Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator from California will yield, I appreciate her amendment, and I want to thank her for coming to the floor and offering her amendment. I see other colleagues, as well as the Senator from Illinois. I again urge other Senators, if they have amendments, I think we will be lot more receptive and also it will expedite the consideration of those amendments for tomorrow or on Monday. I do not know that this--as a matter of fact, I doubt that allocation amendments are the ones that will be readily agreed upon because some States win and some States lose. Allocation formulas are always contested in almost any type of bill like this, whether it is a highway bill or a welfare bill or other allocations. The allocation formula the Senator is proposing under her amendment would be identical to the one now currently in the House bill.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I would like to compliment my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, for an excellent statement. His experience as a Congressman, his experience as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Ohio, as well as a Senator, gives him a perspective that may be better than most because he has been involved in administering these programs. I think he has had some very constructive, positive ideas that are really invaluable. I hope our colleagues will pay attention. I compliment my friend for his remarks. I would also like to say at this time that we requested a list of amendments, and the numbers were floating around, whether there was 50 amendments, 60 amendments, or 70 amendments. We are very willing to take up those amendments, see if we can incorporate those amendments into the substitute bill that will be offered tomorrow, or have people offer their amendments. They can debate them. We will set aside the amendment and vote on the amendment tomorrow. If colleagues have amendments that they would like to be considered and disposed of, and frankly I think we are going to be more favorably disposed tonight than we will be later on Friday and certainly on Monday and Tuesday. I encourage colleagues if they have amendments to please bring those to the floor and we will try to assist in any way we can as far as disposing of them. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator from Arkansas an additional 4 minutes, and at the conclusion of his remarks I yield the Senator from Nebraska 10 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Yes, but I will withhold putting the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. NICKLES. That was my hope.

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to. I will inform my colleague that we were planning on actually--we have a caucus going on at this moment that I was hoping to join in. So it is my intention, as I told the Senator from New York, to have the Senate stand in recess for some period--say until 3 o'clock. I will be happy to give my colleague 5 minutes. I yield the Senator from Arkansas 5 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Franklin Roosevelt once said: The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was exactly right. We have induced a spiritual and moral disintegration of fundamental destructive values, and it has been destructive to our national fiber; it has been destructive to the family. We have a welfare system that does not work. Since President Lyndon Johnson launched the war on poverty in 1965, welfare spending has cost U.S. taxpayers about $5.4 trillion. Tragically, as Roosevelt predicted, this culturally destructive system has heightened the plight of the poor in this country, discouraging work and marriage. Today, one child in seven is raised on welfare through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program. Nearly a third of the children in the United States are now born to single mothers. The number of children on AFDC has tripled between 1965 and 1992, even though the total number of children in the United States declined by 5.5 percent. To fix this system, we must drastically change it. Simply tinkering around the edges, as suggested by the White House and regrettably by the Democrats' substitute, is not an acceptable solution. Real welfare reform must be linked to personal responsibility. It must provide incentives for work instead of dependence, incentives for marriage instead of children born out of wedlock, and incentives to get a good education and save money to buy a home instead of dropping out of school and remaining in Government-owned housing. The proposal before the Senate fulfills the commitment--and the proposal I am talking about is the Dole proposal--fulfills the commitment to overhaul the welfare system and is the result of important debate among the Senate Republicans in an effort to strengthen our proposal. I believe this [[Page S 12780]] proposal should enjoy overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats, as well as the White House. The Dole substitute has strong work requirements to ensure that able- bodied welfare recipients find a job. It recognizes illegitimacy as a serious national problem and stresses the responsibility of parenthood. It controls the unlimited spending of welfare programs by capping spending and consolidating many overlapping programs. The Dole bill also consolidates 95 Federal programs in 3 block grants with the option for States to request a block grant for food stamps. We may have an amendment to include food stamps in the