May 17, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6793

matter for U.S. Congressmen, Senators

and Representatives, to express themselves as they saw fit. He did not appear perturbed that action in this way

would be an impediment to the peace

process in the Mideast.

The negotiators of Israel and the

PLO are scheduled, as I understand it,

to take up the status of Jerusalem approximately a year from now. I think

there is no doubt about the Israeli position that Jerusalem is an undivided

city, and certainly I think there is no

doubt in the Congress of the United

States about Jerusalem being an undivided city and it being the judgment of

Israel as to where its capital should be.

The tradition is, the unbroken tradition is that the embassies are located

in the capital city, and it is a fundamental matter therefore that the

United States Embassy and the Ambassador’s residence ought to be located in

the capital of Israel just as the Embassy and Ambassador’s residence are

located in the capital city of every nation with the host nation determining

where its capital should be.

We have to make decisions on matters of this sort, Mr. President, as we

see it. There is no doubt about the

strong relationship between the United

States and Israel, but judgments need

to be made by Senators and Congressmen as to what we think is appropriate. Many of us have joined over the

years in urging that the Embassy be

moved to Jerusalem, and I think that

the record is consistent over such a

long period of time that there is no appropriate way someone could make a

claim that it is a matter for political

purposes.

The distinguished majority leader,

Senator DOLE, has been singled out in a

number of newspaper editorials, others

of us less prominent than the majority

leader have not been so identified, but

I am confident that all of us in exercising our judgment in calling for the location of the U.S. Embassy to be in Jerusalem instead of Tel Aviv are doing

it because we think it is the appropriate course of conduct, and no one,

no fairminded person, can say that

when the record goes back to 1983 in

the endorsement of this resolution,

there could be any political motivation. I think that ought to be considered and the record ought to be set

straight on this issue.

CONTRACT WITH THE AMERICAN

fFAMILY

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have

sought recognition to comment on the

proposed Contract With the American

Family which was the subject of an

early morning ‘‘Good Morning America’’ telecast where Ralph Reed, Jr.,

appeared as the spokesman in favor of

the Contract With the American Family, and I was invited to appear and did

appear in expressing my personal views

on that subject.

It is my view, Mr. President, that we

have the fundamental contract which

governs the relationship of Americans

with their Government, U.S. citizens

with their Government, and the relationships among U.S. citizens, and that

basic contract is called the Constitution of the United States. It is a document which has served this country

very, very well since 1787. And there is

appended to the U.S. Constitution a

Bill of Rights which has served this

country very well since 1791.

The first amendment of that Bill of

Rights provides for freedom of religion,

which is the very basis of our American

society—freedom of religion, freedom

of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition

our Government.

The United States was founded by

the Pilgrims who came to this country

in the early 1600’s, coming for religious

freedom. And if I may on a personal

note, Mr. President, say that my parents came to this country in the early

1900’s for the same reason.

When the so-called Contract With the

American Family calls for a constitutional amendment involving freedom of

religion and the first amendment, I believe it is not well placed. I believe

that the Jeffersonian wall of separation of church and state is firmly established for the benefit of America,

and I think it is most unwise to have

an amendment to the first amendment

freedom of religion, which is what is

called for by this newly drafted Contract With the American Family.

When Mr. Ralph Reed, Jr., speaks on

behalf of that contract, and when his

mentor, Rev. Pat Robertson, speaks on

the subject, Reverend Robertson makes

the statement that there is no constitutional doctrine of separation of

church and state, that it is a lie of the

left, I believe that is directly contrary

to the Constitution itself, to the intent

of the Founding Fathers. Certainly this

is not ARLEN SPECTER’s statement.

This is the statement of Thomas Jefferson, articulating the doctrine of separation of church and state.

When Mr. Ralph Reed, Jr., articulates a need to change the law of the

land as articulated by the Supreme

Court of the United States in Casey

versus Planned Parenthood and Roe

versus Wade, which held on a constitutional basis that a woman has a right

to choose, there again we are looking

for constitutional change, which I submit is unwise and is unwarranted.

