[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 149 (Friday, September 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14137-S14141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     MEDICARE, TAX CUTS, PRIORITIES

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, next week the Senate Finance Committee 
will begin to mark up a piece of legislation dealing with Medicare and 
Medicaid, essentially comporting to the budget that was enacted by the 
U.S. Senate. The issue, as anyone who has been watching television or 
reading the newspaper recently knows, is Medicare, tax cuts, 
priorities. I would like to talk about that a little bit today.
  This morning I was watching a bit of the morning shows on television 
and I saw the Speaker of the House and a number of others engaging in a 
debate about what these issues mean. There are a substantial amount of 
charges and countercharges going back and forth on the issue of 
Medicare and the tax cuts. These are important issues, there is no 
question about that. I do not think anyone denies the consequences of 
what we do will have a 

[[Page S 14138]]
substantial impact on people in this country. What I want to do today 
is discuss a little about the kinds of debate that we have heard in 
recent days on the effect or impact of both the Medicare Program and 
tax cuts. I thought I would do it by beginning with some comments, not 
from a Democrat, but from a Republican.
  This is from Kevin Phillips, a Republican conservative political 
analyst. I want to go through some of the things he says, and the 
reason I do this is because the Speaker and others say this is all 
being distorted; it is a bunch of Democrats who want to distort what 
the Republicans are doing on Medicare and tax cuts. Here is what Kevin 
Phillips says. He says, speaking of the Republican approach, the 
budget, and so on:

       It is senior citizens, the poor, students, and ordinary 
     Americans who will see programs they depend on gutted, while 
     business, finance, and the richest 1 or 2 percent, far from 
     making sacrifices, actually get new benefits and tax 
     reductions.

  That is an analysis by a Republican of the Republican plan.
  Further, from Kevin Phillips, he says:

       If the U.S. budget deficit problem does represent the 
     fiscal equivalent of war--and maybe it does--then what we are 
     really looking at is one of the most flagrant examples of war 
     profiteering this century has seen.

  Again, talking about the budget initiative.
  Further, Kevin Phillips, a Republican, says:

       . . . if the deficit is substantially reduced under a 
     program like this, there'll be a second stage of further 
     upward income redistribution from upper bracket profits in 
     the stock and bond markets.

  Two additional comments from, again, a Republican political analyst 
about this approach:

       Spending on Government programs from Medicare and education 
     to home heating oil assistance is to be reduced in ways that 
     principally burden the poor and the middle class while 
     simultaneously taxes are to be cut in ways that predominantly 
     benefit the top 1 or 2 percent of Americans.

  This is not some wild-eyed radical liberal saying this. This is an 
observation from Kevin Phillips, a conservative Republican political 
analyst.
  Finally, from Mr. Kevin Phillips, ``In short,'' he says, again 
speaking of the Republican budget which is now in place:

       In short, aid to dependent grandmothers, children, college 
     students, and city dwellers is to be slashed while aid to 
     dependent corporations, stock brokers, generals, and assorted 
     James Bond imitators survives or even grows worse.

