[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 157 (Wednesday, October 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14994-S15003]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     CUBAN LIBERTY AND DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY [LIBERTAD] ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, some of us have been waiting quite a while 
for the pending legislation, known generally as the Helms-Burton bill. 
But as the distinguished majority leader has 

[[Page S 14995]]
just said, the pending bill has wide support in both parties and in 
both Houses of Congress.
  The water was muddied a bit last week by President Clinton, but I 
will say for the President that, confusing as his actions are and have 
been with respect to Cuba, he did, in my judgment, reemphasize last 
week that the embargo against Fidel Castro's Communist regime in Cuba 
is still an absolute necessity. On that, I certainly agree with the 
President.
  I think most Americans, and certainly those who are still prisoners 
in Cuba and those who fled Cuba and are now in exile, unanimously agree 
that the embargo against Fidel Castro must be continued.
  For 36 years--and this covers a period when eight American Presidents 
were in the Oval Office--the U.S. policy of isolating Castro has been 
consistently bipartisan. And I do hope that consideration of this bill 
today, and for however long it takes beyond today, will continue to be 
bipartisan. It is called the Libertad bill, and it builds on and 
enhances that embargo policy, which I hope, as I say, will continue to 
be bipartisan.
  Why? That is a rhetorical question, and everybody knows the answer to 
it. Certainly, every Senator is old enough to remember Fidel Castro's 
entry into Cuba. I remember Herbert Mathews of the New York Times--that 
newspaper that prints ``all the news that is fit to print,'' as they 
say in boastful declarations--Mr. Mathews sent dispatch after dispatch 
to the New York Times from Havana reminding one and all that Fidel 
Castro was just a nice, little agrarian reformer. And then there was 
Edward R. Murrow, who broadcast nightly that Fidel Castro was a peace-
loving agrarian reformer.
  That is when Fidel Castro was in the boondocks and Mathews and Edward 
R. Murrow went out and sat at Castro's knee and trumpeted his 
propaganda via CBS and the New York Times.
  Well, when Mr. Castro got to Havana, the bloodletting began. And 
anybody who is in this Senate is certainly old enough to remember what 
happened. There was tyranny throughout Cuba. Mr. Castro, first of all, 
took up all of the guns from his political enemies; and he lined up a 
great many of those political enemies before firing squads. As for the 
declarations by Herbert Mathews of the New York Times and Edward R. 
Murrow that Fidel Castro was not a Communist, the first declaration 
that Mr. Castro made when he became the premier of Cuba was, ``I am a 
Communist, I have always been a Communist, and I will always be a 
Communist.''
  So Fidel Castro became known worldwide as a cruel, bloody tyrant, 
whose regime engaged in rampant human rights abuses, drug smuggling, 
arms trafficking, and terrorism. Mr. Castro sits atop a structure that 
regularly and routinely abuses, detains, tortures, and executes its 
citizens. He is a self-declared, committed Communist who stands against 
every fundamental principle that the American people value.
  In all--I saw some statistics on this the other day, Mr. President--
more than 10,000 Cubans have been killed by Castro and his regime, with 
tens of thousands more having fled their homeland to escape his 
tyranny. Currently, at least a thousand Cubans are, this very day, 
being held as political prisoners in Castro's jails. Yet, the United 
States liberal community, including this Senate, so desperately desires 
good news out of Cuba so that they can cast Castro in some favorable 
light that they will seize on the flimsiest of evidence. I fear that 
this is precisely what is going on down on Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Let the record show that there has been no fundamental change in 
Fidel Castro's policies. None whatever. If you doubt it, ask Mario de 
Armis who is acknowledged by the U.S. State Department as the Cuban 
prisoner who has served the longest sentence--30 years in a Castro 
prison--for his political beliefs. He committed no crime. He just did 
not agree with Fidel Castro. He was not a Communist. So, to jail he was 
sent by Castro for 30 years.
  Mr. de Armis supports the U.S. embargo. Let me quote exactly what he 
said recently:

       Stand on the side of the oppressed against the dictator 
     Fidel Castro. It is not my opinion but the opinion of 
     everybody. I refer to the working people of Cuba, that the 
     embargo should be maintained, it should be kept in effect, it 
     should be strengthened.

  Or you might want to ask Armando Valladares, who was locked up for 20 
years in a Castro prison. He said in a recent letter to me, ``I 
strongly believe that the remaining days of Castro's tyranny will be 
shortened once your Libertad bill is passed.''
  Now, Mr. President, it is not just those who have suffered under 
Castro who have been forced to flee. It is not these people alone who 
favor continued isolation of Castro. It is those still inside Cuba, 
still struggling for freedom, who also endorse a tightening of the 
embargo.
  Recently, I received a letter signed by scores of Cubans inside Cuba 
who courageously, at great risk to themselves and their personal 
safety, endorsed the Libertad bill. Let me quote from their letter: 
``Because of a wicked turn of destiny, a history with contrasting 
elements is repeating itself in Cuba. In the early years of the 
revolutionary triumph, the government headed by Castro confiscated all 
private property belonging to both Cuban and foreign capitalists to 
save economically the fledgling revolution.''
  ``In 1995,'' the letter continues, ``and in order to save the same 
revolution, socialism and [its] alleged gains, the same properties are 
put on sale for other capitalists to buy although this represents no 
benefit for the Cuban people.''
  Now, Mr. President, the letter is long but let me refer to one more 
statement: ``We support the alternative you propose.''
  Now, Mr. President, he is referring to the pending legislation now 
before the U.S. Senate. He goes on to say ``Its approval will mean a 
definite turn in our favor. We thank you sincerely for what you are 
doing.''
  Now, these people, who are still in Cuba, and who ran a personal risk 
in writing their letter to me, said--referring to the impact of the 
economic embargo--``The economic embargo maintained by subsequent 
administrations has begun to have its effect, felt not against the 
people, but against those who cling to power.''
  Despite the risk of arrest and intimidation and forced exile, these 
letters of support coming to me and, I am sure, coming to Congressman 
Burton and other Members of the House and Senate of the United States 
in support of the pending bill, continue to make their way out of Cuba 
and on to our desks in the Senate and in the House of Representatives.
  I must emphasize, for the sake of clarity, that these are the people 
on the front line in Cuba. They know firsthand what kind of man Castro 
is and has been. They know what he represents. They are in a position 
to judge best what the impact of the pending bill, the Libertad bill, 
the Helms-Burton bill, will have in Cuba.
  Now, some opponents of the pending legislation have recently made 
claims that it is time to normalize relations with Castro, that he has 
made political and economic reforms, and that Cuba is open for business 
and that we are somehow missing out on golden opportunities.
  Some prominent people in business circles contend that we are missing 
out on what they describe as golden opportunities.
  They seem willing to overlook the thousands of people murdered by 
Castro, the thousands of people who have been locked up in Castro's 
dingy prisons. No problem, they say, in effect. Just do a little 
business with Castro, make a little profit off of the misery of these 
Cuban people.
  Talk about callous nonsense--Castro has not implemented even one 
serious political move toward a free society in the last 36 years--not 
once. His economic reforms have been designed more to alleviate 
pressure on his regime than to permit the betterment of the Cuban 
people.
  The Cuban economy is in shambles. It is, in fact, in such dire 
straits that Castro has laid off some 500,000 to 800,000 workers, more 
than one-fifth of Cuba's work force.
  Even Castro's new foreign investment law that has been trumpeted all 
around in big business circles, this foreign investment law continues 
to place economic decisionmaking in the hands not of free enterprise 
but in the hands of the Cuban Communist Government.
  It has nothing to do with economic freedom for the Cuban people. The 

