[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15081-S15085]
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. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  
[[Page S 15082]]

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 2898 of H.R. 927.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Senate is stuck in a filibuster of the 
Cuba Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995. Unfortunately, some 
have decided to make this a partisan issue. The White House has 
unleashed a lobbying barrage. This should not be a partisan issue. The 
House passed similar legislation with strong bipartisan support. In 
fact, 67 Democrats joined Republicans in that effort, including 
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. There are Democratic cosponsors of 
the pending legislation--Senators Graham of Florida, Lieberman, 
Hollings, Robb, and Reid. I have no doubt that more Democratic Senators 
would support the bill if we could get to a vote. I hope the minority 
will allow us to vote.
  The legislation before us addresses many of the concerns raised by 
the administration regarding the House version. At least 10 substantive 
changes to address administration concerns have been made in the 
pending Dole-Helms amendment. This bill will have to go to conference, 
where the administration will have ample opportunity to air additional 
concerns. I do not know if the White House or Democratic Senators are 
aware of the changes that have been made in this bill. But I hope they 
will take a look at the 10 changes.
  What I believe the Senate should do is speak on the issue of bringing 
democratic change to Cuba.
  Fidel Castro is watching closely what we do today. I know the last 
thing any Member wants to do is send Castro a signal of approval for 
his refusal to change. But we should be clear--many of the opponents of 
this legislation have always opposed the embargo on Cuba, and have 
always wanted sanction on Castro lifted. That is not President 
Clinton's stated policy, and it is not a policy that would receive more 
than a few votes in this body.
  There are legitimate concerns about the legislation. That is why 
Chairman Helms has made so many substantive changes in the legislation. 
Virtually all the issues raised by the White House in the statement of 
administration policy have already been addressed. I ask unanimous 
consent that an analysis of the administration's concerns and the 
modifications in the pending amendment be printed in the Record after 
my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the winds of freedom have been blowing 
throughout our hemisphere. Dictators have fallen, political prisoners 
have been freed, and democracies have flourished. Only one country has 
bucked the democratic tide: Castro's Cuba. Only one country continues 
to repress its own people in the name of the failed dream of communism: 
Castro's Cuba.
  No one should believe that Castro will change willingly. No one 
should believe that Castro will respond to eased pressure. After 30 
years of totalitarian rule and support for terrorism, it is not the 
United States that should change its policy--it is Cuba that should 
change. And Cuba will only change if the United States, the leader of 
the free world, keeps the pressure on Fidel Castro. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the filibuster of this bill, and support 
democratic change in Cuba.

                               Exhibit 1

  Responses to the ``Statement of Administration Policy'' on the Dole-
                      Helms Substitute to H.R. 927

       1. ``The bill would encroach upon the President's exclusive 
     authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign affairs, 
     or otherwise unduly limit the President's flexibility. . . . 
     Mandatory provisions should be replaced with precatory 
     language in the following sections: . . .
       Section (b) [Diplomatic Efforts: The Secretary of State 
     shall ensure that U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad understand 
     and urge cooperation with the embargo]:
       The Dole-Helms substitute states that the Secretary of 
     State ``should'' ensure that U.S. personnel are communicating 
     support for the embargo to their foreign counterparts.
       Section 110(b) [Withholding of foreign assistance from 
     countries supporting nuclear plant in Cuba]:
       The Dole-Helms substitute contains no similar provision.
       Section 111 [The SAP mistakenly refers to a Section 112, 
     which does not exist in H.R. 927] [Expulsion of criminals 
     from Cuba]:
       The Dole-Helms substitute contains no similar provision.
       Section 201 [Policy toward transition and democratic 
     governments in Cuba]:
       The Dole-Helms substitute contains seven policy statements: 
     That it is U.S. policy (1) to support the Cuban people's 
     self-determination, (2) to facilitate a peaceful transition, 
     (3) to be impartial toward any individual selected by the 
     Cubans for their future government, (4) to enter into 
     negotiations with a democratic government on Guantanamo, (5) 
     to consider the restoration of diplomatic relations and 
     support Cuba's reintegration into the inter-American system 
     after a transition government comes to power, (6) to remove 
     the embargo once the President determines that a democratic 
     government exists in Cuba, and (7) to pursue a mutually 
     beneficial trade relationship with a democratic Cuba.
       It is difficult to see how any of these policy statements 
     infringe on, or limit, the President's foreign affairs 
     authority.
