Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the great success of our Nation is rooted in the labors of millions of Americans who work every day to make America a better place. I'd like to take a moment to recognize one such American--a fellow Oklahoman, Denise Bode, who has dedicated most of her adult life to making our Nation a better place through her work in the public and private sector. Soon she will begin a new chapter of service to the people of Oklahoma. For this reason, I am very proud to take this opportunity to recognize her contributions over the past several years. Denise Bode became involved in Government right after she graduated from the University of Oklahoma, serving as an adviser to my former Senate colleague David Boren who was the Governor of Oklahoma. When David Boren was elected to the Senate, Denise became a member of his U.S. Senate staff and developed an expertise in energy and tax policies. Even though she was working full time, she somehow found time to take courses at night and earn both a law degree and a masters of law in taxation, and devote time to her son Sean as well as be a helpmate to her husband John Bode, who was an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in the Reagan Administration. For the past 6 years she has served as president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, an organization founded in 1929 in Oklahoma and which today is the Nation's largest membership association representing America's oil and natural gas producers. She was the first and so far the only woman to head a major energy trade association. All of us who have worked with Denise over the years in Washington, regardless of party affiliation, whether in the public or private sector, know her to be a tireless advocate for Oklahoma and always looking out for the best interest of our Nation. She is the type of person who will fight tirelessly for what she believes in. In the process, she has made a difference. She returns to Oklahoma next month to serve, at the request of Governor Frank Keating, on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which oversees both the interest of the consumers in the State and key industries. Ask Denise why she's going back to her native State and she'll say it's because she wants to make a difference; she wants to make Oklahoma an even better place. We in Washington often talk about devolution, giving more power and responsibility to the States. I certainly believe that is the proper course of action. Knowing that Denise and other extremely capable people are leading the way in the States gives me added confidence in this policy. And once again, Denise is going where her beliefs lead her. I wish her well in this endeavor and feel very confident that she will give to this new position the same dedication and commitment she's given throughout her years of public service.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, from 1984 through 1993, language was included as part of the Treasury/Postal Service appropriations bills which prohibited taxpayer money from going to fund abortions through Federal employee health benefits plans. In 1993, President Clinton pushed a change in that policy through Congress. For 2 years, people who were unalterably opposed to abortion were forced to pay for an estimated 17,000 abortions each year for any reason. In 1995, Congress restored the policy of restricting abortion funding and has continued to maintain that policy. The narrow question before us today is whether Americans who stand in defense of life should be forced to pay for its destruction with their taxes. I do not believe they should and thus strongly support my colleague from Ohio's amendment. Whether they choose to call themselves pro-choice or pro-life, the American people overwhelmingly reject public financing of abortion. A CBS/New York Times poll conducted in April 1993, about health care reform issues asked adults what should be included in a basic, Government-subsidized health care plan. Only 23 percent thought abortion should be covered. Some 72 percent said abortion should not be included a benefit in a Government-sponsored health plan. A Wirthlin poll conducted in May 1992, found that 55 percent of Americans opposed using tax dollars to pay for abortions for women who cannot afford to pay for them. I would speculated that the number would be even higher if the question reflected the issue we are considering here, which is Government-subsidized abortions for women who can afford them. Employers determine the benefits employees get. Taxpayers are the employers of Federal employees and a large majority of taxpayers do not want their tax dollars to pay for abortions. In 1995 the Federal Government contributed, on average, 72 percent of the money toward the purchase of health insurance for its employees. Thus, taxpayers provided a majority share of the funds to purchase health insurance for the Federal civilian work force. The abortion funding restriction in this amendment addresses the same core issue as the Hyde amendments: Should the Federal Government be in the business of funding abortion? Should taxpayers be forced to underwrite the cost of abortions for Federal employees? This amendment does not in any way hinder an individual's free exercise of their choice in regard to abortion services. What it does do is prevent such an individual's choice from being subsidized by funds taken from taxpayers who object to an unfettered exercise of the choice to abort an unborn child. No matter what private arrangements individuals wish to make regarding abortion and insurance. Most American do not wish to see abortion services included among a federally guaranteed package of health care benefits. Despite its articulation of a constitutional right to privacy regarding abortion, the Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that abortion funding restrictions are constitutionally permissible. There is a clear distinction between supporting the private choice of abortion and requiring citizens through their tax dollars or federally mandated health premiums, to pay for such a service. I hope that this overwhelming evidence will lead my colleagues to understand the imperative nature of this issue, and I urge them to vote in favor of this necessary amendment.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Senator for his support on this issue. Newport, IRS Hiring Waiver