block-grant proposal, and certainly this Senator will support it. The Congressional Budget Office scores the Dole proposal as saving approximately $70 billion over 7 years, while the Democratic package that we will vote on at 4 o'clock today saves only $21 billion. The bill also makes reforms in food stamps, housing programs, child support enforcement, and SSI. The Dole bill has a real work requirement. Any able-bodied welfare recipient will be required to find a job, and work means work. Welfare recipients will no longer be able to avoid work by moving from one job training program to the next. States will also be able to require welfare applicants to look for a job before even receiving a welfare check. I have heard my colleagues talk, and they have a great title for their bill. It is called the Work First Act of 1995, and that sounds great. But you need to look at the details. We now have 155 Federal job training programs. They do not work. Why do we have 155? Because in almost every Congress, every time somebody is running for President they say, ``The best welfare program is a job,'' so we come up with a new jobs program. We did not eliminate any of the old ones not working, and we stacked on new. We have 155 Federal job training programs. It is ridiculous. Under our proposal, we put those together. We basically have one. Let the States decide which ones work. Some undoubtedly do work. I hope so. We are spending a lot of money. It certainly does not make any sense to have 155. That makes no sense whatsoever. In regard to the substitute before us, many people have said this is a great bill, this is going to help people move into work. I am afraid--I am going to call it the Daschle bill--the Democratic substitute tinkers with the welfare system instead of rebuilding it. It proposes to replace AFDC with a bigger, more expensive package of entitlements. Again, I want to underline ``entitlements.'' The Republican package says we want to end welfare as an entitlement; people will not be entitled to receive welfare. We will have a block-grant approach. We will say, ``This is how much we will spend.'' It will not be an open- ended entitlement. Not so under the Democratic package. They replace AFDC with a new entitlement package that actually increases spending. Spending will increase more than $16 billion than projected AFDC costs over the next 7 years, and that is according to the Congressional Budget Office, not just Don Nickles or the Republican Policy Committee. The Democratic bill does not impose real time limits on welfare benefits. I have heard everybody say, ``Well, we have to have some limits,'' and I am glad to see they approached time limits in the Democratic bill, but they have exceptions, several pages of exceptions. As a matter of fact, they talk about a time limit and say, ``Oh, yes, we are going to put a limit of cash payments of 5 years under the Democrats' bill,'' but then if you look at page 3 of the bill, as modified, we have exceptions. We have a hardship exception. That goes for a page. We have exceptions for teen parents. We will not count the years they are teens. There are exceptions for child-only cases, and other exceptions. In other words, this time limit has loopholes that can just be expanded and expanded. It exempts families that happen to reside in an area that has an unemployment rate exceeding 8 percent. Originally, it was 7.5 percent. That means you do not have a 5-year time limit if you happen to live in New York City, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, or Newark, NJ. A lot of cities, a lot of areas have unemployment rates exceeding 8 percent, so they are exempt from the 5-year limitation. Does that fix welfare as we know it? Does that meet President Clinton's statement, ``We want to end welfare as we know it''? That does not end it. It means it will be a lifetime annuity if you live in a high unemployment area. That makes no sense. We are going to exempt teenagers. If they are 16 years old and have a child born out of wedlock, we will not count the first 3 years and we will start counting after that. So they can be on for 7 or 8 years. Wait a minute. That is not what President Clinton's rhetoric was. As a matter of fact, President Clinton said on August 11: What do we want out of welfare reform? We want work, we want time limits, we want responsible parenting. There is no time limit, not if you live in an area that has high unemployment. If you are a teenage mother, that time limit is extended substantially. So I just want to say I have heard many colleagues on the other side making very laudatory comments on the Daschle bill. But the more I look, the more exceptions I see. It does not look like a welfare reform bill. It is kind of tinkering on the edges. Let us talk about the work requirement because, again, President Clinton said how important work requirements are. The Dole bill says 50 percent of the people have to be on work--50 percent of all people. Under the Daschle proposal, it requires 30 percent of the cash welfare recipients to engage in work-related activities by 1997, and 50 percent by the year 2000. It sounds like it is the same. But as with the time limits on welfare benefits, these work performance standards are undone by the fine print. A substantial number of recipients are excluded when calculating the work participation rates--mothers with young children, ill people, teen mothers, those caring for a family member who is ill or incapacitated. Together, these ``clients,'' as they