May 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6229

where it clearly should be—on eliminating the deficit rather than on cutting taxes. I have long admired and respected the intelligence and wisdom of

Senator DOMENICI. He is a Senator who

takes his responsibilities very seriously and who works tirelessly to carry

out these responsibilities.

In addition to containing no tax cut,

Mr. President, it is also important that

cuts in spending in this year’s budget

resolution be administered fairly and

equitably to both entitlement and discretionary spending. As all Senators

are aware, the discretionary portion of

the budget is under the control of the

Appropriations Committees and

amounts to just over one-third, or $549

billion, of the President’s 1996 budget.

Of the remainder, net interest on the

debt will be $257 billion, or 15.9 percent

of the 1996 budget. The other one-half

of the budget consists of Social Security—which will equal $351.4 billion, or

21.8 percent of the 1996 budget—Medicare, Medicaid, and other mandatory

and entitlement programs.

If Social Security is taken off the

table, and if we pay the interest on the

debt, which we must, then we have removed almost 38 percent of the budget

from budget cuts. We are told that the

budget resolution will also not cut

military spending, and, in fact, will

propose an increase in military spending over the next 7 years. If this is

done, then we will have shielded 54 percent of the budget from cuts, leaving

only 46 percent, including other entitlements, to undergo budget-cutting

surgery over the next 7 years.

I ask the American people: Is that a

fair way to proceed? Is it fair to cut

$500 billion over the next 7 years from

domestic discretionary programs,

while increasing military spending?

The military consumes $262.2 billion

in outlays in the President’s 1996 budget. That amount is almost equal to the

$265.8 billion that is in the budget for

all domestic discretionary programs.

This includes law enforcement, education, infrastructure spending on

highways and transit, environmental

cleanup, clean air and water, research

and development, medical research,

NASA, national parks, the Justice Department, the judiciary, the FBI, and

the operations of virtually all agencies

and departments in the Federal Government.

If we follow the Republican plan, we

will cut all of these domestic discretionary programs by approximately 35

percent by the year 2002, at the same

time we increase military spending. Is

that fair? It is not only unfair, it is

pure folly.

Furthermore, under the Republican

budget plan, the elderly will be asked

to pay dearly. Medicare will be cut

anywhere from $259-$333 billion over

the next 7 years. We hear that these

cuts are not being proposed for deficit

reduction but only because Medicare

will be broke if we do not fix it soon.

Well, Mr. President, I see no proposal

from the Republicans on how they intend to fix the Medicare program. All I

see is a cut in Medicare spending totaling $259 to $333 billion over the next 7

years. Is it fair to ask for this level of

sacrifice from Medicare beneficiaries

at the same time military spending

will be rising from a starting point of

$262.2 billion over the same 7-year period?

Or, is it fair to cut $500 billion from

domestic spending on education, law

enforcement, highways, research, job

training, and from student loans, and

veteran’s medical care while, at the

same time, ignoring the subsidies in

the Tax Code that total $453 billion in

1995 and which, as I say, will grow by a

total of $283.9 billion over the next 5

years, 1995 to 1999. In 1999 alone, these

tax breaks will total $568.5 billion, an

increase of $115.5 billion over their 1995

cost.

It is incredible—even beyond belief—

that Congress would enact a 7-year,

deficit-elimination package that cuts

$500 billion from domestic investments

and cuts between $259 and $333 billion

from Medicare, while it cuts nothing

from military spending and while we

allow permanent tax breaks to grow by

$283.9 billion! How can we expect the

American people to accept this approach to budget balancing? It is not

only unfair, it is irrational.

What this amounts to is protecting

the special interest groups and the

wealthy. They will get to keep their

existing tax breaks, and, to make matters worse, they will also get the overwhelming share of the tax cuts already

passed by the House, which amount to

a $630 billion drain from the Treasury

over the next 10 years.

On a related matter, there has been

speculation that the Republican welfare reform package will be included as

part of this year’s reconciliation measure. If these reports are accurate, this

should be a cause of great concern to

all Senators and to the American people. I say this not from any partisan

perspective. As I stated to the distinguished majority leader in a letter

dated March 31, 1995, I agree that welfare reform is certainly necessary. But

I have strong reservations about taking up such far-reaching and important

legislation as part of a reconciliation

measure, upon which very limited debate is allowed.

In my view, the reconciliation process was not intended to allow the adoption of major legislative proposals,

such as welfare reform, under conditions where debate is limited. This is

not a new position for me. I opposed

such a tactic on health care reform last

year, when both the then-majority

leader and President Clinton urged my

support for including health care in

last year’s reconciliation measure.