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, before this body passes the Treasury and general government appropriation bill for fiscal year 1998, I would like to raise an important issue concerning how the Government develops policies and regulations. The issue is the public's right to have access to the data that is produced from Government funded studies and used to support regulatory rulemakings. As you may know, the Federal Government does not have a standardized process for making research data available for independent review. Often the public is forced to comply with costly regulations without the assurance that the data underlying the rules has been made available for independent scientific evaluation. If the Government is going to force the public to comply with its rules, the public must have confidence that the rules are based on sound science. Similarly, if the Government is going to provide funding for research, the public should be able to access the data that is produced from such research. Unfortunately, the Government does not have a disclosure policy on research data. I believe this undermines the scientific basis of our rulemaking and erodes the public's confidence in the Government's regulatory development process. I would like to ask my colleague from Colorado, the chairman of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, if he would be willing to work with me to correct this problem.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announced that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] would vote ``nay.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the amendment of Senator Smith of Oregon, which would try to protect religious liberty in Russia. I want to compliment my colleague from Oregon for this amendment. In my opinion, it is probably one of the most important amendments we will debate, certainly on this bill--maybe this Congress. Unfortunately, and I guess most of my colleagues are aware of this fact, the Russian Duma overwhelmingly voted to place restrictions on religious freedom in Russia, freedoms that were both won after the collapse of communism and guaranteed by the 1993 Russian Constitution. The overwhelming vote by the Duma is a tremendous step backward for Russia and for its people. The legislation approved by the Duma would place severe restrictions on religions not recognized by the government in 1982, a time when the Soviet Government was in power, a time characterized by religious persecution and official atheism. In 1982, as I understand it, the only four religions recognized by the Russian Government were the Russian Orthodox church, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. As I understand this legislation, it would deny religions that entered Russia after 1982 the right to rent or own property, the right to employ religious workers, the right to produce religious literature, maintain a bank account, or conduct charitable and educational activities. According to an article that appeared in the June 24 edition of the Washington Post, it would sharply restrict the activities of foreign missionaries in Russia. I hope my colleagues are aware of this. I was not aware of it until my colleague from Oregon mentioned it to me. I cannot believe that the Duma would pass something by such an overwhelming vote that would deny religious opportunities to the Russian people. Maybe one of the most important of all liberties is the right to worship as one would choose. It is guaranteed by the 1993 Russian Constitution. Yet they would pass legislation basically grandfathering four established religions, but outlawing other religions, such as the Mormon church, the Roman Catholic Church, and untold other numbers of minority religions in Russia. The Reverend Gleb Yakunin, an orthodox priest, said in a news report carried by the June 24 edition of the London Times, that the bill was ``openly discriminatory'' and ``The bill is effectively aimed at reinstating Soviet religious policy.'' I believe the reverend's statement is true. I believe putting restrictions on the religions that have recently entered Russia will have the same effect of not allowing many people to practice their religions. If religions are unable to carry out charitable activities, how can members of various churches practice their religion? Christian missionaries who are following the admonition of Christ would not be allowed to do so in Russia. Many remember when Billy Graham went to Russia several years ago. He had an overwhelming reception. Would foreign missionaries not be allowed? Would people that gather be allowed to reproduce materials? I think the reproduction of materials would be banned under the bill that was passed by the Duma. Hopefully, Mr. Yeltsin will not sign this bill. I think it is extremely important he not sign this bill. According to Lawrence Uzzell, Moscow representative of the Keston Institute, which studies religious life in Russia and Eastern Europe, of the 102 Catholic priests and 112 nuns serving in Russia, all but a handful are foreigners. In fact, Mr. Uzzell reports that a Catholic priest in Belgorod was recently told he could not celebrate mass there because his parish is a foreign religious organization. I think this report confirms what I suspected, that this bill passed by the Duma would not only put restrictions on these religions, but have the effect of denying the opportunity to many to practice their religion. So I want to thank my colleague from Oregon for his amendment. Again, it may be one of the most important amendments. What is the effect? It says no money under this bill, the foreign operations bill, will go to Russia if President Yeltsin signs this bill into law or if it becomes law, or if he issues an executive order that will