May 11, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6505 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. CHAFEE. I have some time remaining; is that correct? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 

correct, the Senator has 3 minutes 7 

seconds. 

Mr. CHAFEE. I will just use a couple 

minutes of that. 

Mr. President, there are a couple of 

points I briefly want to make. The 

present situation is that it is against 

the Constitution of the United States 

to do what Vermont is suggesting. So 

what we have done is we have crafted 

an amendment which will help 

Vermont and all the other States in 

the Nation that have made these financial commitments, but it still says 

when all is said and done, that they 

cannot go against the Constitution in 

these other areas. 

It is not correct to say that this is 

just a little something for Vermont. If 

this is adopted, there is no way in the 

world that we could keep flow control 

from being adopted universally across 

the Nation, because the Vermont case 

is what you might call a weak case. 

So, Mr. President, if this amendment 

is adopted, then, I suspect, the whole 

effort to deal with this goes down the 

tube and then there will be no exceptions to the Constitution as provided. 

So I am going to move to table the 

amendment, and I very much hope my 

colleagues will join with me. 

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and move to table 

the amendment and ask for the yeas 

and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to lay on the table amendment No. 867, 

as modified. The yeas and nays have 

been ordered. The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D’AMATO], 

the Senator from Kansas [Mr. DOLE], 

and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. 

WARNER] are necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 46, 

nays 51, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.] 

YEAS—46 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bond 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Burns 

Chafee 

Coats 

Coverdell 

Craig 

Dodd 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

McCain 

McConnell 

Moynihan 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Smith 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

NAYS—51 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Leahy 

Levin 

Mack 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Simpson 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—3 

D’Amato Dole Warner 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 867), as modified, was 

rejected. 

Mr. FORD. Regular order, Mr. President. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on the amendment. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent we vitiate the request for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

If there be no further debate, the 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

The amendment (No. 867), as modified, was agreed to. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I request now that we proceed to morning 

business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

RUSSIA SUMMIT 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, President 

Clinton is now in Ukraine. I support 

his decision to visit Kiev. Economic 

and political reform in Ukraine are 

proceeding very well. There is strong 

bipartisan support for United States 

assistance to Ukraine. It is in the 

American national interest to 

strengthen our relations with Ukraine. 

I hope the President has a successful 

and productive summit with President 

Kuchman. 

The report cards are now being filed 

on the Moscow Summit. As I said yesterday, I was disappointed at the lack 

of progress on the two key summit 

issues: Nuclear sales to Iran and the 

conflict in Chechnya. It seems pretty 

clear the American agenda at this summit did not fare well. My staff spoke to 

State Department and National Security Council officials yesterday afternoon. The White House provided my office with copies of all the joint statements from the Moscow Summit. To 

conclude that the summit made little 

progress in advancing American interests is not politics, and it is not partisan. It is simply a review of the facts. 

On Iran, Russia did not agree to cancel its sale of nuclear reactors to Iran. 

If President Yeltsin cannot make the 

decision to stop the sale, I do not have 

great confidence that it will be made 

later at a lower level. With respect to 

the much-publicized concession on not 

selling advanced gas centrifuge technology, it seems clear this was floated 

as a bargaining chip. As recently as 

last Friday, I note the Washington 

Post headline: ‘‘Russia denies plan to 

sell gas centrifuge to Iran.’’ It seems 

this was a plan designed to be a concession from the start. 

Just last week, when asked if a halt 

in the gas centrifuge sale would be 

enough, Secretary of State Christopher 

said, ‘‘not at all. We would not be satisfied with that’’. I agree with the Secretary’s assessment. We should not be 

satisfied. The bottom line is Russia 

still intends to proceed with a sale of 

nuclear technology to the outlaw regime in Tehran. This flies in the face of 

the summit’s joint statement on proliferation which pledges ‘‘To work together closely to promote broad nonproliferation goals.’’

On Chechnya, President Yeltsin rejected any effort to address the legitimate concerns of the international 

community over human rights violations. In President Yeltsin’s statement 

about Chechnya, there is an unfortunate ring of former soviet leaders rejecting western concerns over human 

rights as meddling. And whatever the 

political leaders were saying in Moscow, the Russian army kept attacking. 

