[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 96 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8036-S8042]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, is to be recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think I follow Senator DeWine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1200

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to pay for an abortion or to pay 
for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans 
                  that provide coverage for abortions)

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

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
     Brownback, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Helms, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. McCain, 
     Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Hagel, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1200.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI, 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 the pregnancy is the result of an 
     act of rape or incest.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment on behalf 
of myself and Senators Abraham, Brownback, Santorum, Helms, Ashcroft, 
McCain, Nickles, and Hagel.
  This amendment would maintain in force the current law restricting 
Federal funding for abortions only to cases of rape, incest, or life of 
the mother. Specifically, my amendment would maintain the status quo 
that limits Federal employee health plans to cover abortions only in 
the case of rape, incest, and threat to life of the mother.
  This is the same amendment that was accepted during the debate for 
fiscal year 1999 Treasury-Postal appropriations, the same amendment 
agreed to by this body during the debate for fiscal years 1996 and 
1997. In fact, this is the same language that has been consistently 
supported by a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives from 
1983 to 1999, with the exception of only 2 years.
  I mention all of this to make it very clear to the Members of the 
Senate that this amendment stakes out no new ground. This amendment 
maintains the status quo. This amendment has been voted on time and 
time again by this body, and time and time again this body has accepted 
it.
  The principle is a very simple one--one that goes beyond the 
conventional pro-choice/pro-life debates that we hear on this Senate 
floor. I think my colleagues know I am pro-life and, therefore, I wish 
to promote the values protecting innocent human life. However, I point 
out that the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the abortion 
issue strongly agree that they should not pay for someone else's 
abortion. That really is what this debate is about.
  Fairly stated, this amendment is not about the morality of abortion 
or the right of a woman to choose abortion. Rather, this is a very 
narrowly focused amendment that answers a key question: Should 
taxpayers pay for these abortions?
  This Senate, this Congress, has consistently answered no. Congress 
has consistently agreed that we should not ask taxpayers to promote a 
policy, in essence, of paying for abortion on demand by a Federal 
employee. My amendment would maintain the status quo that limits 
Federal employee health plans to cover abortions only in the case of 
rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother.
  The vast majority of Americans oppose subsidizing abortions. 
Employers, as a general principle, determine the health benefits 
employees receive. Taxpayers are the employers of Federal employees, 
and a large majority of taxpayers simply do not want their tax dollars 
to go to pay for abortions. Taxpayers provide a majority share of the 
funds to purchase health insurance for the Federal civilian workforce. 
This provision addresses the same core issue and simply says that the 
Federal Government, as the employer, is not in the business of funding 
abortions. Abortion is certainly a contentious issue, and we should not 
ask the taxpayers to pay for it.
  In conclusion, this issue has been debated time and time again on the 
Senate floor. Current law limits abortion availability in Federal 
employee health care plans to cases of rape, incest, and to save the 
life of the mother. That has been the position of the Senate, that has 
been the position of the House, and that was approved last year and the 
year before as well. We should not involuntarily take the money of 
Americans--many of whom find abortion abhorrent--to pay for abortions.

[[Page S8037]]