are now called under the Democratic bill, make up 25 percent of the adult welfare population, and they are exempt from the accounting of the 50-percent requirement. Think of that. We will have a welfare population where 25 percent is now exempt from the mandate that 50 percent have to be at work. Well, if you add that together, that means that when the work requirements are fully phased in, 62.5 percent of the adult recipients will not be required to work or even get job training under the Daschle approach. That means five-eighths of the people will not be required to get a job or go into work training because they are exempt. So the time limits have all kinds of exemptions--a big exemption if you live in a high- unemployment area, a big exemption if you are a teen mother. The work requirements have big exemptions because we excluded a lot of people-- 25 percent of the adult population--from that. That is why I look at President Clinton saying, ``What do we want out of welfare? We want work requirements and time limits.'' But the bill is riddled with exceptions in work requirements and certainly in time limits. It says we want responsible parenting. So do we. Maybe we can say we want responsible parenting and make that happen. Both bills, I might say, have pretty stringent hits on deadbeat or delinquent dads or parents. So maybe there is some commonality in that area. But, Mr. President, my comment is that we need to pass a welfare bill. I hope that we will pass a bipartisan bill. I hope our colleagues on the other side, after we dispose of this amendment, will look at the proposal Senator Dole and myself and many other people have sponsored and be very serious. I know there are a lot of amendments. We need to dispose of them. Maybe we will pass some and reject some. I hope our colleagues that have amendments will bring them to the floor. I hope we will consider and dispose of them and, in the next few days, pass a significant welfare reform bill, one that eliminates the open-ended entitlement, one that has savings for taxpayers and encourages work and moves people away from Federal welfare dependency. I think that is a big challenge. We have not done it in decades. It needs to [[Page S 12781]] be done. The biggest beneficiary--some people think that Republicans are trying to do that so they can save some dollars. Some people think this is management, or we are just going to give the authority to the State. I think the biggest beneficiary of our changes will be welfare recipients, because we will be making some changes so they will get off the addiction of welfare and they will be able to break away from the dependency cycle that so many generations and individuals now are stuck on. So, Mr. President, I think this is one of the most important pieces of legislation this Congress will consider, certainly this year. I am hopeful that in the next few days we will be successful in passing it. Mr. President, I know that our side is planning on going into a conference. I see my friend from Arkansas on the floor. Mr. DeWINE assumed the chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have heard several of our colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, talk about the need for welfare reform. And I would say that there is unanimous support in the Senate and in the country for welfare reform. But I also would say in my opinion the Democrat alternative leaves a lot to be desired. Let me just make a couple of general comments about welfare before I talk about the specific amendment that we have before us today. We have a lot of Federal programs, and we are spending a lot of money on welfare. It kind of shocks people. I told people in my State this past month that we have 336 Federal welfare programs; 336 different Federal welfare programs, and they have not been working. We are spending lots and lots of money, and it has not been working. In 1994, we were spending about $241 billion for welfare programs-- $241 billion--and that figure is increasing dramatically. Most of these programs are entitlements. Most of these programs grow. The Federal Government defines eligibility, and then we see how much they cost at the end of the year. We do not budget them. We do not say, ``Here is how much money we are going to spend on welfare.'' They are entitlements. People are entitled to these benefits. Whether it is food stamps, whether it is housing assistance, whether it is energy assistance, you name it, we have a lot of programs where people are entitled to the benefit, and we see how much it costs at the end of the year. It is not too surprising, therefore, we find a lot of people who become addicted to these entitlements and then they demand their money; they are entitled, as by definition of the Federal Government. So they become addicted to Federal programs. They become dependent on the Federal Government. We have to break the welfare dependency cycle we have in this country. One of President Clinton's best lines in his 1992 campaign said, ``We need to end welfare as we know it.'' Everyone was applauding. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents said, ``Yes, we need to, because we realize the system is not working and it has not worked very well.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a study done by the Congressional Research Service that lists the 336 welfare programs and their costs be printed in the Record. There being no obligation, the study was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