Literally within minutes of yesterday’s 

press conference, Russian helicopters 

attacked Chechen civilian targets. 

The situation in Chechnya also raises 

the issue of the flank limits in the Conventional Forces in Europe [CFE] Treaty. In the fall, if Russian forces are 

still in Chechnya, the Russian Government will be in violation of these flank 

limits. The Moscow summit did not result in any assurances of Russian compliance with the CFE limits. 

On missile defenses, the administration continued down the same path of 

seeking Russian permission on the deployment of theater missile defenses—

despite the fact that Russian insistence 

on providing nuclear technology to 

Iran increases the proliferation threat. 

The fact is that theater missile defenses are not prohibited by the coldwar era ABM Treaty. Moreover, the 

United States must not allow Russia to 

have a veto over matters of national 

security. 

The summit also failed in what was 

not on the agenda—namely, Bosnia. As 

the two Presidents were meeting, Sarajevo was being heavily shelled. There 

was no U.N. response, no NATO response, and no summit response. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6506 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 11, 1995 

It is true that Russia agreed to join 

the partnership for peace at this summit—as they previously agreed to do 

last year, before abruptly changing 

their minds at the OSCE summit in Budapest. At this summit, Russia continued to express strong opposition to the 

expansion of NATO. 

Mr. President, summit diplomacy has 

a long and distinguished history. Historically, summits have succeeded 

when the parties had clear agendas, 

pursued their interests consistently, 

and were ready, willing, and able to 

meet each others’ concerns. And if 

agreement is not reached, history 

shows it is better to state the disagreements clearly rather than paper them 

over. In the case of the Moscow summit, it is clear that President Yeltsin 

was not in a position to address our 

concerns. We should admit that forthrightly and respond appropriately. Congress will respond by looking closely at 

all forms of aid to Russia—especially 

aid to the government. Certain types of 

aid such as democracy support, or 

Nunn-Lugar funding for nuclear clean 

up still promote important American 

interests. Other aid programs may not, 

and may be halted. 

The United States must remain engaged with Russia. It was and is our 

hope that democracy and free market 

reforms will prosper. We hope that the 

Russian elections planned for this year 

and next year proceed on time—and 

that they are free and fair. But Russia 

is not our only strategic relationship—

we have other interests in other areas. 

That is why I support the President’s 

decision to visit Ukraine. That is why 

NATO expansion should not be subject 

to a Russian veto. And that is why we 

cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear 

weapons state. 

f 

WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? 

THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, it does 

not require one to be a rocket scientist 

to realize that the U.S. Constitution 

forbids any President’s spending even a 

dime of Federal tax money that has 

not first been authorized and appropriated by Congress—both and House of 

Representatives and the U.S. Senate. 

So when you hear a politician or an 

editor or a commentator declare that 

‘‘Reagan ran up the Federal debt’’ or 

that ‘‘Bush ran it up,’’ bear in mind 

that the Founding Fathers, two centuries before the Reagan and Bush 

presidencies, made it very clear that it 

is the constitutional duty of Congress 

to control Federal spending. 

The fiscal irresponsibility of Congress has created a Federal debt which 

stood at $4,856,766,568,058.09 as of the 

close of business Wednesday, May 10. 

This outrageous debt (which will become the debt of our children and 

grandchildren) averages out to 

$18,436.37 on a per capita basis. 

PRESERVING MEDICARE FOR OUR 

SENIORS 

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise 

to speak about the Medicare Program 

and the need to protect it from drastic 

cuts. The Republicans have announced 

their plans to cut the Medicare budget 

by over $250 billion in order to fund tax 

cuts for the rich. 

Let me start by saying that I want to 

make sure that we keep the care in 

Medicare. I believe that the basic values of honoring your father and your 

mother should be the anchors of our 

public policy. 

I do not believe our seniors should 

have to pay almost $900 more in out of 

pocket health care costs each year. I do 

not believe that the typical Medicare 

beneficiary should have to see 40 to 50 

percent of his or her Social Security 

cost-of-living adjustment eaten up by 

increases in Medicare cost sharing and 

premiums. 