We should not go against the will of the people of this country. We 
should uphold current law, and that is very simply what this amendment 
does.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to understand the 
parliamentary situation. As I understand it, the Senator from Ohio has 
22 and a half minutes and I have the same amount of time. Is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield myself 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, and I want to 
tell you why. I hope colleagues will listen to this, because this is an 
amendment that impacts 1.2 million women in America today. It is a law 
that is aimed directly at them. It will harm them; it will take away 
their rights.
  We do a lot of things around here, and some of them don't really 
affect real people. This affects real people who happen to be women, 
1.2 million of them, who are hard-working women, who pay for their own 
health insurance--part of it. Yet, under the Senator's amendment, he 
says to those 1.2 million women: You are going to be treated 
differently from every other working woman in America today just 
because you happen to work for the Federal Government and just because 
the Senate has the power to impact you.
  I think this is a sad day for us again, a very sad day. Every other 
woman in America who has a health insurance plan can avail herself of 
all the legal procedures that are known to exist today. They have no 
problem. Abortion is a legal procedure. Let me repeat that. Abortion is 
legal in America. That is what this is all about. This isn't a debate 
about these 1.2 million women, not at all.
  It is about the underlying question.
  The Senator from Ohio is a leader in the effort to take away a 
woman's right to choose. He is open about it. He is honest about it. He 
is forthright about it. He thinks abortion should not be legal under 
any circumstance. And his cosponsors today, if you look at their 
record, are all in favor of a constitutional amendment banning the 
right to choose.
  What we are seeing is another way to get to the same end. If you 
can't repeal Roe, if you can't take away a woman's right to choose, 
take away her right to be able to pay for the procedure which is legal.
  Federal employees work hard. They work in every aspect of our lives. 
Some of them are scientists at the NIH. Some of them work delivering 
the mail. They work hard.
  It seems to me unconscionable that we would say, because we have the 
power to do it, we would say because of raw legal power, Federal 
employees, women, you are second-class citizens, and you do not have 
the same rights as someone who works for American Telephone, or any of 
the companies, small or large, in this country.
  Why is it that the Senator from Ohio doesn't have that in his 
amendment? Because he can't get it passed. But he has figured out a way 
because, yes, the Federal Government, as part of our benefits package, 
pays part of the health insurance premium.
  So that is the vote. It is true that this has passed a couple of 
times. We didn't have a debate on it really the last time. I found it 
very interesting when we started this because my friends came to me and 
said: Do we really need to have a vote? Do we really need to talk about 
this?
  I want to say something about this. We have a lot of time to talk 
about Y2K. We have endless days to talk about Y2K, and then we add 
another hour and a half to talk about Y2K. When it comes to business, 
we have a lot of time. But when it comes to taking away the rights of 
women, oh, Senator Boxer. Do you really need to talk about it? Can't we 
just forget about it? We don't need a vote. We want to go home. I want 
to go home. But we are about to do again what we have done before, 
which is to say to these women, you can't be treated like other women.
  Everyone who gets up on that side to talk about this--I guarantee 
it--really wants to outlaw abortion, period.
  That is what this is about--make it tougher, make it harder, any hook 
that they can find to stop a woman from exercising her legal right 
given to her by the Supreme Court decision, and, by the way, ratified 
over and over and over again by that Court--even the current Court. 
Yes, it is legal for a woman to have control over her own body. Yes, it 
is legal, they said. It is within her privacy rights. It gives her 
dignity. It gives her options. It gives her the ability to take care of 
her own health.
  This is an insult to women who work for the Federal Government.
  The Senator from Ohio has no compunction about it--standing up here 
and looking at the women who work here; his own staff, by the way, who 
will be treated as second-class citizens, different from all the other 
women in this country.
  I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California, 
Senator Boxer, who has risen to speak against this amendment, for her 
courage, and for her reminding all of us of how important this issue is 
to so many women across this country.
  I speak today in strong opposition to the DeWine amendment, which 
once again, attempts to restrict access to safe, legal, affordable 
reproductive health care services for women. This amendment simply 
seeks to obstruct a women's right to choose.
  I know the proponents of this amendment claim they are only 
prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. The truth is 
this amendment is about the U.S. Senate determining what health 
benefits federal employees will receive.
  Health insurance for federal employees is an earned benefit. It is 
part of an overall compensation package. It is no different than a 
salary. Through this amendment, Senator DeWine and his colleagues 
attempting to give federal taxpayers a say in how federal employees 
spend their salaries. This is unfair. A federal employee's salary 
belongs to the federal employee and a federal employee' health benefits 
belong to the federal employee.
  Yet, we are here today debating an amendment that is based on the 
premise that the taxpayer controls federal employee's benefits. Again, 
health insurance is an earned benefit offered in lieu of income. The 
value of this benefit is part of the overall compensation for work 
performed. Why are we attempting to dictate the value or scope of a 
benefit owned by the federal employee? The answer is because the 
majority believes it can and therefore that it should. That's 
unfortunate.
  I have a solution for federal employees who object to receiving 
benefits that allow a women the right to a full range of reproductive 
health care services: refuse to purchase health insurance from a plan 
that offers these benefits. It's that simple. Since the Federal 
Employees Health Benefit Plan is, in part, funded by a premium paid by 
the employee that employee should have the right to refuse to support 
activities to which he or she objects. Those employees should simply 
not select these plans.
  I think all federal employees should be outraged by this kind of 
amendment that we are debating. Dedicated, hard working federal 
employees are basically being asked to limit their constitutional right 
to choose when they enter federal employment. This amendment treats 
federal employees like second class citizens and gives them no ability 
to decide what kind of health insurance is appropriate to meet all of 
their health care needs, including reproductive health.
  This amendment is not about the federal funding of abortions. This 
amendment is an assault on women's health. It is a creative way to deny 
access to abortion services for federal employees and their families. 
Federal employees should not be captive to the narrow views of a 
minority of the public. Allowing federal employees to purchase and 
receive insurance policies that allow them to have an abortion is not 
direct federal funding of abortion. It is a round-about way to limit 
some American's abilities to exercise the rights