  Those are the comments, not from someone who is partisan on this side 
of the aisle. Those are comments I have read from a political analyst 
who is a Republican.
  What of this debate about Medicare? The proposal in the budget to cut 
the Medicare Program $270 billion below what is needed to finance the 
Medicare Program is a proposal to cut $270 billion. The analysis is 
that $89 billion is needed for the trust fund. So the question is, if 
you are going to cut $181 billion more than is necessary in Medicare to 
make it solvent, where does that money go? How is that money used?
  The answer to that is, of course, the extra money being cut in 
Medicare is to finance a tax cut. From the Department of Treasury, 
Office of Tax Analysis, this pie chart shows what Kevin Phillips said 
in the earlier comments.
  Who is going to get the benefits of the tax cut? This says that the 
top 12 percent of the income earners in this country will get over 50 
percent of the tax benefits. Families with over $100,000 of income will 
receive 51.5 percent of the tax benefits.
  We just had a vote on an amendment I offered, a-sense-of-the Senate 
resolution saying let us limit the tax cut to those who earn less than 
$100,000 a year. To the extent we save money by limiting the tax cut to 
those who have $100,000 or less, let us then be able to use that 
savings to reduce the cut in Medicare.
  The vote was, predictably I think, 43 to 54. The amendment was 
defeated.
  The point is that over half the tax cut is going to go to families 
with over $100,000 in income. This at a time when we are up to our 
necks in debt, when we are told the deficit is such a serious problem 
that we have to take a big hunk out of Medicare, $270 billion.
  It turns out we have to take a big hunk out of Medicare, according to 
some, in order to finance this half of the tax cut, and that is the 
dilemma and that is the political debate.
  Is it just pure partisan politics? No. It is a debate about 
priorities. We only have the tax bill that the House of Representatives 
passed to go on, but if you take a look at what was passed by the House 
of Representatives, what you will see is that if you are a household 
between 0 and $30,000, or in other words a household with less than 
$30,000 in income, you will get a tax cut for the year of $124. If your 
income is $200,000 or more, you will get a tax cut of $11,200.
  Whenever one points this out--this comes from the Department of 
Treasury information--whenever someone points this out someone else 
jumps up and says, ``Class warfare. Class warfare. You are trying to 
divide people.''
  I am not trying to divide anybody. I am just trying to figure out who 
gets what from these proposals. This is a classic cake and crumbs 
approach to a legislative profile. You give the cake to the big shots--
if you have a lot of money you get to eat a big piece of this cake--and 
if you do not have much, they will wipe a few crumbs off the table for 
you and say, ``By the way, everybody gets something here. This is a 
wonderful deal for everybody.''
  Well, this graph shows it is not a wonderful deal for everybody. The 
fact is the bulk of the tax cut is going to inure to the benefit of the 
wealthiest Americans.
  The interesting discussion about Medicare is this: Medicare was a 
very controversial program when first conceived. When first proposed in 
the U.S. Senate, 95 percent of the Republicans voted against the 
Medicare Program. ``Socialism,'' they said. ``We do not like it. We do 
not want anything to do with it. It is bad public policy.'' I 
understand that. The old definition of a conservative is someone who 
never wants to do anything for the first time. I understand all of 
that.
  The fact is, despite the fact that most all in their party opposed it 
30 years ago, I would guess, if you had a vote on the very simple 
proposition, ``Is Medicare good and should we keep Medicare?'' I would 
guess now 95 percent in the Republican Party would probably vote yes. 
They have changed their mind. I think most of them would say that they 
were wrong to oppose Medicare initially because Medicare has proven to 
be an enormously important program.
  Over half of the senior citizens in this country had no health care 
coverage before we adopted Medicare. Then in the fifties, the forties, 
and in the thirties, back in the days when we had no Medicare coverage 
for senior citizens, when getting sick when you were a senior citizen 
was a circumstance where you feared that you would be held hostage by 
virtue of being unable to pay for a medical bill or get medical help 
when you were critically ill. Half of the senior citizens in this 
country had no health care coverage.
  We passed Medicare, and I am proud that I am part of a group whose 
heritage is to fight for things that are progressive. Ninety-nine 
percent of the senior citizens in this country now no longer have to 
live in fear that they may not be able to get treatment for health care 
needs because they now have the Medicare Program.
  Is it a perfect program? Gosh, no. We have lots of problems with it. 
We have had hearings about fraud. We have had hearings about waste. But 
the fact is that most senior citizens and others who have used Medicare 
would tell us that the Medicare Program has been a wonderful boon to 
them.
  It has cost us a lot more than we expected, for a couple of reasons. 
Senior citizens are living a lot longer. Senior citizens are living an 
enormous amount of time. Prior to the 1960's they did not have that 
kind of lifespan. Now they do.
  What happened in addition to the fact that people are living longer 
is that medical technology has made breathtaking breakthroughs. Now 
when someone's knee gives out, they can get a new knee. When their hip 
gives out and they need a new hip, or when they eat food that plugs up 
the heart muscle, somebody can open up their chest, give them an 
operation, unplug the heart muscle and the arteries, and they are back 
out. 

[[Page S 14139]]

  So it is not unusual to run into a senior citizen that just had open 
heart surgery, or has a new knee, or has a new hip, or cataract 
surgery, is 75 years old, and feels like a million dollars. It is all 
very expensive, but it is wonderful. It is a condition of success in 
many respects. But it has been an expensive program, there is no 
question about that.
  The question before the Congress is, What kind of adjustments are 
necessary to make it solvent? It is interesting that the trustees of 
the Medicare commission say, well, the Medicare Program is going to be 
insolvent by the year 2002 unless some adjustments are made.
  The majority party wants to get some money out of Medicare. They 
called all of the trustees up to the Capitol Building and made a big 
show. And they said, ``Medicare is going broke.'' In 23 of the last 25 
years when the trustees made their report, they said, ``Here is the 
date by which Medicare will be insolvent.'' This was not the first time 
that happened. This happens every year. But it is the first time that 
anybody has called the trustees up to make a big show out of it. In 
every year, 23 out of 25 years, what has happened is the trustees say, 
``Here is the date by which Medicare will be insolvent.'' Every year 
the Congress has made adjustments to make it solvent. This year we are 
going to do that. We are going to make an adjustment that deals with 
about $89 billion over a long period of time to make the Medicare 
system solvent.
  But we are not going, on this side of the aisle at least, to agree 
with those who believe you ought to cut $270 billion rather than the 
$89 billion and take the extra $170 billion or so and use it to provide 
a tax cut, half of which will go to people or families with incomes 
over $100,000 a year. That is how this boils down.
  When you finally condense all of the crowd noise and all of the 
bellicose debates, when you finally condense it down to the simple 
point, the point is this: We believe that adjustments to Medicare ought 
to be made to make the Medicare system solvent. That takes about $89 
billion to do. We do not believe, we do not support, and we will not 
accept notions that we ought to cut the Medicare Program an extra $170 
billion below what is necessary to serve the senior citizens who will 
be eligible in the next 7 years in order to provide a tax cut, the bulk 
of which will go to upper-income people.
  There is ample room for disagreement on priorities and policies. The 
debate about priorities ought to be thoughtful, not thoughtless. It 
ought not be a circumstance whenever someone stands up to talk about 
this difference in priorities that someone says, ``Well, this is just 
raw politics. It is all nonsense.'' It is not raw politics, and it is 
not nonsense. It is about priorities, what we believe in, what we fight 
for, and what we think is important for the future of this country. 
That is what this is all about.
  I see the Senator from West Virginia just came to the floor. He has 
served in this Chamber for a good long while and in a very 
distinguished way. He has seen these policies and programs come and go. 
He, perhaps more than any other, understands that some programs are 
good and they make this country better. They make this a better place 
in which to live. Some were not so good and did not work out, and we 
have changed programs. We have repealed programs. But the Medicare 
Program, I think, has been an enormously beneficial program for this 
country. And those who had the courage to stand up when so many others 
said no, those who had the courage to do that and help develop this 
program for this country, have my unending gratitude.
  There was an old saying around here a long time ago that, ``Any 
jackass can kick a barn door down, but it takes a carpenter to build 
one.'' It may be even an old West Virginia saying. I do not know. But I 
understand what that difference is. The talent to build is a 
substantially different talent than the talent to destroy.
  Someone asked a foreman of a crew that was putting up a building, 
``What kind of people do you have to hire to put up a building?'' Well, 
``You have to hire skilled workers.'' ``What kind of people would you 
hire if you were tearing down a building?'' He said, ``Oh, that is not 
a problem to get those kind of workers. That does not require any 
skill.''
  It is the builders, in my judgment, of this country, who have done 
the things to make this a better place in which to live that we must 
pay tribute to. One way to pay tribute to them is to take a look at a 
program like Medicare and say, ``This is an enormous contribution to 
this country.'' Let us fix it. Let us make sure it works. But let us 
not do anything in any way that pulls out the foundation or the 
structure that supports this wonderful program.
  That is what this debate is about. It is going to be a tough one. 
There are going to be a lot of charges flying back and forth. But when 
you condense it all down to its rudimentary elements, it is very 
simple: We support the $89 billion adjustment necessary to make this 
Medicare Program solvent for the long term. We do not support taking 
extra money out of Medicare to provide a very substantial tax cut, most 
of which will go to the affluent of this country. That is bad public 
policy, and it is a wrong priority for the future of this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
to speak for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan]. I thank him also for the 
consistency with which he is fighting this battle, for his support of 
the programs that are needed to help the elderly and, in helping the 
elderly, they help the young as well.
  My thoughts go back to a time when the elderly did not have any 
safety net, nor did anyone else. There were no welfare checks, no 
Social Security checks, no Federal aid to education, no student loans. 
And when people became too old to work, they had nowhere else to go 
except over the hill to the poorhouse or stand at the gates of their 
children with their hats in their hands and hope to be taken in by 
their children.
  Mr. President, the Senator is doing a great service to the country 
and for the Senate in calling attention to the arguments that are being 
made here and the threats that are directed toward the Medicare 
Program. And for what reason? To pay for a tax cut. It is folly, f-o-l-
l-y, pure folly to talk about giving a tax cut, with the kind of 
deficits we now have in this country, and it is going to be a tax cut 
for the wealthy. I am opposed to that. I am opposed to any tax cut at 
this time for anybody--wealthy, middle class, or anybody else. That 
money ought to be applied against the deficit or applied against the 
cost of the Medicare Program.
  It is easy to tear down, as the Senator very aptly said, easy to tear 
down. Anybody can tear down. It is hard to build. What he said brought 
to mind a bit of verse:

     I saw them tearing a building down,
     A group of men in a busy town;
     With a ho-heave-ho and a lusty yell,
     They swung a beam and a sidewall fell.

     I asked the foreman, ``Are these men skilled,
     The type you would hire if you had to build?''
     He laughed, and then he said, ``No, indeed;
     Just common labor is all you need.
     I can easily wreck in a day or two,
     That which takes builders years to do.''

     I thought to myself as I walked away,
     Which of these roles am I trying to play?
     Am I a builder who works with care,
     Building my life by the rule and square?

     Am I shaping my deeds by a well-laid plan,
     Patiently building the best I can?
     Or am I a wrecker who walks the town,
     Content with the labor of tearing down?

  I am afraid that is what we see at play here. The wreckers are busy.
  It is late September and the Senate is entering the season of fiscal 
``sound and fury.'' Political leaders in Washington will have to come 
to grips with all of the rhetorical promises made to reduce the deficit 
to zero in 7 years, and actually legislate the details which will 
achieve that end. In this fiscal year, that means substantial savings 
will have to be made in many important domestic programs, but clearly 
the most sensitive of these are the third-rail issues of American 
politics--Social Security and Medicare.
  Substantial savings must be found in Medicare in order to meet the 
deficit reduction targets called for in the budget resolution. The 
majority party has attempted to justify a very large cut in the 
medicare program--some 

[[Page S 14140]]
$270 billion dollars, I believe--by claiming that the medicare trust 
fund is in danger of collapse.
  In the first place, $270 billion is more than triple what is actually 
needed to stabilize the fund. In the second place, the savings will not 
be applied to the ``trust fund'' part of Medicare. The savings proposed 
to allegedly salvage the trust fund are actually going to be given away 
in the form of tax cuts--some $245 billion dollars worth of them--that 
mainly will benefit the well-to-do in our society.
  It is true that steps will need to be taken to make sure that 
Medicare remains solvent for future generations. Both political parties 
need to explain that to the people. There is no getting around it. 
Medicare must undergo changes if it is to continue to be a viable 
public health care program. But, we poison the water for acceptance by 
the public of the changes that must come to make the Medicare system 
healthy if we obfuscate, hype, and over-simplify this issue. On the one 
hand, if we leave the impression with senior citizens that no changes 
are necessary, we close off the avenue for large-scale acceptance of 
reasonable change. In fact, the status quo cannot prevail. The program 
is growing too fast, and with the baby boomers headed for eligibility 
in the next decade, the Medicare Program has to be altered to 
accommodate larger numbers of recipients. We must not leave the 
impression that the status quo can be protected by any political party 
or any President. A reality check has to come.
  On the other hand, to falsely claim that huge savings are needed 
right now, and then to further claim, falsely, that those savings will 
go toward the salvation of Medicare, when, in fact, those savings will 
only be used to hand out tax cuts to special interests and the most 
comfortable in our society is an outrage, a breaking of faith with the 
elderly, and a sure way to lay the groundwork for the utter failure of 
any reasonable and real fix of Medicare when it has to be enacted.
  The $270 billion worth of cuts mandated by the writers of the budget 
resolution is a bogus number. It was picked for no other reason, I 
believe, than the convenience of allowing room for the promised tax 
cuts while making the budget arithmetic come out balanced.
  That number is a fabrication by the ``powers that be'' in the current 
Congress. It reflects nothing more than a policy decision here in 
Washington to raise monthly premiums on seniors for Part B Medicare 
benefits so that there will be dollars enough to hand around in tax 
cuts. I deplore the hype and the scare tactics about collapsing funds 
and vanishing Medicare programs and the absolute necessity of making 
$270 billion dollars worth of cuts in Medicare. While it is true we 
will have to eventually make some savings in the fund, nothing but a 
political decision to make room for tax cuts, in my judgment, is 
driving cuts in the Medicare Program of this magnitude.
  To make matters worse, the details of the plan to cut Medicare will 
be wrapped in a reconciliation bill, under a 20-hour time limit, with 
little opportunity to debate or amend the proposal. After weeks of 
misinformation, claims, counter claims, hype, scare tactics, media 
manipulation, general confusion, and false premises, this extremely 
sensitive and crucial program important to millions of our elderly 
population will be dispatched on the Senate floor under the tightest of 
time limits in a massive deficit reduction package.
  Now, I turned down the President of the United States when he urged 
me to go along with putting health care reform into the reconciliation 
bill. I also turned down that request on the part of the then majority 
leader, Mr. Mitchell. I am opposed to putting huge Medicare cuts and 
tax cuts into the reconciliation bill for the same reason that I 
opposed including health care reform on that occasion. I said it was a 
matter so complex, so costly it ought to be debated fully by the 
Senate. That is why we are here--to debate such matters. To put massive 
bills of that nature into a reconciliation bill is to deny the American 
people the information and to deny Senators the information to which 
they are entitled if they are to make sound judgments. But apparently 
that is what is going to be done.
  The details will be obscured by the smoke of the rhetoric and, in 
short the American people will never know what hit them until it is too 
late, as usual.
  As if there has not already been enough confusion and 
misrepresentation over reforming medicare, now we hear reports of 
further chicanery in the budget wars over the issue.
  Apparently some in the other body have gotten ``cold feet'' over 
trading cuts in medicare for cuts in taxes and have opted to play the 
``magic asterisk'' game in the reconciliation process. The 
Congressional Budget Office apparently has told the Republican 
leadership that, even with a substantial rise in medicare payments by 
beneficiaries, the $270 billion in medicare budget savings the 
Republicans need to get from medicare in order to pay for their tax 
cut, has still not materialized. So, the Republicans are reviving an 
old canard called a ``look-back'' sequester in the House--the ``look-
back'' sequester--in order to achieve the additional cuts needed.
  Beware, America's seniors! Beware! A ``look-back'' sequester is the 
gimmick of all gimmicks in the arcane language of Federal Budgetese.
  The ``look-back'' says in plain English--we need more of that these 
days, plain English. I am for making English the national language.
  I realize I may be politically incorrect in making such a statement, 
but I studied Muzzey when I was in grade school. Muzzey's ``History of 
the American People.'' And the very first sentence in Muzzey's history 
book said, ``America is the child of Europe.''
  Mr. President, that is true. Muzzey did not care much about being 
politically correct. He would have been hooted out of town these days. 
But he believed in giving the historical facts. So do I. I do not give 
a hoot about political correctness. I will take my stand with Muzzey! 
America was the child of Europe. And I will take my stand with making 
English the national language.
  The ``look-back'' says in plain English, if our savings plan does not 
achieve $270 billion in medicare savings, the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services is instructed to identify the shortfall each year and 
then to arbitrarily make sufficient cuts in the succeeding year to 
eliminate the previous year's shortfall. That is legislative and 
political ``kick the can'' at its worst.
  Members of Congress were elected to make these choices and to make 
them in ways that are understandable and acceptable to the public they 
represent. Gimmicks like ``look-back'' sequesters deny the American 
public the opportunity to hear a reasoned debate and to weigh in on 
decisions they elected us to make. It is a totally spineless way to 
make cuts in vital programs and it is painless only for the shaky-kneed 
legislators who employ it.
  I urge the Majority Party in the Senate to reject this return to 
budget gimmickry, David Stockman type magic asterisks, process fixes, 
and responsibility-shirking convolutions, and engage instead in an 
honest debate, utilizing plain English language, with the American 
people about what needs to be done to balance the budget and also 
assure the solvency of medicare for future users.
  I further urge the Senate Finance Committee not to unduly tax 
Medicare recipients in order to parcel out generous tax breaks for 
those who do not have to worry about how to pay their doctor bills and 
afford their medications.
  We will never keep deficit reduction on track if we begin the effort 
by failing to come clean with the people about how hard it will be to 
carry out the plan. It really comes down, Mr. President, to a matter of 
trust. If we trust the intelligence and reasonableness of the American 
people by telling them the truth, they just may--they just may--begin 
to trust us and give us their support in crafting the hard solutions to 
our budget and deficit problems.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
[[Page S 14141]]