Major proposals of this kind should be

thoroughly and thoughtfully examined

by the Members of both parties on this

Senate floor in a free and full debate,

not under the extremely limited debate

that is allowed for reconciliation measures.

I implore the Senate Budget Committee, under the able leadership of its

chairman, Senator DOMENICI, and its

equally able ranking member, Senator

EXON, to carefully consider these very

important matters as the committee

marks up the 1996 budget resolution.

As I have already stated, I do not believe that the American people deserve,

nor will they support, a deficit-elimination package unless its effects are

distributed fairly across all segments

of the population. I do not believe they

will support a continuation of existing

tax breaks along with new massive tax

cuts for the wealthy, while Medicare

beneficiaries are being asked to pony

up hundreds of billions of dollars over

the next 7 years.

I urge Senators not to attempt to

balance the budget on the backs of millions of Americans by savaging their

health care benefits, while at the same

time enacting hundreds of billions of

dollars in new tax breaks which primarily benefit the wealthiest in our society. No amount of hollow rhetoric in

a so-called Contract With America can

hide the perverted policies being proposed by those who signed this socalled contract which was, after all,

fashioned by pollsters for the purpose

of gaining political advantage.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I

suggest the absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

NOMINATION OF DR. HENRY

fFOSTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have

sought recognition to announce my intention to vote to confirm Dr. Henry

Foster to be Surgeon General of the

United States. I hope that I will have

the opportunity to cast that vote, that

the nomination will come to the floor

of the U.S. Senate, and that preliminary proceedings will be cleared so

that there will a vote up or down on

whether Dr. Henry Foster should become the next Surgeon General of the

United States.

When Dr. Foster’s name was forwarded to the Senate by the President

in early February, I was a little dismayed to hear the cry arise that he

should be disqualified because he had

performed abortions. I was surprised to

hear that cry arise because abortions

are a legal medical procedure under the

Constitution of the United States. This

is not a matter of Roe v. Wade, the decision handed down in 1973. This is

reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the

United States in Casey v. Planned Parenthood in 1992, an opinion written by
S6230 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 8, 1995

three Justices—Justice Souter, Justice

O’Connor, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, all nominated by Republican

Presidents.

So it seemed to me curious, to say

the least, that there should be a call

for his defeat because he had performed

abortions, a medical procedure authorized by the Constitution of the United

States.

Then issues were cited about character, about what representations Dr.

Foster had made as to how many abortions he had performed. It then came

to light that there had been an indication from the White House about some

misinformation. Then other issues

arose in a variety of contexts.

I believe that the hearings last week

have laid all of those issues to rest. Dr.

Foster was a compelling witness, a

forceful witness on his own behalf and

he answered all of the outstanding

questions, so that there is no doubt

about his good character or about his

excellent service as a physician, or

about his care for the poor and downtrodden, and about his excellent work

as a doctor over many years.

I had occasion to meet personally

with Dr. Foster and discuss at some

length his own background and the issues which had been raised about him.

It seemed to me at that time at that

meeting, which was in early February,

that his nomination certainly ought to

go forward. I did not state at that time

support for his nomination because it

seemed appropriate to me that we

await the hearings by the committee

to see what would occur at that time.

After reviewing the hearings and what

occurred at the hearings, today I am

confident that Dr. Foster ought to be

confirmed as Surgeon General of the

United States and, therefore, announce

my intention to vote for him.

I was encouraged to see the media reports that our distinguished majority

leader will meet with Dr. Foster, and I

am hopeful that that meeting will

produce a result that Dr. Foster’s nomination will come to the floor.

I note the comments of the distinguished chairman of the committee,

Senator KASSEBAUM, that Dr. Foster’s

nomination ought to come to the floor

and ought to be voted upon, although I

do not believe at this stage that Senator KASSEBAUM has stated whether

her intention is to vote ‘‘aye’’ or ‘‘nay’’

on the nomination itself.

I am hopeful that there will not be a

filibuster, as has been mentioned, on

Dr. Foster. Any Senator has the right

to handle that in any way that any

Senator pleases, and any Senator has a

right, as I now express my right to say

that I hope that we will not be confronted by a filibuster.

