Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment the Senator from Pennsylvania for his courage in taking on this very sensitive and yet very important issue. It is an issue that we deal with in the Senate, maybe with some reluctance, but it is certainly an issue that deals with life and death. The Senator from Pennsylvania is trying to save the lives of innocent, unborn, almost-born human beings. He is trying to see that the overwhelming opinion of a majority of the American people is upheld--in this case, outlawing the most gruesome type of abortion possible. I was doing a little homework on this. I compliment the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, for his leadership on this issue because he made a lot of us aware that this practice was ongoing--a practice that people who are opposed to this ban, who don't want to see any restriction of abortion whatsoever, say rarely ever happens. I don't think that is the case. As a matter of fact, I have a couple comments that show there are thousands of these abortions performed every year. But in learning a little bit about the practice, it is really gruesome. The doctor--I don't want to call it a doctor. The abortionist has to go to some trouble to make sure the baby is not totally delivered. It is not an easy process. If the baby's head comes out, then you have a live child. Before that, you have a live fetus, by their definition. So they have to hold the baby's head in, in order to kill the baby, extract the brains from the head of the baby, and then remove the dead baby. This is happening thousands of times in our country. We passed a ban. Congress overwhelmingly passed a ban to stop this gruesome, painful procedure. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed the ban. I think he was wrong. Dr. Koop mentioned that he thought maybe President Clinton had bad advice. I think he had bad advice, and I also think he was basically coopted by the groups who call themselves pro- choice. I know a lot of individuals who classify themselves as pro- choice that want to see this procedure stopped. They are offended by this procedure. Let me make this one comment. Dr. Pamela Smith, an obstetrician at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, and Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at that hospital, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution that even when describing the procedure to groups of pro-choice physicians, she found that ``many of them were horrified to learn that such a procedure was even legal.'' That is in the House report 104-267, page 5. As Dr. Smith further points out, ``partial-birth abortion is a surgical technique devised by abortionists in the unregulated abortion industry to save them the trouble of `counting the body parts' that are produced in dismemberment procedures.'' That was in a letter to U.S. Senators on November 4, 1995. She says in the same letter, ``Opponents have insinuated that aborting a live human fetus is sometimes necessary to preserve the reproductive potential and/or life of the mother. Such an assertion is deceptively and patently untrue.'' In a July 9, 1995, letter to Congressman Tony Hall, a registered nurse who had observed Dr. Haskell, who has performed over a thousand partial-birth abortions himself, perform several partial-birth abortions, described one such procedure. Again, this is somebody who was assisting the abortionist. She saw the procedure. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while, his little head was stuck inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head. Then he opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high- powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. That is this procedure. That is gruesome. That is cruel. That is killing an innocent baby that is only seconds or inches away from delivery. The American Medical Association's Council on Legislation, 12 members, thoroughly considered H.R. 1833 and voted unanimously to endorse the bill. After their action became public, they reconsidered the matter and voted unanimously again to endorse the bill. Although the full AMA Board of Trustees decided to take a neutral stance, the Senate does have the benefit of the carefully considered judgment of the AMA Council on Legislation on the bill. The AMA Legislative Council did not call for more time in which to study the bill. They had all the facts they needed to make a judgment. And so does the Senate. This bill should be passed. The President's veto should be overridden. Mr. President, some people say that partial-birth abortions are done in order to save the life of the mother, or to protect her health. President Clinton used that as an excuse in his veto. I will give you a quote. According to the Physician's Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, a coalition of about 300 medical specialists, including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, they emphatically state that even in cases involving severe fetal disorders partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. Never. These are the professionals. They say that a partial- birth abortion is never necessary to protect the mother's health or future fertility. Dr. Martin Haskell--who I spoke about early and who performs partial- birth abortions--one of the major proponents and practitioners of this technique, states that some 80 percent which he has performed were for purely elective reasons. That was in an interview with AMA's American Medical News, July 5, 1993. His late colleague and fellow proponent of the partial-birth method claimed in material submitted to the House subcommittee that nonelective reasons to perform the procedure include psychiatric indications, such as depression and pediatric indications, that is, the mother is young. Mr. President, one other comment. Some of the people who have advocated that this procedure should not be banned say it is very rare. I think they are incorrect. The stark fact is that unless this bill becomes law, more innocent unborn children will have their lives brutally ended by