Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today in support of full funding for the United States Holocaust Memorial Council which funds among other things, the staffing of the Holocaust Museum. The funding request for fiscal year 1996 by the administration was $28.9 million. This request was approved by the House of Representatives. The request is being made after a momentous year during which attendance at the Holocaust Museum reached a cumulative total of 3,880,517. The attendance totals have been an overwhelming surprise to all those planning for the reception of the public. In fact, Mr. President, it exceeds by a factor of four the anticipated attendance at the museum. This circumstance has stretched the capacity of the museum and its professional and volunteer staff to welcome the American public. This response to the program of the museum came with another unanticipated burden, that of providing a higher level of security for the public seeking to learn the lessons of the Holocaust. Mr. President, the appropriations request for fiscal year 1996 is an increase of $2.1 million from 1995 funding. I recognize the difficult choices my fellow Members are making during this process and join with them in making the hard choices. In this case, they have chosen to recommend an appropriation of $26.6 million. I urge, however, a higher level of funding. In light of the hatred and ethnic cleansing now underway in Bosnia and Croatia, I would anticipate an even more exponential growth of interest by Americans. In the overwhelming demand and proven need to educate our youth of the folly of mindless hatred, I see the intense need to reflect a higher sense of urgency by accommodating the request for the full funding of the council, the museum, and their activities. I would like to inform my fellow Senators of my intention to ask my colleagues to give every consideration to accepting the House mark when they go to conference. I yield the floor. nrsa

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I choose to use 3 minutes of the leader time which Senator Dole yielded to me. I have sought recognition again, after having spoken at some length earlier this morning, to respond to the very eloquent comments of the distinguished Senator from Indiana when he speaks about the moral concerns which he has about abortion. I can well understand that, and I have great respect for it. As I had said earlier today, I am personally opposed to abortion but do not think that it is a matter for the Government. Most of this debate today has really centered--as Senator Coats has emphasized so eloquently--on the moral considerations which many hold very, very deeply, contrasted with what I think is the constitutional doctrine which has been established for the United States. That is not only Roe versus Wade in 1973; it is the more recent 1992 opinion in Casey versus Planned Parenthood, written by three Supreme Court Justices appointed by conservative Republican Presidents. That is the law of the land. This is a constitutional right for a woman to choose. I submit, Mr. President, that this amendment today, this issue today, is really a part of the systematic effort to dismantle the woman's constitutional right to choose. I shall not take time again to display the chart on the A to Z considerations. The point is made that what we have here is a taxpayers' issue and the focus is on what the subsidy is. There is Federal employment here, Mr. President, where the employees are giving valuable consideration, and part of what they are receiving is this health care plan. Part of the plan is being paid for by the employee themselves. The part which is being paid for by the Federal Government is really part of their consideration. So we should put aside the business about taxpayers' dollars. It is really the consideration of the earning of the employees who ought to have the right to access abortion while that is the law of the land. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague. She accurately states I have 10 minutes under her control, and the distinguished majority leader has allocated his leadership time of 10 minutes today. I will utilize the time offered by the distinguished Senator from Maryland at the moment. Mr. President, today's debate is about abortion. It is one aspect of what I would characterize as a systematic effort to eliminate the constitutional right of a woman to choose. The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and I came to this body after the 1980 elections, and our relationship has been an extraordinarily good one. I have great respect for the sincerity of his beliefs on this subject. My own views are that, as far as governmental action is concerned, it is the decision on a broad picture which has been made by the Supreme Court of the United States. My own personal views are that I am very much opposed to abortion, and I have evidenced that with my support for funding for programs for abstinence, to try to perhaps eliminate or reduce, as much as possible, premarital sex, especially among young people, leading to so many teenage pregnancies, and my support for tax benefits for adoption carrying to term. When it comes to the role of the Federal Government, it is my view that it is not a matter of the Federal Government to control abortions. Since it is a constitutional issue, I think the father of modern conservatives, Barry Goldwater, a former colleague in this body, articulated it best when he said, ``We ought to keep the Government off our backs, out of our pocketbooks, and out of our bedrooms.'' If the real conservative view is that less government is the best government, then where is government more intrusive than in the bedroom? The Supreme Court of the United States has made fundamental constitutional doctrine which governs the law of the land, and that is that a