There are some parts of the proposals

which I think are fine. When they call

for an attack on criminals and in support of benefits for victims, I heartily

endorse that and have done that for

many years since my days as an assistant district attorney, through the DA

of Philadelphia, through my service in

this body with special reference to the

Judiciary Committee.

When they call to crack down on pornography as it relates to children,

there is no doubt that the Supreme

Court of the United States has set a

very rigid standard and we should do

all we can to enforce that standard.

There, again, is something I have done

personally over the years in the district attorney’s office in Philadelphia

and here in the U.S. Senate.

And when there is a call to have

women who are homemakers have

available to them the same opportunities for individual retirement accounts,

I say that is just and right.

We have a contract with America in

the Constitution which has served this

country so well. And in the House of

Representatives there has been a Contract With America which has been

adopted in large measure in the House

and has been adopted to some extent in

the Senate and is under further consideration and I think will be adopted

with few significant changes.

But if every group comes forward to

insist, Mr. President, on their own view

of what there should be in the relationship between the Government and its

citizens, among its citizens, then I suggest to you that we are going to be a

very, very fragmented society, and

that it is not wise to have any one

group seek to determine the social

mores of this country.

This country is strong because it is a

melting pot. It is strong because we

recognize diversity. America is strong

because we do not break into individual groups and have one group seek to

impose its ideas on any other group.

So when an idea comes forward that

there ought to be an amendment to the

Constitution, I say no. When the idea

comes forward that there ought to be a

change in the first amendment’s freedom-of-religion provision, I say no.

When the idea comes forward that

there ought to be a change in the Constitution as it has been interpreted by

the Supreme Court of the United

States on a woman’s right to choose, I

say no.

It is time, Mr. President, in America

for unifying actions, not for divisive

actions. One Contract With America

from the Congress elected by the people of the United States is sufficient.

What we really need to do is rely on

the basic contract with America, and

that is the Constitution of the United

States.

Mr. President, in the absence of any

other Senator on the floor, I suggest

the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

ABRAHAM). The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the

quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

fSCHEDULE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleagues that there is

an effort underway to come to some

agreement on H.R. 483, the Medicare

Select bill. Hopefully, we can reach an

agreement and pass the bill, maybe

with one or two agreed upon amendments. If we can do it by voice vote,
S6794 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 17, 1995

there would not be any additional

votes today. We do not have that

agreement yet. As soon as we do, I will

notify my colleagues. Senator CHAFEE

has been working with Senator ROCKEFELLER and others. Hopefully, we will

be able to advise our colleagues in 10,

20 minutes.

I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. CHAFEE. The majority leader is

exactly right. We are working now

with staffs trying to see if we cannot

come to an agreement on the problems

raised by the Senator from West Virginia, Senator ROCKEFELLER. Everything seems to take longer than anybody thinks around here. So I would

say in the next half-hour, I hope, we

can have some information on whether

indeed there would be the necessity for

a vote.

Mr. DOLE. I think everything else

that we can take up has been taken up.

There is only one nomination on the

calendar. There is no other legislation

that we can take up at this time.

Tomorrow we will start on the budget. I understand the Democrats will

have a caucus at 10:30 in the morning

and, hopefully, they will allow us to

start on the budget at noon tomorrow.

Otherwise, we would have to wait until

tomorrow evening to start on the budget. There are 50 hours of debate. Of

course, it is more than just 50 hours.

We did indicate to and promise the

President that we would try to complete the antiterrorist legislation before Memorial Day. So we would have

to finish the budget by next Wednesday

night. I think we will need probably a

couple of days on the antiterrorism

legislation and then there would be the

Memorial Day recess, which could be

the last recess of the year, but I hope

not.

Unless we can work out some accommodation on some of these major bills,

the Senate will have no alternative but

to stay here for a considerable period

of time during what might have been

the August recess. If we can start on

the budget tomorrow—the House

should pass their budget tomorrow. We

will start on ours tomorrow and have

votes on tomorrow and on Friday and

on Monday. If I were Members, I would

be back on Monday; if there is ever a

Monday on which there will be votes, it

will be this Monday on the budget, and

on Tuesday and, hopefully, we can

complete action on Wednesday. The

final legislation would be the

antiterrorism legislation.

