J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendments on this side, and we support all of them.

Mr. KERREY. We have not had a discussion with the leadership about this. We have lots of people who would like to bring amendments down.

Mr. KERREY. We will try to get in touch with the leadership and see if we can work that out.

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, both Senator Shelby and I have looked at this amendment. We agree it is a good amendment. We appreciate the Senator from Virginia bringing it to our attention, and we are willing to accept it.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside just for the consideration of an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner.

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first of all, all Members have made up their minds on this issue. So it is not a question of trying to persuade anybody one way or the other. It is trying to say to the American people, those of us who intend to vote for allowing Federal employee health programs--as in this bill, their insurance money--to be used to pay for reproductive services, including legal abortions. I have a great deal of respect for the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Indiana, the occupant of the chair, and others who hold a different view. But when they come and say this is about using taxpayer money to pay for abortions, really, the only way you can prevent taxpayer money from being used for abortions by Federal employees would be to actually come in and prohibit their salaries to be used in any way at all for abortion, because their salaries are paid for with taxpayer money. If my salary is paid for with taxpayer money, if I am already provided a subsidy in my salary, what good does it do to say that they can't have health insurance programs do it? We have two-thirds of the health insurance programs in the United States and 70 percent of the HMO's in the United States already providing reproductive services, as well as legal abortions. You are not really preventing taxpayer money from being used, not at all. If their salary is used to pay for abortion, that is taxpayer money. What you are doing is--you think that is what you are accomplishing, but you are not. What you are doing, in fact, is changing the rules and saying to women who are Federal employees that you are going to be treated differently than 70 percent of the other employees that are out in the work force. There are 9 million Federal employees, approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive age, who rely on the Federal Employee Health Benefits program for medical coverage. Until November 19, 1995, Federal employees--like workers in the private sector--were permitted to choose a health care plan that covered a full range of reproductive health benefit services. So I say to citizens out there, who say, ``gee, I think we ought to restrict use of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program for something that I don't want to pay for,'' that is not what you get done. All you are saying is they can't use health care benefits; you are not saying they can't use salary, which is taxpayer money as well. In 1993 and 1994, Congress voted to permit Federal employees to choose the health care plan that covered abortion. And from 1983 until that time, Congress prohibited the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program from covering abortion services, except in cases where the woman's life was in danger. Mr. President, one of the problems here--especially for lower income Federal employees, of whom we have a considerable number--is if you examine what the American Medical Association has said in this case. They have indicated, and they say it with evidence to back up the claim, that restrictions such as this--that deter and delay women from making a legal choice--make it more likely that women will continue a potential health-threatening pregnancy to term or undergo abortion procedures that would endanger their health. That is what the medical community has said that has examined this. So I hope the citizens that are listening to this argument will understand that this is really not about using taxpayer money. You would have to restrict the use of salaries in order to accomplish that objective.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Senator from Indiana asked me if he could speak. We are moving to a vote. He has a clarification question. I was seeking the floor to give him an opportunity to be recognized.

Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous concept to add Senators Snowe and Pressler as cosponsors to Amendment 5232 regarding IRS reorganization.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Arizona be permitted to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business, and the Senator from Nebraska for 5 minutes immediately thereafter.

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERREY. I wonder if the Senator will yield?

Mr. KERREY. The Senator and I, I guess a month ago, discussed a long article that was in the New York Times, in the business section of the New York Times, describing a U.S. corporation, actually a multinational corporation, described by the operator, with $9 billion for the revenue total as reported in the paper, and $2 billion for net income as reported by the paper. And the tax rate was down to 3 or 4 percent. One particular transaction that was under examination was shipping all the income to the Dutch Antilles so they would not have to pay any capital gains tax. When the CEO of the company, the owner of the company, was asked the question, ``Well, don't you feel bad about not paying any taxes in the United States of America?'' his answer was, ``That's what multinational corporations are for.'' Is that the sort of thing that the Senator believes that the U.S. taxpayers, basically the taxpayers of the United States are subsidizing, because they are paying the taxes? If somebody does not pay tax--if I forgive you all of your taxes and say, ``Senator Dorgan, you don't have to pay any taxes at all, somebody else is going to pick up the tax for it, somebody else is going to be subsidizing your reduction in tax''--in this case, what you are describing is a situation where not only am I subsidizing the fact that you are not paying any taxes, not only am I paying more and you are paying less, but I am paying more and you are paying less and you are moving operations abroad.

Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator from Oregon if he would be willing to allow the underlying amendment to be set aside so we can proceed to the next item of business under the unanimous consent agreement and come back to the amendment. We have an hour agreement for the next amendment, and we can come back to it.

Mr. KERREY. The opponents are not up here to engage in a discussion. One of the arguments I have heard against the Senator's amendment is that it is effectively a tariff. I wonder if the Senator could pretend I am an opponent of the amendment and talk to the American people a bit about this issue of whether or not the change in Tax Code that you are proposing would result in a tariff?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have cosponsored and voted for this amendment in the past, but the fact this is a tax issue put on an appropriation bill has caused me some concern. The Senator from Alabama, the chairman, is quite right. In this instance, as a consequence of the revenue issue, we risk having this whole thing sent back over to us. Otherwise, I would be supporting the Senator from North Dakota without any reservations. I urge colleagues to consider the procedural issue here and, when Senator Shelby of Alabama so moves, keep this concern in mind.

Mr. KERREY

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

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5220 (Purpose: Technical amendment to H.R. 3756)

Mr. KERREY. It has been cleared. We have no objection.

Mr. KERREY. It has been cleared. We have no objection.

Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am going to talk here for a bit until we can get a final group of amendments, which we would like to offer. Both the chairman and I have agreed to those. We should be able to get that list put together soon. One is an amendment that I and about 10 or 12 other Senators offered, having to do with reorganization of the IRS. The language of the amendment says: The Internal Revenue Service is prohibited from expending funds for field office reorganization until the National Commission of Restructuring the IRS has had an opportunity to issue the final report. The chairman has agreed to accept that language into this bill. Let me be clear that my intent is to change it when we get into conference. The idea is not to postpone this until after the final commission report. That, to me, would be an inappropriate thing for us to do. What is appropriate is to ask the Treasury Department to come up with a justification on customer service, a justification on cost- effectiveness, and a number of other areas, which they currently have not done. They are talking about actually doing a reduction of force of about 2,300 at a time. For example, they are also proposing to fire another 14 or 15 upper-echelon executives. Some other questions have been raised by a number of Members. That is what this amendment is attempting to do. It will be my intent to modify that language once we get to conference.