[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 130 (Saturday, August 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11517-S11521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   FEDERAL EMPLOYEES BENEFIT PROGRAM

  Mr. KERRY. Failing in their efforts to make abortion illegal, 
opponents of abortion are trying to make it more deadly. The AMA has 
shown that funding restrictions that deter or delay women from seeking 
early abortions increase the likelihood that they will bear unwanted 
children, continue health-threatening pregnancies to term, or undergo 
abortion procedures that endanger their lives.
  Abortion coverage is offered by over two-thirds of private health 
insurance plans, and just over half of the Federal Employee Health 
Benefits Plans [FEHBPs]. Approximately 1.2 million women of 
reproductive age rely on the FEHBP for their medical care. Because 
Congress has some measure of authority over the health benefits of this 
large pool of women, it is no surprise that abortion opponents target 
on it in their campaign to eliminate reproductive freedom.
  A ban on abortion coverage under FEHBP is inconsistent with the 
treatment of all other health services, which are included or excluded 
by health plans based on decisions made by the plans themselves, not by 
Congress. It is, in this respect, an intrusion in to the operations of 
the free market about which some of the most ardent supporters of this 
amendment sermonize so often. Barring abortion coverage for women and 
families working for the Federal Government denies these individuals a 
benefit they would most likely be able to obtain if they worked for a 
private employer.
  Let us not be confused by this debate into thinking that this ban 
would save money. In fact, it is an expensive ban, both financially--
because the health risks associated with out-of-plan abortions and 
ordinary, let alone complicated, births are not slight--and socially. 
These dogged, exhaustive efforts to chip away at a woman's 
constitutional right to choose lead to anxiety about the security of 
all our precious, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. This is an 
unnecessary, unfair attempt to attack a fundamental, legal right that 
applies only to women. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating 
this ban, because it is ill-advised, expensive, inappropriate, and 
wrong.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do not want to take much of the 
Senate's time this morning, but I would like to make a couple of points 
in support of the committee amendment to strike certain provisions of 
the House-passed bill.
  If we must have this debate, I believe it is appropriate that we have 
it today, Saturday. Having the debate on the weekend will give more of 
the 1.2 million women who work for the Federal Government the 
opportunity to hear this discussion.
  As women listen to this debate, I hope they are as disappointed and 
disgusted with it as I am. This debate strikes me as the height of 
arrogance.
  We are here today, in our great benevolence, to decide which 
fundamental rights and what health benefits will be available to the 
1.2 million women who work for the Federal Government.
  Mr. President, there should not even be a debatable question here. 
Whether my colleagues on the other side like it or not, the Supreme 
Court has spoken: Women in this country have the fundamental right to 
choose.
  The law, the right, and the privilege are clear. Whether or not to 
exercise that right is a personal decision. It is a decision to be made 
by a woman and her doctor, not by a group of 90 or so men in the U.S. 
Senate.
  Mr. President, women who work for the Federal Government pay nearly 
30 percent of their health care premiums. This is more than most 
workers in the private sector pay, when an employer agrees to provide 
health care coverage. In neither cases, the private or public sector, 
is health insurance coverage a fringe benefit. Health care coverage is 
part of an employee's compensation for service rendered to the 
employer; and for the past 2 years, Federal employees, like most 
workers in the private sector, have had the option of choosing a health 
plan that covers the full range of reproductive health services, 
including abortion.
  Are we going to reverse this policy today? Are we going to issue a 
Draconian mandate, for purely political reasons, that applies only to 
women who work for the Postal Service, the Justice Department, the 
National Park Service, the Department of Labor, and the other branches 
of the Federal Government? For these women, are we in the Congress 
going to decide that reproductive health services includes every other 
health service except abortion? Are we saying to these women ``Sure, 
come work for the Federal Government. Devote yourself to public 
service--but don't forget to check your constitutional rights at the 
door.''
  That is what this debate is about. It is an attempt by anti-choice 
Members of the Congress, who have failed to make abortion illegal, to 
make the fundamental right to choose more difficult, more expensive, 
and more dangerous.
  Mr. President, this is just the first step. Today it is the hard 
working women in the Federal Government. Next, it will be Medicaid 
recipients and American Indian women who depend on the Indian Health 
Service for their health care. Then it will be family planning 
services, which millions of women and girls depend upon. And on and on 
and on, until the goal of the radical right is realized and abortion is 
made illegal.
  This is the road we are on. Each Member of this body should 
understand this, and every woman in America should understand this.
  Whose marching orders will we follow? Will we follow the extreme 
political agenda of the radical right, or will we follow the 
Constitution, as affirmed by the Supreme Court more than 20 years ago 
in Roe versus Wade? The Members of the House have already made their 
decision. They opted for the radical right. I sincerely hope my 
colleagues in the Senate have the wisdom to choose the other course.
  We should uphold the Constitution. We should respect the fundamental 
right of every woman to reproductive choice, regardless of where she is 
employed, or whether she is employed. We should get out of this 
ridiculous business of micromanaging the lives and choices of hard-
working Americans. And we should reject this blatant attempt to 
discriminate against women who work for the Federal Government and rob 
them of their fundamental right to choose.