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

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is with great sadness and yet tremendous pride that I look back to the tragic events in Oklahoma City which have impacted Oklahomans as well as all Americans. Etched in our memory is what happened on Wednesday, April 19, at 9:02 a.m. when Oklahoma was stunned by an explosion at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. As we reflect on our devastating loss, we realize that the old adage is true--every cloud does have a silver lining. The silver lining we found in Oklahoma City was the outpouring of love, selfless effort, and resources. We are, forever, indebted to those volunteers who created that silver lining, and they have our utmost respect and gratitude. The individuals are innumerable, but none is forgotten. Each remains as an example for us to emulate. We have learned many lessons from them: lessons of compassion, charity, cooperation, perseverance, and bravery. First of all, I have been touched by the loving compassion that has motivated the volunteers. The reflections of Dr. Robert C. Bjorklund, a local pastor from Oklahoma City, captured the compassionate spirit found among the rescue workers. He recounted for me his experience while providing counseling assistance at the site just days after the bombing. He had been debriefing the rescue workers as they started and finished their shifts where they were exposed to incredible and tragic images. He expressed how moved he was by the caring and compassion of the rescue workers who seemed more concerned about his condition than their own. Dr. Bjorklund was right when he suggested that the tragedy has been overshadowed by the community's spirit of mutual care and concern. He learned from them firsthand as the rest of us are learning from their example. The phenomenal generosity of the private donors, rescue workers, and large corporations have also made them models of charity. I was amazed by the immediate and enthusiastic response of citizens donating food, flashlights, batteries, and other supplies to the rescue crews. One young man named Chris Gross from Santa Clara, CA, has given up his salary for 1 year to start the Children of Oklahoma City Scholarship Fund. The selfless rescue workers, such as Dr. Hernando Garzon and his rescue crew from Sacramento, CA, came from far and wide and worked around the clock. So many sacrificed their time, money, and talents to the cause. The Oklahoma Restaurant Association was especially generous by donating thousands of meals to families and volunteers. For instance, Pizza Hut donated free meals for more than a month to 300 affected families while Cain's Coffee provided 24-hour service to rescue crews. Companies and individuals in Oklahoma and around the country such as Southwestern Bell, Kerr-McGee, Phillips Petroleum, Bridgestone/Firestone, Anheuser Busch, Conoco, Boatman's Bank, American Airlines, Presbyterian Health Foundation, Koch Oil Co., C.R. Anthony, Henry Kravis, Ford Motor Co., Liberty National Bank, Chubb Insurance, ONEOK Employees Credit Union, the Lloyd Noble Center, Branson Cares Benefit, the Burlington County Times, the Xerox Corp., and countless others made significant donations for the relief effort. I have also learned a lesson from the cooperation that unified all the workers into one efficient force. I was struck by the number of people successfully working simultaneously on many different tasks in order to accomplish the same goal. We have their coordinated effort to thank for the rescue of the survivors and the care of many grievers. Specifically, Amateur Radio provided an essential service to rescue operations. Within minutes of [[Page S 12366]] the attack, operators were on the scene providing an emergency communication network that allowed for the organization of supplies as well as firemen, policemen, and rescue crews from countless communities. Their contribution of 360 hours of service was made possible by donations from electronics companies such as the Oklahoma Community Center. Not only did companies contribute time and money, but charity organizations made it possible for every citizen to become involved. Scores of organizations set up relief funds or served as dropoff locations for donated items. The Salvation Army, Feed the Children, and the American Red Cross were vital in the distribution of foods and goods. Federal, state, and local officials, as well as citizens of all ages, aided in the effort. The Oklahoma National Guard contacted families while fifth grade students from Anadarko Mission School donated relief items. Others contributed to the relief network by setting up centers for counseling and pastoral care for victims' relatives. Members of the Oklahoma funeral directors aided in contacting, consoling, and making funeral arrangements for families. The First Christian Church, for example, arranged a group of 75 volunteer clergy members, psychologists, and social workers to ease the mourning. These measures significantly assisted rescue efforts and provided outlets for individual participation. The toll of lives would have been even greater without the quick and coordinated response by emergency agencies, including the police, fire departments, and the paramedics of the Oklahoma Emergency Medical Services Authority supplied by American Medical Response of Oklahoma [OEMSA/AMR]. OEMSA/AMR had 24 medical personnel in seven ambulances rolling to the scene within 90 seconds of the explosion. Within 3 minutes