[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.
____________________