[[Page S8038]]

granted them by the Constitution. I, and the majority of Americans, 
support that right and the Roe versus Wade decision. This Senate should 
not undermine the fundamental right of women to decide whether to bear 
a child.
  Most of my colleagues know voters would be outraged if they sought to 
overturn Roe versus Wade. But instead of simply coming forward and 
admitting they oppose the idea that a woman has a constitutional right 
to decide what is in her best interest and the best interests of her 
family, they hide behind arguments about federal funding. Most of my 
colleagues know that a majority of the population supports the basic of 
privacy inherent in the Roe versus Wade decision. Abortion, up to 
viability, is a personal and private matter. Rather than seeking to 
overturn Roe versus Wade, they have decided to restrict access with a 
multitude of creative, but similarly offensive, ways.
  By mandating that insurance companies participating in the Federal 
Employees Health Benefit Plan deny access to abortion services as part 
of their defined benefit package, the U.S. Senate is attempting to take 
a private and difficult decision and add to a woman's hardship by 
turning it also into a financial burden.
  Many federal employees simply do not have the discretionary income to 
pay for an abortion. The cost of this procedure can be high. By 
removing this health care benefit from all federal insurance plans, we 
have placed a significant financial burden on employees and their 
families. For federal employees, the protections guaranteed under Roe 
versus Wade are seriously jeopardized. Financial barriers can be just 
as effective for many people as simply overturning Roe versus Wade.
  I hope this amendment is defeated and that we can recognize the 
valuable contributions of all federal employees by not forcing them to 
surrender their rights and protections as a condition of being a civil 
servant. I also hope that we can stop these constant assaults on 
women's health care and that of their families.
  Mr. President, I retain the remainder of our time.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me just briefly respond to some of the 
comments that have been made. This matter has been debated many times 
on the Senate floor. I seriously doubt there will be any new points 
that I or anyone else will raise.
  Sometimes the obvious must be stated: This amendment does not stop 
abortions. This amendment does not say to any woman what she can or 
cannot do. This simply says taxpayers are not going to pay for it. It 
is that simple. It is that basic.
  We have to understand, on the average health plan in the Federal 
Government, 73 percent of the cost is paid for by the Government, which 
means 73 percent of the cost is paid for by the taxpayers.
  We get back to the issue, should the American people, on an 
involuntary basis, through their taxes, have money taken out of their 
pay to be used to pay for abortions when many people believe very 
adamantly that this is wrong? I think the answer is absolutely not, we 
should not have this money involuntarily taken from taxpayers to pay 
for abortions, which violates the conscience of many taxpayers.
  This is one Senator who doesn't quote polls too often on the Senate 
floor, but I think it has some relevance about what the American people 
expect us to do as far as how their taxes are spent. A Fox poll in 1998 
asked: Do you think health care plans should pay for any of the cost of 
an abortion? That answer? Sixty percent said no. The question 
specifically had to do with the Federal Government paying for these 
Federal health care plans. Sixty percent said no; 28 percent said yes.
  I think it is very clear, with the Federal Government paying almost 
three-fourths of the cost of these plans and taxpayers paying three-
fourths of the cost, we understand what is at stake and what the issue 
is. It has nothing to do with whether or not a person has a legal right 