       Section 202(e) [The President shall take the necessary 
     steps to obtain International support to transition and 
     democratic governments in Cuba]:
       The Dole-Helms substitute (substitute section 202(c)) 
     states that ``the President is encouraged to take the 
     necessary steps'' to obtain international support.
       Sections 203(c)(1) and 203(c)(3) [transmittal of a 
     presidential determination to Congress that a transition and 
     democratically elected government, respectively, are in power 
     in Cuba]:
       Under Title II, implementation of the assistance plan to 
     either a transition or democratic government in Cuba in 
     triggered by a presidential determination, transmitted to 
     Congress, that such a government has come into existence.
       In foreign aid authorization and appropriations bills, 
     Congress routinely requires a presidential determination, 
     transmitted to Congress, before it provides for the release 
     of any assistance. The provisions in the Dole-Helms 
     substitute are consistent with existing practice.
       In sum, every concern raised by the Administration about 
     H.R. 927 infringing on the President's foreign affairs powers 
     is either addressed by the Dole-Helms substitute or conforms 
     to existing practice.
       ``The effectiveness of civil penalties as a tool for 
     improving embargo enforcement is greatly limited by the 
     exemption in section 102(d). . . . Section 102(d) should be 
     amended to address this shortcoming.''
       The Dole-Helms substitute agrees that civil penalties would 
     be an effective tool in enforcing the embargo. Section 103(d) 
     of the substitute contains the language favored by the 
     Administration.
       ``Section 103 [prohibition on indirect financing to Cuba] 
     should be amended to make the prohibition of certain 
     financing transactions subject to the discretion of the 
     President.''
       The Dole-Helms substitute provision on indirect financing 
     (section 104 of the substitute) gives the President the 
     authority to suspend the prohibition upon the determination 
     that a transition government is in power in Cuba. The House 
     bill only allows the President to terminate the 
     prohibition when a democratic government is in power in 
     Cuba.
       The substitute also provides that the prohibition shall not 
     apply to financing by the owner of the property or the 
     property claim for activities permitted under existing 
     Treasury regulations. This exception is not in the House 
     bill.
       4. ``Section 104(b), which would require withholding 
     payments to International Financial Institutions, could place 
     the U.S. in violation of international commitments and 
     undermine their effective functioning. This section should be 
     deleted.''
       U.S. opposition to Castro's membership in international 
     financial institutions does not violate our obligations. 
     Charter obligations apply to member nations in their 
     relations with the international financial institution and 
     its relations with other IFI member states, not to those 
     nations which are not member-states. Cuba is not a member 
     state and thus is not eligible for any type of IFI loan or 
     other assistance.
       The objective of the LIBERTAD bill is to deny Castro access 
     to IFI financing, while signaling clear support for Cuban 
     membership in the international financial community once a 
     transition to democracy is underway.
       The LIBERTAD's provisions (substitute section 105) are 
     consistent with U.S. obligations and with precedent for 
     opposing and withholding contributions to international 
     financial institutions:
       Under Section 29 of the Inter-American Development Bank 
     Act, no funds are authorized for a U.S. contribution to the 
     Inter-American Development Bank for assistance to ``non-
     member countries'' such as Cuba.
       In 1979, Congress cut the U.S. contribution to the 
     International Development Association (IDA) by $20 million in 
     order to show disapproval of a $60 million IDA loan to 
     Vietnam. At that time, the U.S. contributed one-third of 
     IDA's funds and the $20 million withheld represented the U.S. 
     share of the Vietnam loan.
       In 1960, Castro withdrew Cuba's membership from the 
     international financial community; Cuba was not evicted from 
     membership. At that time, Castro said there was no reason for 
     Cuba to belong to the World Bank ``since the economic policy 
     of that institution is far from being effective in regard to 
     the development and expansion of the Cuban economy.'' 
     Castro's hostile views haven't changed toward the 
     international financial institutions. This past March, Castro 
     denounced the ``irrationality of the system'' when referring 
     to the IMF and the World Bank.
     
[[Page S 15083]]

       5. ``Section 106 [Assistance by the independent states of 
     the former Soviet Union for the Cuban government] would 
     undermine important U.S. support for reform in Russia.
       For former Soviet states receiving bilateral U.S. 
     assistance, the Dole-Helms substitute signals Congress' 
     disapproval of those countries maintaining a military 
     presence in Cuba, using Cuba as a base from which to conduct 
     espionage activities targeted at the United States, or 
     providing trade to Cuba on terms that the market would not 
     provide (i.e., ``nonmarket-based trade'').