woman has the constitutional right to choose an abortion. And it is not Roe versus Wade which was decided in 1973, but the more recent decision of Casey versus Planned Parenthood, decided in 1992, an opinion written by three Justices appointed by conservative Republican Presidents, three Justices who were Republicans--Justice David Souter, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and Justice Anthony Kennedy. I say they were Republicans. Perhaps they still are Republicans, but in the judicial robes it is a nonpolitical function. But I think it is important to articulate that proposition that what we have here is a 1992 decision, with Justices appointed by conservative Republicans. Mr. President, there is more involved in the pending issue than to eliminate health care plans sponsored by the Federal Government from having abortion rights. This is a systematic effort to have a meltdown on women's rights, and it is a meltdown from A to Z, characterized by the chart which I have had prepared. This chart is captioned ``Dismantling a Woman's Right to Choice, from A to Z.'' It demonstrates a national campaign to dismantle a woman's right to choose when there has not been success in a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. There are these systematic efforts, A to Z. The one we are debating today comes under ``M.'' It is a mandate that Federal employee's insurance exclude abortion coverage. Bear in mind, Mr. President, that a substantial part of the premium payments are paid by the individuals involved. Why not allocate that to the abortion clinic? We have here starting with A, to amend the Constitution to abolish a woman's right to choose; B, ban Federal funding for abortions for women in Federal prisons; C, to cut off funding for family planning. And so it goes, all the way down to Z, which is to zero out the tax deduction for expenses incurred for pregnancy termination. When you take up ``B,'' Mr. President, it is banning the Federal funding for abortions in women's Federal prisons. What is a woman to do in a Federal prison when she is raped and wants an abortion? Under the provisions of the ban, there would be no abortion. We debated very extensively on the floor of the U.S. Senate the confirmation of Dr. Henry Foster. I say to you, Mr. President, that was not one of the better days in the U.S. Senate. Here we had a man who was practically run out of town on a rail, denied confirmation because he had done one thing--performed medical procedures, abortions, which were authorized under the U.S. Constitution. It is very difficult to get good people to come to Washington to serve. And it is understandable that people do not want to come to this city when they are not given their day in court or on the floor of the U.S, Senate, because, simply stated, they perform medical procedures, abortions, permitted under the U.S. Constitution. There are many matters which are now pending and which will be coming to the floor of this body when other bills are taken up. The issue on banning funding for women in prison will come up on one appropriations bill--on judiciary. I serve as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Service, and education, and there are a number of issues which will come to the floor when that matter comes here. I suggest to you, Mr. President, that when we take up these issues and have such extended debate on them, as we did on Foster before, as we are doing today on Federal health care programs, as we will be doing on many, many issues, that we could better be spending our time on wrestling with the very difficult issues which are in line with the mandate of the 1994 election. We were sent here--the 104th Congress was elected, Mr. President, to deal with fundamental issues. There was a revolution in November 1994, and the mandate at that time, as characterized by the Contract With America, was to return to core values--that is, to cut the Federal Government, to reduce spending, to reduce taxes, to have a strong national defense, and to have effective crime control. There is not a word in the Contract With America about abortion. There is not a word in the Contract With America about any divisive social issue. We were in the process last night until midnight debating the defense authorization bill, which I suggest is a matter of overwhelming importance where we decide what our priorities should be on national defense. And that bill has been removed from consideration by the Senate, so that we can take up this issue today. I suggest, Mr. President, that our time would be better spent if we had continued the debate on national defense. We have very vital issues as to how we are going to be allocating the Federal dollars. I am very much concerned, Mr. President, that we move on the glidepath to have a balanced budget by the year 2002. That is going to be a very difficult matter to decide and debate and to make the tough decisions on. There is grave concern about Medicare. I think it is very important that we preserve the benefits for the senior citizens in the United States under Medicare. There are major considerations with what the House has done on limiting funding for education, for Head Start, for scholarship programs. I suggest that that is a major issue we ought to be taking up. We have important considerations on the National Institutes of Health as to what we are going to do on health issues, matters which I submit are really the core issues on the mandate for this Republican Congress from the voters in 1994. What we are saying here is a basic constitutional issue which has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, and however you may slice it, however you may refine it, it is still a frontal attack, a virtual meltdown, on women's rights, from A to Z. This particular one comes in at ``M,'' the mandate that the Federal employees insurance should exclude abortion coverage. It would be my hope, Mr. President, that we would reject the amendment which is offered by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, recognizing the sincerity of his views, but recognizing the law of the land in the United States is established by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the constitutional right of a woman to choose. If that is to be overturned, under the provisions of our Constitution, we know how to do it with a two-thirds vote here and in the House and ratification by three-fourths of the States. What we are seeing is a systematic meltdown, a systematic dismantling of a woman's right to choose. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland for yielding me the time. Mr. President, the major considerations on the pending amendment involve the underlying question of abortion and whether the U.S. Senate is going to continue at great length to debate this issue while relegating other very important subjects to lesser status. I agree with my colleagues who have emphasized the point that it is a very important matter. And while I am personally opposed to abortion, I do not think it is a matter for the Federal Government to regulate them. I think in the broadest context, the issue has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States not just in Roe versus Wade in 1973 but in the 1992 decision of Casey versus Planned Parenthood in a decision written by three Justices who had been Republicans, all of whom were appointed by conservative Republican Presidents. So that is the law of the land, and that is the dominant question. When you take a look at what has occurred in the course of the recent days and recent weeks you see a really concerted effort to dismantle the constitutional right of a woman to choose. On July 21, within the past 2 weeks, there was an amendment passed in the House of Representatives overturning the option of the States, the requirements of the States really, to provide abortion in the cases of rape or incest for poor women. On July 20, there was an amendment adopted in the House of Representatives which prohibited human embryo research. On August 3, there was an amendment adopted eliminating the funding for the Office of Surgeon General which was a reaction of the debate on Dr. Henry Foster whose only wrongdoing, only alleged wrongdoing, was that he performed medical procedures permitted under the U.S. Constitution. This is a man who was practically ridden out of town on a railroad without being allowed a vote in the U.S. Senate on the confirmation process. On July 21 of this year, the House adopted a provision which intruded upon the ability of medical schools to accredit hospitals and training institutions on the basis of requiring works in obstetrics and gynecology related to abortions. The House of Representatives, after very extensive debate, very narrowly defeated a provision to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. We have seen legislation passed by the House of Representatives which would prohibit Federal funding for a woman in a prison. If a woman is in a prison and she is raped, she has no access to funds of her own, and according to the standard of the House of Representatives, the Federal Government may not pay for her abortion. The House has also passed legislation which would prohibit the abortion on military installations around the world when there are servicewomen and dependents of servicemen who would be denied the opportunity to have an abortion performed on U.S. military installations. So what has in effect happened is that there has been a concerted attack to dismantle the woman's constitutional right to choose because those who have favored a constitutional amendment to ban abortions, to criminalize abortions, have been unsuccessful in doing so. That led one of my ingenious staff members to prepare this chart which I displayed briefly this morning, and on a separate amendment it is worth just another look. It is a chart entitled ``Dismantling a Woman's Right to Choose'' from A to Z. And the A is, Amend the Constitution to abolish a woman's right to choose; B, Ban Federal funding for abortions of women in Federal prisons; C, Cut off family planning funds. And when you come down to M--I am not going to read them all--you have M, Mandate that Federal employees' insurance exclude abortion coverage. That is a matter on the floor today. Mr. President, when the arguments have been made that there is a Federal subsidy, I submit, realistically viewed, it is not a Federal subsidy, for two reasons. One is that the employees pay a substantial part of the funding--about 28 percent. So it would be fair and reasonable to allocate that 28 percent to this particular kind of health coverage. Second, the Federal employees give services for their compensation, and part of their compensation is this health care plan, which does have some Federal employer support as well as their own personal contribution. So what we really have here is marking for consideration the doctrine of the law which says the employee is bargaining for his salary, and part of the consideration is his health coverage, part of which the employee pays for and part of which the employer pays for. An argument was made earlier today that you have the deductibility for the private health care plans where the employer can deduct it and the employee does not count it as income, which is a procedure under the Internal Revenue Code to encourage employers to have allocations for health care. So when you take a really close analytical look, there really is not a Federal subsidy involved here, but it is a health care plan like many, many other health care plans available in the United States which gives this coverage for this kind of a medical procedure. Mr. President, how much time remains on my 10 minutes?

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as we move through the debate--it is now 1:47; the debate started shortly after 9 o'clock this morning--on this one issue on coverage in Federal employee health plans, it is obvious that unless we make a change in the approach of the U.S. Senate, this issue is going to occupy a tremendous amount of our time, which I suggest could be spent better on other matters of the public interest. We are awaiting argument this afternoon on whether the office of drug czar ought to be defunded or not. The drug czar is an office which was created to coordinate and oversee all of our activities in the war on drugs. This is a very important matter to analyze what the drug czar has been doing--whether it has been an effective use of taxpayer dollars or whether it ought to be continued. That matter is being put off. And who knows whether we will reach it this afternoon or not? Shortly before the debate started on this matter, the Senator from New York, Senator D'Amato, was about to offer an amendment relating to the Federal payments on the Mexican debt issue, a matter of enormous importance. We have the issue of welfare reform, which is in the wings awaiting to come to the Senate floor. There is another appropriations bill on the Department of the Interior, which is awaiting consideration by the U.S. Senate. This issue about the Federal employee insurance coverage is just one of many that we are going to be taking up. We are going to be taking up human embryo research. We will be taking up funding for women's abortions in prisons and abortion access in military hospitals for women in the armed services stationed overseas. Mr. President, when we had the loud mandate in 1994 electing a Republican Congress, I would suggest to you that the item of the Contract With America was a dominant philosophical ground. It is important to note that there is nothing in the Contract With America about abortion, not a single word. That mandate in 1994 was instructing the Congress to work on reducing the size of Government, reducing Federal expenditures, having a tax cut, having strong national defense, and having effective crime control. And the issue of a balanced budget in the glidepath to the year 2002 was an item which involves a tremendous number of very, very important considerations. If we are going to spend the better part of a day, if not the entire day, on this one item, a Saturday session at that, I would suggest to you, Mr. President, that we are not going to be fulfilling the mandate for which the voters elected a Republican Congress and sent a message to Washington to take care of a balanced budget to reduce spending, to focus on problems like the drug problem, like the problem of the issue of the drug czar, like national defense--where we had that bill taken from the calendar so we can proceed to the debate on this issue involving abortion. So, Mr. President, I think essentially stated as to the particulars of this bill, there is bargain for consideration by the employees. The employees pay a portion of it themselves, 28 percent. But this, realistically viewed, is not a Federal subsidy. And on the broader picture, the issue of the constitutional right of a woman to choose has been established by the Supreme Court of the United States. That is the law of the land, and we ought to accept it as such. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I submit that the pending amendment is one which is very reasonable. Even those who stand very determined against a constitutional right of a woman to choose should have little trouble in accepting medical necessity as determined by the attending physician. In earlier speeches today, I outlined my own view that what is happening in Congress today is an assault on the constitutional right of a woman to choose, and that we have had a veritable meltdown of women's rights as there have been limitations on abortions in military hospitals overseas, limitations on research, limitations on accreditation of medical schools where doctors in training should be given instruction on ob-gyn, and abortion. But in the example given by the distinguished Senator from Maryland, a woman who is about to be paralyzed certainly is in an extreme situation. The Constitution of the United States has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter on the constitutional right of a woman to choose, and in a series of increments there has been a virtual meltdown of that right. If this amendment is rejected, it will be also attacking the basic doctor-patient relationship and the determination of the doctor as to what ought to be done. If there is not insurance coverage for a woman's health, what is the purpose of insurance coverage? And when Federal employees have this coverage, it is something that is bargained for. It escapes me as to why anyone would think that it is really a subsidy when you have part of payment made by the individual employee and where you have the totality of the benefit as part of the bargained-for consideration for employment. I think this is a minimal amendment and ought to be adopted.