Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1791, which is at the desk.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment No. 5412 offered by Senator Murkowski be agreed to, the bill be deemed read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 100, S. 737.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 404, H.R. 3074.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at this point in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I understand H.R. 3452 has arrived from the House. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. NICKLES. I now ask for its second reading and would object to my own request on behalf of the other side of the aisle.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be deemed read the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to these measures be placed at this point in the Record, and that the preceding all occur en bloc.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following bills, en bloc: Calendar Nos. 369, 488, 235, 238, 371, 233, 236, 237, 368, 232, 370, 372, and 373.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on (H.R. 3166) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the crime of false statement in a Government matter. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the House agree to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3166) entitled ``An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the crime of false statement in a Government matter'', with the following House amendment to Senate amendments: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, insert:

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent the Senate concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendments.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to consideration of H.R. 4167, which is at the desk.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

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

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Oregon, flattery will get you everywhere, and may well end up getting an amendment. Let me state, Mr. President, my thoughts. Originally, I will tell my friends and colleagues that I thought this was not the right way or the right time to legislate such an important matter. I am very dubious at the outset when I see legislative actions taking play the last day or two of the session, when measures have not had time to have hearings and have the benefit of congressional thought, hearings, markup, input from people on all sides. This is important legislation. I will tell my colleague from Oregon who originally introduced this and had the assistance of the Senator from Arizona, the thrust of it I would concur. I also want to compliment the Senators from Oregon and Arizona for their willingness to be flexible, to understand that some of us did have serious concerns, concerns about making sure we protect the rights of States. They have shown a willingness to do that. Some States have acted. We want to compliment those States. We do not want to preempt their actions. Also, dealing with religious institutions, I think, we still have a little way to go there. I know we will confer more tonight, and maybe tomorrow we can bring that to a conclusion. I, for one, want to make sure we would not be mandating to, for example, a religious institution, a Catholic hospital, or something that might have a clause that physicians that would work within this institution would not provide assistance to suicide, for example. I do not want to pass legislation in the wee hours that might outlaw or ban that particular clause or section of their contract. I want to be careful. I know we are probably on about the ninth draft. I think the legislation has been improved significantly. Again, I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard, including Senator Coats, as well as Senator Wyden and Senator Kyl, for their input on this legislation, and just state to my colleagues that we will continue working in good faith, and if we are able to resolve some of the few remaining differences, it may well be that we can have some legislation that would be acceptable, and maybe as an amendment to the continuing resolution or as independent legislation. So I compliment my colleagues for their willingness and their patience to work with some of us, and we will continue working. I see an effort by many to legislate a whole agenda in the last two days of Congress. I urge people to be maybe a little more patient and wait for next year. The continuing resolution is growing, and that, to me, is not really the best way to legislate. So I urge our colleagues to realize that they don't have to do everything on this one bill. I also urge my colleagues to speak out on the public lands bill that Senator Murkowski has been working so hard on. There is no reason for us not to be able to pass this package, which I believe will probably have an overwhelming vote of support by both Houses of Congress. I think the administration is, unfortunately, moving the goal posts. We removed the major veto threats in that legislation in the last 24 to 48 hours. Yet, now they are finding more objections. I even say that maybe that is not in good faith, and that bothers me. There has been a lot of work by Members on both sides of the aisle. That bill was a bipartisan bill, and it should pass. I know the Senator from Minnesota reluctantly dropped an amendment that was very important to him. The Senator from Alaska dropped an amendment that was very important to him, and others were able to make concessions so we could pass an omnibus bill that is important to most of the Members in this body. It would be unfortunate indeed if we didn't pass this bill before we adjourn this Congress. Finally, I want to say something on the immigration bill. The administration sent signals that they would sign that if we dropped the Gallegly amendment. We did drop the Gallegly amendment. Now there have been additional requests for additional modifications. I find that, too, moving the goal posts. I hope we will take up the immigration bill and pass it, as amended, without the Gallegly amendment. I think we will have an overwhelming vote in both Houses--well, the House already passed it by an overwhelming vote. I think in the Senate we will, as well. I urge colleagues to be patient and not try to pass everything on their legislative agenda in the next two days. Let us work together and finish the unfinished appropriations bills, the continuing resolution, do it responsibly. Again, I thank my colleague from Oregon and my colleague from Arizona for their willingness to be at least flexible enough for some of us who had concerns about their amendments. Perhaps we can get that resolved. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. One, on the parks bill, I want to commend Chairman Murkowski and other members on the Energy Committee who worked hard to make this happen. This is a large bill, and unfortunately now it has a lot of items throughout the year that many of us have been working on for a long, long time. The Senator from Alaska has been generous enough to withdraw one of the bills he felt very strongly about, that was important to his State, so we could get it signed. I asked him to do that. I appreciate his willingness to do it. The Senator from Minnesota dropped an item. Again, we heard it being in there meant it would be vetoed, so we dropped two or three of the most contentious items. We dropped a project in Utah that, again, other people talked about would bring a certain veto. Now, all of a sudden--we thought we had really taken away the veto objective so we could pass this bill. I committed to the Senator from California that I would try to help pass the Presidio bill this year. I want to maintain that commitment. I would like to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to work together. This bill has been put together in a bipartisan fashion. I have not counted up the number of Democrat and the