the inhumane partial-birth procedure. During last year's debate, the New York Times quoted the pro-choice National Abortion Federation as saying that only about 450 partial-birth abortions are performed each year. However, two lengthy investigative reports published last week in the Washington Post and the Record of Hackensack, New Jersey, reporters for both newspapers found that the procedure is far more common than pro-abortion groups have indicated, and is typically performed for nonmedical reasons. The Record found, for example, that a single abortion clinic in Englewood, New Jersey, performs at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions per year--three times the number that the National Abortion Federation had claimed occur annually in the entire country. Doctors at the Englewood clinic say that only a minuscule amount are for medical reasons. One of the abortion doctors at that clinic told the Record Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are for elective, not medical reasons: People who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are teenagers. Mr. President, it is unbelievable to me that this unspeakable abortion procedure even exists in this country, much less that we have to take legislative action to ban such a procedure, as well as attempt to override a Presidential veto. It is further unbelievable to me that anyone in good conscience can even defend the partial-birth abortion procedure. It is a fiction to believe that it is all right to end the life of a baby whose body, except the head, is fully delivered. In order to engage in such a fiction one has to take the position that the curling fingers and the kicking legs have no life in them. Those who subscribe to such a fiction are at best terribly misguided. It is time to end this injustice and the practice of this procedure. I urge my colleagues to join us in voting to override the President's veto. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague, Congressman Tom Coburn, who has delivered over 3,000 babies. He is still an active obstetrician. He is a professional in this area. He said this procedure is never, never called for. It is never necessary. He knows. The people who are supporting this procedure are saying we should never have any restrictions on abortion; that if you can't have this restriction, then you should not have any restriction, period. That means abortions for sex selection. That means abortion on demand for any reason. Abortion is a method of birth control; in this case birth control when the baby's head is only a few inches from delivery; maybe just a few seconds. Maybe the doctor is keeping the baby's head in so that life can be destroyed inside while the baby's head is still in the mother instead of just a few seconds later when it would be recognized as murder. Mr. President, how can you say when the baby's arms and legs are kicking that it is not a live baby? We need to protect the lives of those innocent children. We need to override the President's veto. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

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

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

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

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, before the Senator from Iowa leaves, let me tell him I compliment him for his courage in taking on this issue. I agree with him. I think the subsidies that the Senator outlined are outlandish, they are not sustainable, they are not necessary, and they should be eliminated. I look forward to working with the Senator in the near future to have an amendment to do that. I compliment him for his statement, for his work, and for the work of the organizations trying to save taxpayers' dollars and to ensure that Government act responsibly.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Washington Post today had an editorial that was critical of me. Basically, it said, wait a minute, we granted waivers to other areas. Why would you try and take away parts of the waiver--they actually said we were repealing the entire waiver. They were wrong. Why would you do this just for the District of Columbia if not for other areas? The legislation I introduced, frankly, did not apply just to the District of Columbia. It says a 5-year time limit applies to everybody in the country. There won't be a single waiver to exempt someone from the 5-year limit. That was the guts of the bill. There would not be a waiver that would undo work requirements. Those were the two major elements of the bill. It just so happens that the District of Columbia was the only waiver request that went directly away from welfare reform. There are 30 States, plus the District of Columbia, who have received welfare waivers. Guess what? All 30, except for the District of Columbia, moved toward work requirements, toward time limits--most of which had shorter time limits than 5 years. But not the District of Columbia; it was a waiver away from welfare reform, a waiver for the status quo, and it was a waiver, basically, where President Clinton and the Clinton administration was saying: District of Columbia, you are exempt from welfare reform. We don't think you need to do it. I am pleased I finally hear that HHS has rescinded the order. I believe they did it because it is the political season, and they knew they were going to take some heat. They made a serious mistake. But we have to make sure they are not just postponing it for 2 months. We want to make absolutely sure that there is no way that sometime after the election, in November or December, they would go ahead and grant a 10- year waiver. We want to make sure that is not up their sleeve. If we have to pass legislation to make sure of that, we will do it. There is no reason in the world why we would work as hard as we did for real welfare reform for everybody in the country--to end cash assistance as an open-ended entitlement, a perpetual way of living--and not do it in the District of Columbia. I might mention, Mr. President, I think there are some games that