Ben Nelson

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2962.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Yes.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, my lead cosponsor, Senator Hatch, will appear sometime later and speak in favor of amendment 2962. He is unable to be here at the moment. Before the Thanksgiving break, I voted with a number--and the majority, actually--of my colleagues in favor of beginning this debate. Debate is essential in our democracy. It keeps our country resilient and strong through changing times. Before that vote, some argued here on the Senate floor that we shouldn't hold this open and full debate. They seemed to suggest that obstruction was better than action. Some also argued here on the floor that the November 21 vote was about abortion. They were wrong. That vote was whether to begin a debate on an issue that has consumed the American public. Now is the time to start debating the issue of abortion, as we are addressing many other issues in health care reform. I wish to discuss the amendment that I propose, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, which includes Senators Hatch, Casey, Brownback, Thune, Coburn, Johanns, Vitter, and Barrasso. The amendment we offer today mirrors the Stupak language added to the House health care bill. For more than three decades, taxpayer money has not been used for elective abortions, and it shouldn't under any new health reform legislation either. Some suggest that the Stupak language imposes new restrictions on abortion. I disagree. We are seeking to justify the same standards on abortion to the Senate health care bill that already exist for Federal health programs. They include those covering veterans, all Federal employees, Native Americans, active-duty servicemembers, and others. I note that the Senate health care bill, if enacted, would indeed chart new ground--it covers abortion. The language in the bill goes around the Federal standard disallowing public funding of abortion. A clear majority of Americans, including my constituents in Nebraska, support this prohibition against using public money to cover abortion. Our amendment formally extends that standard to this health reform bill. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that government may regulate abortion and may disallow public funds being used for elective abortions. Beginning in 1976, with the Hyde amendment, Congress has prohibited public funding for elective abortion in all significant health-related bills. Exceptions have been preserved for when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. And except for those exceptions, public funds may not be used for any health care benefits package that covers abortion. Some have now cited the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-- FEHBP--as a possible model for health care reform. The FEHBP helps pay premiums for many different private health insurance plans. That way, Federal employees may choose the insurance plan that best suits their budget and personal needs. It is important to note that none of the benefits packages offered to Federal employees provide health insurance coverage for abortion. I repeat: None of the benefits packages offered to Federal employees provide coverage for abortion, nor do benefits packages that are offered to individuals in other Federal programs, such as the Children's Health Insurance Program, Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health Services, veterans health, and military health care programs. Some have argued that the Stupak language imposes tougher restrictions than in current law. That is not the case. Our amendment merely aims to extend the current standard to this new legislation. On another point, under Federal law, States are allowed to set their own policies concerning abortion. Many States oppose the use of public funds for abortion. Many States also have passed laws that regulate abortion by requiring informed consent and waiting periods, requiring parental involvement in cases where minors seek abortions and protecting the rights of health care providers who refuse, as a matter of conscience, to assist in abortions. And perhaps most importantly, there is no Federal law, nor is there any State law, that requires a private health plan include abortion coverage. I believe the current health care reform we are debating should not be used to open a new avenue for public funding of abortion. We should preserve the current policies prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for abortion that have existed for more than three decades. A number of polls this year have again shown that most Americans do not support using taxpayer money for abortion. The Senate bill, as proposed, goes against that majority public opinion. The bill says the Secretary of Health and Human Services may allow elective abortion coverage in the Community Health Insurance Option--the public option-- if the Secretary believes there is sufficient segregation of funds to ensure Federal tax credits are not used to purchase that portion of the coverage. The bill would also require that at least one insurance plan cover abortion and one that does not cover abortion be offered on every State insurance exchange. Federal legislation establishing a public option that provides abortion coverage and Federal legislation allowing States to opt out of the public option that provides abortion coverage eases the restrictions established by the Hyde amendment. Our amendment would prohibit Federal funds from being used for elective abortion services in the public option and also prohibit individuals who receive tax credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. I have always been pro-life and I have a strong record opposing abortion. As Governor of Nebraska in the 1990s, I signed into law the parental notification law and the ban against partial birth abortion. In the Senate, I cosponsored and voted for legislation that prohibits taking minors across State lines to avoid parental notification laws and voted for legislation creating a separate offense for harming or killing an unborn child in utero during the commission of specified violent crimes. Aside from my personal views, however, I think most Americans would prefer that the health care reform we are working on remain neutral on abortion. Public polls suggest so. So does the fact that over the last 30-plus years Congress has passed new Federal laws that have not provided public funding for abortions. So the question has been settled: Most Americans, even some who support abortion, do not want taxpayer money to be used for abortions. We should not break with precedent on this bill. And, finally, as President Obama has said, this is a health care reform bill. It is not an abortion bill. It is time to simply extend the standard disallowing public funding of abortion, which has stood the test of time, to new proposed Federal legislation. I look forward to debating this and other issues in the health reform bill as we work to address solutions to our troubled health care system. Today it costs too much and delivers too little to the people of my State and to most Americans. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, this afternoon I voted against the amendment offered by my colleague, the senior Senator of Maryland, Ms. Mikulski. I voted against this amendment with regret because I strongly support the underlying goal of furthering preventive care for women, including mammograms, screenings, and family planning. Unfortunately, the amendment did not incorporate language I suggested to specifically clarify that abortion would not be covered as a future preventive care service. I appreciate the assurances from Senator Mikulski in a colloquy on the floor that abortion would not be covered as a preventive service, but words do not supersede the language in the legislative text. I do look forward to ways in which Congress can further preventive care services for women.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2918, the Senate then proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 191, a correcting resolution; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to present the conference report on H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2010. I will start by thanking the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Murkowski, for her help throughout the process of completing the bill. We worked very well together, and the result is a true bipartisan product. I also thank Chairman Inouye and Vice-Chairman Cochran for their support and direction this year as well. At the request of the full committee, a clean, 1-month continuing resolution has been attached to this conference report. I believe the bill we have before us today is a good one. This bill will allow the legislative branch to continue to operate and move forward during the next year. When Senator Murkowski and I began our hearings this year, we both agreed we should lead by example in the legislative branch--being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. Fiscal year 2010 would be a year of ``must haves'' versus a year of ``nice to haves.'' With one notable, important, and understandable exception, I think we have been successful. The final conference report contains $50 million for the renovation of the Cannon House Office Building. The conferees included this funding at the request of the House. As a matter of comity, the House and Senate defer to the other body on funding decisions related to their side of the Chamber. The $50 million for the Cannon Building Historical Fund accounts for most of the new overall spending above the cost-of-living increases in our bill. The conference report before us today totals $4.65 billion, which is $156 million, or 3.5 percent, over fiscal year 2009, $386 million below the budget request. The bill provides $926 million for the operations of the Senate, which is $31 million, or 3.4 percent, above fiscal year 2009, and $83 million below the request. I am happy to say we were able to reduce the Senate funding by $8 million from the Senate-passed bill. In addition, $1.37 billion is included for the operations of the House in fiscal year 2010. The bill also provides $328 million for the Capitol Police, which is $22 million, or 7 percent, above fiscal year 2009. This amount fully funds the current onboard strength of 1,799 officers and provides for an additional five civilian employees to assist with the implementation of the radio project. Congress made the decision earlier this year to move forward with this long-overdue project. So now it is critical that the Capitol Police has the personnel it needs to bring this project in successfully--on time and on budget. No excuses. The Library of Congress is funded at $643 million, an increase of $36 million, or 6 percent, above current year, including full funding requested for the Library's information technology upgrades, which is a top priority of Dr. Billington. The conference agreement includes $602 million for the Architect of the Capitol. Setting aside the $50 million for the renovation of the Cannon House Building, this mark represents a $22 million, or 4 percent, overall increase for the Architect of the Capitol. The bill includes a very good balance of energy reduction, deferred facilities maintenance, and code compliance projects within the funding provided. The Government Accountability Office is funded at $557 million, an increase of $26 million, or 5 percent, above fiscal year 2009. This funding supports additional staff to assist GAO in carrying out its vital role in the oversight of the Federal Government. The Government Printing Office is funded at $147 million, an increase of $7 million, or 5 percent, above current year. This increase provides funding for several of GPO's high-priority information technology projects and much needed repairs to the elevator system of the GPO building. The conferees included $45 million for the Congressional Budget Office, which is an increase of $1 million above fiscal year 2009. This will provide CBO with the support it needs to fulfill its mission serving Congress. The Office of Compliance is funded at $4.4 million, which is $305,000, or 7 percent, over current year. Finally, the conference report includes $12 million for the Open World Leadership Fund. This represents a decrease of $2 million below current year and $2.5 million below the Senate-passed fiscal year 2010 level. Mr. President, in closing, I thank the staff members who have assisted us throughout this process. First, from Senator Murkowski's staff, I thank Carrie Apostolou and Sarah Wilson for their hard work on this bill. From my staff, I thank Nancy Olkewicz, Kate Howard, and Teri Curtin for their assistance in producing this important legislation. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Without objection, yes.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I move to waive all applicable rule XXVIII points of order and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida.) The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, it is important that this motion pass just like the previous one. If we do not get this done, we are sitting with a continuing resolution that will not be in effect, and we will be in trouble moving forward. So just as the other one, I ask my colleagues to vote aye on it as they have in the past.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I will yield.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, at 9:45 a.m. in room 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``International Cooperation to Modernize Financial Regulation.''

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 30, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.