[[Page S 14996]]
  Cuban Communists, Mr. Castro's crowd, do you not know, will still 
dictate which Cubans get jobs and which Cubans will not. They will 
determine how much Cubans will be paid, and it is a pitiful sum that 
they intend to be paid.
  So, I think we ought to stop kidding ourselves. We are still dealing 
with a tyrant, a tyrant who is determined to keep his grip on power. 
Fidel Castro is not now interested, nor has he ever been interested, in 
bringing genuine economic and political freedom to Cuba. That is why 30 
Senators introduced the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, 
the Libertad Act or the Helms-Burton bill, however you want to identify 
it.
  We are convinced that real political and economic change will come to 
Cuba only by and when pressure is increased on the Castro regime and 
while we continue to make clear that we are supporting the Cuban 
people.
  This combination of pressure on Castro and support for the Cuban 
people is central to the pending legislation, the Libertad bill.
  What does this bill do? It certainly does more than stiffens 
sanctions. It has three separate and distinct objectives.
  First, to bring an early end to the Castro regime by cutting off hard 
currency that keeps the Castro crowd afloat. Without hard currency from 
the outside, Mr. Castro's days will certainly be numbered. If you want 
to keep Castro in power, let him get hard currency from outside. But I 
say no, cut off the hard currency to Fidel.
  Second, the bill stipulates that planning should start now for United 
States support to a democratic transition in Cuba with full respect for 
the self-determination of the Cuban people.
  And third, of course, is to protect the property confiscated from 
United States citizens by Castro and his crowd, property that is being 
exploited this very day by Fidel Castro to subsidize his Communist 
regime, with foreign companies earning blood money at the expense of 
the Cuban people. That is what this bill is all about.
  The proactive strategy set forth in this legislation preserves United 
States credibility with the Cuban people; it shows that the United 
States is one of the few countries not willing to legitimize the 
brutality of the Castro regime in exchange for some mythical market 
share.
  Here is the point, Mr. President: This legislation seeks to break the 
status quo by extending an offer of broad, U.S. support for a peaceful 
transition, while providing disincentives to companies whose ventures 
prop up the Castro crowd, the Castro regime, the Communist regime in 
Cuba, that is exploiting the labor of the Cuban people and the 
resources of the American property owners. That is what those who want 
to prop up Castro are willing to do. They are willing to forget all of 
the murders, all of the decades in which people have suffered in jails 
since Castro took power.
  Since this bill was introduced, there has been an unprecedented hue 
and cry from Mr. Castro's crowd in Havana and, to be honest about it, 
from certain quarters in the United States.
  All sorts of dire consequences have been forecast about this bill's 
probable impact on United States relations with the Europeans and the 
Canadians. Well, la de da, the Canadians, after all, have been 
transshipping sugar from Cuba all along, in violation of United States 
law. I could catalog a lot of other things that ought to be stopped, 
which the U.S. Government ought to get about the business of stopping.
  In any case, many of the same predictions that Congress heard in 1992 
during the debate on the Cuban Democracy Act are being said today. 
Nothing came of those predictions about ruptured relations; but the 
predictions that did materialize were felt by Castro, who was and is 
the target of the Cuban Democracy Act.
  The only dire consequences of the Libertad bill's enactment are dire 
for Mr. Castro. And I do not mind telling you I want to set his tail 
feathers afire, which is long overdue. He has tormented his own people 
long enough. I do not have much sympathy for the view held by Americans 
who do not feel that the United States ought to come to the aid of the 
Cuban people. We should have done it a long time ago.
  The pending bill will hurt Mr. Castro at his most vulnerable point--
his pocketbook. It makes clear that only a democratic Cuba, a free 
Cuba, will receive the benefits of American trade and recognition.
  Cuba is the last Communist nation in this hemisphere. There once was 
a bunch of them. Castro is losing his grip on power. He knows it. We 
know it. And anybody with average vision ought to be able to see it. 
Why else has Castro launched such an aggressive campaign against this 
Libertad bill and in favor of lifting the embargo? Everybody knows 
that. Castro wants an influx of American hard currency. That is what he 
needs most. That is the only thing that will keep him afloat in the 
crisis that is growing over his head.
  What Mr. Castro does not want is for the pending legislation to 
become law. For those who genuinely support freedom for the Cuban 
people, that, it seems to me, is the best reason for this United States 
Senate to follow the lead of the United States House of Representatives 
in approving the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letters from the 
prodemocracy activists in Cuba and Armando Valladares be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Partido Solidaridad Democratica,

                                 Havana, Cuba, September 20, 1995.
     Hon. Jessie Helms,
     Chairman of the U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign 
         Regulations.
       Because of a wicked turn of destiny, a history with 
     contrasting elements is repeating itself in Cuba. In the 
     early years of the revolutionary triumph, the government 
     headed by Castro confiscated all private property belonging 
     to both cuban and foreign capitalists to ``save'' 
     economically the fledgeling revolution. In 1995 and in order 
     to ``save'' the same revolution socialism, and alleged gains, 
     the same properties are put on sale for other capitalists to 
     buy although this represents no benefit for the cuban people.
       The economic embargo maintained by subsequent American 
     Administrations has begun to make its influence, felt not 
     against the people, but against those who cling to power. 
     These effects are felt after the downfall of the socialist 
     camp. Which forced the Havana regime to improvise economic 
     moves, waiting for a miracle to pull them out of a very 
     difficult situation.
       Against these efforts by the last totalitarian dictatorship 
     in the continent, the Act of Freedom and Democratic 
     Solidarity with Cuba sponsored by you is the most positive 
     option. Efforts in other directions offer doubtfull solutions 
     in such a long term that the agony of over 10 million people 
     cannot wait.
       We support the alternative you propose. Its approval will 
     mean a definite turn in our favor. We thank you sincerely for 
     what you are doing and we are sure that those who criticize 
     you today will congratulate you tomorrow for your 
     unobjectable contribution to process of democratic 
     transformation in Cuba.
       On behalf of a wide sector of the Oposition Movement I 
     represent and on my own I congratulate you and pray to God 
     for the success of your effort.
           Embracing you,
                                          Elizardo Sampedro Marin,
                                                       Presidente.


                   other support of the libertad bill

       Hector Palacios Ruiz, Vice-presidente del PSD.
       Leonel Morejon Almagro, Presidente de NATURPAZ (Defensores 
     de ecologia y medio ambiente).
       Odilia Collazo, Presidenta Partido Pro Derechos Humanos de 
     Cuba.
       Fernando Sanchez Lopez, Presidente de la APAL (Asociacion 
     Pro Arte Libre).
       Adolfo Fernandez Sainz, Ejecutivo del PSD.
       Raul Rivero, Poeta y Periodista (Miembro del PSD/Agencia de 
     Prensa Habana Press).
       Orfilio Garcia Quesada, Asociacion de Ingenieros 
     Independientes de Cuba.
       Juan Perez Izquierdo, Periodista PSD.
       Rafael Solano Marales, Director Habana Press.
       Amador Blanco, Comision de Derechos Humanos ``Jose Marti'' 
     de Caibarien.
       Jose R Marante, Consejo Medico Cub Independiente.
       Dianelys Gonzalez, Asociacion Trab de la Salud Ind.
       Pedro A Gonzalez Rodriguez, PSD prov Habana.
       Caridad Falcon Vento, PSD Prov Pinar del Rao.
       Hector Peraza Linares, Periodista PSD.
       Mercedes Parada Antunez, Presidenta ADEPO.
       Jesus Zuniga, Director Centro de Informacion del PSD.
       Secundino Coste Valdes, Periodista y Presidente de la 
     Organizacion Opositora Panchito Gomez Toro.
       Ernesto Ibar, Presidente Asoc Jovenes Democratas. 