number of Republican bills, but there are a lot on both sides of the aisle that impact parks all across the country and most of the States across the country. It would really be a shame to have that much work and that much time invested in that bill not to see it passed this year. I compliment my colleague from Alaska and also the majority leader. I hope we will find a way to be able to work out the differences and pass this bill and get it signed into law before we adjourn the 104th Congress. Let me make an announcement on behalf of the majority leader. I announce there will be no further rollcall votes tonight. The Senate obviously will be working tonight, in various conferences, trying to work out differences both on the continuing resolution and on the immigration and the parks bill. There will be work done tonight but there will be no further rollcall votes tonight. I announce on behalf of the majority leader the Senate will reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning and we will try to give as much advance notice to all Senators prior to any recorded rollcall votes. As of now, there has not been one ordered, but Senators should stand on notice there may well be a recorded rollcall vote in the event we are able to come to an agreement on the continuing resolution, the parks bill or the immigration bill. I thank my colleague from Kentucky.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Following morning business on Saturday, the Senate will be awaiting House action on an omnibus appropriations bill, if produced from negotiations. The Senate may also be asked to turn to consideration of any other items cleared for action. Rollcall votes are therefore possible throughout the day on Saturday. The leadership will attempt to give adequate notice to Members in the event that rollcall votes prove to be necessary.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Saturday, September 28; further, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for the transaction of morning business, with statements limited to 5 minutes each.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, after consulting with the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent to use 5 minutes of the majority leader's time.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today, first, to congratulate and compliment a couple of my colleagues who I think have performed extraordinary service to the Senate. First, Senator Smith, from New Hampshire, who brought this issue to our attention. I will readily admit I have been involved in this abortion debate for 16 years, but I did not know this procedure happened--I am shocked by it, saddened by it, disturbed by it. And for some of our colleagues who insinuated that, well, the males in the Senate really should not be arguing on this because they have not been in the business of delivering babies, I have talked to my wife about it and she feels stronger about it even than I do. She thinks President Clinton was absolutely, totally, completely wrong in vetoing a bill that would have protected the lives of young babies that are three-fourths of the way delivered from their mother's birth canal. So I congratulate Senator Smith for bringing this to the attention of the Senate. I also congratulate Senator Santorum for his leadership as well. President Clinton was wrong in vetoing this bill. Two-thirds of the House said that he was wrong. I hope that today two-thirds of the Senate will say he made a mistake. Maybe he had bad information. I notice in his veto message he said this is necessary in order to protect the health of the mother, but that is not true. Dr. Koop--I think a lot of us, Democrat and Republican, give him a lot of credibility--said, and I quote--and this is Dr. Koop and also 300 medical specialists who are specialists in obstetrics and health care and delivery: Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her fertility. That is a quote. They said ``never.'' Dr. Tom Coburn, my colleague from the House, who has delivered over 3,000 babies, said it is never, never medically necessary. There are other alternatives. There are better, safer alternatives. What is this? What is partial-birth abortion? This child is seconds away, is inches away from total birth--total birth. In some cases, the arms and the legs are kicking and moving, the fingers are squeezing. It is a live human being. This procedure is infanticide. Dr. Pamela Smith, an obstetrician at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago, points out, and this is a quote: Partial-birth abortion is a surgical technique devised by abortionists in the unregulated abortion industry to save them the trouble of counting body parts that are produced in dismemberment procedures. This quote is in a letter written to Senators on November 4, 1995. She says in the same letter: Opponents have said that aborting a living human fetus is sometimes necessary to preserve the reproductive potential and/or the life of the mother. Such an assertion is deceptively and patently untrue. Mr. President, lots of people, real experts who have studied this issue have said it is not necessary to protect the health of the mother and it is certainly not necessary to protect the health of the baby. This is destroying a baby. Yes, this moves the abortion debate away from theoretical rights into talking about lives. We are talking about the life of an innocent, unborn human being. I know I heard my colleague, the minority leader of the Senate, say it is rare. How can it be rare when originally the proponents of maintaining the legality of this procedure said a few hundred are performed a year and then we find out in one city in New Jersey there were 1,500 done in 1 year. This was not discovered by the National Right to Life Committee; this was discovered by investigative writers at the Washington Post--1,500 in one clinic in New Jersey. There are thousands of these procedures performed annually now-- thousands. Mr. President, some of our colleagues made all kinds of remarks that people who are opposed to this procedure, they are just opposed to abortion. Yes; I am opposed to abortion, but I cannot remember ever having to vote on banning all abortions. Somebody said Republicans would like to ban all abortions; that is in your platform. It is not in our platform. It says, yes; we want to protect the sanctity of human life. I have only voted on one constitutional amendment that dealt with abortion in my 16 years in the Senate. That was not to ban abortion. So some people have tried to move this all over the field. What we are trying to do is protect the lives of thousands of babies when they are three-fourths born, when they are three-fourths delivered, when they are a few inches away from being totally delivered, a few seconds away from their first breath. And it is particularly gruesome when you realize that some of these babies' heads are held in the mother, held in the mother so the brains can be sucked out and the baby killed while part of the baby is still in the mother, because they know if there is a couple inches' movement, then the abortionist would be liable for murder. Then there is no question that it is the taking of life. That is how close we are. What does that say about America's society today? This is one of those defining moments that we have in the Senate. Will we stand up and say, enough is enough; this procedure is terrible; it is outlandish; it should be stopped? Are we going to allow this type of procedure to go on and on and say, no, we believe in abortion at any time for any reason at any cost? Dr. Martin Haskell, one of the leading proponents of abortion, who has performed 1,000 of these, has stated that some 80 percent of those he performed were for purely elective reasons, purely elective reasons. That alone is enough. We need to override the President's veto. He was wrong. We need to protect the lives of innocent, unborn children.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] is absent due to illness.