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an 
additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. My friend, who is presiding in the chair, the distinguished 
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], was interested in the remarks I 
made a few minutes earlier, and he asked me about Muzzey, whether or 
not he was the author of the book on American history. He was. He was 
the author. As I recall, the book was copyrighted, I believe, around 
1927, 1928, 1929, or 1930.
  I used to memorize the chapters in that history book at night by the 
light of a kerosene lamp. I told my fellow classmates in the early 
grades about Nathaniel Greene, Francis Marion the ``Swamp Fox,'' Daniel 
Morgan, and about Nathan Hale.
  I often carry on conversations with the young pages here. And as each 
new page group comes to the Senate, I generally ask them several 
questions. And I will stop to tell them stories. When I walk into that 
Cloakroam, they will gang up around me like a bunch of little birds 
with their mouths open wanting to be fed, and they ask, ``Can you tell 
us a story today?''
  Well, generally my first question of these new young pages is ``Have 
you ever heard of Nathan Hale?'' And normally they have never heard of 
Nathan Hale. I was pleased that this year--I believe there were as many 
as three in the group who had heard of Nathan Hale.
  Mr. DODD. Would my friend and colleague yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Of course. With great pleasure.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I walked on the floor here. Coincidentally, 
the distinguished former leader and senior Senator from West Virginia 
mentions Nathan Hale. I live in the town in the State of Connecticut 
where Nathan Hale taught in East Haddam, CT.
  Coincidentally, in approximately 30 minutes the high school choral 
group from the Nathan Hale High School of East Haddam, CT, will be 
meeting with me on the steps of the Capitol here and later will be 
performing at the Kennedy Center.
  I chose them as a choral group from my State. Each State gets to name 
a choral group. So it is serendipity that as I walked onto the floor, 
my wonderful friend of so many years mentions Nathan Hale.
  In fact, I say to my colleague, I live in a renovated schoolhouse on 
the banks of the Connecticut River. It was the successor school to the 
one-room schoolhouse in which Nathan Hale taught in East Haddam, CT.
  So I appreciate immensely my colleague's reference to a Connecticut 
son of whom we are deeply proud for his steadfastness, his loyalty, his 
patriotism, and his regret that he had but only one life to give to his 
country. I thank my colleague for referencing him.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend, Senator Dodd. Plato thanked the gods for 
having been born a man, he thanked the gods for having been born a 
Greek, and he thanked the gods for having been born in the age of 
Sophocles.
  Mr. President, I thank the benign hand of destiny for allowing me to 
live in an age in which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, 
Christopher Dodd, is a Member of this body. I am glad that he chanced 
to come by the floor just as I was talking about the patriot Nathan 
Hale.
  Nathan Hale was a young schoolteacher, 21 years of age, and when 
George Washington called for a volunteer to go behind the British lines 
to draw pictures of the British fortifications, Nathan Hale volunteered 
to go on this dangerous mission. He disguised himself as a Dutch 
schoolmaster.
  He went behind the British lines. He was successful in drawing 
pictures of the fortifications and accumulating information that would 
be of benefit to General George Washington. But upon the evening before 
Hale was to return, he was discovered carrying the documents, and was 
arrested. The next morning, he was brought up before the scaffold. His 
request for a Bible was denied.
  There he stood in full view of the stark, wooden coffin in which his 
body was soon to be placed. The British officer, whose name was 
Cunningham, said, ``Have you anything to say?''
  Hale, whose hands were tied behind him, said, ``I only regret that I 
have but one life to lose for my country.''
  The British commander said, ``String the rebel up.''
  I do not find that great story in history books anymore. What I used 
to call history is, I think, probably today more aptly designated 
``social studies.'' There is nothing wrong with social studies, of 
course, but we also need history. Young people need heroes to emulate, 
and we used to have such heroes in American history.
  Well, I just tell that story for the benefit of those who may be a 
little startled at my looking askance at so-called ``political 
correctness.'' Take it away. Give me history. Give me Muzzey!
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, let me commend our colleague 
from West Virginia, not only because he made reference to our favorite 
son of East Haddam, CT, a schoolteacher. In fact, the distinguished 
senior Senator from West Virginia has, over the years, enjoyed my 
Christmas greetings card which, on numerous occasions, has the 
schoolhouse in East Haddam as the cover.
  I appreciate his reference to Nathan Hale, of whom we are very proud 
in Connecticut and the Nation. I also appreciate, once again, his 
reminding the Members of this body and the Nation at large of the 
importance of history and social studies and people who have sacrificed 
great things, who have given us the opportunity to enjoy this Nation 
today.
  Too often, those stories are minimized or scorned or treated lightly. 
It is the lives of heroes, the lives of great individuals which have 
made the difference. Events do not happen without great individuals, 
and we do not pay enough attention to them.

                          ____________________