Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the committee amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I think the Senator from Alabama is right. I think everybody in this body knows how they are going to vote on the Hyde language, the rape and incest. And I am willing to vote right now, or 5 minutes equally divided. I know the Senator from Maryland stated that if we prevail--and we might; it is very close; I will tell everyone right now it is within a vote or two--if we prevail, she wants to offer a second-degree amendment. She has that right. I think she should have that right. And we do not have to decide now. I will be happy to grant the Senator from Maryland a time agreement if she wants it or not have a time agreement if she wants. But the best thing is to see how this thing would move forward by having a vote on the pending amendment. And then we go from there. If the Senator wants to have additional amendments, she can do so. On those amendments I will be happy to enter into a time agreement if she would like--or not like, that is certainly acceptable with this Senator as well.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the statement of my colleague from Maryland. I will just say we had 3 hours of debate on this issue. People know how they are going to vote. This is Hyde language. We have voted on this. Most of us voted on this several times. And I am happy to stay here as long as necessary. Just like I mentioned to my friend and colleague from Maryland that she has a right to offer her amendment, I have a right to offer my amendment. If it takes 10 minutes, that is fine. If it takes longer, that is fine, too. I just hope we can vote. We have almost all of our colleagues here. We had a good vote, large attendance, on the last vote for a Saturday at 1. I do not know what the attendance is going to be on a Saturday at 3. I think this is an important amendment since we are dealing with an issue that does affect the lives of a lot of unborn children and it does affect health insurance policies. So I think it is an important vote. I hope that we will vote on it very quickly. My amendment is self-explanatory. It says no funds should be used to pay for abortions for Federal employees unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. The Senator from North Dakota made a very passionate speech and mentioned--I remember when his wife was abducted. That was horrifying. But he also indicated that he would vote with us if we had the rape and incest amendment. Several of our colleagues have stated that. I stated that I was going to give them that opportunity. I do not know why it would take very long for us to debate that. But I am happy to debate it as long as necessary. I urge we vote on it as quickly as possible. I also urge that we also vote very quickly on the other additional amendments of the Senator from Maryland. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. NICKLES. That is not in my language. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by my friend, the Senator from Nebraska. I might mention, I believe Senator Shelby is supporting this amendment, to make that clarification. I also would like to make a clarification that we are not passing authorizing language on an appropriations bill. The appropriations bill tells how we are going to spend money. This language basically says, ``no money appropriated by this act should be able to pay for an abortion or administrative expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program which provides any benefits or coverage for abortions.'' It deals with money. How are we going to spend money. Are we going to subsidize abortion or are we not? These are taxpayers' dollars. So this is not an authorization. This is how we are going to spend money. Are we going to fund abortions or are we not? We are going to have the same language, the same amendment, I might----