       In November 1994, Russia publicly announced that it 
     provides Cuba with $200 million in credits for the use of 
     intelligence facilities in Cuba.
       The Administration claims to share these concerns.
       The substitute recognizes that the U.S. has interests in 
     former Soviet states that go beyond their relations with 
     Cuba. As such, it exempts from its restrictions funding for 
     Nunn-Lugar denuclearization programs, humanitarian 
     assistance, political reform programs, and free-market 
     development.
       The prohibition may be waived by the President if he 
     determines that aid is in the national security interests of 
     the United States and that Russia has assured the President 
     that it is not sharing intelligence data collected from 
     facilities in Cuba with the Cuban Government.
       The provision on nonmarket-based trade states that economic 
     relations between former Soviet states and Cuba should be on 
     commercial terms, not on subsidized terms. This section was 
     originally adopted by the House Foreign Affairs Committee and 
     approved by a Democratically-controlled House of 
     Representatives, and accepted by the Administration, in 1993.
       6. ``Section 110(b) [withholding of foreign assistance from 
     countries supporting nuclear plant in Cuba] is cast so 
     broadly as to have a profoundly adverse affect on a wide 
     range of U.S. Government activities.''
       The Dole-Helms substitute contains no similar provision.
       7. ``Section 202(b)(2)(iii), which would bar transactions 
     related to family travel and remittances from relatives of 
     Cubans in the United States until a transition government is 
     in power, is too inflexible and should be deleted.''
       This provision is not in the Dole-Helms substitute.
       The substitute contains ``sense of the Congress'' language 
     (section 111) outlining that any resumption of family travel 
     and remittances should be done in response to positive steps 
     by Castro, including allowing Cubans to operate small 
     businesses and freeing political prisoners.
       On October 6, the President announced a policy that allows 
     for limited family travel and remittances. The Dole-Helms 
     substitute does not contradict or negate that policy.
       8. ``Sections 205 and 206 would establish overly-rigid 
     requirements for transition and democratic governments in 
     Cuba that could leave the United States on the sidelines . . 
     . The criteria should be `factor to be considered' rather 
     than requirements.''
       The only specific requirements for a transition government 
     in the Dole-Helms substitute are that such a government has 
     (1) legalized political activity, (2) released all political 
     prisoners and allowed for access to Cuban prisons by 
     international human rights organizations, (3) dissolved the 
     state security/police apparatus, (4) agreed to hold elections 
     within two years of taking power, and (5) has committed 
     publicly, and is taking steps, to resolve American property 
     claims (substitute sections 205 and 207).
       The substitute contains a list of additional factors that 
     the President is asked to take into account when determining 
     whether a transition or democratic government is in power in 
     Cuba. Except for the requirements outlined above, these are 
     not ``requirements'' that have to be fulfilled before aid can 
     go to a transition or democratic government.
       The President can waive the property conditions (in 
     substitute section 207) if he determines that it is in the 
     vital national interest of the United States to aid either a 
     transition or democratic government.
       By outlining factors to be considered rather than specific 
     requirements and by providing waiver authority, the 
     substitute acknowledges that the President needs flexibility 
     in making determinations as to Cuba's political evolution.
       9. ``By failing to provide stand-alone authority for 
     assistance to a transition or democratic government in Cuba, 
     Title II signals a lack of U.S. resolve to support a 
     transition to democracy in Cuba.''
       Title II of the Dole-Helms substitute contains 
     unprecedented legislative language written with the express 
     purpose of encouraging a democratic transition in Cuba. The 
     substitute mandates the development of a plan by the United 
     States to respond to a transition process in Cuba. The plan 
     is to include an assessment of the types of assistance that 
     would be required and the mechanisms by which that assistance 
     would be delivered.
       The substitute outlines general areas that should be the 
     focus of U.S. assistance, including aid to meet the 
     humanitarian needs of the Cuban people, as well as assistance 
     to revise the Cuban economy through free-market development. 
     (The substitute's premise is that traditional foreign aid is 
     not the solution to Cuba's economic problems, but that 
     private, free-market economic activities are the key to the 
     island's recovery.)
       The substitute language does not prohibit the President 
     from submitting and Congress acting on, a support package 
     prior to a change of government in Cuba. It does, however, 
     limit disbursement of any aid to or through the Cuban 
     government until such time as either a transition or 
     democratic government is in power in Cuba.