But if we are, Mr. President, it is my

sense of the Senate—and this is only

one Senator speaking—that a filibuster

will be defeated and that even Senators

who think that Dr. Foster ought not to

be confirmed as Surgeon General of the

United States will not support a filibuster; that as a matter of fairness to

Dr. Foster, he ought to get his day in

court, his day in the Senate for a ‘‘yes’’

or ‘‘no’’ vote; and that he ought not to

have been railroaded out of town, as

some have suggested, even without a

hearing before the committee; and that

he ought not to be railroaded out of

town without the matter coming to the

floor of the U.S. Senate; and that he

ought not to be railroaded, or have his

fate decided, without having the Senators vote ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ on his confirmation.

So I am pleased to be in a position

today, Mr. President, to say what I

sensed when I met with Dr. Foster in

early February, that he is truly a man

who merits being confirmed as Surgeon

General of the United States.

I think that it is time that we put to

rest the issue of what is the law of the

land of the United States of America

with respect to a woman’s right to

choose. I personally am very much opposed to abortion, but I do not believe

that it is a matter that can be controlled by the Government. I believe it

is a matter for the woman’s choice, it

is a matter for the family, it is a matter for priests, rabbis, and ministers,

and it is not to be determined by the

Government of the United States.

When we have decisions of the Supreme

Court separated from 1992 back to 1973

and the law of the land stated in Casey

v. Planned Parenthood, a decision written by three Justices for a majority of

the Court, Justices appointed by Presidents Reagan and Bush, that that is

the law of the land, we ought not to reject a nominee because he is performing medical procedures which are authorized by the Constitution.

I think it is time that the Senate of

the United States faced up to that

proposition squarely. I hope it will be

done by having the nomination reported to the Senate floor and by having an up-or-down vote. I intend to

vote ‘‘aye,’’ and it is my prediction

that Dr. Foster will be confirmed.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the

Chair.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the

Senator from California is recognized

to speak up to 15 minutes.

A LOOK BACK AND A LOOK

fFORWARD

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very

much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, today, May 8, is V–E

Day, which stands for Victory in Europe, and it marks the end of one front

of the most disastrous event in modern

human history.

The war in Europe was one in which

50 million civilians and military personnel alike died. It was not only a

war, but a major crime against humanity.

Two out of three Jews in Europe were

scientifically exterminated—a total of

6 million—along with 5 million other

victims. In the Soviet Union, 27 million

people lost their lives. I visited Leningrad where you see 25,000 people in one

mass grave, and these are plot after

plot after plot. No country lost as

much as did the people of the former

Soviet Union.

The war spread death across six of

the seven continents and all over the

world’s oceans. In the end, much of the

heart of Western civilization lay in

ruins.

Sixteen million one hundred twelve

thousand Americans served in the U.S.

Armed Forces during World War II, and

they knew the ravages of war. Of these,

more than 1 million were Californians;

408,000 Americans never came home. To

these Californians and these Americans, I want to say you have my deepest respect, and I know I join with all

of my Senate colleagues in saying

thank you.

For me, I was one of the lucky ones:

I was 11 years old, a girl, living in a

flat in the Marina District of San Francisco. I remember the blackout shades,

the submarine nets under the Golden

Gate Bridge, troops shipping out from

Fort Mason 6 blocks from my home and

the Nike gun emplacements on the marina headlands and in the Presidio. As

a lucky one in the land of the free and

the home of the brave, for me there

was no Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen.

V–E Day represents a victory over

fascism, paranoia and the most devastating war in history, all sparked

and guided by one man. Probably the

most infamous demagog the world has

ever seen, Hitler was described by one

of his early associates, Otto Stresser,

as a speaker ‘‘who touches each private

wound on the raw, liberating the unconscious, exposing its innermost aspirations, telling it most what it wants

to hear.’’

Jews and Slavs were referred to as

‘‘untermenschen,’’ subhumans. Moscow, Leningrad, and Warsaw were hard

hit, their industries left in ruins.

In ‘‘Mein Kampf,’’ Hitler described

what history has shown to be correct.

He said:

The masses more readily fall victim to the

big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies * * * it would

never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe

that others have the impudence to distort

the truth so infamously.

Millions, indeed, did fall victim to

the big lie. Fanatical in his quest for

personal power, Hitler withdrew Germany from the League of Nations,

aproclaiming that the European powers

will ‘‘never act * * * they’ll just protest * * * and they will always be too

late.’’

In fact, the West’s hesitance in the

face of this evil has sullied the word

‘‘appeasement’’ for all time.

By 1943, Hitler held the power of life

and death over 80 million Germans and

more than twice that number of vanquished people.

After Hitler took his own life on

April 30, 1945, and the end of the war