they were treating the injured; within the first hour, 210 patients were transported to hospitals and within the first 90 minutes, a total of 517 injured persons were treated, transported or both. The people of EMSA/AMR mobilized 66 ambulances and other vehicles during the response and integrated 29 additional emergency vehicles into the Oklahoma City rescue operation. Certainly the volunteers have been models of bravery. Our heartfelt thanks goes out to each fireman, policeman, and rescue worker who selflessly searched to locate survivors and recover the victims. Eleven Urban Search and Rescue Teams, including teams from Fairfax County and Montgomery County in the Washington area, were invaluable as they utilized their expert knowledge and training to conduct the rescue effort. Their courageous efforts in conditions that were extremely perilous, and at times shocking, are to be commended. Each time these individuals entered the building, they were risking their lives so that others might find some element of comfort, whether that be the discovery of a survivor or the recovery of a victim. These valiant volunteers have also demonstrated their exemplary perseverance. They had faith when there was little tangible reason for hope. For instance, the Oklahoma Nurses Association continued to contribute countless hours at hospitals even after losing one of their own, Rebecca Anderson, who was fatally injured while aiding in the rescue effort at the Murrah Building. The rescue crews were not disheartened by the tedious process nor daunted by the rain. We appreciate their patience, as do the people whose lives they saved and assisted. All these volunteers, from whom we have learned so much, are true heroes. In the face of tragedy, their compassion and effectiveness have offered solace to the State of Oklahoma and the Nation. Their heroism fills me with deep appreciation and admiration. We thank them and look up to them in ways that words cannot express.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this section would have allowed the Air Force to compete core workload. The Pentagon and the Congress have indicated that core workload is so critical to America's readiness to go to war that this work must be done by the Pentagon in its depots. In addition to this, the GAO has a draft report on this very issue that indicates that competing the workload addressed in this section does not make sense based on the excess capacity in the Air Force Depots. By striking this section of the bill, core workload is retained in the Pentagon's depot system as outlined in Pentagon policy and title 10 of the U.S. Code. It also follows the recommendations of the GAO report. The effort to get this section stricken from the bill was truly a team effort on the part of myself and my State colleague, Mr. Inhofe. I want to thank my friend Mr. Inhofe for his efforts. I also want to thank the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee staff, as well as Senators Stevens and Inouye who have managed this bill in their customary fair and open manner.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, when the Senate returns from the August recess we will begin the long, hard budget reconciliation process. We have already come a long way toward our goal of balancing the Federal budget, but reconciliation is the real test of our leadership and our commitment. The spending cuts we will enact will not come without sacrifice from many people. Fortunately, that sacrifice will not go unrewarded, because we intend to cut spending enough to balance the budget, plus provide tax relief to Americans. Today I am pleased to introduce legislation which represents a key portion of our promise to reduce taxes on American families. The American Family Tax Relief Act will provide a $500 per child tax credit to benefit 52 million children in 35 million families nationwide. I am also pleased to say that my legislation is being cosponsored by many of my colleagues, several of which have worked for years to enact a family tax credit. My cosponsors include long-time family credit sponsors Senator Grams and Senator Coats, the Majority Leader Senator Dole, Senator Faircloth, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Coverdell, Senator Mack, Senator Thurmond, Senator Gramm, Senator Santorum, Senator Smith, Senator Kyl, Senator Thompson, and Senator Inhofe. Mr. President, the Balanced Budget Resolution we passed earlier this year promised that if we do our job, that is if we enact spending cuts sufficient to balance the budget by fiscal year 2002, the economy will reward us with a fiscal dividend sufficient to reduce the tax burden on our citizens by up to $245 billion over 7 years. While many critics have complained that a tax cut of that magnitude is too generous, consider the following facts. Over the next 7 years the Federal Government will take more than $11.4 trillion out of the pockets of American families and businesses. A tax cut of $245 billion is barely 2 percent of that amount. With that $245 billion, we are going to reverse the trend of tax increases which have marked the past several years, reduce taxes on families and businesses, and increase savings and investment. I firmly believe, however, that the priority should be on families. At least 60 to 70 percent of our fiscal dividend should be family friendly, and that is why I am introducing this legislation. Why is family tax relief important, Mr. President? Primarily because today's families with children are overtaxed. In 