[[Page S11518]]

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now coming to the end of this 
debate. I know we have only a few minutes. This is where good and 
honorable people can differ.
  I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, on his idea of modifying his rape 
and incest amendment, if he would also add the language medically 
necessary?
  Mr. NICKLES. No, I do not think that is defined well. I think we know 
what rape and incest mean. Medically necessary is ambiguous. I would 
not agree.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Later this afternoon I will offer that amendment and we 
will be able to expound on what medically necessary means.
  In conclusion, I believe Federal employees should have the same right 
to determine what is necessary or appropriate for their health as 
private sector employees do.
  Restrictions ignore the reality of women's lives. Half of all 
pregnancies are unplanned, contraceptive failure, and also there are 
medically appropriate and medically necessary circumstances beyond rape 
and incest that necessitate the performance of an abortion.
  This is not about what is decided for coverage under the Federal 
employees. It is not about what is decided but who decides. The 
principle of self-determination, freedom, reproductive, and otherwise, 
personal responsibility, the prohibitions on Federal health insurance 
benefits violates all these principles.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment that is pending. I 
believe that the issue, the fundamental issue pending before us, is 
discrimination against women. Restrictions on primary health care 
services, especially where those restrictions apply only to services 
required by a particular group--in this case, women--does constitute 
discrimination. Striking the committee amendment would perpetuate 
discrimination against women employees and their dependents.
  Let us be clear about what funding restrictions for Federal health 
insurance means. It means women who work for the Federal Government or 
receive health insurance benefits from the Federal Government will be 
denied the same coverage for abortion as they would receive if they 
worked in the private sector, that private sector that receives tax 
subsidies, which is really a form of taxpayers' money, to provide that 
private sector insurance.
  It means that women receiving the health insurance coverage through 
the Federal Government will be denied their basic constitutional 
protection for obtaining an abortion under the health insurance program 
in which they pay for their services. It would mean that women who 
receive their health care coverage through the Federal Government will 
continue to get second-class health care.
  Congress should not micromanage the Federal employees benefit 
programs, and the Congress of the United States should not put itself 
between a woman and her physician on what is determined to be medically 
necessary or medically appropriate.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 1 minute 
remaining, and the Senator from Oklahoma has 1 minute.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I apologize. I had every intention of 
trying to yield back time. The debate became a little hotter and that 
was not to happen.
  Let me clarify where we are. I heard my colleague from Maryland. She 
urged defeat of the amendment. We are voting on a committee amendment 
that struck the House language. I hope people will vote ``no'' because 
I want to preserve the House language. I want to preserve the House 
language that says no funds will be used for Federal employees to buy 
health insurance unless necessary to protect the life of the mother.
  I also planned on amending that language and putting in a rape and 
incest exception. I would do it now but am prohibited from doing that. 
I understand that.
  I want to protect the lives of unborn children. Senator Smith from 
New Hampshire said before we had this prohibition, the Federal 
Government paid for 17,000 abortions. Then we placed a restriction in 
1983. The language we are trying to insert now, or keep alive the House 
language, is the exact same language that this Government had for 10 
years between 1984 and 1993. It saved thousands of lives. Somebody 
said, well, it saved money. My interest is not the money so much as I 
want to save lives. I do not want taxpayers to have to subsidize 
abortion as a fringe benefit.
  Take a poll of people, ask any poll, Do you think taxpayers' funds 
should be used to subsidize abortion, and the answer is no. 
Overwhelmingly no. Not close, Mr. President, 70 to 80 percent.
  I heard my colleague say, get the Government out of this area. I want 
the Government to quit financing abortions. That is the reason we have 
this amendment.
  I urge my colleague to vote no on the committee amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Oklahoma then does not intend to 
table?
  Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. This is a straight up-or-down vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
committee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. For this portion of the debate on this amendment, we 
have concluded it. I thank all of my colleagues who spoke, the 
Democratic women of the Senate, I thank the good men of the Senate who 
support a woman's right to choose, and I thank our Republican 
colleagues, because I think we have demonstrated that our position is a 
bipartisan position and a right position.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield and explain the vote that we are 
about to have. There is some confusion.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. A vote ``aye'' would be to retain the position of the 
Senator from Maryland and to retain the committee amendment that was 
offered by Senator Shelby and is current law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee 
amendment which appears on page 76, lines 10 through 17. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. EXON, when his name was called, Present.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], 
the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. 
Murkowski], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], 
and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 369 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--41