to an abortion. That is a debate for a different day.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from Washington was saying we are 
restricting someone's right by not paying for an abortion, which posits 
the interesting question that right now comes with a guarantee that the 
Government will pay for that right. We have freedom of speech 
guaranteed in the Constitution. Does the Government pay for someone who 
wants to speak? Do the taxpayers pay to put them on television if they 
want to speak?
  Mr. DeWINE. The answer is no.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If a group of people want to assemble, does the 
Government pay for a room or the assembly costs? Is that part of the 
right of speech--that the Government must pay for the cost of 
assembling?
  Mr. DeWINE. The answer is no.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If someone believes in freedom of religion, does that 
mean the Government should pay the church to make sure people have the 
freedom to worship, and make sure the freedom of religion is 
guaranteed?
  Mr. DeWINE. The answer is no.
  Mr. SANTORUM. That is the obvious question.
  A right is a right, but it does not include the right of the 
Government to pay for the exercise of that right.
  In fact, there could be complications--there is a separation of 
church and state--if the Government were to get involved in enforcing 
those rights in this kind of way.
  I think we set a very dangerous precedent when we elevate a right to 
the point where the Government now has to pay for the access of that 
right or for the enforcement of that right. I think that is a dangerous 
standard that the Senator from Washington has posited and one I hope 
the Senate will reject tonight.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague for his comments.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from California.
  I rise in agreement with the Senator from California against the 
amendment of the Senator from Ohio. I make this argument--and I am 
sorry the Senator from Pennsylvania is not here--if I were to offer an 
amendment that said you couldn't use your Federal dollars to buy a 
handgun from your salary, there would be outrage on that side. They 
would say: We haven't made handguns illegal.
  You may think they should be. I don't, it so happens, but for the 
sake of argument you think handguns should be illegal. But fight it on 
the issue of handguns, don't fight it by taking away Federal employees' 
rights.
  There would be outrage from the very same people who are now saying 
this.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from New York yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am delighted, on the time of the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. We have retained the remainder of our time.
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Is there any prohibition in the DeWine amendment from 
someone using their own money to purchase insurance to cover abortion?
  Mr. SCHUMER. To prohibit an individual to use their own wages to 
purchase insurance for abortions----
  Mr. SANTORUM. Whether one uses their own wages or is part of a 
Federal health plan, paid for, in fact by those wages----
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator let me finish?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Over 70 percent is paid for by taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. SCHUMER. What I say again, it is a specious difference to argue 
that when you go out with your own dollars is any different from with a 
health plan.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Than with taxpayer dollars. That is a specious 
difference? I don't think so.
  Mr. SCHUMER. What the Senator from Ohio is seeking to do----
  Mr. SANTORUM. The answer is obvious.
  I retain my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. There is no prohibition in the DeWine amendment for 
someone taking their own wages and purchasing insurance to cover 
abortion. That is the analogy the Senator made, and it is invalid. I 
wanted to make that clear.