were played. This waiver request by the Clinton administration was granted in 14 days. I might tell my colleagues that some areas have had waiver requests pending before the administration for months, some for years, some for 2 years, all of which were trying to have a waiver from the old law, which would not allow time limits. Most of the waivers that States wanted to enact, like Wisconsin, Illinois, Oklahoma, and others, wanted to have time limits and work requirements. They wanted people to get off welfare and go to work. They wanted to have learnfare requirements where children of welfare recipients would be required to go to school, like every other child. If they didn't have their kids in school, they would lose welfare payments; or they have to make sure their kids receive vaccinations, or they might receive penalties. States have had great initiatives. So this administration has been very slow on many of those States. As a matter of fact, the President, in May, made a nationwide radio address complimenting Wisconsin on their welfare reform and talked about granting their waiver, and this is great. Guess what? He hasn't granted the Wisconsin waiver yet. That was months ago. But he granted the DC waiver in 14 days. That was granted right before signing the welfare reform bill. And the DC waiver had no time limits. It has a 10-year exemption. How is that fair to the people in New Hampshire? They are going to have a limitation on how long they can receive cash payments. The State of Hawaii had a waiver request granted by the administration in just the last couple of months, since signing the bill. But the State of Hawaii had a 5-year limit. Indiana got a waiver request signed, but it was a 2-year limit, not a 5-year limit. But the District of Columbia comes up and, in 14 days--unbelievable speed for the Department of Health Human Services--they get a waiver signed by the President that says you are going to have a 10-year exemption--10 years, no limit, and no work requirement. What a sham. What a shame. What a shame that this President and this administration would be so deceitful as to try to pull that over on the American people. I am pleased that the Department of Health and Human Services realized their mistake. My guess is that the political people said, ``Hey. This could come back to hurt us, or haunt us. Therefore, let us withdraw it.'' I am pleased that the District of Columbia City Council, which never requested a 10-year waiver on work requirements, never requested a 10- year waiver on lifetime benefits--I am pleased that some of the council members realized that this is terrible. This would be a disaster for the District of Columbia. So I am pleased that evidently not only are they going to have some hearings but some Members think it would be a serious mistake, and they don't want the District of Columbia to become the welfare capital of the United States. So I am pleased with the announcement of HHS today. I think the administration got caught in trying to have it both ways on welfare reform. To say ``Yes, we need welfare reform with time limits and work requirements'' while at the same time trying to undo welfare reform--to exempt work requirements, to exempt time limits--they should be ashamed of themselves. I am pleased they reversed themselves for about the fourth time on this issue. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, most of my colleagues are well aware that I have introduced legislation to rescind the portion of the DC welfare waiver that was recently enacted by President Clinton, because it went directly in opposition to the welfare bill that was passed overwhelmingly by this body and the House of Representatives and was signed by the President and is now the law of the land. What a lot of people didn't know--I didn't know it--is that when the President signed the welfare reform bill that had 5-year time limits for everybody in America, where no longer could you get cash assistance for the rest of your life--and President Clinton campaigned on 5-year limits, on limitations of cash benefits, and also on work requirements--what I didn't know is that the District of Columbia was granted a waiver, which the President signed a couple of days before, that allowed the District of Columbia to have a 10-year waiver from time limits. So there is a 5-year limit in Michigan, a 5-year limit everywhere else in the country, but not for the District of Columbia, and there are no work requirements for the District of Columbia. Frankly, I find that to be very deceitful and misleading by the administration--to go out and tell everybody, hey, we have ended welfare as we know it--and every time I have heard that line, I applaud, because I know the present welfare system hasn't worked. It has hurt a lot of people who it tried to help. You don't need anymore evidence than to look at the District of Columbia. If anywhere is in need of welfare reform, it is the District of Columbia. Why in the world would the President, at the same time he is signing welfare reform for the rest of the country, and bragging about it, getting great accolades--and it helps his rise in the polls and his move back toward the political center--suddenly decide to support a bill that had already passed Congress twice? He vetoed it the first time. The third time was a charm. He decided to sign it the third time. But at the same time he signs it, he exempts the District of Columbia from welfare reform, from time limits, and he exempts the District of Columbia from work requirements. Unbelievable. Misleading. Deceitful. All of the above apply to President Clinton's position on welfare reform. Guess what? He got caught. I didn't know about the DC waiver when he signed the welfare bill. Somebody started to tell me about it, and I looked at it and I said, ``I can't believe it. I can't believe that the same administration that has said, yes, we are going to have real time limits, real limitations, real work requirements, would totally exempt the District of Columbia where 1 out of 6 people is now on welfare. That is so misleading, it