[[Page S 14997]]

       Felix Navarro, PSD de Perico, Matanzas.
       Ivan Hernandez, PSD de Colon, Matanzas.
       Abel Acosta, Partido Pro Derechos Humanos Cifuertes.
       Mercedes Ruiz Fleites, PSD Santa Clara.
       Francis Campaneria, PSD Camaguey.
       Aurelio Sanchez, Partido Social Cristiano.
       Luis E. Frometa, Alianza Cristiana.
       Raquel Guerra Capote, Federacion Mujeres Amalia Simoni.
       Blanco Gallo, Alianza Metodista Cristiana.
       Carlos Oruna Liriano, Asoc Reconstruccion Democrata.
       Silvia Lopez Reyes, Mov Fe, Democracia y Dignidad.
       Alejandro Perez, Liga por la Reivindicacion Cristiana 
     Nacional.
       Josue Brown, Liga Evangelica Juvenil.
       Gloria Hernandez Molina, Mov Catolico Democratico.
       Guillermo Gutierrez, Union Evangelica Oriental.
       Victor Suarez, Democrata Autentico Cristiano.
       Eduardo Valverde, Accion Patriotica Civilista.
       Onelio Barzaga, Mov Revolucionario Cubano autentico.
       Agustin Figueredo, Union de Activistas Pro Derechos Humanos 
     ``Golfo de Guacanayabo.''
       Jose Angel Pena, PSD prov Granma.
       Nidia Espinosa Carales, PSD prov Granma.
       Rafael Abreu Manzur, PSD prov Santiago de Cuba.
       Nicolas Rosario, Centro de Derechos Humanos de prov 
     Santiago de Cuba.
       Maria Antonia Escobedo, Frente Democratico Oriental.
       Aristides Cisneros Roque, PSD Guantanamo.
       Jorge Dante Abad Herrera, Partido Cubano pro Derechos 
     Humanos de la prov Guantanamo.
                                                                    ____



                                           Armando Valladares,

                              Springfield, VA, September 21, 1995.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Sir: I am a former political prisoner of Fidel 
     Castro's jails where I was confined for twenty-two long 
     years. In those jails I saw many of my best friends die due 
     to horrible tortures and inhumane treatment.
       I strongly believe that the remaining days of Castro's 
     tyranny will be shortened once your ``Libertad'' bill, now up 
     for a vote, is passed. The endorsement of your legislation by 
     the most influential dissident leaders inside Cuba proves 
     that they are convinced, as I am, that this law is an 
     important contribution towards our goal, a ``Free and 
     Democratic Cuba.''
       I commend you for your relentless effort and leadership. 
     While the rest of the world seems to be content and sits idle 
     watching the destruction of a country and its people, 
     individuals like yourself come forward to fulfill a duty. 
     That is eliminating injustices and abuses wherever they 
     occur.
           Que Viva Cuba Libre,

                                           Armando Valladares,

                                           Former U.S. Ambassador,
                                     U.N. Human Rights Commission.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from North Carolina withhold? 
I believe the Senator from Rhode Island seeks recognition. Will the 
Senator withhold?
  Mr. HELMS. Of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have a couple of points to make. One of 
them is, it seems to me unwise to support tacitly the practice of 
submitting a cloture motion at the same time as a bill or amendment is 
submitted. I think if this becomes a precedent, it could lead to abuse.
  Second, I would like to make the observation that I think I am 
probably the only Member of this body who has lived under communism for 
a year or two, a couple of years, and been exposed to it.
  I have been to Castro's Cuba four times since being in the Senate and 
twice to Guantanamo. My view is that the best medicine we can give the 
Cubans is to submit them to exposure to freedom and fresh air and clear 
light, that this is what gets rid of communism. I think back to when I 
lived under the Iron Curtain. We used to say the same thing, that 
communism would die of its own evil, which it did; of its own 
ineptitude, which it did. And this is what we should admit to having 
with Cuba. And, I submit, the legislation before us does not do that.
  I believe all my colleagues agree on the goals of American policy 
toward Cuba--promoting a peaceful transition to democracy, economic 
liberalization and greater respect for human rights while 
simultaneously controlling immigration from Cuba. What is clearly 
different is how we get there. In my view, the legislation before us 
today is going to take us further away from achieving these goals and 
is contrary to U.S. national interests.
  Rather than ratcheting up the pressure even further in order to 
isolate Cuba, as this bill would do, we should be expanding contact 
with the Cuban people. In that regard, I believe the measures announced 
by President Clinton last week are a step in the right direction. These 
measures include the reciprocal opening of news bureaus in the United 
States and Cuba in order to improve the accuracy of the bilateral flow 
of information; support for the development of independent, 
nongovernmental organizations in Cuba in order to strengthen civil 
society; clarification of standards for travel for purposes of news 
gathering, research, cultural, educational, religious and human rights 
activities; simplification of regulations that govern travel to Cuba by 
the Cuban-Americans for extreme humanitarian emergencies such as death 
or illness of family members; and, finally, authorization for Western 
Union to open offices in Cuba to facilitate the transfer of funds that 
are currently permissible for purposes of paying legal immigration fees 
and for case-by-case humanitarian needs.
  Of course, I would like to see the administration go even further in 
order to permit the full, free flow of information and people between 
our two countries because I believe this would best facilitate the 
transition to democracy.
  Under appropriate circumstances, too, I would support lifting the 
embargo. I say this not because I believe the Cuban Government should 
be rewarded. In fact, I am amongst those who are disappointed that the 
Cuban Government has failed to make truly meaningful steps toward 
political reform and improved human rights. Nor do I believe that 
should be done as a quid pro quo. We should undertake policy measures 
to enhance--not decrease--to enhance contact with the Cuban people, 
because that will serve American national interests; namely, the 
fostering of the peaceful transition to democracy on that island.
  In my view, greater contact with the Cuban people will plant the 
seeds of change and advance the cause of democracy just as greater 
exchange with the West helped hasten the fall of communism in Eastern 
Europe. In his posthumously published book, former President Nixon 
wrote that ``we should drop the economic embargo and open the way to 
trade, investment and economic interaction * * *'' Nixon believed we 
would better help the Cuban people by building ``pressure from within 
by actively stimulating Cuba's economic contacts with the free world.''
  The Cuban Government has been expanding political and economic ties 
with the rest of the world. These economic relations in and of 
themselves are no substitute for the economic benefits that would 
accrue from more normal relations with the United States, but they do 
provide sufficient space for Castro to refuse to give in to U.S. 
demands.
  I think it is naive to think that the measure before us today is 
going to succeed in forcing Castro to step aside, where all other 
pressures have not. However, the measures proposed in this bill do have 
the serious potential of further worsening the living conditions of the 
Cuban people and once again making a mass exodus for Miami an 
attractive option. Taken to its most extreme, this bill could even 
provoke serious violence on the island.
  This legislation is even more problematic than earlier efforts to 
tighten the screws on Castro. I say this because its implications go 
well beyond United States-Cuban relations. Not only does it alienate 
our allies and tie the administration's foreign policy hands, it also 
seriously injures certain Americans in order to benefit a class of 
individuals in the Cuban-American community. In the process, it throws 
out the window more than 40 years of international law and practice, in 
the area of expropriation.
  Finally, it will make more difficult the transformation of the Cuban 
economy to a market based on economy, because of the complex property 
issues associated with these pending court judgments.
  Contact and dialog between Havana and Washington will bring about 
democracy on the Island of Cuba, not isolation and impoverishment. 
Perhaps if we took that approach, our allies 