1948, the average American family paid only 3 percent of its income in Federal taxes. Today, the same family pays over 25 percent. This mounting tax burden is caused by many factors, but particularly damaging are heavy payroll taxes and the eroding value of the personal and dependent exemption. In 1948, the dependent exemption equaled 42.1 percent of per capita personal income, effectively shielding that income from taxation. Today's dependent exemption of $2,500 equals only 10.9 percent of per capita personal income. Congress would have raise the exemption to $9,657 to provide the same benefit as 1948. Payroll taxes hit families with children particularly hard because most of their income comes in the form of wages. Nearly three-fourths of all taxpayers now pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. Another reason to enact family tax relief is that it can make our tax system more progressive and literally remove the IRS from the lives of millions of families. A study by the Heritage Foundation based on IRS and Bureau of the Census data estimates that a $500 per child tax credit would: eliminate all Federal income tax liability for families of four earning between $17,000 and $24,000 per year, cut by 50 percent the income tax burden of a family earning $30,000 per year, cut by 30 percent the income tax burden of a family earning $40,000 per year, cut by 6.8 percent the income tax burden of a family earning $100,000 per year, and cut by 2.6 percent the income tax burden of a family earning $200,000 per year. Heritage further estimates that the typical congressional district has 117,000 children in families eligible for a $500 credit, meaning $59 million per year in lower taxes which families can spend on their own priorities. Families in the state of Oklahoma stand to gain over $322 million. I have no doubt that those Oklahoma parents can spend that money much more wisely than the Federal bureaucracy. Mr. President, the American Family Tax Relief Act is nearly identical to the family tax credit passed by the House earlier this year as part of the Contract with America. The only difference between our proposals is that my bill has no income limit. Because the President and our Democrat colleagues have shown a near rabid desire to turn any tax cut initiative into a class war, I have no doubt that we will discuss this issue at length in the Senate Finance Committee and on the Senate floor. However, there is absolutely no economic or tax policy justification to limit the family tax credit to certain income levels. The only reasons are political, ones, and even those pale when you realize that almost all children, 94 percent, live in families with incomes below $100,000. I thank my colleagues, and I encourage those who have not already done so to join me in this important initiative. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington. midewin national tallgrass prairie

Mr. NICKLES. I note that the full committee took action on the Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill, fiscal year 1996 which reallocated funding under oil technology research. This reallocation significantly reduced funding for processing research and downstream operations, particularly impacting pollution prevention and environmental compliance programs. While the House bill cuts pollution prevention by $900,000 the Senate subcommittee reduction of $1.8 million was amended to a cut of $5.3 million. Environmental compliance was also reduced from the subcommittee reduction of $2.18 million to the amended reduction of $2.67 million. The House bill cut environmental compliance by $1.3 million. The Senate bill results in a negative impact on the processing research and downstream operations fossil energy programs, and represents a vast disparity between the House and Senate allocations. I therefore appeal to the Senator from Washington to address this imbalance in conference and to seek funding more closely in line with the House funding.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from New Hampshire as much time as he desires.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, before my colleague from Minnesota leaves, I will just mention, I mentioned we have never had a vote or a debate on a constitutional amendment on banning abortion. I know that President Clinton, and many others, have sponsored legislation dealing with codification of Roe versus Wade. We never had that debate either. My point being, I do not want to get into a constitutional debate or anything else. I agree very strongly with my colleague and friend from New Jersey when he says we are a nation of laws and the legalization of abortion, which some people would like to do, the codification of Roe versus Wade, I think it is called the Freedom of Choice Act which has been introduced with a lot of cosponsors, that has never been debated either. Maybe at some point we will have to do that, but that is not what the debate is about today. The debate today is whether or not we are going to have taxpayers' funds used to subsidize abortion. That was just my point I wanted to make. My friend from Minnesota is a friend and he is energetic in these debates. Maybe at some point we will debate whether Congress should legalize abortion. I happen to think if it is going to be legal, it should be passed by Congress. That is the way I read the Constitution. It says Congress shall pass all laws. But the issue today is not constitutional amendments, it is not platforms; it is not agendas, it is how we are going to spend our money. I hear the references to the private sector. I do not know how many colleagues came from the private sector, but I was in the private sector, and I helped put together health plans for our employees. Abortion was never a fringe benefit, and I did not think it should be. It is available in some plans in the private sector. That may be their option. But in the Federal Government, for Federal employees, we are kind of the board of directors or the management team, and we have to decide what the fringe benefits are. I personally do not think abortions should be paid for, three-fourths of which--or 72 percent of which--are paid for by the taxpayers. I think that would be incorrect. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by several of my colleagues and I appreciate their positions and the sincerity with which they hold those positions. But let me just make a couple of points. I have heard a couple of our friends say, ``If we adopt the House language we are denying a constitutional right.'' I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution that says taxpayers have to pay for abortions. It is not in there. You can read the Constitution up and down, it is not in there. Taxpayers do not have to pay for abortions. There has not been a constitutional amendment that says, ``Taxpayers, you have to pay for it.'' So we are not denying people their constitutional rights. I have heard colleagues say, ``It should be their personal decision.'' It should be their personal decision with their personal money, not with taxpayers' money. Sure, if they want to use their own money, they can use their own money. There is nothing in our language that says Federal employees cannot use their own money. Abortions are not very expensive. They cost about $250. You can get them pretty quickly. You can be in and out in an hour or two. They can use their own money to do that. Most Federal employees are pretty well paid, they can probably afford that. We have to remember--how easy do we want to make this? Do you want to have it paid for by the Federal Government, the Federal Government paying 72 percent of this, the cost of health insurance, turning it into a fringe benefit? I want Federal employees to have decent benefits as well. But I do not think that benefit should include the destruction of a human life and I do not think it should include taxpayers paying for it. If they want to make that decision with their own money, that should be their decision with their own money. It should not require Federal subsidies. They should have that right--I guess under present law they have that right, or present interpretation of the Constitution they have that right. I am not arguing with that. Some people want to debate that. Maybe we will debate that another day. What we are arguing about is Federal taxpayers' money. We are not undoing the Constitution. I heard people mention financial handicap. It should not be easy to get an abortion. If you make this a standard fringe benefit item, readily available, Uncle Sam is picking up 72 percent of the cost, you get one in an hour or so--done. Maybe the out- of-pocket costs, I do not know, maybe it depends on the plan--maybe it is only $20 or $40. Just destroy a human life, be out tomorrow--be out in an hour. And we are destroying the life of a human being created in the image of God. I think that is a serious mistake and there is nothing in the Constitution that says taxpayers have to pay for it. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate that. I appreciate the suggestion of my colleague and friend from Arizona. I am prepared, if my colleagues--I happen to agree with his comments 100 percent. I will just mention it is unfortunate the situation that we are in right now. I would like to modify my amendment. The way that the unanimous-consent request is drafted, I could not do it unless I had unanimous consent. I have been contemplating trying to do it on the floor. I tried to do it in negotiation and have not been successful. I might try it now. I do not want to--I want to be very civil in this debate. I want to offer the rape and incest amendment because I know my friend and colleague from North Dakota--it means a lot to him. And I know my friend from Maine, it means a lot to her. I know it means a lot to the Senator from Texas. I know it means a lot to the Senator from Georgia. So this is an important issue. All Senators have rights. And I may be blocked from offering it at this particular point under the UC, but not blocked from offering it later. I understand that. The Senator from Maryland has a couple of other ideas. She is not blocked from having those ideas expressed in the form of an amendment. I would like to do that now with my amendment. I know the Senator from Nebraska wants to pass the bill. I have said, if we can offer this amendment with the rape and incest, we are done, win or lose. We are finished. And hopefully that would be the end of the case. If we lose by one or two votes--this vote is very close, very close. And it is also, as the Senator from New Hampshire said, very important because we are talking about thousands of lives. Then it will be necessary to come back and try again with a rape and incest amendment, which I have that right to do. And the Senator from Maryland has the right to offer her amendments as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I will be happy to respond and comment. There are a lot of things that are legal. There