is unbelievable. Now, I am very pleased that the Department of Health and Human Services has withdrawn the waiver today. I have a letter that I will have inserted into the Congressional Record, signed by Mary Jo Bane, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, stating that DC's waiver approval as it pertained to work requirements and time limits has been withdrawn by HHS. Why did they decide to do this? I think because they got caught. I know the House was interested in legislation I introduced, with time limits that would apply to every State and the District of Columbia. We were going to pass that. I think the administration realized they were going to be embarrassed politically for trying to be on both sides of welfare reform, saying they are for welfare reform and, at the same time, exempting the District of Columbia. They realized that that wasn't politically defensible. They figured they better cut their losses and repeal the waiver. That is my guess. It is interesting to note--and I will put this in the Record. I received this. This waiver that protects the District of Columbia from potential welfare reforms is getting a cool reception from some members of the city council. Linda Cropp, a DC council member who chairs the subcommittee on human services, announced Tuesday, at a September 30 hearing on the Federal waiver, that she was concerned that welfare waiver would make the city a ``welfare magnet'' since there are tougher standards in nearby jurisdictions. She is exactly right. If you have tougher restrictions in Virginia and Maryland, and in every other State, but you have no restrictions and no limitations on welfare in the District of Columbia, it would be more than a welfare magnet, it would be receiving welfare recipients from all around. DC council member Harold Brazil said the waiver ``encourages dependency and ruins initiative.'' He is exactly right. I will enter that in the Record as well. I have a couple of articles that dealt with this issue. One was an op ed piece that was in the Washington Post on September 15, 1996. It is entitled, ``Welfare as Usual in D.C.; The bureaucrats Conspire to Block Reforms,'' by Matthew Rees, as well as an op ed article by Naomi Lopes and Michael Tanner, entitled, ``Welfare Reform Bypass for DC,'' and one final op ed piece from Investor's Business Daily, ``Will Clinton Undo Welfare Reform?" I ask unanimous consent that all of the material I have referenced be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatfield, for his support of Oklahoma City's proposal to construct a rail trolley system in the downtown area, which includes the acquisition of additional buses and bus routes connecting various parts of the city to the downtown circulator. The transportation system is an integral component of the city's $285 million locally funded Metropolitan Area Projects [MAPS] Program. MAPS, funded through a 5- year, 1-cent city sales tax, is an aggressive project which includes the construction of an indoor sports arena, a professional baseball park, renovations of convention and civic centers, and construction of a canal system in downtown Oklahoma City. Federal funding for the transportation system is the only Federal assistance included in the MAPS program. The conference report for fiscal year 1997 transportation appropriations includes $2 million for the Oklahoma City project. It is my understanding the committee supports the city's proposal to acquire equipment with these funds, such as buses and bus stops, which will be an integral component of the downtown transportation system. The Federal funds provided in this bill for this purpose will be matched with local funds.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple comments in response to my colleague from Nebraska. He made a very strong statement against Senator Dole's economic package. Let me make a couple of statements in rebuttal to that. The Senator quoted a poll which said that 64 percent of the American people do not believe there is really going to be a tax cut. A lot of people are very skeptical of politicians, in particular when they make statements as it pertains to taxes and you look back in history a little bit. George Bush said, ``Read my lips. There will be no new taxes.'' And he passed a tax increase, and I believe it cost him his reelection. Bill Clinton, when he was campaigning in 1992, campaigned on a tax cut, told people throughout the country there would be a tax cut, talked about a $500 tax credit per child, or at least a tax credit for families, but it did not happen. As a matter of fact, in 1993, there was not only not a tax cut but the largest tax increase in history. So a lot of people are very cynical when politicians talk about taxes, maybe because for the last few years they have not seen people follow through with what they stated they were going to do. That quite possibly is understandable. Candidate Bill Clinton in his book said there would not be an increase in the gasoline tax, but he actually did. He passed a gasoline tax increase, as we all know. He did not tell people there was going to be an increase on Social Security recipients, but there was. So my point is, yes, there may be some people who are cynical, but that does not mean that just because Bill Clinton did not do what he said he was going to do Bob Dole will not. I have had the pleasure of serving with Bob Dole, and he is a man of his word, and he is very sincere. He is very sincere about cutting taxes and reducing the growth of spending. I will just mention that he doesn't even cut spending. He slows the growth of spending under his proposal. The facts are we are spending $1.55 trillion right now, and under Senator Dole's proposal we are going to end up spending about $1.8 trillion in the year 2001. But he does commit to balancing the budget. That is doable. We have done it. President Clinton, unfortunately, vetoed it. Can you cut taxes and reduce the growth of spending and still end up with a balanced budget in a few years? Yes; you can. We have proved that you can. I want to allude to one other thing that was mentioned. It is said, well, Senator Dole's tax cut is paid for by voodoo economics, or it is going to provide tax cuts to pay for itself. That is not the case. He took a very conservative assumption that the tax cuts proposed in his proposal would stimulate growth and that would pay for about 27 percent--not even half, 27 percent. So I just make mention of the fact that some people assume this really does stimulate the economy and therefore pay for itself. Some people make that assumption. Senator Dole did not. He said it will stimulate the economy; the economy will grow a lot faster. It has grown a lot faster. The growth of the economy for the last 3 years has really been pretty anemic--about 2.2 percent compared to the last 10 or 12 years when it has been about 3.3 percent, about 50 percent higher. We can do better. We should do better. I hope we will do better. I also heard a statement, well, very little is in Senator Dole's package that would stimulate the economy. I disagree. Allowing people to keep more of their own money, when you are talking about the child credit--Senator Dole's package has provision for a $500 tax credit per child. That is very family friendly. That says families, if you have four kids and you are making $60,000, maybe two people working, you are going to have $2,000 more of your own money to spend at the local restaurants or at schools or for your family. That is going to help those businesses. Those businesses are going to make more money. They are going to generate more jobs. It is going to help the economy and, I believe, actually spend it better than how the Government would spend it. He also cuts the capital gains rate in half. Some people disagree with that. I believe we have at least a strong majority vote in the Congress to do it, because if you reduce the tax on financial transactions, you are going to have more. Some countries do not even tax financial transactions. I think there are several things in Senator Dole's proposal that will stimulate the economy, that will balance the budget. He is also calling for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. So he is sincere about doing it. I think he will do it. In spite of the fact that maybe one or two of his predecessors did not do what they said they were going to do, did not follow through, did not tell the truth to the American people, I believe Senator Dole is telling the truth. He is a man of his word. We will cut taxes. We will balance the budget. We will pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I think that is significant, it is positive, and it will help the American economy and help American families as well. I yield the floor. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I would like to compliment the Senator from Georgia for his leadership on calling to our attention both Senator Dole's initiative to combat crime, which I think has some outstanding points that need to be brought to the public attention and public debate, and also some of the shortcomings we have witnessed through action or inaction from the Clinton administration for the last 3\1/2\ years. First and foremost in the effort to combat crime, I think we have to combat the rapid rise in drug use amongst teenagers. Teenagers are our country's future, and it is very, very sad indeed to see that drug use amongst teenagers in the last 3\1/2\ years has more than doubled. That is a frightening statistic. It may be one of the most frightening statistics we could think of. Some of us are parents. I happen to have four kids. To think that drug use has more than doubled in just 3\1/2\ years should cause everybody, Democrat, Republican, independent, real cause for concern. You might say why? Some people point a finger at President Clinton. I think he shares some of the blame. I remember very well Nancy Reagan and her effort to say, ``Just say no to drugs.'' Try to convince young people to, ``Just say no. Do not mess with them, do not experiment with them, you are on thin ice, you are asking for trouble and you can start down the road beginning with marijuana and maybe ending up with more serious drugs, cocaine, crack and others, that can destroy your life.'' Some people have ridiculed Nancy Reagan's statement. But as a result of her efforts and those continued by President and Mrs. Bush, drug use continued to decline throughout their administrations. We had a 10-year decline in drug use among young people; and basically among all age groups, drug use declined. Unfortunately, in the last 3\1/2\ years drug use among teenagers more than doubled. And what kind of leadership did we have from the White House? We had President Clinton making light of the fact that he had broken our drug laws. He said he did not break the drug laws, he said he never inhaled, not in this country, that was in England and, ``No, I never inhaled.'' Then last year, on a nationally televised show, I think it was MTV, when he was asked the question by a youngster, ``Would you inhale if you had a chance to do that again?'' he said yes. What kind of example is that? What kind of leadership is that? That is a frivolous attitude, as if it does not really make any difference. That kind of cavalier attitude, I think, tells a lot of people, maybe it is OK to use drugs or try drugs; President Clinton tried drugs. Then you see in the President's own administration, several people could not get White House clearance through the FBI because they had recent drug use. Not 10 years ago, not 20 years ago when they were in their early twenties or something, but recent drug use. Mr. Aldrich's book indicated that there was drug use even possibly on Inaugural Day. Yet, some of those people are serving in the White House today. I believe it is acknowledged by the White House, 21 current employees, top-level officials in the White House are currently undergoing a drug program, a drug rehab program and surveillance. What kind of example is that? What kind of leadership is that? And what about some of the appointments that President Clinton has made? I remember we had a big battle