[[Page S8039]]

  Mrs. BOXER. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from California for yielding to me 
to allow me to answer the question of the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
which is what I was attempting to do. He asked me a question, and he 
didn't let me answer.
  The answer is simple: What you are doing on this amendment is 
imposing your will on how a Federal employee can spend their money, 
despite the fact they have a right to choose. It is no different, I 
argue, from me imposing my will on the right of a Federal employee to 
spend their money--Federal dollars--on the right to, say, buy a 
handgun. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
  I wouldn't support that amendment for both the reasons I mention. I 
think you argue right head on--not try to deal with Federal dollars. 
Second, I am not for abolishing all handguns. However, I say to my 
colleagues, the analogy is exact. I think it shows the fallacy of the 
argument behind the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the DeWine amendment.
  It has been 26 years since the Supreme Court decided the case of Roe 
versus Wade in 1973. That landmark decision recognized a woman's 
fundamental constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. 
It removed the barriers that for generations had prevented large 
numbers of American women from obtaining safe and legal medical care to 
terminate their pregnancies.
  In recent years, however, the barriers blocking access to abortion 
have begun to be rebuilt. This amendment to ban abortion coverage under 
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan is part of that unacceptable 
effort.
  Several million women currently serve the federal government in every 
state of the nation. Many work for modest pay and depend upon federal 
health benefits for all aspects of their medical care, including 
reproductive health services. The amendment offered today would deny 
those women access to a legal, medical procedure--a constitutional 
right--and subject them to discrimination, simply because they have 
chosen to work in public service.
  The anti-choice Republican majority in Congress has failed to undo 
Roe and make abortion illegal. But, they are doing insidious work to 
make abortion more difficult and more dangerous for the women of this 
country.
  The most important majority in America--the majority of the American 
people--believe in a woman's right to choose. They understand what the 
anti-choice leadership in the Republican Party is trying to do, and 
they oppose it very strongly. We must do everything we can to uphold 
this basic right of American women against this relentless attack.
  A ban on abortion coverage under the federal health plan would 
undermine a woman's ability to make a decision on one of the most 
personal, private, and difficult medical issues that will ever occur in 
her life. I urge my colleagues to vote against this ban, and preserve 
the constitutional right to choose for all women who are federal 
employees.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Senator DeWine.
  The bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee would enable 
federal employees, whose health insurance is provided under the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Plan, to receive coverage for abortion 
services.
  The DeWine amendment would prohibit coverage for abortion, except in 
cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. It would continue a ban 
which has prevented federal employees from receiving a health care 
service which is widely available for private sector employees.
  I oppose this Amendment for two reasons. First of all, it is an 
assault on the earned benefits of federal employees. Secondly, it is 
part of a continuing assault on women's reproductive rights and would 
endanger women's health.
  We have seen vote after vote designed to roll back the clock on 
women's reproductive rights. Every year, on this Appropriations measure 
and on many others, the assault on a woman's constitutional right to 
decide for herself whether or not to have a child continues. This 
amendment continues that assault.