are a lot of things that are legal today that may be expensed by a business. That does not mean they should be expensed by the Government or subsidized by the Federal Government. As Congress, we are kind of the chairman of the board for the public domain, for Federal employees, and it is our responsibility to decide what is a legitimate taxpayer expense. We have a responsibility of how to spend the money. I will tell my colleague from Nebraska, I ran a corporation and I purchased health insurance for our employees. Abortion was not a benefit. Abortion was not and has not been--it is debatable now how prevalent it is in the private sector. That information is not readily available. But we make the decision for public employees. We set public policy in Congress. We decide how the money is going to be spent. There are a lot of things that are legal, but we do not subsidize all of them and certainly we should not. I think certainly we should not be subsidizing something that may be legal, but when it is involving destroying innocent human beings, I feel very strongly we should not subsidize it. That is what this amendment is about. This amendment is not what is legal in other private health care plans, or about overturning Roe versus Wade. This is not anything about restructuring constitutional amendments or anything like that. This is how are we going to spend Federal money and whether we are going to use taxpayer money to subsidize the destruction of innocent human beings. I think that we should not. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to respond. Mr. President, there are a lot of things that are legal that we do not have to subsidize. There are a lot of things that may be a legitimate legal business expense----

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, is the Senator's question on his time?

Mr. NICKLES. Let me respond, I do not think we should spend money for abortions. That is what this amendment is. We do not have to get into a general philosophical debate on abortion. I will be happy to talk about that at a different point. My point is, I do not think funds should be used to subsidize abortion. I heard people say maybe it should be legal, maybe not legal; maybe we should overturn Roe versus Wade. We are not doing that. The issue is, should we be spending funds to subsidize abortion, should it be included in fringe benefits in health care plans. We are going to have this on HHS, Medicaid, the so-called Hyde language: Should we use Federal funds to pay for abortions for low-income people? Everyone who has been around here--most of us pretty much are veterans, there are a few people who maybe have not voted on this in the House or Senate, not many--most of us have wrestled with this. My colleague said something about time. I said I am happy to have an hour equally divided. This Senator is not trying to hold anything up. But we do have a legitimate right on an appropriations bill to decide how money is spent. Some of us feel strongly that abortion is wrong. Some of us feel very strongly that abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being and we should not pay for it. We think it is wrong, and it is doubly wrong to subsidize it by U.S. taxpayers. In this case, the taxpayers pay 72 percent of it. So we have a couple of legitimate debates. One I want to mention again. This is not authorizing language. This is not language coming in trying to overturn Roe versus Wade. It is not coming in trying to make abortion illegal. This is language saying we should not pay for it, it should not be a fringe benefit in health care plans, and that is legitimate for an appropriations bill. We are going to have it also on Labor-HHS under Medicaid. We were going to get into this last year if we had President Clinton's health care bill, because he had a package of benefits. I told my colleagues before, when that comes up and he wants to have a defined package of benefits--and we know President and Mrs. Clinton wanted to have abortion as a defined benefit available to everybody in America--that many of us were going to object because we think abortion is wrong. We do not think it is just another medical procedure. It is not. It is not a cancer. It is not a sickness. It is destroying the life of an innocent human being. It is fatal. It is deadly. Many of us do not think we should be paying for it, certainly not subsidizing it and forcing taxpayers to subsidize it. So that is what this issue is about.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's explanation, but let me just give you an example. The National Abortion Rights League defines ``medically necessary'' as ``a term which generally includes the broadest range of situations for which a state will fund abortion.'' In testimony against implementation of the Hyde language, Dr. Jane Hodgson said, ``In my medical judgment every one that is not wanted by the patient, I feel there is a medical indication to abort a pregnancy where it is not wanted * * * I think they are all medically necessary.'' I am afraid that if we adopted the Senator's language, we would have no restriction whatsoever, none whatsoever. Someone could say: You have a headache. Therefore, yes, it is medically necessary. There would be no restriction. It would greatly undermine the language which we just agreed to, the so-called Hyde language, which does allow abortion in those cases necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland. Mr. President, I am ready to yield the remainder of my time.