       The substitute does not diminish or otherwise affect the 
     President's existing authorities to reprogram and disburse 
     funds to respond to situations he deems require an emergency 
     response.
       10. ``Title III, which would create a private cause of 
     action for U.S. nationals to sue foreigners who invest in 
     property located entirely outside the United States, should 
     be deleted.''
       The ``right of action'' provision allows U.S. nationals 
     with confiscated properties in Cuba and who have not been 
     compensated for that property to sue those who continue to 
     exploit their confiscated property six months after the 
     bill's enactment.
       The property may be located outside the United States, but 
     the holder of legal title to the property is a U.S. citizen. 
     it is well established in both international law and U.S. 
     jurisprudence that domestic courts may reach actions abroad 
     that directly affect our nation. An example is the ability of 
     U.S. courts to have jurisdiction over antitrust conspiracies 
     abroad.
       Knowing and intentional torts committed on the property of 
     American citizens, even when the property is situated 
     overseas, is sufficient basis for U.S. court jurisdiction.
       This right of action is against the ``tort'' of 
     unauthorized, unlawful ``conversion'' of property--
     essentially the act of ``fencing'' stolen goods.
       Castro's confiscations and continuing exploitation of 
     properties confiscated from American citizens has a direct 
     impact on the United States.
       ``Applying U.S. law extra-territorially in this fashion 
     would create friction with our allies . . . ''
       The remedy sought is a domestic one; the right of action 
     does not seek to be enforced abroad. It is restricted to the 
     jurisdiction of U.S. Courts and those who can be 
     constitutionally reached by our courts.
       The LIBERTAD bill has stirred opposition from those foreign 
     entities benefitting from Castro's illegal confiscations at 
     the expense of the rightful American owner. The bills' intent 
     is not to create tensions with allies, but to serve as a 
     disincentive to would-be investors in properties in Cuba 
     confiscated from U.S. nationals.
       If a foreign entity is not investing in, or benefitting 
     from, property confiscated by the Castro government from a 
     U.S. national, then there is no liability under the LIBERTAD 
     bill.
       ``. . . would be difficult to defend under international 
     law . . . ''
       It is well established in international law that a nation's 
     domestic courts may reach actions abroad when those actions 
     directly affect that nation.
       ``and would create a precedent that would increase 
     litigation risks for U.S. companies abroad.''
       The right of action is specifically for properties in Cuba. 
     Any other country that seeks to extend this right of action 
     to its citizens would be expected to satisfy the same 
     criteria that are included in the LIBERTAD bill.
       Castro's economic exploitation of wrongfully confiscated 
     properties if unchallenged could establish an international 
     precedent that such exploitation, when the legal owner has 
     not been compensated, is appropriate and meets with the 
     approval of the international community, including the United 
     States.
       To the extent that this legislation sends the message that 
     ``fencing'' stolen property carries a cost, it improves the 
     climate for international investment and establishes an 
     incentive for states to resolve confiscation claims.
       ``It would also diminish the prospects for settlement of 
     the claims of the nearly 6,000 U.S. nationals whose claims 
     have been certified by the Foreign Claims Settlement 
     Commission.''
       To the contrary, the cause of action should encourage the 
     settlement of claims by providing a disincentive to foreign 
     entities discouraging the sale of American-owned property to 
     foreign-owned businesses whose occupation of the property 
     can only be considered a further complication in an era of 
     transition.
       Castro, by encouraging joint ventures and the possibility 
     of ownership in confiscated properties, is encumbering the 
     property by granting rights to that property. To the extent 
     that the right of action serves as a disincentive to would-be 
     investors, it keeps confiscated properties from being subject 
     to further ownership claims.
       ``Because U.S. as well as foreign persons may be sued under 
     section 302, this provision could create a major legal 
     barrier to the participation of U.S. businesses in the 
     rebuilding of Cuba once a transition begins.''
       The LIBERTAD bill places the United States firmly behind a 
     democratic transition in Cuba. It does not put in place 
     impediments to rebuilding of a free and independent Cuba nor 
     to U.S. business participation in a post-Castro Cuba.
       Once a transition is underway in Cuba, the rightful owners 
     of Cuban property will likely be able to assert their claims 
     in Cuba as any new government will be on notice that good 
     relations with the U.S. include respect for property rights.
