no. We do not have anything in this language saying we are going to control how anybody spends their disposable income. What we do say is on health care plans that we subsidize--health care plans the Federal Government writes, health care plans the Federal Government pays 72 percent of the cost of--we do not think abortion should be a fringe benefit. Abortion is entirely different than other medical procedures. It destroys a human life. We are saying that should not be a fringe benefit. What somebody does with their own money is entirely their own business. We are not trying to change that. What we are trying to say is, as far as Federal policy is concerned, we should not be subsidizing abortion, we should not have that included as a fringe benefit. I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, within a moment, we will be voting on the amendment I offered that basically is the Hyde language. It says that no funds will be used for abortion unless necessary to save the life of a mother, or in the case of rape or incest. If this amendment prevails, the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, will offer an amendment with time not to exceed 30 minutes. Hopefully, maybe we can reduce that time, as well. I know some of our colleagues wanted to know the schedule. This vote will begin at 2:30, and if this amendment wins--and I hope it will; I hope our colleagues will support it--we will be voting on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland within 30 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senate is still not in order.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Wyoming. And just to respond to my friend from Nebraska, we have a 3- hour time agreement. Originally, I requested an hour equally divided. So if the Senator from Wyoming wishes to make a 5-minute speech on some of his thoughts about the inability of the Senate to move, I think that is entirely appropriate and we will have plenty of time to engage in debate on both sides of this amendment.