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Exon
      

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bumpers
     Gregg
     Lugar
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Stevens
  So the committee amendment on page 76, lines 10 through 17 was agreed 
to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  
[[Page S11519]]

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


          Committee Amendment on Page 2, Beginning on Line 14

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is now the first 
committee amendment which appears on page 2, line 14 of the bill.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


     Amendment No. 2153, to committee Amendment on Page 2, Line 14
   (Purpose: Prohibit taxpayer funding for abortions covered by the 
                Federal Employee Health Benefit Program)

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2153.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the Committee amendment on Page 2, Line 14, 
     add the following:
       Sec.  . No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
     expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
     employees health benefit program which provides any benefits 
     or coverage for abortions.
       Sec.  . The provision of section    shall not apply where 
     the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
     carried to term, or that the pregnancy is the result of an 
     act of rape or incest.

  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, may we have order?
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, regular order.
  What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Nickles amendment, which the clerk has 
reported.
  Mr. KERREY. Is not the committee amendment the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendment is pending, and the 
Senator from Oklahoma has offered an amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has offered a 
second-degree amendment.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  I would like to hear the Senator from Oklahoma. We talk a lot about 
courtesy. If Senators will take their seats so we can hear what the 
Senator from Oklahoma says.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, during the debate, I mentioned my 
interest and desire to include language that would be like the language 
that we voted on 2 years ago that would really be like the so-called 
Hyde language, which says no money shall be used for abortion except 
that necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and 
incest.
  That is the language I have now submitted. That is the language I 
wanted to get into the bill last night and earlier today and was 
unsuccessful.
  I know my colleague from Maryland has a different idea. She would 
like to have her amendment. I just mention that we have debated this 
for a long time. I am happy to vote up or down on my amendment and 
happy to vote up or down on the amendment of the Senator from Maryland. 
I do not know that we need any time. I think every person in this body 
knows exactly how they are going to vote on my amendment. They may or 
may not know how they will vote on the amendment of the Senator from 
Maryland. But it is not my intention or desire, I tell my friend from 
Nebraska, to delay this bill any longer. I was willing to agree to an 
hour time agreement on the first amendment. I am happy to enter into a 
very short time agreement on this amendment, on the amendment of the 
Senator from Maryland. If the Senator from Maryland has two amendments, 
that is the Senator's right and prerogative. And I am happy to enter 
into time agreements and see where the votes are.
  Mr. KERREY. As I understand, the action that we just took was that 
the subcommittee in our legislation said we struck the general 
provisions that were offered by the House.
  Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.
  Mr. KERREY. The House offered a restriction on the use of health 
insurance saying health insurance could not be used to pay for 
abortions except if the life of the mother was in danger.
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KERREY. The action we took struck those general provisions. You 
are now saying you want to amend and require that it only be in the 
case of the life of the mother being in danger and rape and incest?
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KERREY. You would not agree to allow ``medically necessary and 
appropriate'' be added?
  Mr. NICKLES. That is not in my language. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KERREY. You support ``rape and incest,'' but not ``medically 
necessary and appropriate.''
  As I understand it, the Senator from Maryland wants to offer an 
amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator from Nebraska and to the Senator 
from Oklahoma, should the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma 
prevail, then I have two amendments that I will offer. One will deal 
with allowing abortions that are medically necessary and medically 
appropriate; leave the decision to the clinician. If that should be 
defeated, I will offer another amendment limiting it to medically 
appropriate.
  I will say to the Senator from Oklahoma, there are many Senators who 
wish to speak. And there are many Senators who voluntarily reduced 
their time that they spoke on the last restriction to 5 minutes. There 
were Senators who wanted to speak extensively. One was the Senator from 
Pennsylvania on the other side of the aisle who actually went to the 
leader time because I could not accommodate him.
  So at this point I cannot agree to a time agreement. If the two 
leaders have a different view and would like to discuss that with us, I 
would be happy to enter into a quorum call. But right now, I have 
colleagues that will want to talk about the yet one more restriction.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I would like to remind the Senators to address 
each other in the third person and to make addresses through the Chair.