       11. ``Title IV, which would require the Federal Government 
     to exclude from the United States 

[[Page S 15084]]
     any person who has confiscated, or ``traffics'' in, property to which a 
     U.S. citizen has a claim, should be deleted.''
       The Dole-Helms substitute contains no similar provision.
       12. Pay-As-You-Go Scoring: ``H.R. 927 would affect 
     receipts; . . . OMB has not yet been able to estimate the 
     paygo effect of receipts from filing fees for such lawsuits. 
     (However, discretionary costs to the Government from lawsuits 
     could be significant and could place a heavy burden on the 
     court system.)''
       CBO estimates that implementation of the Dole-Helms 
     substitute would cost about $7 million over the next five 
     years. As for the pay-as-you-go effect, CBO ``estimates that 
     additional receipts would not be significant, at least 
     through 1998. These impacts on the federal budget all stem 
     from title III.''
       CBO estimates that ``the federal court system would incur 
     about $2 million in additional costs to address cases that 
     actually go to trial. . . . However, [because of the $50,000 
     threshold], CBO expects the number of additional claims would 
     be quite small and that additional costs to process these 
     claims would not be significant.'' [CBO Letter to Senator 
     Helms, July 31, 1995]

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to thank Chairman Helms for his 
graciousness. I told him I was not intending to speak on the Cuba bill 
but on other items basically dealing with budget priorities, and since 
he did not have any other speakers he agreed because under the rules he 
can object at this point in time due to the Pastore rule. So I just 
wanted to thank him for that graciousness.


                         BUDGET RECONCILIATION

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think it is very important, since we 
only have 20 hours of debate on the Budget Reconciliation Act, that we 
take as much time as we can find on the Senate floor to talk about what 
we believe the future of this country is going to look like once the 
Congress acts on the budget. I think it is fair to say that the far-
reaching impact of the budget bill that has been passed by the 
Republican Congress is not quite understood because it is very 
complicated, because there are charges and there are countercharges, 
but I think at this moment we have to look at what we are facing before 
it is too late--before it is too late.
  The budget bill that is coming out of these various committees--and 
it seems to me that there is no compromise at this point--is so radical 
in my view, is so harmful in my view, is so extreme in my view, that 
reasonable Americans of all political persuasions must know the facts. 
All too often we are told by politicians: Gee, this is very 
complicated. Trust me; gee, it is hard to understand this. Trust me; 
gee, it is all politics and everyone will say one thing and another 
thing. Just trust me.
  I say it is time for the American people to learn the facts, to 
understand the numbers, and to understand what faces them, if these 
priorities move forward, if this budget bill moves forward, and if 
there is no compromise between Republicans and Democrats, which I 
earnestly hope for and I will earnestly work toward.
  So this is where we stand. In the Republican budget bill they are 
going to cut $270 billion out of Medicare. Now, I said it once and I am 
going to say it again, they want to cut $270 billion in the next 7 
years out of Medicare. And I know if I had a Republican colleague on 
the floor, they could say, ``Senator Boxer, not true. We're just going 
to reduce the rate of growth of Medicare by $270 billion. Medicare will 
still grow, but we're just going to reduce the rate of growth.''
  And I have to tell you, that kind of rationale simply will not fly 
with people who listen and understand. Why do I say that? Why is it 
that we have to spend more on Medicare? It is very simple. We are 
living longer. This is good. This is important--the advances that we 
are making in the medical field, the fact that prevention has taken 
hold. We know now about how important it is to do our exercise, to have 
a high-fiber diet, to have a low-fat diet. And, yes, it is difficult to 
teach our young about that. But those of us over a certain age get the 
message. We kind of like to stay around. We want to see our children 
and our grandchildren. We want to be here with the wisdom of our years.
  And so we are beginning to live longer thanks to medicine, thanks to 
prevention, thanks to education. This is good. So, of course, more 
people are going on Medicare each and every year. We should celebrate 
that. And that is why we need more money, because more people are going 
on Medicare. And that means we have to make some adjustments. Of course 
we do. And I will talk about that later to make sure that the money is 
there for all of us who live those golden years.
  Why else do we need more money in Medicare? We are not only living 
longer, we have better technology in the medical field, and we want to 
give that to our grandmas and grandpas so they can have the benefit of 
this medical technology. And, of course, we then have to make sure we 
are not wasting money in Medicare. There is a lot of room for 
improvement. We must do what we can. And we will.