  Well, I support the right to choose. And I support federal employees. 
And that is why I strenuously oppose this amendment.
  Let me speak first about our federal employees. Some 280,000 federal 
employees live in the State of Maryland. I am proud to represent them. 
They are the people who make sure that the Social Security checks go 
out on time. They make sure that our nation's veterans receive their 
disability checks. At NIH, they are doing vital research on finding 
cures and better treatments for diseases like cancer, Parkinson's and 
Alzheimers. There is no American whose life is not touched in some way 
by the hard work of a federal employee. They deserve our thanks and our 
support.
  Instead, federal employees have suffered one assault after another in 
recent years. They have faced tremendous employment insecurity, as 
government has downsized, and eliminated over 200,000 federal jobs. 
Their COLAs and their retirement benefits have been threatened. They 
have faced the indignity and economic hardship of three government 
shutdowns. Federal employees have been vilified as what is wrong with 
government, when they should be thanked and valued for the tremendous 
service they provide to our country and to all Americans.
  I view this amendment as yet another assault on these faithful public 
servants. It goes directly after the earned benefits of federal 
employees. Health insurance is part of the compensation package to 
which all federal employees are entitled. The costs of insurance 
coverage are shared by the federal government and the employee.
  I know that proponents of continuing the ban on abortion coverage for 
federal employees say that they are only trying to prevent taxpayer 
funding of abortion. But that is not what this debate is about.
  If we were to extend the logic of the argument of those who favor the 
ban, we would prohibit federal employees from obtaining abortions using 
their own paychecks. After all, those funds also come from the 
taxpayers.
  But no one is seriously suggesting that federal employees ought not 
to have the right to do whatever they want with their own paychecks. 
And we should not be placing unfair restrictions on the type of health 
insurance federal employees can purchase under the Federal Employee 
Health Benefit Plan.
  About 1.2 million women of reproductive age depend on the FEHBP for 
their medical care. We know that access to reproductive health services 
is essential to women's health. We know that restrictions that make it 
more difficult for women to obtain early abortions increase the 
likelihood that women will put their health at risk by being forced to 
continue a high-risk pregnancy.
  If we continue the ban on abortion services, and provide exemptions 
only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest, the 1.2 million 
women of reproductive health age who depend on the FEHBP will not have 
access to abortion even when their health is seriously threatened. We 
will be replacing the informed judgement of medical care givers with 
that of politicians.
  Decisions on abortion should be made by the woman in close 
consultation with her physician. These decisions should be made on the 
basis of medical judgement, not on the basis of political judgements. 
Only a woman and her physician can weigh her unique circumstances and 
make the decision that is right for that particular woman's life and 
health.
  It is wrong for the Congress to try to issue a blanket prohibition on 
insuring a legal medical procedure with no allowance for the particular 
set of circumstances that an individual woman may face. I deeply 
believe that women's health will suffer if we do so.
  I believe it is time to quit attacking federal employees and their 
benefits. I believe we need to quit treating federal employees as 
second class citizens. I believe federal employees should be able to 
receive the same quality and range of health care services as their 
private sector counterparts.
  Because I believe in the right to choose and because I support 
federal employees, I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the 
DeWine Amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page S8040]]

  Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 12 minutes 57 seconds under the 
control of the Senator from Ohio and 8 minutes 2 seconds under the 
control of the Senator from California.
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield the Senator from Oklahoma 5 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. On legislative procedure, I have advised my colleagues 
on both sides to go through the Chair. I think it is somewhat demeaning 
to the Senate to not have exchanges through the Chair. There is a 
reason for the rule.
  I will make a couple of comments concerning this issue. I compliment 
my friend and colleague from Ohio for raising the issue. This is not 
about how someone spends their own money, I say to my colleague from 
New York. Anybody can spend their own money. A Federal employee can 
spend their own money and pay for an abortion.
  It says ``no funds appropriated under this act.'' In other words, no 
taxpayer money shall be used to pay for abortion. That has been the law 
of the land. We have passed that many times. This administration wants 
to overturn it. They have not been successful.
  I heard one of my colleagues, I believe my colleague from Washington, 
say it is only a minority, a radical minority. I am not sure if the 
word ``radical'' was used, but a small minority that wants to impose 
its will.
  That is not the case. There was a poll taken some time ago that 
asked, ``Should the Government subsidize health care plans to pay for 
abortion?'' and 72 percent said no.
  I have heard people say: You are trying to outlaw abortion.
  That is not the case.
  The purpose of the amendment is, we do not want to subsidize abortion 
and we don't want it to be a fringe benefit.
  I heard a colleague saying this is a ``benefit.'' It shouldn't be a 
benefit. Abortion should not be a fringe benefit that is provided for 
and subsidized, three-fourths of which is paid for by the Federal 
Government.
  Remember what we are talking about. Abortion happens to take the life 
of an unborn child.
  I heard a colleague say we need a full range of reproductive 
services, we need reproductive health. What about health of the unborn 
child? Are we going to have the taxpayers pay to destroy the life of an 
unborn child? The majority in Congress and overwhelming majority of the 
American people have said no.
  That is what our colleague's amendment does. It does not take away a 
woman's right to choose. It does not outlaw abortion. It just says we 
should not subsidize it. We should not be using taxpayers' money to 
provide a fringe benefit in the Federal employees' health care plans to 
help subsidize the destruction of innocent, unborn children.
  So I compliment my colleague for the amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment when we vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield on the time of the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Based on the argument he just made, would the Senator 
from Oklahoma then be in favor of repealing all tax benefits--tax 
subsidies or tax benefits to corporations in America that offer general 
health care plans to their employees?
  Mrs. BOXER. Those that include abortions.
  Mr. NICKLES. The answer to your question is no.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would argue then that this argument makes no sense 
because this Senate and this Congress gives hundreds of millions, 
billions of dollars in subsidies to corporations all over this world 
that provide health care benefits. I will also argue that the Senator 
from California is correct; this is picking on a small group of 
employees.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield an additional minute to my friend.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. In my mind, this amendment is not really about abortion 
one way or the other. It really is about the rights of employees, our 
employees who we are supposed to protect and treat fairly, men and 
women alike. It is not about direct subsidy. This is their wages that 
they earn, that they use to pay for their health care benefits. Since 
we give subsidies to all corporations everywhere, why can't we help our 
own employees for something that is legal? I reserve the remainder of 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 6 minutes 32 
seconds. The Senator from Ohio has 10 minutes 23 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Minnesota. Before I 
do, I want to make a point. If you heard the Senator from Oklahoma, you 
heard it right. He says abortion is not a health fringe benefit. He 
says it is taking the life of an unborn child. In other words, in his 
opinion it is murder.
  Unfortunately for my friend----
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will yield on your time. I am happy to yield on your 
time. I will yield on your time.
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield the Senator 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Through the Chair, I want to caution my colleague. I 
have been close to making a rule XIX order. It is against the rules of 
the Senate to impugn the motives or the intentions of Senators, and the 
Senator from California has been very close to doing that, both to the 
Senator from Ohio and now to the Senator from Oklahoma. I wanted to 
make her aware of that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oklahoma has 
expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me strongly disagree with my friend from Oklahoma. I 
am merely quoting him. I would be happy to ask the Chair to have read 
back his exact quote. He said abortion is not a fringe benefit. It is 
taking the life of an unborn child. Therein lies this debate. That is 
what he believes. He has said it in his own words.
  I say to him that a woman's right to choose is legal. It is a legal 
health benefit for her to have that option. And to take it away from 
1.2 million women who happen to be Federal employees and then to stand 
up here and say no, you wouldn't take it away from women who work for 
corporations, even though they get billions of dollars in subsidies, is 
an inconsistent position, in my view.
  I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank my 
colleagues for speaking on this. I actually will be very brief. I just 
want to make one point.
  The Senator from Ohio is a good friend. We have worked together on 
many issues. I just see it a little differently.
  I really do believe we are talking about a health benefit that the 
Federal employees have negotiated. This is a part of their package. It 
is the same thing as the salary they make.
  What the Senate is trying to say to employees, or workers, is we are 
going to take away that benefit. We are going to take away your health 
benefit. From the point of view of a lot of working people and from the 
point of view of just thinking about it, from the point of view of 
employers and employees, I do not think that is what we should be 
doing. I do not think that is what we should be doing. I think it is a 
mistake in terms of what kind of respect we have for labor. I think it 
is a mistake in terms of the kind of respect we should have for 
employees. I do not think on the floor of the Senate we should try to 
take action to take away a benefit, a very important benefit--access to 
abortion services--from Federal employees. I think that is a profound 
mistake. I hope my colleagues will vote against this.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, not to take time, but I ask unanimous 
consent that Rachel Gragg and Ben