[[Page S11520]]

  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. I spent so much time--I am trying to think what the third 
person is. That is the ``he'' ``they'' stuff?
  Mr. President, when the majority leader asked if we were ready--and 
we had a meeting earlier this week with the Senator from Alabama, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, and the question was, are you all ready 
to go? I am not sure he said, ``you all.'' I guess I am in the Alabama 
talk. He said, ``Are you guys ready to go with this bill?'' We said the 
only controversial thing we have got is the abortion language having to 
do with health insurance. If we can get a time agreement, we would be 
prepared to go to this bill.
  Last night we had an agreement. And this thing was humming along 
pretty comfortably. It looked like this would be the only vote, and we 
might be able to stack the remaining votes on Monday morning. Now it 
appears that it is coming unraveled. I just say it does not appear to 
me to be holding together much any longer. We had an agreement last 
night. It has broken apart.
  The Senator from Oklahoma wants to offer another amendment. The 
Senator from Maryland will offer at least one additional amendment. We 
are stuck with the prospect now of being here all day long, voting on 
amendment after amendment after amendment. And, you know, just for the 
lay of the land, again, we are going to go into conference with the 
House. I do not know what is going to come back out of conference. It 
is not going to be language entirely struck. We are going to have to 
negotiate with the House to get some kind of language. It would not 
surprise me if we did not come up with language that is what neither 
the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Maryland want. I do not 
know. Then, the President--they already promised to veto the darn 
thing, not on this but because we are cutting too much out of IRS. I do 
not know.
  I say to the majority leader, in the third person here, I do not know 
whether or not it is advisable for us to continue on this bill. Maybe 
we ought to come back to the Senator and say, ``Gee, we were wrong. We 
thought we had an agreement. We thought we had made a good-faith effort 
to work with Members on a variety of other controversial amendments and 
have worked out an awful lot of differences.''
  But it seems to me we are at a point where unless Members are 
enthusiastic about hanging around here all day long, voting on 
something that is apt to be vetoed by the President anyway, I do not 
know how much prospect we have for getting an agreement on this 
Treasury, Postal appropriations bill.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Well, I just hope that the Senator from Nebraska will not 
give up too easily. I know the process is very difficult. We found that 
out about midnight last night on the Defense Department authorization 
bill. We thought we were humming along pretty well. We got down to 
about half a dozen amendments. Suddenly there were 61 amendments. I do 
not know. We only had one amendment.
  I know the Senator is prepared to accept a number of amendments. Is 
that true?
  Mr. SHELBY. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. A couple of outstanding amendments that are controversial?
  Mr. SHELBY. That is right.
  Mr. DOLE. It seems to me, you might be on to something here. We might 
even finish a bill over here. There is not much precedent for doing 
anything in the Senate, but there is always hope we might finish 
something. We have got a lot of stuff in the bone yard now that keeps 
piling up out there. Sooner or later we have to finish it. If we do not 
do it today, then we will be doing it a week from today or sometime.
  So if we can reach a time agreement, that would certainly help the 
managers. I do not want to discourage the managers.
  We can go on to the Interior appropriations bill or we can start the 
welfare bill today. But I would rather complete this bill before we go 
to the Interior bill.
  And there is still some hope we can come back to the Defense 
authorization bill that we almost completed yesterday and would like to 
complete today. But I hope that the managers might try to shop around 
for time agreements, and if not, maybe set aside this particular 
controversy and go ahead and do the rest of the bill and see if we can 
negotiate in the meantime. If we are going to have what amounts to a 
filibuster all day long, then I think probably we would just go on to 
something else.
  Mr. SHELBY. Would the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. SHELBY. I wonder if the majority leader could get with the 
Democratic leader and some of the main participants and see if we can 
come up with a time agreement because we basically know how we are 
going to vote on this issue, as the Senator from Oklahoma said. But if 
we can have a time agreement on several amendments, we could move this 
bill this afternoon.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  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. KERREY. What I would suggest is we go into a quorum call for 5 
minutes, and we get the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from 
Maryland together to see if we cannot work out a time agreement where 
we could have these two amendments.
  I alert colleagues that the idea here is to try to limit the number 
of votes that we have.
  We can have debates all the rest of the day and night. We would like 
to stack votes. We would like to get a UC and stack votes on Monday, if 
the majority leader is agreeable to that.
  Mr. DOLE. There are 94 Senators here. I do not know why we want to 
stack votes on Monday. We gave notice that there will be a Saturday 
session. There are four absent on our side, two absent on the other 
side. We are disadvantaged. They knew we were going to have a session. 
We do not have them very often. This is the first one we have had all 
year. We are trying to get into a recess mode.
  I hope we will not push anything off to Monday. Before long, it will 
be a week from Monday and we will still be here, and a lot of people 
will not be happy with the majority leader.
  Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that very much, but what we are left with, I 
do not know what the total number is--- seven or eight we could not 
agree to. We worked on a lot of them. We worked with the Senator from 
New York, the Senator from Arkansas and several other Senators. We are 
working with the Senator from Georgia right now. We are trying to 
accept amendments where we can.
  But where we cannot do it, we are left with seven or eight votes. We 
are going to have a Saturday session, a full Saturday session, because 
all Members who have amendments are going to want to come, getting back 
to the third person here, Mr. President, are going to want to come to 
the floor and present their amendments and debate their amendments. I 
was trying not to avoid a Saturday session but trying to come up with a 
reasonable way to deal with the votes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

[[Page S11521]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________