  But this, my friends, this number, makes no sense at all. It is not 
necessary. There is not one health expert that tells us we must cut 
$270 billion out of Medicare. Absolutely not. I will tell you later 
what we must cut out of Medicare, but this number, my friends, is not 
it. This is a killer. This is a killer. This will kill the program. And 
I always thought we honored our elderly, and I always thought this was 
a 30-year-old program that was worth preserving because it works for 
our seniors.
  Is it perfect? No. Can we make it better? Yes. Do we need to cut $270 
billion out of it? Absolutely not.
  But now I am going to show you another number and tell you why the 
Republicans are cutting $270 billion out of Medicare. It is really 
pretty simple when you understand. Guess what? They need $245 billion 
for a tax cut which will benefit the wealthiest people in America, and 
they cannot find it in all the other programs. They looked. They will 
not touch defense.
  As a matter of fact, they have increased defense by billions more 
than the admirals and generals asked us to do. They could not find it 
there, and they have cut to the bone education, environment, you name 
it, public transit, dollars to prevent crime. So they had to go to 
Medicare because they had to find $245 billion for a tax cut.
  My friend from North Dakota, who you will hear from, has offered a 
series of amendments that said, look, let us give a tax cut but let us 
limit it to the middle class if we are going to have one. And that went 
down here on a party-line vote. They will not limit the breaks of this 
tax cut to those in the middle class. They will give people who earn 
over $350,000 a year $20,000 a year back. And I ask you, is that fair? 
Is that fair when we are asking our senior citizens to be party to the 
destruction of Medicare, when we are asking our college students, as 
they are, to pay more for their student loans? Is it fair that they are 
cutting environmental protection by one-third?
  They have to find the money for this $245 billion tax cut. I hope the 
American people will notice the symmetry between what they need to find 
for their tax cut, mostly for the wealthy, and this $270 billion they 
will cut from Medicare.
  That is the answer. My friends, this is a funnel approach. I call the 
Republican Medicare plan a funnel plan. It funnels the money from 
senior citizens directly into the pockets of the wealthiest among us.
  I have absolutely every admiration for those in America who have done 
well. They have taken advantage of the American dream. They have worked 
hard. But I do not think those good people want these kinds of 
priorities. I have spoken with many of them. I have talked to them, and 
they are embarrassed about it. They say, ``Don't give me any tax cut 
until you balance the budget. And don't kill off Medicare, because my 
mom likes it and my dad needs it.'' But oh, no, it is in the contract, 
the contract for America or with America or on America. I forget what 
it is called. It is in the contract. And therefore, there is no backing 
off. There is no compromising, and I only hope that changes.
  It will change if the American people wake up and understand this 
Republican Medicare plan is a funnel plan. The funnel goes from the 
senior citizens directly into the pockets of the 

[[Page S 15085]]
wealthy of America. And guess what? The senior citizens, the average 
senior citizens, earn under $25,000 a year and pay more than $3,000 a 
year in out-of-pocket expenses for their medical care already.
  Oh, the AMA jumped on board. I think it is important to note that the 
AMA, the American Medical Association, stood back from the Republican 
plan until they got a promise that their fees would be OK. They are 
going to be OK. They are going to be OK. So they jumped on. Remember, 
the American Medical Association and 97 percent of Republicans opposed 
Medicare when it was started in 1965.
  This is no shock or surprise. A group that never supported Medicare 
in the first place jumps on board and plans to demolish it, 
unnecessarily so, to cut $270 billion to give $245 billion to the 
wealthiest among us.
  Now, the Republicans say, ``You Democrats, you won't face up to the 
fact that Medicare is in trouble.'' This is what they say. They run 
ads, ``Congressman that and Senator that, Democrats don't understand 
it.'' We understand it because we are the ones who acted responsibly 
since 1970 when the trustees started telling us each and every year we 
had to make adjustments.
  For example, in 1970 they said, ``We're going to be insolvent in 
1972. We have to fix the problem.'' We fixed it. Almost every year, 
except a couple times, we were told the Medicare fund had to be made 
solvent, and every single year we always made it solvent, no problem. 
As a matter of fact, we just acted in the last Congress to make it 
solvent. We could not get any Republican help on that. We voted it in 
in the Democratic Congress.
  So they tell you that this is a once-in-a-lifetime problem, and we 
better act. This has happened year after year after year. The trustees 
told us the fund was going to be insolvent. Why? Why? Because people 
are getting older and medical technology is getting better, and, yes, 
we have to adjust the fund.