over Dr. Joycelyn Elders to be Surgeon General. A lot of us, mostly Republicans, said, no, she would not be the proper person to be the Surgeon General, to be the No. 1 health officer appointed by the President, to be the person in the bully pulpit, because she had views that were more than liberal, they were off the radar screen to the left. Many of us opposed her nomination, but she was confirmed. We opposed her nomination because she made a lot of statements that we felt should not be made by the Surgeon General. After Dr. Elders was appointed, it wasn't too long before she said something about, ``Well, maybe we should legalize drugs, maybe we should study legalizing drugs.'' Did President Clinton fire her for that statement? No. I think I heard somebody say, ``Well, the President doesn't agree with her on that issue.'' It wasn't a month later and she said the same thing, I think before the National Press Club. She thought maybe we should consider legalizing drugs. Was she fired for making it a second time? The answer is no. She was fired later for making some other comments that were, again, very irresponsible in what we should be teaching our kids in school, but the point being is he didn't fire her. She made several comments about legalizing drugs, and she was still the Surgeon General, she was still President Clinton's appointee to a very important prestigious position. Again, he was aware of her background, he was aware of her philosophy, and yet that was his recommendation to the country for that position. My point being, the war on drugs needs to be fought. It was fought under Ronald Reagan, it was fought under George Bush, and, basically, it was abandoned under the Clinton administration. The net result is, we have a lot of young people today who are experimenting with drugs, thinking, ``Well, maybe it's OK.'' So we see drug use way up, we see the number of young people who will be addicts, who will see their lives ruined, we will see those numbers go up as well. So we need to fight the war on crime, we need to fight the war on drugs, but, unfortunately, this administration has been AWOL on both. Mr. President, I regret to say that, I hate to say that. Mr. President, I am going to make a couple more comments. I looked at Senator Dole's announcement. He said he had a stated goal that he wants to reduce drug use by 50 percent during his first term. It can be done. It was done under Reagan and Bush. It can be done again. You see the current upsurge in drug use due to a very cavalier attitude by this administration, the current administration, on the war on drugs. It will be nice to have a change in the White House and have an individual and a team that is very committed, that is very dedicated, very sincere in saying, ``We want to let everyone know that drugs are hazardous to your health.'' I find it interesting to see that President Clinton is attacking tobacco and has been silent about other drugs, such as crack and cocaine, marijuana use. I almost think that he made the announcement on tobacco maybe to kind of get this release of information talking about drug use doubling under his term off the front pages. I don't know. Mr. President, this war has to be fought. We need energetic leadership coming from the White House. I believe we will have that from Senator Dole and his team. Also, I want to comment on the interdiction efforts. I remember shortly after President Clinton took office, he cut the office of the drug czar by 83 percent. He reduced it from, I believe, 140 employees to 15, and cut the funding way back. That tells you something about his priorities. Senator Dole said, if elected, he would reestablish the drug czar office. He would redouble and rekindle our efforts on drug interdiction so we can stop drugs before they come into the United States. He said he would increase penalties on those people who have been involved in drug trafficking, particularly amongst people who have been involved in drug trafficking to our young people. So, Mr. President, it is vitally important that we have a leader who will make change, and make change appropriately, to protect our kids for the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Talihina, OK hospital is sixth on the IHS health facility list for replacement of inpatient facilities. The Choctaw Nation proposes to replace the existing Talihina Indian Hospital with a community facility to serve both Indian and non-Indian people and has developed a financing plan for the design and construction of the replacement facility. Design and construction of this facility will be consistent with the approved IHS Program Justification Document [PJD]. The Choctaw Nation proposes to utilize various funding sources, including Tribal Funds, Medicaid and Medicare collections, carry-over funds and IHS Area and Headquarters tribal shares to support this project for a community based hospital. The managers have agreed that IHS funds may be used only for the Indian user portion of the projected patient workload. I understand the managers have no objection to the use of these Federal funds so long as it does not diminish the current level of health care services. IHS will work with the Choctaw Nation in the implementation of this project and identify and reach an agreement of future resources and responsibilities related to staffing, equipping and operating the newly constructed facility. These operational needs will be considered in the context of current budget constraints, project placement on the facility priority list and future funding of facilities on the facilities priority list. I understand the IHS and the Choctaw Nation will report back to Congress on the progress of this project. amendment no. 5340 (Purpose: To provide $1,000,000 for land acquisition at Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia) On Page 12, line 23 after ``Kentucky,'' add ``and of which $1,500,000 shall be for acquisition at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and of which $1,000,000 shall be for acquisition at Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge.''