We cannot let this happen. We owe it 

to our mothers and fathers, and to our 

family members. 

Last week I spoke at the White 

House Conference on Aging. It was an 

impressive gathering of 2,500 seniors 

and senior advocates from all over this 

Nation. Many of the delegates were 

current or former doctors, lawyers, administrators, business owners, nurses, 

social workers, gerontologists, and senior service providers. 

The delegates were charged with 

coming up with a navigational chart to 

meet the needs of our seniors today 

and to take us into the 21st century. 

The White House Conference on 

Aging came at a very crucial time in 

our history. We all know that our senior population is growing and growing 

rapidly. Demography is destiny. We 

must anticipate the future and what 

their needs are and what they will be. 

At the end of the conference, the delegates voted on priorities. Ensuring 

the future of the Medicare Program 

was one of the top five priorities. More 

specifically, the conference stated that 

the United States should: 

. . . reaffirm the covenant that it established with the American people 30 years ago 

with the enactment of Medicare and act to 

maintain and strengthen the program’s 

structure and purpose, its fiscal solvency, 

and widespread public support. 

. . . continue to protect older Americans 

and disabled Americans, especially those on 

low and fixed incomes with respect to health 

care affordability and access, giving special 

consideration to the burdens imposed by copayments, deductibles, and premiums. 

. . . ensure that programmatic changes 

safeguard the viability of the Medicare trust 

funds. 

. . . ensure that any changes to Medicare 

provide access to a standard package of benefits which includes affordable long term 

care, strengthens the program’s financial 

well-being, preserves the social insurance nature of Medicare, enhances the quality of 

care and improves the program for beneficiaries within the broad context of health 

care reform 

There is much talk about another 

contract with America, but I believe 

the real contracts we must honor are 

Medicare and Social Security. We must 

preserve the covenant that we established with our seniors and their families to provide them with health insurance for their old age. Seniors have 

worked hard all their lives, paid their 

dues, paid into the system. 

We must remember who are seniors 

are. On May 8, we commemorated victory in Europe and the beginning of the 

end of World War II. Our seniors were 

part of the generation that saved Europe from tyranny and changed the 

course of history. We must never forget 

that. 

We cannot forget them and we cannot forget who will be the next generation of seniors. They will be many of 

us. And the next generation after that. 

They will be our children and grandchildren. We must continue to ensure 

that all seniors now and into the next 

century have the resources they need 

for their health care. Without such resources I fear they will become impoverished, their children may become impoverished, and we as a country will 

become impoverished. 

f 

THE 45TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 

LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON 

CIVIL RIGHTS 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, in recognition of the 45th anniversary of the 

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 

I believe it is appropriate to reflect 

upon this country’s history on the 

issue of civil rights and express some 

thoughts about the direction the country is heading today. 

In 1950, when the Leadership Conference was first formed, we essentially 

had a system of racial apartheid in 

many parts of the country. It was illegal for black and white children to attend school together, it was illegal for 

black and white adults to marry. Black 

Americans were shut out of the political system—they were not permitted 

to serve on juries, run for office, or, in 

many cases, cast a ballot. There was no 

meaningful equal protection of the 

laws, especially the criminal laws. 

Blacks who dared to assert their political rights or buck the mores of the racial caste system, were beaten or 

lynched. The police and formal legal 

system always looked the other way. 

Blacks could not receive a fair trial in 

a court of law as racial prejudice 

clouded the normal American presumption that justice is blind. 

Through Federal court litigation, 

and eventually legislative action by 

the U.S. Congress, many of these barriers were cast aside, the chains of Jim 

Crow were unlocked, and the Constitution’s promise of equal opportunity 

began to become a reality. As the decades passed and progress was made on 

many fronts, other groups of American 

citizens—women, racial minorities, religious groups, and the physically disabled, to name a few—rose to assert 

the rights that accrue with American 

citizenship. Their claims have been 

simple, clear, and powerful: treat us 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS