S6316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 9, 1995

In this regard, the President’s decision to visit Ukraine is crucially important. A Kyiv summit will be an important signal of America’s commitment to assist the consolidation of

Ukraine’s independence. In light of

Ukraine’s intertwined history with

Russia, the success of Ukrainian independence and integration into the

Western community of nations will be

a critical determinant of Russia’s evolution into a postimperial state.

An important underpinning of the

constructive role we desire RussianUkrainian relations to play in European security has been the Tripartite

Agreement between Russia, Ukraine,

and the United States. In addition to

facilitating the elimination of

Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal, the agreement committed Russia to respect

Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence. While in Moscow President Clinton must underscore America’s commitment to this agreement and our expectations that Russia do the same.

The President must also emphasize

that NATO enlargement will contribute to greater peace and stability in

post-cold war Europe. He must communicate that this is a normal process

that is driven not only by the need to

address the security of Central Europe

but also by the Central Europeans who

have clearly articulated their desire

for membership.

By further ensuring stability in

Central and Eastern Europe, NATO expansion will positively and significantly shape the futures of Russia and

Germany, two great powers now engaged in a delicate and complex process of national redefinition. It is a critical step toward providing the security

essential to enhance the prosperity and

stability now beginning to characterize

Central and Eastern Europe.

It is a requirement for preserving

Germany’s progressive role in European affairs and promoting Russia’s

postimperial evolution. By creating

greater stability along Russia’s frontiers, NATO enlargement would allow

Moscow to spend more of its energy on

the internal challenges of political and

economic reform.

I hope that, while he is in Moscow,

our President will underscore the fact

that Russia cannot and will not have

any veto over the future membership of

NATO.

We all must recognize that NATO enlargement is a process whose outcome

Russia will, nonetheless, inevitably influence. If Russia resists the process

through intimidation or aggression,

NATO enlargement will more likely be

directed against Russia. If Russia respects the rights of other nations to determine their own geopolitical orientation, if Russia recognizes the objective

benefits of NATO enlargement, and if

Russia ultimately works with the alliance, enlargement will contribute to a

broader engagement and integration

that will bring Europe and Russia closer together.

As it was well put in one of the recent hearings of the Foreign Relations’

Committee on this matter, it is not

NATO enlargement that will determine

the future of Russia’s relationship with

the alliance, but Moscow’s reaction to

NATO enlargement.

Finally, during his stay in Moscow

President Clinton must emphasize that

America is more interested in the future of Russian democracy than in the

fate of a single leader. I strongly encourage that the President meet with

members of Russia’s beleaguered press

and those democratically minded legislators—particularly Sergei Kovalyov,

the Duma’s former Human Rights Commissioner who was recently relieved of

his duties because of his courageous

criticism of the Russian Government’s

Chechyn policy. Perhaps, the President

should even meet with those Russian

generals who oppose this war, such as

former Deputy Minister of Defense

Boris Gromov who also lost his position for his criticism.

I say this because the future of our

relationship with Russia lies not with

those who fall back on the brutal

mechanisms of a bygone age, but with

those who envision Russia as a prospering democracy.

Mr. President, America’s role in Moscow’s V–E Day celebrations should be

to encourage Russian people and their

leaders to concentrate not on the

former Soviet Union, but on Russia’s

future. These themes—human rights,

democracy, and the rejection of empire—are the keys not only to

unlocking Russia’s potential but also

to a true strategic partnership between

Russia and the United States. Should

Moscow’s leaders respond positively to

these themes, it would be a strong

demonstration that Russia is shedding

the imperialist ambitions and totalitarian proclivities of the Soviet past.

Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

HEARINGS SCHEDULED BY THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM,

fTECHNOLOGY AND GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have

sought recognition to comment briefly

on a series of hearings scheduled by the

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information of

the Judiciary Committee in the wake

of Oklahoma City, although one had

actually been scheduled in advance.

We have so far had hearings on the

statutes proposed by the administration and others. We have had a hearing

in response to certain groups concerned

with the issue of constitutional rights.

A hearing is scheduled for this Thursday, May 11, on the so-called mayhem

manuals, where you can find out how

to make a bomb, and a hearing is

scheduled on May 18 on the incidents

involving Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge,

ID.

I have received correspondence from

the distinguished chairman of the full

committee, Senator HATCH, who raises

a question about the timeliness of the

hearings and about the jurisdiction of

my subcommittee. I have responded to

Senator HATCH, and intend to put the

correspondence in the RECORD so it

may be available for the public, by noting that the jurisdiction is clear-cut on

the subcommittee, both under the authority on terrorism and on governmental information.

It is my view, Mr. President, that it

is important and the hearings are long

past due on what happened at Waco,

TX and what happened at Ruby Ridge,

ID. There can be no misunderstanding

or no question that whatever happened

at Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge, ID, that

there is absolutely, positively no justification for the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, OK.

But there has been a great deal of

concern about whether there has been

a candid response by the Government

of the United States, and in the congressional oversight responsibility, we

should lay all the facts on the table in

the interest of full disclosure—let the

chips fall where they may. The virtue

of strength of a democracy is that we

do not cover our mistakes; that if there

are errors and if there are problems, we

identify them forthrightly.

There had been some concern that a

hearing on Ruby Ridge, ID might in

some way prejudice the investigation

by the prosecuting attorney who may

intend to bring some charges, perhaps

even against Federal officials. I have

had an extended discussion with Randolph Day, Esq., the county attorney

for Boundary County, who has advised

me that he sees no problem in our

going forward with hearings by the

subcommittee.

A number of Senators have made

public statements about the importance of having such hearings. Others

of my colleagues have discussed the

matters with me privately. I do think

it is important that hearings proceed

and that other Senators and the public

be aware of the status of this matter.

So I ask unanimous consent that the

text of the letter from Senator HATCH

to me dated May 8, with my reply to

him dated May 9, be printed in the

RECORD.

There being no objection, the letters

were ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.

Hon. ARLEN SPECTER,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

DEAR ARLEN: I am writing with regard to

your public statements concerning the convening of a hearing in the Terrorism, Technology and Government Information subcommittee to review the incidents at Waco,

Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho. This letter is

intended to settle any misunderstanding

that may exist as to what the Senate Judiciary Committee’s plans are surrounding a review of these matters.
May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6317

As you know, I share your deep concern

over these incidents and believe that a thorough Congressional review of these, and related federal law enforcement issues, is warranted. However, hearings on these matters

would not be properly within the jurisdiction

of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information. Indeed,

when your staff raised this issue with Committee staff more than one week ago, my position on this matter was promptly conveyed. Due to the important nature of these

issues and their ramifications for federal law

enforcement, hearings should be held at the

Full Committee. I intend that hearings will

be held in the near future following Senate

consideration of comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation. Indeed, I believe the House

Judiciary Committee has announced hearings as well. It might prove beneficial to

hold our hearings after the House completes

its hearing.

The hearing you propose is an important

one, but I believe that it is unrelated, in any

true sense, to the broader issue of the prevention of domestic terrorism. Accordingly,

to hold the hearing as you propose at this

time will serve only to confuse these important issues. Indeed, by linking the Waco incident to the terrorism issue through hearings

at this time, the Committee could inappropriately, albeit unintentionally, convey the

wrong message regarding the culpability of

those responsible for the atrocity in Oklahoma City. We must not do this.

I appreciate your concern over this matter.

I look forward to working with you on this

and all other matters before the Judiciary

Committee.

Sincerely,

ORRIN G. HATCH,

Chairman.

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC, May 9, 1995.

Hon. ORRIN G. HATCH,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC

DEAR ORRIN: I have your letter of May 8.

I disagree with you on three counts:

1. Hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge,

Idaho, should be held promptly (actually

they are long overdue) rather than waiting

to some unspecified time in the ‘‘near future’’ or ‘‘after the House completes its hearings.’’

2. My Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information has

clear cut jurisdiction both as our authority

relates to terrorism and government information.

3. I categorically reject your assertions

that the Subcommittee’s scheduled hearing

will ‘‘serve only to confuse these important

issues’’ and ‘‘convey the wrong message regarding the culpability of those responsible

for that atrocity in Oklahoma City.’’ There

can be no conceivable misunderstanding that

there is no possible justification for the

bombing in Oklahoma City regardless of

what happened in Waco or Idaho. The public

interest requires full disclosure of those incidents through hearings to promote public

confidence in government.

Since I have had and am continuing to

have media inquiries on these hearings, for

your information I am releasing this exchange of correspondence.

Sincerely,

ARLEN SPECTER.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and

yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

EXTENSION OF MORNING

BUSINESS

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that we extend the

recess period—my understanding is the

Senate was to stand in recess at 12:30—

I ask it be extended to allow me to

speak for 5 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the

MEDICARE AND THE BUDGET

fSenate Budget Committee is meeting

today, and they are involved in, I

think, a gripping, wrenching debate

about how they will try to find a route

toward a balanced budget. It is an effort that I think needs to involve all of

us because I do not know of anybody in

this Chamber who has stood on the

floor and said they do not agree that a

balanced budget is necessary and desirable for this country.

There were some presentations on

the floor of the Senate earlier this

morning talking about the issue of

Medicare, and I wanted to stand and respond to a couple of those comments,

because part of this issue of balancing

the Federal budget involves the question of Medicare.

We are in a circumstance described,

interestingly enough, by E.J. Dionne

today in the Washington Post. I would

like to read a paragraph or two from

his column:

When the House Republicans passed their

big tax cut earlier this year, they were not

at all interested in what President Clinton

or the Democrats had to say about it. They

wanted credit for doing what they said they

would do in the Contract With America. And

they got it.

But now the time has come to pay both for

the tax cut and for even a bigger promise, a

balanced budget by year 2002. Suddenly, the

Republicans are whining that the President

has refused to take the lead in cutting Medicare and Medicaid, which is what the GOP

needs to do to make any sense of its budget

promises.

Mr. Dionne says:

Let’s see: When it comes to passing around

the goodies, the House Republicans are prepared to take full responsibility. When it

comes to paying for the goodies, they want a

Democratic President to take full responsibility. And they act shocked, shocked when

he refuses to play along.

You can’t blame the Republicans for trying. It’s a clever, if transparent, strategy.

The point is, there has been a lot of

protest on the floor of the Senate and

the House in the last few days about

concerns many of us have about the

Medicare Program and the tax cut that

was passed recently by the House of

Representatives.

It seems to me that at least some in

Congress dived off the high board and

showed wonderful form as they did

their double twists and have now discovered there is no water in the pool.

A tax cut first, for the middle class

they said. Of course, the chart shows

something different. Who benefits from

the tax cut bill? If you earn over

$200,000 as a family, you get $11,200 a

year in tax cuts. If you are a family

earning less than $30,000 a year, you get

$120 a year in tax cuts. This is not a

middle class I have seen anywhere in

America. The fact is that it is a tax cut

for the wealthy. That was passed, and

now they say we should cut Medicare

to pay for it.

Well, we are going to have to reduce

the rate of growth in Medicare. No one

disputes that. But before we engage in

a discussion about what you do about

Medicare and Medicaid, many of us believe that the first thing you ought to

do is get rid of this tax cut for the rich.

It is time to deep-six this kind of a proposal, then let us talk about Medicare.

Otherwise, what you have is a direct

circumstance that cannot be avoided.

The comparison is obvious: $340 billion in tax cuts, for $300 to $400 billion

in Medicare and Medicaid health care

cuts. Let us back away from the tax

cut. As soon as the majority party does

that—and I hope they will—then I

think this Congress ought to begin, in

a joint effort on Medicare and Medicaid

and virtually every other area of the

Federal budget, to sift through these

things to find out where we achieve the

means by which we balance the Federal

budget.

But you know, some of us have been

through all of this before. Talk is

cheap. Talking about balancing the

budget is very, very easy. Everyone

talks about it.

Last week, I proposed a series of

budget cuts, real budget cuts in a

whole range of areas that totaled some

$800 billion, and I am going to propose

more. That package does not include

Medicare and Medicaid, and I know we

have to reduce the rate of growth on

both of those. But I also feel very

strongly that as we approach this problem, we should not allow the other

party to pass a very big tax cut first

and then say to others later, ‘‘Now help

us pay for that by taking it out of the

hide of your constituents.’’

Let us join together and work together, but let us do it in a way that

gets rid of the tax cut that was ill-advised, bad public policy, not middle

class, but essentially a tax cut that

benefits the wealthy. Get rid of it, disavow it and then move on together in

every single area of the Federal budget

and do what is right for the country.

That is what the American people expect and deserve, and I think that is

what will benefit this country’s future

in a real and meaningful way.

Let me thank the President for allowing me to extend the time. With

that, I yield the floor.

fRECESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, the hour of 12:30

p.m., plus the unanimous consent for

additional time, having arrived, the

Senate will stand in recess until the

hour of 2:15 p.m.