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I heard a couple of things that kind of intrigued me during the course of this debate. Now, I think everybody knows how they are going to vote. I wish we could vote in just a couple minutes. Evidently that is not going to happen. The language that we now have is Hyde language. We have had restrictions on public funding of abortion going back to the 1970's. Actually going back to Roe versus Wade, there have been some restrictions on public funds used to pay for abortions because it bothers a lot of people. Abortion bothers them for what it is. It is destroying the life of an unborn child. And to think that the Government would be paying for it bothers a lot of people. It is kind of a double hit. One is abortion is bad, it is wrong, it is terrible, it is destroying the life of an innocent child. And then, two, to have the Federal Government pay for it or subsidize paying for it really bothers a lot of people. It bothers this Senator. And evidently it has bothered the country, because Congress has had restrictions on abortion funding in different elements, either for Federal employees or for Medicaid recipients, for a long time, and some restrictions on how funds are spent overseas in military hospitals. We have had all kinds of different restrictions because it bothers people to have taxpayers' funds used to destroy innocent human lives. So that is what we are trying to do now, is to save human lives. We are trying to make sure that taxpayer funds are not used to subsidize abortion for Federal employees. The Federal Government subsidizes health care, rather generously, 72 percent. We do have a right to control funds. We do have a right to say how the money is spent. We do it every year. We have done it every year. That is the reason why most of us, probably, voted on this in Congress. The majority of Congress has supported the Hyde language for the last many, many years. Some people said, well, that is unconstitutional. It is taking away a woman's constitutional right to choose. I disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution that says, ``Taxpayers, you must pay for abortions,'' nothing. As a matter of fact, there is a Supreme Court case that says ``Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.'' That is Harris versus McRae on June 30, 1980. The Supreme Court says, as we know, we have the power of the purse. We can withhold funds. And abortion is a different type of medical procedure. A lot of our colleagues seem to think it is a fringe benefit and it should be available just like any other medical procedure. Most of us disagree, or a lot of us disagree. That is the reason why we are here. I wish we were not debating this all morning. I would have been happy to have 30 minutes on the initial amendment. I really did not want the initial amendment. I wanted to vote on this. I was denied that opportunity. We had a vote on it 2 years ago. We lost by a couple votes. This vote is going to be close. I do not know if some additional colleagues have left or not. But I will tell all my colleagues, this is very important. One of our colleagues during the debate said in 1980, before we had the Hyde restriction on Federal employees, that OMB calculated--or maybe it was not OMB, but some Federal agency--had calculated that there were 17,000 abortions paid for under the Federal employees plan. It was illegal to do that from 1984 to 1993. We had similar restrictions to the one we voted on before. The restriction we have now is more broad. Let me rephrase that. The restriction that we had from 1984 to 1993 only allowed abortion to save the life of the mother. The language we have now allows abortion or moneys to be used for abortion to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. The Senator from North Dakota made an excellent statement. He talked about his wife. He made it very passionately. You can tell he believed in what he is saying. I do not disagree. It is hard to argue with the statement that he made.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, a couple of our colleagues---- I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thurmond and Senator Thomas be added as cosponsors.

Mr. NICKLES. For the information of my colleagues, I misspoke earlier. It was my intention to yield back time. I understand the unanimous-consent agreement says that the vote will be at 2:30. I would be happy to yield back the time. It would require unanimous consent to do that. And I have been informed that the minority does not want us to yield back the time. So, I will not make that effort at this point. But let me touch a little bit on this amendment. First, I wish to compliment my colleagues, Senator Inhofe for his statement and also Senator Coats for his statement. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Inhofe and Kempthorne be added as cosponsors.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Indiana such time as he desires.

Mr. NICKLES. To respond, I have spoken more on the floor than I ever cared to on this particular Saturday. I think it is very well known what this amendment is. It is Hyde language. It says we are not going to use Federal funds to subsidize abortions for Federal employees unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother, or in the case of rape and incest. It is pretty self-explanatory.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, what we have just agreed to is that we will have a vote on or in relation to the Nickles amendment soon, which several of our colleagues have requested, which deals with prohibiting funds for the use of abortion in Federal employees' health care plans unless it is necessary to save the life of a mother, and in the case of rape or incest. I hope we can vote much sooner. We have an hour and 10 minutes, equally divided. This Senator will be happy to yield back a significant amount of time. A lot of people would like to do something else on Saturday afternoon. It happens to be a very important vote. I think everybody knows how they are going to vote. I ask my colleagues to speak briefly, and maybe we can yield back time and actually vote prior to 2:30. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of my friend and colleague from Maryland and I just inform my colleagues that it is my intention to yield back some time very quickly. So hopefully we will be voting in the next 5 minutes or so. I might ask my friend and colleague from Maryland what ``medically necessary'' means. I will just ask the question. If a woman wanted to have an abortion and the doctor wanted to perform the abortion, is there any circumstance in which the Senator from Maryland would see that it is not medically necessary?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, before I yield to my friend and colleague from Oklahoma, I will just tell my colleagues it is my intention to yield back the remainder of our time very shortly so there should be a rollcall vote probably in the next 10 minutes. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma such time as he desires.

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Five minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Wyoming 5 minutes--10 minutes?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, if we use all 3 hours, that means we would have a rollcall vote at 12 o'clock, possibly 12:10, maybe possibly yield some time back. Hopefully that will be the case. I know many of our colleagues have inquired when the vote will be. So my guess will be around 12 o'clock. Am I correct, Mr. President, that the time is equally divided?

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, what is the regular order?