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have seen extraordinary atrocities in Bosnia, with the ethnic cleansing, the summary executions, the tortures, massive and systematic rape, attacks on medical and relief personnel, and the estimates show that some 200,000 people, mostly Bosnian Moslems, have been killed or are missing; 2.2 million are refugees, and another 1.8 million have been displaced in Bosnia. We have seen the photographs of young women in their teens and early twenties hanging themselves by the trees in the Bosnian forest because they prefer suicide to facing the Bosnian Serbs. We have heard reports verified about the Bosnian Serbs entering the U.N. safe havens and taking 11-year-old boys, slicing their throats and leaving them in large mounds on the streets in an effort to stop the next generation of Bosnian Moslems looking ahead. It is just an extraordinary and horrible situation. I personally have pushed, in the course of the past decade, resolutions to establish a general International Criminal Court which I think ought to be done. It ought to be done on international drug trafficking and on terrorism, where we have situations where nations will not extradite to the United States. Colombia is an example. If we had an international criminal court, we could have extradition. This is a subject that I have worked on for many years as District Attorney of Philadelphia on a microcosm as to what I submit ought to be done internationally. But we have had the United Nations resolutions which have provided for International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda. With respect to the atrocities in Rwanda, this amendment would provide authority for fugitives to be surrendered, because we have no current extradition treaties with the International Court, and would provide authority for the United States to turn over evidence to the International Criminal Court. The circumstances here are really extraordinary, Mr. President. Our colleague, Senator Kohl, recently repeated a saying that the loss of a single life is a tragedy, while the loss of 1,000 lives is a statistic. Regrettably, we are treating the atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda as statistics, without really focusing on the individual tragedies. There will be a hearing next Wednesday jointly by the Foreign Relations Committee and by the Senate Intelligence Committee to shed some additional light on the atrocities in Bosnia. I submit this is a very important amendment, Mr. President. We need to get it enacted so we will have the authority to extradite these fugitives to the International Criminal Court and turn over the important evidence. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. This is legislation which the administration is seeking, if I may respond.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may respond, I am advised that this will be accepted. I will speak for not more than 6, 7 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I had stated a few moments ago, it is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared on both sides. It is an important amendment. It is to provide authority for the surrender of fugitives and the provision of judicial assistance to the International Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, in accordance with the obligations of the United States under certain resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. Mr. President, as it is well known, there has been considerable debate in this Chamber and in the House of Representatives on the atrocities in Bosnia, and the actions there leading this body and the House to call for the unilateral lifting of the arms embargo. And while there is some substantial controversy as to what ought to be done on that subject, with the disagreement with the President and prospective veto and possible override effort, there is unanimity that the action of the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia, and also by implication for Rwanda, is something which really ought to be carried out in an efficient and rigorous and really tough manner. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to call attention to the numerous legislative efforts which are now pending which challenge the constitutional right of a woman to choose. And I have decided to do so in light of the action by the House Appropriations Committee last week in eliminating funding for family planning. It had always been my view that whatever political persuasion or position of political spectrum, that the issue of family planning was one where most Americans, if not virtually all Americans, could agree. When we talk about welfare reform--and there is no doubt about the necessity for welfare reform in America--we are dealing with many children who come into this world where the parents, many married couples, are not equipped to handle them at that stage of their lives both financially and emotionally. And the welfare payments are enormous when we talk about teenage pregnancy, which may be the greatest domestic social problem America faces today, or certainly one of the biggest. Society spends an estimated $34 billion on behalf of families in which the first [[Page S 10772]] birth occurred when the mother was a teenager. When we look at the problem of low-birthweight babies, which constitutes a human tragedy when children are born the size of my hand, weighing as little as 12 ounces, they are human tragedies because they carry scars for a lifetime. Frequently those lifetimes are not very long, but are very expensive to society, costing in the range of $200,000 a child and thousands more each year. It cost society multiple billions of dollars, whereas family planning saves additional costs in medical care. I think this should be agreed upon by everyone. A few weeks ago, we had a contentious debate in this Chamber about Dr. Henry Foster, and although some may disagree, my view was that Dr. Foster was rejected because he had performed abortions, a medical procedure permitted under the Constitution of the United States. We now find the legislation offered by the House moving along the track which would deny Federal