[[Page S8041]]

Highton, who are two fellows, be granted the privilege of the floor. I 
reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 3 minutes 46 
seconds. The Senator from Ohio has 9 minutes 58 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I ask if the Senator would like to use his time?
  Mr. DeWINE. I see no speakers on our side. I am not prepared to yield 
back, but we are getting down to the closing at this point.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield a minute and a half to Senator Robb.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I have not been present for all of the 
debate this time, but this issue has been before us many times in the 
past. I stand to oppose the amendment and to speak on behalf of the 1.2 
million Federal employees who would be directly affected by the 
amendment. If this amendment were to pass, it would take away their 
health benefit rights which have been negotiated. The bottom line is, 
and I say this as one who represents a disproportionate number of 
Federal employees, this would make Federal employees, women who are 
eligible for this health benefit, second-class citizens. It would deny 
to them a benefit that is available to every other woman under every 
other private health plan that chooses to offer such coverage. I think 
it would be wrong.
  I reserve the remainder of the time, and I thank the Senator from 
California and the Senator from Washington for their extraordinary 
leadership, again, on this very important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator from Ohio yield me 3 minutes?
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield the Senator from Utah 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I shall try to stay out of the more 
contentious part of this debate. But there is a point I think I have to 
make which has to do with the whole health care issue. That is, the 
health care system in this country is based on employer choice, not 
individual choice. I have spoken out against that. I did it during the 
debate on the Clintons' health care program. I have not made much 
headway, but this debate gives me the opportunity to point out, once 
again, that the benefits in a health care plan are always determined by 
the employer and not by the employee.
  During the debate over the Clinton health care plan, people would say 
we should give everybody the same plan that you Senators have. I 
responded by saying I wish I had the same plan I had before I came to 
the Senate because I worked for an employer who gave me a better deal 
than the health care plan adopted by the Federal Government. I happened 
to be the CEO of that company. I, therefore, had something to say about 
what that deal would be.
  I know of health care plans that deny pregnancy benefits. I would not 
want to work in such a place, having fathered six children. I took 
great advantage of the pregnancy benefits. But an employer could say 
and does often say: We can't afford pregnancy benefits. If you are 
going to have a baby, you are going to have to pay for it yourself.
  Fortunately, during the period of time when I had no health care 
coverage because my employer could not afford it, we did not have any 
children. We had our six children under plans that provided pregnancy 
benefits. But it is not unusual for benefits to vary from company to 
company, from employer to employer, and for the employer to make the 
decision.
  The decision will be made on the basis of the conscience of 
individual Senators. But let us understand that as the employers of 
Federal employees, we are not engaged in any unusual activity to make a 
decision as to which procedures will be covered and which will not, and 
there are a whole host of procedures in the Government health care plan 
that are not covered for which other plans pay.
  That is the way the system works. I would like to change the system 
and give the individual the right to control those dollars absolutely, 
but I know of no program under our current tax laws where that is done, 
except in the case of the self-employed. Unfortunately, within this 
Chamber, we have made the decision not to allow the self-employed to 
deduct the entire cost of that decision.
  I add those particular facts to this debate, trying to stay out of 
the more emotional side of it. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do we have left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 2 minutes 21 
seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. President, abortion is legal in this country, and I know there 
are many on the other side particularly who do not like that. But it is 
legal. It is a health procedure that impacts on the rights of women, 
and the Supreme Court has said over and over it is legal.
  This amendment by the Senator from Ohio, supported by the Senator 
from Pennsylvania and others, picks on women. It picks on a procedure 
only a woman would need. And it says to that woman: You cannot use your 
own health insurance to access the health care system for a procedure 
that you decide you want to have because it is legal in this country.
  This amendment does not say you cannot use your health care insurance 
for a vasectomy. It does not target men and say you cannot use your own 
health insurance for a vasectomy. Some may not like that procedure. It 
does not say you cannot use your health insurance for Viagra. No, it 
picks on women, 1.2 million women.
  My friend from Louisiana pointed out that corporations all over 
America offer their employees this benefit. We subsidize them every day 
with tax breaks and sometimes even direct payments, and yet we do not 
touch them. We are picking on 1.2 million women who work for the 
Federal Government. It is wrong. These are good women. These are hard-
working women. They deserve equal rights. They deserve dignity.
  I hope some are listening to this debate and will come over and vote 
no, or if I move to table, will vote aye to table this amendment.
  I reserve whatever few seconds I may have left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. How much time 
is available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 6 minutes 40 seconds 
and the Senator from California has 2 seconds.
  Mr. DeWINE. Two seconds?
  Mr. President, this matter has been debated out, and I believe 
everyone knows what the issue is. It is really not a question, though, 
of taking anything away from Federal employees. As I pointed out 
earlier, my amendment simply maintains the status quo. It keeps the 
current law. It keeps the law that has been in effect virtually for the 
last decade, with the exception of a 2-year period of time. It does not 
take anything away.
  It simply says taxpayers' dollars will not be used to subsidize the 
payment for abortions. The vast majority of the American people do not 
believe their tax dollars should be used to pay for someone else's 
abortion. Poll after poll has disclosed that. That is all this 
amendment does.
  My amendment would maintain the status quo that limits Federal 
employee health plans to cover abortions only in the case of rape, 
incest and threats to the life of a mother. That is what the amendment 
does. It is very simple. We have voted on it time and time again.
  I simply ask my colleagues to follow the will of the American people. 
The American people are the employer in this case. As my colleague from 
Utah pointed out so very eloquently a moment ago, that is the way every 
other health plan is determined. The taxpayers of this country have the 
right to determine this plan, and they have the right to say their tax 
dollars will not be used to fund abortions.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to table the DeWine amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is not in order while time 
remains.

[[Page S8042]]

  Mr. DeWINE. If the Senator wants to yield back her 2 seconds, I am 
willing to yield back the several minutes I have left.
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to table the DeWine amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1200. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCain
     Murkowski
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Ohio.
  The amendment (No. 1200) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.

                          ____________________