So I suggest that we complete action

on this bill, and if we can do it without

votes, we will do it. If not, Members

should not leave until they have some

final notice.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I

want the majority leader to know—and

I will share this amendment—I have

one amendment which I think may be

noncontroversial. I can limit it to 10

minutes. I would like to at least show

it to colleagues on the other side of the

aisle. It is on the Medicare Select.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the

quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

A VETO OF THE RESCISSION BILL

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I was just

freading a wire story here. I find it hard

to believe that the House and Senate

have just completed action on a rescission bill which would save about $16.4

billion—actually savings around $9 billion, because of the $16.4 billion there

is additional money for disaster assistance in Oklahoma City and other programs. I am a little bit bewildered because the President indicates if we

send this bill to him—it will be back

from the House this week and we will

take it up next week—that he will veto

it. I am puzzled because the President

has said we ought to reduce spending.

So we finally get a little reduction in

spending and at his first opportunity,

he says: No, no; I am not going to sign

it. I am going to veto it. And at the

very time he is suggesting that he is

not going to do anything on the budget, not going to offer any budget of his

own. We will have a vote on the President’s budget. He is just going to be a

spectator and not participate in trying

to reduce the deficit.

So it seems to me the President had

a golden opportunity here to exercise

some leadership and demonstrate to

the American people that he wants to

reduce Federal spending, but he struck

out. He does not want to reduce Federal spending.

So what does he do? He tries to

blame Republicans. We have cut too

many programs or we have done this or

done that. It seems to me the President

ought to carefully review what he said

today and indicate to the Congress

that he will sign this rescission package. It is not easy to save money

around here. The taxpayers wonder

why we do not do more and this is a

good example. We have been working

on this rescission bill for weeks and

weeks and months, in many cases in a

bipartisan way, and before it even goes

to the President he says he is going to

veto it.

So I think he has missed a golden opportunity and I know he will try to figure out some way to blame Republicans. But we cut programs that were

not high priority and in addition we

added spending for the disaster in

Oklahoma City and other programs the

President had requested.

So, Mr. President, if you have an opportunity to look at it one more time,

I suggest maybe you might want to reverse your position. Because if you are

not willing to even save $9 billion in

Federal spending, we are talking about

many, many, many, many times that

much in the budget resolution we are

going to start debating here tomorrow.

If this is any indication of the leadership in the White House, it is probably

a forgone conclusion that the President

will veto anything we send him on the

budget process.

So I would hope that this is not an

indication of the trend. I think they

have blown a very good opportunity

here to demonstrate to the American

people that if they are serious about

cutting spending, serious about reining

in the Government, serious about cutting back on some of the Federal Government which the American people

are tired of paying for, but unfortunately it appears the President of the

United States does not want to cut

anything—‘‘Don’t touch anything,

don’t do this, or don’t do that’’—he will

sit on the sidelines and he will watch

the Republicans as we try to bring the

budget into balance between now and

the year 2002.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JEFFORDS). Without objection, it is so ordered.

EXTENDED USE OF MEDICARE

SELECTED POLICIES

fMr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the Senate

now turn to the consideration of Calendar Order No. 92, H.R. 483, regarding

Medicare Select, and it be considered

under the following time agreement: 10

minutes on the bill, to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Finance

Committee; that one amendment be in

order to be offered by Senators PACKWOOD, CHAFEE, ROCKEFELLER, and KENNEDY, on which there will be 10 minutes

for debate equally divided in the usual

form; and that following the conclusion

of time, that the amendment—namely,

the Packwood-Chafee-Rockefeller-Kennedy amendment—be agreed to; and

that the bill be read a third time and

passed and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table all without

any intervening action or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection? Without objection, it is so

ordered.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, since

this has been agreed to, I am authorized to say there will be no further rollcall votes today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will report the bill.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 483) to amend title XVIII of the

Social Security Act to permit Medicare Select policies to be offered in all States, and

for other purposes.