E 1050 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 16, 1995

Medicare part A, the hospitalization insurance program, draws its revenue from a trust

fund that currently contains $135 billion. This

trust fund will begin losing money next year

and will be insolvent by 2002. We must provide security to our seniors that there will be

a safety net for their use if needed in 7 years.

Enrollees in Medicare part B, the program

that finances outpatient medical treatment, will

pay a premium of $46.10 a month and a deductible of $100 this year. In return they will

receive benefits averaging nearly $2,400 per

enrollee, with taxpayers subsidizing $1,800

per beneficiary. By 2002, that subsidy will

reach $3,900 per individual. This subsidy will

cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion over the next 20

years if the current course continues. The average one-earner Medicare couple will receive

$126,700 more in benefits than they contributed over their working life.

In April, I completed another round of town

meetings in the Fifth District of Indiana. The

solvency of Medicare was a top concern. I

heard a similar message from young and old

alike from Kokomo to Winamac and from Logansport to Plymouth. Hoosiers don’t want a

quick fix that doesn’t work. They don’t want

accounting gimmicks. They don’t want political

posturing. They want Congress to reform the

system to ensure security for years to come.

The solvency of Medicare is very real to Hoosier families and seniors.

House Republicans have proposed a budget

plan that balances the Federal budget by

2002, without touching Social Security or raising taxes. This means that for the first time

since 1969, our deficit by 2002 will be zero.

Medicare spending is projected to increase

from $178 billion in 1995 to $258 billion in

2002. That’s a 45 percent increase over the

next 7 years. What does this mean for the average Medicare recipient? In 1995, the average Medicare beneficiary will receive $4,684

in benefits which increase to $6,293 in 2002.

Again, benefits increase—not decrease.

The Board of Trustees for the Medicare

Trust Fund, appointed by President Clinton,

have issued a report saying Medicare’s shortterm fiscal health requires either an immediate

increase in payroll taxes of 44 percent or an

immediate decrease in Medicare spending of

30 percent. Yet both of their proposals would

only ensure solvency for 25 years. I support a

less draconian approach such as reducing the

growth of Medicare by just 5 percent a year.

No tax increase nor enormous cuts. A 5 percent reduction in growth will provide for long

term security of the Medicare program.

Because a centralized Government monopoly is inherently inefficient, wasteful, and too

slow to adapt to new ideas and new solutions,

we must transform Medicare. Every senior citizen should have more choices in health care

and more control over their own lives, thus

providing more security. a transformed Medicare system will provide better health care at

lower cost with greater choice. Failure to

transform Medicare will lead to cuts in services and financial crisis.

The President should be a leader, not a follower. The President’s own Cabinet members,

as trustees of the Medicare Trust Fund, have

issued a report clearly stating that Medicare is

in dire need of reform. President Clinton has

been absent from this debate. Frankly, I am

very disappointed that it will take Congressional legislation to bring the President into

this discussion. I hope the President will take

a seat at the table and help the Congress address this important issue. If not, the Congress

clearly has the determination to do so without

him. I support H.R. 1590.

Finally, the imminent crisis in Medicare

funding is real and unavoidable. Responsible

reform of Medicare is a top priority of this

Congress. It should be everyone’s purpose to

reform and improve Medicare to provide the

best possible service to its beneficiaries. I look

forward to working with my constituents, my

colleagues, and hopefully the President to find

real solutions to improve these programs.

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

f

HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR OF MINNESOTA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased

to cosponsor H.R. 1392, the Federal Aviation

Administration Reform Act of 1995, introduced

by our colleague, JIM LIGHTFOOT. Congressman LIGHTFOOT’S bill makes important reforms

which will enhance FAA’s ability to carry out

its responsibilities, while preserving FAA’s

basic structure which has enabled the agency

to become the world’s finest. Although I have

reservations about some provisions in the

Lightfoot bill, overall it is a major contribution

to our effort to reform the FAA.

I strongly support the provisions in

H.R. 1392 which would take FAA out of the

Department of Transportation and make FAA

an independent agency. This reform has been

supported by 10 of the 11 living former Administrators of FAA. The strong support of the

former Administrators should be given great

weight, in view of their distinguished careers in

the military and private sector, and the fact

that they served our a period of more than 30

years, under Presidents of both parties, from

John F. Kennedy to George Bush.

As the former Administrators have pointed

out, FAA’s responsibilities to develop the aviation infrastructure and to ensure aviation safety and security are basically technical in nature. FAA’s skilled professionals are well

equipped to carry out these responsibilities,

without second guessing from political appointees at the Department of Transportation.