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, let me compliment my colleague from Ohio and also my colleague from Indiana for their statements. Let me kind of try to put this in perspective. Senator DeWine raised a concern about a committee amendment. At some point he will have a motion to strike the committee amendment or to table the committee amendment. What is he doing? What does this mean? Well, last year the House and the Senate agreed to language that said we are not going to use Federal taxpayers' money to include abortion as a fringe benefit in health care plans except in cases of rape and incest and to protect the life of the mother. One of my colleagues mentioned, well, we should be consistent. That was the policy of the Federal Government, frankly, from 1984 to 1993, until Bill Clinton became President. He changed it. That lasted in 1994 and 1995. We changed it last year. We had a vote. We actually had a kind of unusual session. We had a Saturday session. We had three votes on it and basically ended up with the policy that the Senator from Ohio is trying to maintain. What is that policy? That policy is the same thing that was in the House language, that being that Federal taxpayers' moneys will not be used to provide abortions for Federal employees unless necessary to protect the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. That was last year's policy. That is what the House is trying to maintain. That is what the Senator from Ohio and Indiana and myself are trying to maintain, to continue last year's policy. The committee had an amendment to strike the House language. That would open it up and that would allow Federal employees to receive taxpayer subsidies to pay for abortion. We did not agree with that last year. We did not agree with it for 10 years, 1984 through 1993. Bill Clinton wanted to change it. We changed that back last year. We are trying to maintain last year's policy. We had two or three votes on it, as I mentioned, in an unusual Saturday session. I remember my colleague from Ohio stayed here. He had a very important family meeting in Ohio, and he stayed here to vote on this because he felt that it was important. I will never forget that, because we literally are talking about, do we want abortion to be a fringe benefit in health care plans? Some people say, well, you are attacking a woman's right to choose. We are saying, no, it should not be a standard fringe benefit. Abortion is not another standard health procedure. It happens to be taking the life of an innocent, unborn child. Do we really want the Federal Government to subsidize that? A lot of people think, well, maybe that should be a woman's right, but we should not be subsidizing it. If this amendment does not pass, we are going to be subsidizing it. Taxpayers pay for about three-fourths of it. So when I think of that and I think of what kind of protections we give to unborn endangered species, thousands of endangered species--we have significant protections. As a matter of fact, if you destroy their unborn, you can be subjected to prison, you can be subjected to $50,000 fines--but not for unborn children. We are not even trying to elevate unborn children to the protected status of endangered species; but we are trying to say: Taxpayers, you should not have to subsidize the destruction of innocent, unborn human beings. That is what the DeWine amendment or the DeWine resolution is, to strike the committee language. I believe the Senator from Ohio is exactly right. Abortion should not be a fringe benefit. It should not be included as a standard option. If Federal employees want to purchase it, they certainly can. The cost is minimal. It is $250 or $300. We should not include it as a standard fringe benefit and say, look, if the Federal Government does it, why should not all health care plans in America? Not all health care plans do. A lot of health care plans do not. We should not have an item in our standard health care package for Federal employees that actually results in the destruction of an innocent human being. I compliment my colleague from Ohio. I hope our colleagues will support that and remember how they voted last year when we had an extraordinary Saturday session and we adopted the present policy. The present policy being, again, that for Federal employees, we will not include abortion as a standard fringe benefit unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, how much time remains on both sides?