[[Page S 14998]]
would seek a similar course, and realize that they might compromise 
some of their approaches with us.

  I only ask my colleagues to observe the lessons of what happened with 
the removal of communism in Eastern Europe when it was forced out--when 
the light, free air, and freshness of democracy swept it out. But if 
you build walls and isolate that will not occur.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, thank you.
  Mr. President, this legislation presents the Senate with an 
opportunity to remind the people of Cuba that we have not forgotten 
them. Nor have we forgotten the decades of suffering and oppression 
inflicted on them by the brutal Castro dictatorship which began in 
1958. With freedom on the march throughout the Americas, Communist Cuba 
is desperately fighting to preserve its experiment in government 
through enslavement. Now more than ever we must redouble our resolve 
and our efforts to rid our hemisphere of thugs like Fidel Castro and 
those who support him. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation which 
specifically stiffens sanctions against the Communist elite of Cuba who 
are exploiting confiscated property in a last ditch effort to preserve 
their privileged status.
  The most important element of this legislation is contained in title 
III. It creates a new right of action that allows U.S. nationals to sue 
those who are exploiting their confiscated property in Cuba. This 
provision is necessary to protect the rights of United States nationals 
whose property has been confiscated by the Cuban Government without 
just and adequate compensation--in fact, without any compensation. This 
new civil remedy will also discourage persons and companies from 
engaging in commercial transactions involving confiscated property, and 
in so doing deprive Cuba's Communist elite of the capital--the cash 
money--which they need to perpetuate their exploitation of the people 
of Cuba.
  This legislation does not compromise existing foreign claims 
settlement procedures, nor does it dilute the claims of the original 
certified claimants. It simply provides an additional remedy made 
available to all U.S. nationals whose claims are not covered under 
existing settlement mechanisms. In fact, we are making the recovery 
process less complicated because it will protect additional properties 
until claimed by their rightful owners under the laws of a democratic 
Cuba which I hope will come soon.
  In the recent past, the United States expended significant effort to 
liberate the people of Haiti from a military dictatorship. Today the 
Clinton administration continues to spend enormous sums of taxpayers' 
dollars on Haiti. Every day I grow less certain of the administration's 
resolve to ensure that Haiti's present government is committed to 
democracy and liberty.
  Recent White House policies toward Cuba also cause me to question 
whether President Clinton has the resolve necessary to maintain United 
States pressure on the Castro regime. Regardless, there should be no 
doubt about congressional resolve to stay the course toward liberation 
for the people of Cuba. This bill is an essential step toward achieving 
that goal. I strongly support it and encourage colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that this piece of 
legislation comes to the Senate floor without having been through a 
markup in the committee so that members of the committee could debate 
and potentially amend the legislation.
  It, like so many other pieces of legislation these days, is cobbled 
together quickly--the Lord only knows where--and it is moved to the 
floor. And we are told, here is the issue. You go ahead and debate it. 
The regular order, of course, would be to have some hearings on 
something that represents a national problem, and, as a result of the 
hearings, understand the dimension of the problem and then to try to 
construct some appropriate, sensible, reasonable conclusion that 
addresses the problem, move it through a markup in the committee, and 
then bring it to the floor and debate it.
  That is the way you would do something, if you are really interested 
in doing it the right way. But we see, unfortunately, a Senate and a 
Congress that these days seems intent on hour by hour and day by day 
changing the itinerary and the schedule and cobbling together some 
half-notion of what is in the press yesterday and how we might 
legislate responding to it tomorrow.
  Well, I came to the floor today not so much to talk about Castro and 
Cuba. I know this bill is about Castro and Cuba. And I know that Castro 
and Cuba are a presence in our lives and around, and that we have to 
respond to and deal with them.
  Frankly, Fidel Castro and Cuba are not the most important things in 
the lives of people I represent.
  We have a Senate that is in session today. Very few Members are here 
for debate. And we have in the Chamber on the agenda the need to 
discuss Cuba and Castro.
  We have had hearings during this Congress on all kinds of issues. We 
have had 11 days of hearings on Waco. We have had 10 days of hearings 
on Ruby Ridge. We have had 24 days of hearings on Whitewater. But I 
represent a part of the country that has a fairly high percentage of 
the population of the elderly who are concerned about Medicare and 
Medicaid, policies dealing with nursing homes, hospitals, and doctors.
  We are seeing a proposal for a substantial change in the Medicare 
Program, and there were not any hearings on the specific plan that was 
laid down about a week and a half, 2 weeks ago, none. Some might say, 
well, we held a bunch of hearings beforehand so we thought through it 
then. Now we have put together this proposal.
  My question is, well, if you have a proposal that you held close to 
your vest here for some long while, then unveiled it at the last 
moment, why did we not have a day or a week or 2 weeks of hearings 
about what is proposed to be done with Medicare? What about the 
specific plan? What does it do? What is the impact? What will it mean 
to the future of Medicare? What will it mean for senior citizens who 
rely on Medicare, for rural hospitals?
  There are a lot of things that are important. Castro and Cuba rank 
well below, in my judgment, the question of what are the priorities 
that this Congress is establishing for the future of this country.
  One thing is certain. We are not certain about a lot of things, but 
one thing is certain. One hundred years from now no one here will be 
alive--no one. But 100 years from now those who choose to wonder what 
we were about, what kind of value system we had, what we cared about, 
what we thought was important and dear to us, they will be able to look 
at how we spent our resources in this country. They will be able to 
look at the Federal budget and say, here is how that group of Americans 
at that point in time decided to spend its public resources. And they 
will be able to tell a little something about what we felt was 
important, how we felt we would advance the interests of the country.
  I sat in the Chamber of the House of Representatives this morning, as 
did some of my colleagues, and heard a wonderful tribute to the 
veterans of the Second World War on the 50th anniversary of the end of 
the Second World War. And it was remarkable to see the number of people 
who stood up in that Chamber when asked, all the Medal of Honor 
winners, to stand up. And you looked around with a tear in your eye and 
seen those people who won this country's highest honor, who exhibited 
uncommon bravery, risked their lives, were wounded, and did 
extraordinary things to save the lives of others. And you realize what 
people have sacrificed for this country, what this country has done for 
itself and for others around the world.
  One of the speakers this morning was Strom Thurmond, a wonderful 
Senator in this Chamber, in his nineties. I assume he would not mind if 
we mentioned his age. It is probably published all over--a vibrant and 
interesting Senator who has been here some long while, and when he 
spoke this morning I was remembering a conversation I had with him. 