funding for a woman in a Federal prison who is a victim of rape. What is that woman to do if the Federal Government, which has her incarcerated and is in charge of her sustenance, prohibits funding for a child which is born to her while she is in prison? What I decided to do, Mr. President, in order to dramatize this situation, which I think is fairly characterized as a wholesale assault on a woman's right to choose--it is not what I decided to do, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, but what my staff decided to do. They brought me the idea. The line which I have submitted here on the situation where there is the dismantling of a woman's right to choose from A to Z is that there is a nationwide campaign under way to dismantle a woman's right to choose. Antichoice forces, frustrated by their failed attempts to achieve a constitutional amendment to ban choice, are urging Congress to impose burdensome obstacles to reproductive health services for women. These changes are far-reaching and will have a devastating impact on women's health. To show the scope of this effort, my staff and I have compiled the list of actions from A to Z by antichoice forces. This I suggest is a prescription for gridlock. There is nothing in the Contract With America on abortion. The results of the 1994 election, I submit, were to deal with the key Republican core values of reducing the size of Government, of limiting expenses, of reducing taxes, and not to be engaged in divisive social issues. In these charts, in a dramatic way, we have listed these issues from A to Z starting with: A. Amend the Constitution to abolish a woman's right to choose. B. Banning Federal funding for abortions for women in Federal prisons. C. Cutting off title X family planning funds to organizations providing abortions with non-Federal dollars. D. To deny Federal funding for United States representatives to attend the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women. E. Eliminate United States funding for international family planning assistance provided by the United Nations Population Fund. F. Forbid the Legal Services Corporation from handling abortion-related legislation. G. Gag medical providers at title X family planning clinics to prevent them from discussing abortions as a legal medical option for women facing an unintended pregnancy. H. Hand over to the States the decision as to whether low- income rape or incest victims are eligible for Medicaid- funded abortions. I. Impose restrictions on human embryo research. J. Jeopardize the protections afforded by the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance (FACE) Act. K. Kill nominations of pro-choice Government officials, like Dr. Foster. L. Limiting the sale and production of RU-486. M. Mandate that Federal employees insurance exclude abortion coverage, even where the employees pay for it for themselves. N. Notify parents if minors seek ``sensitive'' health services such as contraception at title X family planning clinics. O. Overrule the decision of a graduate medical education accrediting organization to require most OB/GYN residents to be trained in abortion procedures. P. Promote the appointment of Federal judges opposed to choice. On that, Mr. President, I have long opposed a litmus test and have supported Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O'Connor where their views differ from mine. Q. Quash the ability of the District of Columbia to use its own revenue to fund abortions for poor women--a right of every other jurisdiction in the United States. R. Restrict fetal tissue research, an issue which passed overwhelmingly in the Senate when some 80 Senators joined together where it was shown at the hearings that the research was very important for many very serious illnesses. S. Slashing the funding for domestic and international family planning programs. T. Terminating funding for family planning programs that either provide abortions with non-U.S. funds or advocate a position on abortion. U. Undermining the ability of military women stationed overseas to access abortion services by prohibiting military hospitals from performing the procedure, even if paid for with private funds. V. Violating the right of a doctor and patient to determine whether a certain late-term abortion procedure is appropriate and necessary. W. Whitewash the true political agenda--eliminating access to abortion for all American women. X. X-out title X, the cornerstone of Federal family planning programs. Y. Yielding to the antichoice agenda that rolls back the reproductive rights of American women under the Constitution. Z. Zeroing out the tax deduction for expenses incurred for pregnancy termination. Mr. President, I have sought to dramatize the many measures which are underway at the present time. I personally am very much opposed to abortion, but I do not think it is a matter for the Federal Government to regulate. I have supported abstinence programs, especially for teenagers, that emphasize avoiding premarital sex and have supported tax breaks for adoption because I think that is the proper course. But I do not think it is the business of the Government to regulate abortions. I think that our colleague, Senator Barry Goldwater, articulated it correctly when he said we ought to keep the Government off our backs--less regulation--out of our pocketbooks--lower taxes-- and out of our bedrooms--the constitutional right of the woman to choose. The conservative point of view is that the least government is the best government, and I would say that the constitutional protection of a woman on her right to choose ought to be maintained. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a card listing from A to Z these restrictions be included in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had sought recognition prior to the votes on the amendments offered by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, and the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Paul Wellstone, prior to those votes. But since all time had expired and there was a tight timetable because other Senators wished to catch planes, there was not an opportunity to speak, and I would like to make a few brief comments at this time. I opposed those amendments not because I would not have preferred to have seen the additional funding in those important accounts, but because those issues had been resolved in a very extensive negotiation session with the House of Representatives and further proceedings with the White House. When Senator Moseley-Braun made the statement, yes, we have to make cuts, that they have to be made fairly, I certainly agree with her totally. The measure which came out of the subcommittee which I chair, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, was a vigorous, incisive, strenuous effort to make those cuts as fairly as we could and to establish priorities. When the amendment offered by Senator Wellstone and Senator Moseley- Braun included veterans job training, displaced workers job training, education infrastructure, safe and drug free schools, education technology, Eisenhower professional development, job training partnership youth job training and the job training partnership adult job training, I would have wanted very much to have included those additional sums. My voting record is plain on that subject. In fact, when the House of Representatives sent over a rescissions package of $5.9 billion, as a result of action taken by the Senate subcommittee which I chair and then the full Senate in extended proceedings, that $5.9 billion in cuts was reduced by some $3 billion so that we did restore a tremendous amount of money. When it comes to the question of LIHEAP, low-income heat and energy assistance, as Senator Wellstone noted--I was on the floor at the time--he referred to the Senator from Pennsylvania as a champion of LIHEAP, which I thank him for and I think the record of the last 15 years will support. When the House of Representatives had sent over $5.9 billion in cuts and had zeroed out $1.319 billion, I made a fight of it. I started that fight and won it by reinserting $1 billion of those funds and seeing to it that we added an additional $300 million to the President's emergency fund. That means that we brought the amount practically to the full $1.319 billion. I would have to say that was a total victory. So when Senator Wellstone and Senator Moseley-Braun seek an amendment to add $319 million, I would like to see that extra funding. I have said on the Senate floor that when it comes to the poor and the elderly, that it is a matter of heating or eating. Those funds are really very, very important. But we are going to have further negotiations with the House of Representatives, and the House has already indicated that they want to eliminate all funding for LIHEAP in the future. It was not easy for me to vote to table the amendment adding $319 million for LIHEAP funding, but I did so because we had already crafted a hard-fought-out compromise which had, in effect, restored $1.3 billion, leaving only $19 million short. I am going to have to go back and deal with the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education and try to work the matter out. So I am hardly in a position to support Senator Wellstone and Senator Moseley-Braun. We are looking at a very, very difficult budget, Mr. President, as we all know. I am convinced that we need to balance the budget. We have a 7-year glidepath to get that done. These votes are not easy to explain, and it is not difficult for other Senators, after seeing the work done, to come in and say, ``I'd like to add some more money here.'' We all would. But it is simply not realistic to do. The final budget, the final figure was worked out. After we looked at the House figure of $5.9 billion in cuts, we reduced it very substantially in the subcommittee. The cuts were reduced further by an amendment which was sponsored by the leadership, the Dole-Daschle amendment, which the Senator from Minnesota voted for. Then the measure was vetoed and came back, and then it was approved after difficult negotiations with the White House. So that the net effect was, looking at the first cut of $5.9 billion, we reinstated $3 billion of those funds. On this date of the record, I think that it was just too much to come back and say let us add in more money for these projects and these programs, important as they may be. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 additional minutes equally divided.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak up to 2 minutes. This is my subcommittee's bill, and I have things to say.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak up to 3 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 4 minutes and if the Senator from Minnesota chooses 4 more minutes, it be up to his discretion.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak for 4 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?

Mr. SPECTER. That would be a preference.

Mr. SPECTER. Since the Senator from Texas bases the distinction of set-aside as contrasted with quotas--this Senator is very much opposed to quotas--then would he agree that a preference based on race would be justified in the face of a discriminatory practice as indicated by the State of Alabama?