  So do not be taken in with the argument that Medicare is in desperate 
trouble and we must cut $270 billion from it. It is not so. It is not 
so.
  How much do we have to cut from Medicare to make it work? We have 
done it all the time. We fixed the fund continually throughout these 
years. What is it going to take? We have a number. We know what it is, 
and that number is $89 billion. That is what we have to find to cut out 
of Medicare to make it safe, to make it solvent and whole to the year 
2006, and then, Mr. President, I say to my friends, we will be doing 
what we should be doing.
  So I guess what I need to sum up with is this: I represent more 
senior citizens than anyone else in the Senate, except for the senior 
Senator from California, Senator Feinstein. Why? Because we have 32 
million people in our State and they are worried. And they are worried. 
The average woman over 65 in this country who is on Social Security 
lives on $8,500 a year, and she is already spending $3,000 out of 
pocket on her medical care. Is this the way we honor our seniors? Is 
this the kind of legacy we want to leave?
  And if this is not bad enough, you should see their Medicaid plan. 
Two-thirds of our seniors in nursing homes are on Medicaid. Two-thirds 
of our seniors. And do you know what the Republicans have voted to do? 
They have voted to decimate that program. The hospitals in my State and 
every other State are up in arms, the Governors are up in arms--
Republican Governors are up in arms--because on top of these Medicare 
cuts that I showed you, there is $182 billion of Medicaid cuts, and 
while they are at it, they have repealed the national standards for 
nursing homes.
  We are going to go back to the dark ages, to the secret tortures of 
bed sores and sexual abuse and beatings and druggings. Why do you think 
we have national standards? We did not pass it here for fun. We passed 
it because of the outrageous things we knew were going on in nursing 
homes. And do you know what we said? The seniors are a national 
priority, and we are not going to leave it up to 50 different States.
  We have standards for airplanes. We do not leave it up to 50 
different States. We have standards for drugs, because we do not want 
our people poisoned. We do not leave it up to 50 different States. Why 
on Earth in God's name would we say that we should cancel nursing home 
standards and leave it up to the States when we know the problems we 
have and the agonies that our families went through before we had 
national standards?
  Now, look, I am for change as much as anybody else, but I am for good 
change, I am for positive change, I am for reasonable change. I am not 
just for change to say I have changed the world.
  The House Speaker says he came to bring a revolution--a revolution. 
Maybe there are some places in our society where we need to have a 
revolution. I could think of a couple, but I have to tell you, not in 
the nursing homes of this country do we want to bring a revolution and 
cancel all the standards and have the secret horrors of the past 
reappear.
  I will tell you, Senator Mikulski said she will chain herself to her 
desk if they try to repeal the spousal impoverishment laws. She can add 
me to her chain, because I am not leaving this floor if we cancel 
nursing home standards, and I am not leaving this floor if we now say 
to the grandpas who put their wives into nursing homes, ``We're going 
after your house, sir, we're going after your car, and you're not going 
to be able to earn any money, sir. We're taking it all.'' And once they 
get through with that, they are going to go after the kids.
  That is not a revolution of which I want to be part. That is a 
revolution of which to be ashamed. That is a revolution that goes back 
to the dark days of the past. It is like the orphanages. We are going 
to go back to orphanages, going to go back to secret tortures of 
nursing homes. What kind of vision is that for our Nation? We must do 
better than that.
  So, yes, we need to act. We can take $89 billion out of Medicare and 
solve the problem, but we do not have to cut out $270 billion to funnel 
into a tax cut for the wealthiest among us. We must not go after 
Medicaid and destroy the program and have a situation where our moms 
and dads and grandmas and grandpas are in deep, deep trouble, one is 
thrown into a nursing home, the other is thrown into the poor house. We 
must do better than that, I say to my friends, and we can if we sit 
down across the table and work together.
  I am from one State that will really bear the brunt of these changes. 
I am willing to sit with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
from night to the next morning to the next night to the next morning 
until we reach a compromise.
  Back off of that tax cut, limit it to the middle class, and then we 
will have some dollars that we can offset these cruel and outrageous 
cuts. Back off your plans to destroy education and environmental 
protection. If they back off their tax cuts, we can do it, and I hope 
we can come together and do it.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this 
extreme revolution is rolled back today before it hurts our people. I 
yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________