[[Page S 14999]]

  He, as I recall, enlisted in the Second World War when he was over 
the age of 40 and went overseas and then volunteered to get up in a 
glider, to be pulled aloft at night with some volunteers to crash land 
behind enemy lines in Normandy. This was not an 18- or 20-year-old kid; 
this was a fellow in his forties who volunteered to risk his life to do 
that. And I had a talk with him one day about what was going through 
his mind: Was he scared? Was he frightened?
  I will never forget the discussion I had with Senator Thurmond--a 
wonderful discussion. I just thought to myself, what some people have 
done, gone through in this country is quite remarkable.
  There was then a spirit of unity that was extraordinary in this 
country. We came together to do things, do things to preserve freedom 
and liberty. There is a kind of a shattering of the spirit, some say, 
these days. I do not know that that is true, but I know that there is 
some discord because it is so much easier for people to focus on what 
is wrong rather than what is right, to focus on the negative rather 
than the positive. And I understand all of that. I understand the 
tendency people have to hold something up to the light and say, ``Gee, 
look at that imperfection; isn't that ugly? Isn't that awful?''
  Sure. But it is not the whole story. Part of the story of this 
country is not just the celebration of what we have done in the Second 
World War to keep this world free and beat back the oppression of 
Nazism. Part of the story of this country is what a lot of those in 
this Chamber who came before us decided to stand up and do for our 
country. I was not here when they decided we ought to have the Social 
Security system, but, boy, I cannot express enough gratitude to those 
who had enough courage to stand up in the face of cries of socialism by 
others, saying, how could you possibly propose a program like this?
  Well, I am glad there were enough builders, enough people who decided 
there are positive things to do that benefit this country, I am glad 
there were enough of them around to stand up and have their vote 
counted, which meant we now have a Social Security system in our 
country. It probably was not very easy for them. It was not more than 
30 years ago Medicare was proposed, and the easiest thing in the world 
is to be opposed to everything. The old story goes it takes more skill 
to build a building than it does to wreck a building. It takes no skill 
to tear something down. We all understand that.
  I was not here in the early 1960's, but the first people who brought 
Medicare to the floor of the Senate, recognizing that half of the 
senior citizens of this country had no health care coverage, were 
willing to stand here and make the case for the need for some dignity 
and some protection and some security for the elderly in this country. 
I regret to say 97 percent of the folks on the other side of the aisle 
said, we are sorry; we do not believe in this; we are going to vote 
against it; Medicare ought not happen.
  Well, we persisted, those who were here before us persisted, and we 
developed a Medicare Program. And it has been a wonderful program. 
Perfect? No. Are there some blemishes? Yes. Does it need some 
adjustment? Sure. Has it been a positive thing for the senior citizens 
of this country? You bet it has. Ninety nine percent of the senior 
citizens of this country now have health care coverage and do not in 
their declining years, do not in their older years sit in abject fear 
of getting sick. That is a wonderful thing and a wonderful story as a 
part of the progress in our country.
  Some will say, well, you can talk all you want about Medicare and 
Social Security, but the fact is those things do not work; this country 
is coming apart. And they will cite as evidence some of the enormous 
challenges we face. And I understand some of those challenges. We have 
racial tensions in our country. We are racially divided and we must 
address that. Mr. President, 23,000 murders. We have a crime epidemic, 
and we have to find a way to solve that; nearly 10 million people who 
are out of work and looking for a job; 25 million people on food 
stamps; 40 million people living in poverty; slightly over a million 
babies this year will be born out of wedlock with no father; 8,000 to 
9,000 of them will never in their lifetime learn the identity of their 
father.
  Challenges? Troubles? Absolutely. Absolutely. But you do not solve 
those problems and you do not address challenges by running away and 
pretending they do not exist. The question is, how do we meet these 
challenges? Where do all of us meet these challenges? What kind of 
things do we do first individually in our homes, then in our 
communities, and then, yes, in our elected Government, in the Congress? 
How do we come together with approaches and plans that address these 
vexing problems that confront our country?
  If I did not think the future of this country is brighter than the 
past, I would hardly have the energy and strength to do this job. I am 
convinced that if you look at all of these problems together, you will 
conclude that a country that survived a major depression, that beat 
back the oppressive forces of tyranny and Nazism in the Second World 
War, a country that has met challenge after challenge, will meet these 
challenges. But we will not do it by turning our backs on the past and 
by deciding that those things that we have done together that make this 
a better country we should now take apart.

  Most especially we are now in this Chamber involved in the process of 
making choices, choices about what we think will advance the interests 
of this country. It is not so much, in my judgment, choices between 
conservatives and liberals because, frankly, I think you have appetites 
in every chair in this Chamber to spend public money.
  I recall when the defense bill came to the floor of the Senate, as 
will my colleagues. I was astounded to find that the bill for this 
country's defense, to appropriate money for America's defense, 
recommended by the Secretary of Defense and the four branches of our 
armed services, came to the floor of the Senate having had $7 billion 
added to it to buy ships, planes, submarines no one asked for, to buy 
B-2 bombers--20 of them are $30 billion--to start a Star Wars program 
and say; ``By the way, we not only want to start it, we want you to 
deploy it in the field by 1999 on an accelerated basis.''
  The same people who come here and order B-2 bombers, whose cost for a 
nose wheel and a fuel gauge would pay for all the Head Start programs 
in our country with 55,000 kids, they also want to kick off Head Start, 
say to us: ``Well, what is really important in our country is to have 
the B-2's. Do not talk to us about Head Start,'' they say.
  This is all about choices. What choices do we make that advance this 
country's interests? The same people who came to this floor and said, 
``We want $7 billion more for defense. We want B-2's and star wars and 
so on''--and, incidentally, they also, I think page 167 of the defense 
authorization bill said they want $60 million for blimps. The hood 
ornament of goofiness is to buy 60 million dollars' worth of blimps. 
Lord knows what the Hindenburg strategy for buying blimps is. I 
searched far and wide in this Chamber to find out who wrote in $60 
million to have blimps and failed to find out who it was. I concluded 
it is an immaculate conception in this bill with no discernible author.
  Having said all that, the same people who wrote all of this into the 
defense bill said, when it came time to deal with the other side of 
America's needs: ``We're sorry. We're out of money.'' We had plenty of 
money for this defense need well above what the Secretary asked for. 
``We insist you buy planes you did not ask for and ships you did not 
order, the two amphibious ships.'' Two of them--we chose one for $3.9 
billion and one for $900 million. ``Why be misers? We want to build 
both of them,'' they said. I will not even talk about submarines.
  But the point is this: They said we can afford everything in defense, 
even what the Secretary of Defense did not ask for. We insist on 
wanting to give a tax cut, over half the benefit of which will go to 
Americans with over $100,000 in income.
  So I brought an amendment to the floor and said if we are going to 
have to choose and we are going to set priorities, please let us do 
this, let us decide that the tax cut will go to working families and we 
will limit the benefits of the tax cut at least to those families 
earning below $100,000 in income and 

