Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, for his contribution to this debate. I want to make a couple of comments. If we adopt the Murray-Snowe amendment, we will be turning military hospitals worldwide into abortion clinics. That is what it is about. I heard somebody else say: We have to protect the constitutional right to choose. It is not the right to choose. The question is, are we going to turn military hospitals into abortion clinics? I also heard the comment: The military supports this amendment. I would like to ask General Shelton that. I would like to ask Secretary Cohen that. I would like to ask former Secretary Dick Cheney that. I would like to ask Colin Powell that. I doubt that would be the case. What about this constitutional right? I heard ``safe legal abortions.'' When did Congress pass a law? I do not believe Congress ever passed a law saying women have a right to an abortion. The Supreme Court came up with a decision in Roe v. Wade that ``legalized'' abortion, and by legalizing abortion they overturned State laws. The majority of States--almost all States--had restrictions on abortions. The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, said: States, you do not know enough, so we are going to legalize abortion. I personally find it offensive anytime the Supreme Court goes into the lawmaking business. I read the Constitution to say Congress shall pass all laws--article I of the Constitution. It does not say, laws that are kind of complicated, Supreme Court, you go ahead and pass. Now people are trying to take, in my opinion, a flawed Supreme Court decision and say we are going to turn that into a fringe benefit. Certainly, the Supreme Court did not say that, but my colleagues are saying: We want to have the right to have an abortion in government hospitals; this is a fringe benefit; let's pick it up, it is going to be paid for by the taxpayers. These doctors, who are Federal doctors, are going to be trained to do what? Provide abortions. What is an abortion? It is the destruction of a human life. We are now going to turn this Supreme Court decision into a fringe benefit? The Supreme Court never said this was a fringe benefit. The Supreme Court never said the Government had to pay for it, or the taxpayers had to pay for it. Who pays that doctor's salary? Who is going to train that doctor? Who is going to train the nurse? Who is going to make sure the facilities are there? The taxpayers are. The Supreme Court never said you have to turn this into a Federal paid fringe benefit at Federal expense. I heard somebody else say this is not a debate about paying for it; they are willing to pay for it themselves. They do not pay for the training of the doctors. They do not pay for the building of the facilities or having the facilities there, and all the expenses associated with it. Basically, they are asking that the Federal policy be to turn our military hospitals into abortion clinics with the acceptance, with the acknowledgment, with the prestige of the U.S. Government, that this is a procedure we will supply, as if it is just an ordinary fringe benefit. It is dehumanizing life. It is devaluing life. It is just a fringe benefit? It is a destruction of life. We are going to have the taxpayers do that? We are going to mandate all military hospitals worldwide become abortion clinics? We are going to mandate basically that these doctors, when they are recruited to go into military training, have to also be trained to perform abortions? I think that would be a serious mistake. I urge my colleagues, at the appropriate time, to vote in favor of the motion to table the Murray amendment. Again, my compliments to my friend and colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) would each vote ``aye.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is necessary absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production, and Regulation. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the April 2000 GAO Report entitled ``Nuclear Waste Cleanup--DOE's Paducah Plan Faces Uncertainties and Excludes Costly Cleanup Activities.'' Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger, Staff Assistant, or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. NICKLES. I ask the Senator: Did he conclude his remarks? I am getting ready to move to table.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

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

Mr. NICKLES. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee 3 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. NICKLES. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to inform my colleague, he is incorrect. He said, if we gave every other employee what the Federal employees have. Federal employees cannot sue their employer. Federal employees don't have a right to appeal. Federal employees, if they appeal, they appeal to the OMB, their employer. Federal employees, including Senators, do not have the right to sue. You cannot sue. To say, if we just give everybody else what we have, is factually incorrect. When my colleague said we have had all these meetings and we only agreed to two things, one of the reasons people say the conference did not go anywhere is that our Democratic colleagues never say yes--even if we give them a yes. We have not quite got around to agreeing. But, frankly, in conference, I might say, we agreed to access to emergency room care, direct access to pediatricians, provider nondiscrimination, direct access to specialists, continued care from a physician. We have agreed almost entirely--maybe not to the last dotting of the ``i'' or crossing of the ``t''--to the appeals process, to an independent physician, which is really the whole crux of the bill, the most important thing. Why did that take so long? Because we negotiated it. We negotiated with the Senator from Massachusetts. We negotiated with Congressman Dingell. We negotiated with their staffs. We went over every single letter, every single word, every single paragraph. And then people say: Oh, we have not agreed to anything. Maybe that is the reason we don't have a conference--because you won't agree to anything. Who is not agreeable? Who is not moving? It is a little bit frustrating, a little bit disingenuous to say: Oh, nothing is happening. Where did those 400 hours go? I will tell you, there were hundreds of hours--and 400 is conservative--time spent by staff and by Senators trying to come up with a positive agreement. Some people do not want one. I think the very fact that we are here today means people do not want one. They would rather have theater. They would rather have an issue. I was planning on having a bipartisan, bicameral conference this afternoon--on Thursday, as we have done for the last several Thursdays--to work on these very issues. The people say, oh, some people want to have an issue on the floor, as if they think that is going to help the progress. It is not going to help the progress. That is unfortunate. I am going to continue to try to see if we cannot pass a positive, bipartisan, bicameral bill. But, frankly, I do not think the efforts that have been made today are helpful to the process. I think it undermines the process. Again, I tell my colleagues, I cannot think of any other instance where you have had an ongoing conference where people said, oh, let's just adopt the House bill, even though we made significant concessions. We worked and we have negotiated. They say, oh, let's just pull out and adopt the House bill. That is a real slap on the Senate, not just the Republicans in the Senate, but that is a real slap on the entire Senate. It is going to be interesting to see how committee chairmen vote. Two people can play this game. Maybe there will be a conference in the future where it is said: Oh, let's just adopt the House bill. We like it better. I think that undermines the whole nature, frankly, of the legislative process. I again urge my colleagues to vote to table the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Vermont 7 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, what is the time remaining?