S6792 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 17, 1995

the health care they need. Millions

more will have to choose between food

on the table, adequate heat in the winter, paying the rent, or medical care.

This budget resolution is cruel. It is

unjust. Senior citizens have earned

their Medicare payments. They have

paid for them, and they deserve them.

Medicare cuts in this resolution

harm more than senior citizens. These

proposals will strike a body blow to the

quality of American medicine by damaging hospitals and other health care

institutions that depend upon Medicare. These institutions provide essential care for Americans of all ages, not

just senior citizens. And progress in

medical research and training of health

professionals depends upon their financial stability. The academic health

centers, the public hospitals, and the

rural hospitals will bear especially

heavy burdens. As representatives of

the academic health centers that are

the guarantors of excellence in health

care in America said of this budget,

‘‘Every American’s quality of life will

suffer as a result,’’ because there will

be less funding to support the best

health professional education and

training to the young people of this

country, and there will be a diminution

in support for the research that is associated with the great medical centers

in this country.

In addition, massive Medicare cuts

will inevitably impose a hidden tax on

workers and businesses, who will face

increased costs and higher insurance

premiums as physicians and hospitals

shift even more costs to the

nonelderly. According to the recent

statistics, Medicare now pays only 68

percent of what the private sector pays

for comparable physician services; for

hospital care, the figure is 69 percent.

The proposed Republican cuts will

widen this already ominous gap.

The impact of these cuts on local

communities will be astounding. In my

State of Massachusetts we have 123

hospitals. Historically, one of the best

and most efficient hospitals has in

Barnstable County, not far from my

home on Cape Cod. But it has had increasing difficulty serving its patients

in recent years. What changed? The

doctors have not changed. The nurses

have not changed. The ability to get

the good kind of equipment has not

changed. The training that they went

through has not changed. What has

changed? The percentage of Medicare

beneficiaries being attended to in that

hospital changed.

In my State of Massachusetts, any

hospital that gets close to 55 and 67

percent Medicare is headed for bankruptcy because of the reimbursement

rates. What are we doing? Do you know

what happens? Hospitals must cut back

on the nurses; they cut back on their

outreach programs in the community

to work with children; they cut back

on their training programs; they cut

back, as much as they regret it, on the

quality of care people get—not just for

the elderly people, but for all the people being served.

What happens locally? Communities

raise local taxes to try to assist hospitals, or they appeal to the State

house and try to get additional resources. They try to get the revenues

from someplace. Either localities accept a decline in health care quality or

they have to raise additional resources

locally or at the State level. Maybe

some other States are experiencing

generous surpluses, but you are not

going to find many that are in our region of the country.

Financial cutbacks that have occurred in the past have made it difficult for hospitals to provide the excellent services they are used to providing, and the kinds of cutbacks being

discussed by the Republicans now will

only exacerbate this problem.

The right way to slow Medicare cost

growth is in the context of a broad

health reform program that will slow

health inflation and in the economy as

a whole. That is the way to bring Federal health care costs under control

without cutting benefits or shifting

costs to the working families.

In the context of a broad reform, the

special needs of the academic health

centers, the rural hospitals, and innercity hospitals can also be addressed.

Unilateral Medicare cuts alone, by contrast, could destroy the availability

and the quality of care for the young

and old alike.

The President said that he is willing

to work for a bipartisan reform of the

health care system, but our friends on

the other side have said no. The only

bipartisan shift they seem to be interested in is the kind that says, ‘‘Join us

in slashing Medicare.’’ That is not the

kind of bipartisanship the American

people want.

The authors of the budget resolution

claim to protect Social Security while

making draconian cuts in Medicare.

But the distinction is a false one because Medicare is part of Social Security. Like Social Security, it is a compact between the Government and the

people that says, ‘‘Pay into the trust

fund during your working years and we

will guarantee decent health care in

your old age.’’ This Republican budget

breaks that compact.

As the ceremonies on V–E Day this

past week remind us, today’s senior

citizens have stood by America in war

and in peace, and America must stand

by them now. The senior citizens have

worked hard. They brought us out of

the Depression. They fought in the Second World War. Their sons fought in

the Korean war, and the Vietnam War.

They have sacrificed greatly to advance the interests of their children.

They played by the rules.

If this country is the great country

that all of us believe that it is, it is

really a tribute to the senior citizens.

They have contributed to Medicare.

They have earned their Medicare benefits. And they deserve to have them.

This Republican budget proposes to

take those benefits away, and it should

be rejected.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence

of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN

fISRAEL

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have

sought recognition this afternoon to

respond to those who have raised an

issue about the current efforts to have

the United States Embassy moved to

Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, instead of its current location in Tel

Aviv.

There have been some suggestions

that we are motivated for political purposes in 1995 to raise this issue. The

history of these efforts conclusively refutes that contention. A bill was introduced on October 1, 1983, S. 2031, cosponsored at that time by 50 United

States Senators, which sought to have

the United States Embassy and the residence of the American Ambassador to

Israel hereafter be located in the city

of Jerusalem.

That resolution was referred to committee and was not called for a vote,

but it was later noted that in addition

to the 50 U.S. Senators, there were 227

Members of the House of Representatives who joined in endorsing that

transfer of the U.S. Embassy from Tel

Aviv to Jerusalem.

Then on March 26, 1990, Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 was introduced,

which called for the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and

that resolution was passed in the Senate by a voice vote.

Then, following those actions, on

February 24, 1995, a letter was sent to

Secretary of State Warren Christopher

signed by 92 U.S. Senators evidencing

strong bipartisan support, again calling for the moving of the U.S. Embassy

from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Mr. President, I was an original cosponsor of S. 2031 which was introduced

back on October 31, 1983; supported

Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 back

in 1990; and joined in the letter of February 24, 1995, evidencing my consistent support for this program.

Recently, the Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, was in Washington, and the issue was raised as to

whether or not action by the Congress

of the United States in calling for the

removal of the Embassy from Tel Aviv

to Jerusalem would be an impediment

to the peace process which is ongoing

at the present time because obviously

we do not wish to interfere with the

peace process. At that time, Prime

Minister Rabin responded that it was a
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,