[[Page S 15000]]
use the savings from that limitation of who gets the tax cut to below 
$100,000 in income to reduce the heavy cut they are going to make in 
Medicare. At least let us do that, limit the tax cut to those under 
$100,000 in income, and use that to try to at least eliminate some of 
the heavy hit on Medicare.
  No, they did not want to go for that. All of them voted against it. 
Well, I want to give them another chance. I am going to offer another 
amendment this week, maybe $500,000. Would you agree at least to limit 
the tax cut to people who make less than $500,000 a year and use the 
savings in order to reduce the hit on Medicare? I mean, it seems to me 
this is all about choices and priorities.
  A question we asked with respect to this budget is, do family farmers 
matter? Do kids matter? Is nutrition important? Does education advance 
this country's interests? All of those are questions we are asking. And 
we are answering those questions by what we decide to spend the 
public's money on.
  Now, as I said earlier, I do not despair about the answers to these 
questions because I think one way or the other, one day the American 
people will come to the right conclusions. We want to get to the same 
location. All of us want to move this country ahead. We want this 
country to have more economic opportunity, more growth, better educated 
kids. We all want the same things but we have very different views on 
how we get there.
  The new ideas these days, incidentally, are the ideas of block grants 
and flat taxes. I am thinking about the words ``block'' and ``flat.'' 
It is really hard, it seems to me, to build a political movement using 
the words ``block'' and ``flat.'' Block grants are, you just take all 
this money that comes into the Federal coffers and send it all back 
someplace else and say, ``By the way, you spend it back someplace else, 
and no strings attached.''
  I say, why put 3,000 miles on a dollar? Why send money from North 
Dakota to Washington, only to send it back and say, you spend it, spend 
it as you wish? Why not cut down on the travel? You want to do that? 
You think nutrition is not a national need? Then why do you not just 
tell the Governors, You handle nutrition issues. You raise the money 
back home and you spend it? Personally, I would not support that. But 
that would be a more honest approach, probably a more responsible use 
of the taxpayers' dollar.
  Flat taxes. That is an old, old idea dressed in new clothes that 
says, Let's have the wealthiest Americans pay less taxes and families 
pay a little more. I mean, it is part of the same philosophy that the 
problem in this country is the rich have too little and the poor have 
too much. And we must, some feel, come to this floor and make choices 
that remedy that by giving the rich more and taking from the poor.
  Well, Medicare, Medicaid, education, family farming--these are the 
priorities, the issues that we need to discuss.
  What about Medicare? Some say what are you talking about is cutting 
Medicare. No one is proposing cutting Medicare. No one. We are simply 
reducing the rate of growth. Let us analyze that just for a moment.
  We know what it will cost to fund the Medicare program over the next 
7 years. Two hundred thousand new Americans every month become eligible 
for Medicare. That is how America is graying. We know what Medicare 
will cost with the new people becoming eligible and also with the 
increased cost of health care each year. That being the case, if you 
cut $270 billion from what is needed to fund the Medicare program, the 
fact is you are cutting Medicare. Yes, you are cutting the rate of 
growth, but you are also cutting Medicare in terms of what is needed.
  Medicaid, well, if you cut 20, 25, 30 percent out of what a State 
needs--and North Dakota is cut 22 percent from what we need to fund 
Medicaid--then you say, By the way, there will be no national standards 
any longer for nursing homes. Do you think you have advanced the 
interests of this country, the interests of the poor, the interests of 
people who need help? I do not think so.
  Education. Somebody wore a T-shirt once that said: ``If you're 
interested in the next year, plant rice; interested in the next 10 
years, plant trees; interested in the next century, educate kids.'' 
Education must also be our priority. The stamp of choice these days 
applied in this Chamber is that does not matter as much as B-2 bombers, 
probably does not even matter as much as Cuba to some.
  Mr. President, we do not have much opportunity to debate these issues 
in lengthy hearings, in lengthy analysis of what it all means to 
people, to people who rely on Medicare and Medicaid, rely on guaranteed 
student loans or rely on the safety net for family farmers.
  So we must take this time on the floor of the Senate to discuss what 
all this means and where it moves America. I hope that no one will 
decide that these debates are unworthy or for one reason or another 
these debates do not matter. It is not a sign of weakness that we 
cannot agree and have debates. That is the way a democracy works. My 
hope is that these debates as they unfold will inform the American 
people about these policies and what they mean for the future.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I wanted to ask the Senator a few questions.
  First of all, Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator from North 
Dakota--I mean, I try to spend time in cafes in Minnesota, have coffee, 
unfortunately too much pie, with the people and just ask people what 
they are thinking about.
  Has the Senator found in North Dakota that, when you go into a cafe, 
on the list of people's priorities, the Senate right now should be 
debating Cuba?
  I have a whole series of questions. Does it come up at all?
  Mr. DORGAN. I was in North Dakota all last week because the Senate 
had no votes last week. I did not hear one North Dakotan talk to me 
about Cuba. It does not mean Cuba is not interesting or important; it 
is that they are interested in the issues that affect their daily 
lives--farm programs, Medicare, and so on.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The second question I want to ask the Senator from 
North Dakota is, I said on the floor last week--and actually sometimes 
words come to you, but I actually now believe that this is exactly what 
is happening--that what I see going on here is a rush to recklessness, 
a fast track to foolishness.
  Is there, on the part of people in North Dakota--let us start off 
just talking about Medicare recipients. I want to ask you about medical 
assistance and some other programs as well. I mean, do you find both 
with the beneficiaries and with the caregivers, whether it be in the 
rural parts of the State--North Dakota is mainly rural--or some of your 
larger cities--that would be our metro area--do you find a tremendous 
concern about what is going on in Washington where people feel like we 
do not have the information of what is going on?
  It is not even that people necessarily reached a conclusion yet, but 
that they really want to know. They yearn for information. And they 
want to know exactly what is happening and how it is going to affect 
their view.
  How it is going to affect them? Do you sense that in your State, and 
what are the concerns that you hear the most from people?
  Mr. DORGAN. I think people are worried about a lot of things. They 
are worried about the fact that we do not have a balanced budget. 
People want us to put our books in order, to balance our budget.
  I agree with that, and most Members agree with that. This is not a 
debate about whether the budget should be balanced. A number of us 
supported a balanced budget plan that was offered during the budget 
debate on the floor of the Senate that does have cuts in all these 
areas but does not single out for unfair cuts or does not propose cuts 
that unravel programs that a lot of Americans rely on, and certainly 
did not say to people at the upper-income scale of our country, ``You 
have a million bucks, $2 million, $5 million. Guess what? Start 
smiling, we're going to give you a big tax cut.'' That was not in our 
budget, because we think there is a right way to balance the Federal 
budget. Do the hard work, balance the budget, make the tough choices 
and then later talk about the tax system.
  I would like to find tax relief for working families. But at the 
moment, 

[[Page S 15001]]
let us figure out how you balance the budget, and there are different 
ways of doing it.
  You do not have to balance the budget by saying, ``By the way, we 
want a $245 billion tax cut, on the one hand, and then we want a $270 
billion cut in Medicare, on the other hand.''
  Someone asked me in North Dakota, ``Why don't you just decide not to 
do the tax cut and that would provide most of the money for the 
Medicare problem.''
  I said, ``Some people feel very strongly that this country will only 
grow if you give the Wall Street crowd more money in the form of tax 
breaks.''
  I do not happen to share that. If we are going to give tax breaks, we 
ought to give it to working families. We ought not talk about tax 
breaks, even if it is popular at the moment, until we solve the deficit 
problem. And I want to solve it the right way, not the wrong way.
  The wrong way is to decide, for example, on Medicare and Medicaid--
Medicaid is a good example--that we will send that problem back to the 
States by sending bulk money in the form of block grants. We will send 
to North Dakota 22 percent less than what is needed for Medicaid, and 
then at the same time say, ``Oh, by the way, there are no national 
standards for nursing homes anymore.''
  You know the consequence of that. We have been through this. We have 
seen nursing homes. We have seen nursing homes where they put some old 
person in a restraint system so they cannot move their arms, and they 
sit in a chair for hour after hour after hour. They cannot scratch 
their cheek, they cannot wipe a tear from their eye, they cannot move, 
and often are not attended.
  We have seen circumstances like that in this country, and we decided 
there ought to be some basic standards for nursing home care. I have 
been in nursing homes plenty, plenty. I am pleased to say, at least the 
ones I have been in, especially the one with my father for a long, long 
while, I am pleased to say he got good care. But I do not want to go 
back to the old days when we say, ``By the way, you don't care. If 
you're poor and old, that's your tough luck.''
  I think we ought to have circumstances where we say that national 
standards for nursing homes make sense. They were worthwhile, they are 
still necessary, and we ought to say that we are willing to take care 
of the needs of poor people who need long-term care in nursing homes. 
If we can take care of the needs of a millionaire to say, ``By the way, 
you deserve a tax cut today,'' is it reasonable to say now we cannot 
afford to take care of someone who has reached 70, 80 years old who has 
Alzheimer's and no money? That does not square with the priorities I 
learned when I grew up in a small town in North Dakota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator will yield for another question, and I 
know the Senator from Arkansas has done a lot of work in this area of 
nursing homes and may want to ask some questions, but I would like to 
ask another question of the Senator. I have a few more, and I will not 
speak so much. I will put it in the form of a question.
  Last week I spent a lot of time, and I will not even talk about the 
education front of it right now, with the people in the State and also 
at a hearing at the State capital. I, too, visited a number of 
different nursing homes.
  In my own case, both my parents had Parkinson's disease, so it is a 
very personal issue with me. I think when people can stay at home, that 
is the way you should do it, live at home with dignity. Sometimes 
people describe to me a nursing home as a home away from home.
  A number of the caregivers said to me that they do not know--with the 
medical assistance, in Minnesota about 60 percent of our medical 
assistance funding is for nursing homes and about two-thirds of the 
people in the homes receive medical assistance--they said they do not 
know exactly how they are going to absorb these cuts. We have been 
hearing a lot about Medicare, but they are really frightened about 
these cuts and they do not know whether it means they change 
eligibility or whether they reduce standards. I did not hear anyone, 
and I want to ask you this, I did not hear any one of the 
administrators----
  Mr. HELMS. Point of order. Point of order. This is not a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I did not----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Point of order. Point of order. The Senator is not asking 
a question, he is making a speech.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, I want to know whether or not in North Dakota you 
heard any cry for removing standards for nursing homes. That is my 
question.
  Mr. HELMS. I will call the hand of any Senator who makes a speech 
while asking a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my question was based upon--I started 
out by saying this is what I found in Minnesota.
  Mr. HELMS. It is not a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Did you have the same experience in North Dakota? That 
is my question, Mr. President. I want to know whether or not you found 
administrators in North Dakota who want to remove national standards 
and go back to the days of restraining belts?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will respond to the Senator from Minnesota by saying I 
had a meeting in North Dakota with virtually all the nursing home 
administrators and hospital administrators, because I am trying to find 
what are the consequences. While nursing home administrators would like 
very much to see some loosening of regulations here and there, I do not 
know that there is a population of nursing home administrators who 
believe that you ought to eliminate Federal standards. None of them 
came to me and said, ``Look, let's get rid of all Federal standards.''
  That was not what was described to me by nursing home administrators. 
They clearly would like fewer regulations, I understand that. I think 
even nursing home administrators were surprised by the proposal that we 
would have no Federal standards with respect to nursing homes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Does the Senator agree if we do not have those 
standards, we will go back to the days of indiscriminate use of 
restraining belts and the drugging of people, and that when children 
visit nursing homes, will the Senator agree, that when children visit 
nursing homes, they want to make sure their parents are receiving 
compassionate care?
  Mr. HELMS. The Senator is making a speech again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator can only yield for 
a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is the question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I think, Mr. President, my point about nursing home 
standards is that the desire by some and the proposal now by the 
majority party to decide there shall be no national nursing home 
standards of any consequence is, I think, an extreme position, and I 
hope on reevaluation they will decide this goes way beyond the pale; 
that developing sensible standards was necessary and protects a lot of 
people in our country who deserve that protection. I hope that they 
will rethink that position.
  Again, let me reiterate, we are talking about a series of issues--
Medicare, Medicaid, education, family farming. This is not--this is 
not--an issue between conservatives and liberals, because I find it 
interesting that some of those who claim to be the most conservative 
Members of the Senate--I do not know who they are--but the most 
conservative Members of the Senate would, when the defense 
appropriations bill comes to the floor, say, ``Heck, just spend the 
farm, spend it all. There is no proposal that is too grandiose for me. 
Whatever it is you want to buy, let me buy it. In fact, let's not buy 
`it,' let's buy 10 of them. Let's order a dozen of them. Let's have a 
few of them made in my State.''
  That is sort of the attitude when that bill comes to the floor.
  And I am thinking to myself, I am pretty confused about who is 
liberal and who is conservative. I thought these folks were people 
pretty close with the dollar, did not want to spend much, and all of a 
sudden it is like they are on shore leave. It is spend, spend, spend 
when those bills come to the floor. Then when a piece of legislation 
comes to the floor that deals with someone else's needs, they say, 
``Well, gee, we are out of money.''
  Well, this requires, it seems to me, a compromise and choices. It is 
all about 

[[Page S 15002]]
priorities. We might radically disagree about priorities that advance 
this country's interests. But, in the end, I hope that we will finally 
get together and believe education, and the right investment in 
education, advances America's interests. End of story. I hope we can 
agree on that.
  I hope we can all agree that there are ways to make certain that 
those who reach the retirement years of their lives and suffer health 
consequences and need long-term care really ought to receive the 
protection that a Medicaid program and Federal nursing home standards 
offer. I hope that we can come to those kinds of understandings between 
the most divergent positions here in the U.S. Senate. I hope that by 
the end of November all of us with differing positions, including the 
President, Republicans and Democrats, can find a way to sift through 
all of these differing positions and figure out a direction that makes 
sense for the country.
  We will have to cut some spending in Medicare. I am saying that on 
the floor of the Senate. We need to do that. There needs to be an 
adjustment. It does not need to be $270 billion and should not be $270 
billion. That is there because they need that to accommodate a tax cut.
  So we do need to adjust Medicare, I agree. We need to make 
adjustments in a range of these areas. The question is, Which 
adjustments and how do we make them to advance the interests of this 
country? That is the important debate for us to have, I think, in the 
coming weeks. And often there has not been enough time for hearings so 
that we can make the case at hearings about the impact of these 
proposals.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from North 
Dakota if he would allow me to, through the Chair, address a question 
to my good friend from North Carolina and if he would yield to me for 
that purpose.
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I will address this question. I am 
wondering if my good friend from North Carolina would allow the Senator 
from Arkansas, say, at a time certain, to make a statement on what I 
consider to be the most important issue that is coming before this 
Congress through the balance of this session, which is the 
reconciliation bill. We will not, I remind my good friend--and I know 
he knows this--we will not have an ample opportunity--10 hours on a 
side--to properly debate perhaps one of the most monumental issues ever 
before the U.S. Senate, which is the tax cut and tax increase----
  Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will yield for a moment, the Senator from 
North Dakota has not yielded the floor, has he?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is correct. I have yielded to the Senator from 
Arkansas for a question.
  Mr. HELMS. I cannot, under the circumstances, when an obvious 
filibuster is taking away the subject at hand--to answer the question 
of the Senator, I will be glad on a time certain to have the floor 
yielded to anybody who wants to make a speech. But our side wants to 
talk about the pending business.
  I recall that when the reorganization of the State Department 
legislation came up, the first speaker that trotted out over there was 
that great statesman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, who did not speak 
on the State Department. He spoke for 2 hours, 25 minutes on the 
minimum wage, a subject that he never brought up once when he was 
chairman of the relevant committee in the previous 2 years.
  So if we could have an understanding that we will have a little bit 
of time on this side to discuss the pending legislation while you folks 
are making the speeches that you want to make, sure, I will make a deal 
with you. What does the Senator have in mind?
  Mr. PRYOR. Well, Mr. President, I am not controlling time.
  Mr. HELMS. I did not say the Senator was.
  Mr. PRYOR. The Senator from North Dakota is controlling time on our 
side at this point.
  Mr. HELMS. I established that, I think, with my question to the 
Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I respect the Senator's wishes. This is 
not a filibuster. I wanted to take the floor----
  Mr. HELMS. Oh, yes, it is. I know one when I see it.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have watched filibusters and I have seen 
the good Senator filibuster. I can recognize one when I see one and 
have recognized them before with the good Senator. But this is not a 
filibuster. In fact, compared to some of the missives on the floor of 
the Senate, this has been relatively brief.
  My intention was to come this afternoon, when I had an opportunity, 
to seek the floor and talk about some priorities and choices. I know 
others are interested in Castro and Cuba because that is the bill that 
was brought here. My understanding is there was no markup on the bill 
and no amendments offered. Anyway, it showed up on the floor of the 
Senate. I did not have anything to do with that. But I would like to 
talk about the priorities and some things that are important to me. I 
am pretty well done talking. It is not my intention to keep the floor. 
I know others wanted to do the same.
  In deference to the Senator from North Carolina, it is not my 
intention to hold up the Senate.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I will point out there was a 
cloture petition filed immediately when the bill was brought up. Under 
the rules of the Senate, it requires there is a cloture vote within a 
fixed amount of time. Even if we wanted to start a filibuster, that 
option has been pretty much precluded by the action taken by the 
majority leader.
  We all know that they have at least six of our colleagues--four that 
are running for President--that are going to be in New Hampshire 
tonight. The majority leader has announced no more votes today. This is 
not a filibuster. We are accommodating those who could not be here. 
They have gone up to debate.
  We are debating Cuba. But my colleagues are raising, I think, a 
legitimate issue. This bill has come to the floor without any markup by 
the Foreign Relations Committee. They are pointing out that this is 
another example of a piece of legislation that has not gone through the 
normal process.
  We are having a major transfer of wealth occurring in a few days in 
this country from a cut in Medicare, Medicaid, a tax break of $240 
billion, and we had zero hearings on that issue. Frankly, I think 
people do want--and I ask my friend whether or not he agrees with 
this--here we are going to spend a couple of days on Cuba, which has 
relevancy to some people. But ask the American people if they would 
rather see debate on Medicaid, Medicare, and a tax break, or some 
policy on Cuba. The effects of this legislation do not go into law 
until there is democracy in Cuba. I ask my colleague that.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, he cannot make a speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is correct. I think everyone here knows this 
is not the issue of the day in the country--Cuba policy. It is the 
issue of the day on the Senate agenda, brought to us with relatively 
little notice, without going through a markup, which is fine. The fact 
is that the majority party has the right to do that.
  Also, as the Senator from North Carolina knows, I have the right to 
come to the floor and seek recognition to speak about issues that are 
important to me. I would observe that no one in this Chamber is better 
on the issue of procedure on the Senate floor than the Senator from 
North Carolina. He knows that and I know that.
  He also knows that, as a result of that, we are going to come to a 
time here in the matter of a couple of weeks in which the majority 
party is going to see this giant truck called reconciliation, with an 
empty box in the back, and they are going to throw everything in this 
reconciliation basket. They are going to throw Medicare, Medicaid, tax 
cuts, the farm bill, you name it, in that truck coming by. And what 
happens to folks on this side of the aisle?
  The Senator from North Carolina knows what happens to us. We are 
limited in debate, limited in amendments. The fact is that we have a 
limited opportunity to get at these issues. That is what requires us to 
be here now and start talking about these issues, because we need that 
time to explore exactly what these policies are going to mean to this 
country.
  I do not intend to prevent the Senator from having the floor. He has 
every right to seek the floor. He is 

[[Page S 15003]]
managing the bill. I understand his frustration.
  Mr. HELMS. I am not frustrated.
  Mr. DORGAN. I simply sought the floor because there are things I want 
to say in the next couple of weeks, and every opportunity I get, I am 
going to do that. I want to talk about choices and priorities in this 
country. You and I want the same thing for the future of this country. 
Many in this Chamber share a different view, not about the destination 
but about how you get there. These are things I want all Americans to 
understand, the choices that are being made, and what it will mean to 
them.
  Let me close as I began today. I began today talking about the 
ceremony--a quite wonderful ceremony in the Chambers on the 50-year 
anniversary of the end of the Second World War. It is remarkable when 
you think of what people gave for this country. Many gave their lives. 
There was a spirit of unity and a spirit of national purpose in this 
country at that time.

  I had hoped, somehow, for us again in this country to rekindle that 
spirit of unity and national purpose, to build a better country, 
address this country's problems, fix what is wrong, and move on to a 
better and brighter future.
  I think you want that, I want that. Part of achieving that is for us 
to have a healthy, aggressive debate about a whole range of choices in 
terms of how you get there, what you do to make this a better country. 
That is all my purpose is. With that I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 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. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] be recognized for 15 
minutes, at which time I regain 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________