ban religious freedom as guaranteed under the Russian Constitution. I think it is a very appropriate amendment. Some people will argue this is too heavy of a hammer. I think we need to get their attention. What they are doing by outlawing many religions, basically most Christian religions and organizations, banning those, outlawing those from Russia, I think, would be a terrible, terrible thing to happen to the Russian people. They should not be forced into any religion. We should certainly encourage religious choice and opportunity for all the Russian people. Some will say, what is the effect of this amendment? This amendment says no economic assistance will be going to Russia if the President signs this bill or if he issues an executive order which will ban religious freedom in Russia. How much economic assistance does Russia receive? I think last year it was $90-some million, and the President requested $195 million in this bill. It is not earmarked, so we don't have the specific amount. Would this tie the President's hands? This would give real leverage to the administration to tell Russia, this should not become law. We need to respect individual religious liberty in Russia and not allow--and certainly not encourage--religious liberty to be trampled. I believe we should use what economic forces we have to ensure this doesn't happen. We don't have to give this economic assistance to Russia. We haven't done it for years. We just started a couple of years ago. Many of the programs that we are funding in the foreign ops bill are worthy programs, where we encourage democracy, encourage free enterprise. That is very positive. But we don't have to do it. Maybe we should tell them if they are going to pass this kind of bill, we are not going to do it. If they are going to pass a bill in Russia to deny Baptists the opportunity to distribute materials or to have employees in Russia, then maybe we should not be giving them economic assistance. Maybe we need to use a heavy hammer to get their attention that this is very serious. One of the most important freedoms we have, protected by our first amendment, is religious freedom. It is also protected in the Russian Constitution. We should encourage the Russian Government to protect religious freedom, not take it away. So, yes, this is an amendment that has a heavy hammer. It says we are not going to give economic assistance. I noticed a memo from the administration in opposition to this amendment, which says our assistance money is used to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and improve security over nuclear materials in Russia. We are not touching that. That is covered by the DOD bill. I encouraged the Senator from Oregon to consider putting it on that bill because I wanted to get their attention early. President Yeltsin hasn't signed this bill--our friend, President Clinton's friend, George Bush's friend. He hasn't signed the bill yet. We want to get his attention before it is too late. This is the proper bill. So it doesn't have anything to do with Nunn-Lugar money, or national defense. It does have some money in there for economic assistance. As I mentioned, the President's request is about $190 million. We probably won't fully fund it. But we don't have to fund it at all if they are going to pass a bill denying religious freedom and opportunity for the Russian people. So I compliment my colleague from Oregon for an outstanding amendment. I hope we will have an overwhelming vote, maybe 100 to 0, in spite of what the memo says. Let us have a 100 to 0 vote to show that we believe very strongly that religious freedom is very important and we are willing to put it on the line that we will fight to help protect religious freedom throughout the world and certainly in Russia. So, Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Oregon. I hope all my colleagues will support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] and the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Grams], the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], and the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Joel Klein to be an Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked, there be 3 hours remaining for debate, with 2 hours under the control of Senators Hollings, Dorgan, and Kerrey of Nebraska, and 1 hour under the control of Senator Hatch.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur at 6 p.m., on Monday, July 14, and the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I, too, would like to compliment the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, for his leadership, as well as Senator Levin, for moving this bill through, and in addition to that, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle. This bill had great potential for not only taking all this week, but all of next week. I compliment the leaders for making this happen, to get this bill completed, as the majority leader announced at the beginning of the week that we were going to finish this on Friday before we adjourned. And we did. I think that is very important. I also think that the vote is very positive. To have 94 votes for final passage on a defense bill I think is very positive indeed.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Dorgan-Lott substitute and against the McCain amendment. Even if this substitute is not adopted, I urge them to vote against the McCain amendment, and the reason is, for the first time in the four base closing rounds, this administration played politics. They said, ``Well, we're going to accept all of them except for two.'' That has never happened. It didn't happen in the first round, it didn't happen in the second round, and it didn't happen in the third round. It happened in the fourth round. I don't think we should give them additional rounds until we have a clear understanding that we are not going to play politics. We are going to close bases on the merits and not on electoral votes. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Dorgan-Lott substitute.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] is necessarily absent.