I have observed DOT’s oversight of FAA for

many years. DOT’s review often does little

more than delay important decisions. In some

instances, DOT overrules sound FAA decisions, on ideological grounds, or to gain short

term public relations advantages.

I would also emphasize that all 11 of the living former Administrators strongly opposed a

reform which is not in the Lightfoot bill, but

has been proposed by the Department of

Transportation; to split FAA into a quasi-public

corporation, like the Postal Service, for air traffic control and a rump FAA to regulate the corporation and carry out FAA’s other responsibilities. In hearings before the Aviation Subcommittee, Najeeb Halaby, FAA Administrators from 1961 to 1965, testified that:

‘‘Corporatizing part of the FAA could disintegrate the present comprehensive system of

safety which has served the nation so well. It

would result in potential serious conflict between the new corporation, the NTSB and the

DOT/FAA. Since the proposed corporation

would be a monopoly, it would not achieve the

savings of free competition. Since it would be

a federal corporation, the public would not

consider that federal employees really had

been reduced or true savings achieved. . .’’

Administrator Halaby’s statement was specifically endorsed by all 11 former Administrators.

The Lightfoot bill makes important reforms

in the laws and regulations governing FAA’s

procurement of equipment and FAA’s relationship with its skilled work force. FAA is now

governed by burdensome procurement laws

and regulations which have slowed FAA’s program to modernize the air traffic control system. Equally burdensome laws and regulations

on personnel have limited FAA’s ability to recruit scientific and engineering professionals

and to fully staff air traffic control facilities in

high cost of living areas. The Lightfoot bill

adopts a balanced approach to these problems by giving FAA flexibility to develop its

own procurement and personnel systems,

while retaining an opportunity for Congress to

review these programs before they are implemented. Congress would also review the new

personnel and procurement programs in the

year 2002 when they would need to be reauthorized. The personnel and procurement reform programs developed under the Lightfoot

bill would not only benefit FAA, but would also

provide important data for reforming these

processes for other Government agencies.

I am also supportive of the provision in the

Lightfoot bill which gives the FAA Administrator a 7-year term in office. In recent years,

Administrators have often served for 2 years

or less. This is not enough time to ensure that

needed reforms are implemented. The turnover in Administrators has caused reform to

proceed by fits and starts, and prevented a

sustained, consistent approach. Last year we

passed legislation giving the Administrator a 5-

year term in office. A 7-year term would be

even better.

I have reservations about the provision in

the Lightfoot bill to establish a panel to consider innovative financing mechanisms to ensure adequate funding for aviation infrastructure needs. We do not need a panel to discover that the basic problem is that the more

than $5 billion a year generated by excise

taxes on aviation system users, such as the

10 percent tax on airline passengers, is not

being fully spent to develop the aviation infrastructure. The failure to fully spend these revenues is a breach of faith with aviation users.

The taxes were imposed in 1970 for the purpose of financing the airport and airway trust

fund which supports development of the air

traffic control system and airports. In recent

years, the user contributions have not been

fully spent, but have been used to reduce the

deficit in the general budget. The cumulative

amount of taxes which has not been spent

now totals more than $3 billion. A critical step

in overcoming this problem is to pass

H.R. 842, which would take the trust fund out

of the budget process and permit all funds

contributed by users to be spent for the intended purpose of developing our Nation’s airports and air traffic control system.

Overall, I believe that the Lightfoot bill

makes a major contribution to FAA Reform. I

look forward to working with Congressman

LIGHTFOOT and my colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to develop an FAA reform bill which will ensure that
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1051

we will continue to have the world’s finest

aviation system.

TRIBUTE TO MARGARET STANFILL

MOORE ORIGINALLY OF HAYTI,

fMISSOURI

HON. BILL EMERSON OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

pay tribute to Margaret Stanfill Moore, whose

outstanding service as a nurse in World War

II provided an invaluable role in several key

battles, including the liberation of Europe.

Margaret Stanfill Moore holds the distinct

honor of being the first woman to set foot

upon the beaches of Normandy on D–Day,

June 6, 1944. She followed the first wave of

Allied troops ashore and immediately began

ministering to wounded soldiers and paratroopers. Her work was crucial to saving the

lives of Americans and our Allied friends.

Not only did Lieutenant Stanfill heroically

rush to the shores of Normandy, but she was

also one of the first nurses on the scene in the

North Africa campaign. After North Africa, she

followed Allied troops into Sicily. Margaret

bravely risked her life in some of the most important battles of World War II to save the

lives of American and Allied troops.

I am proud to boast that lieutenant Stanfill is

from Hayti in the Eighth District of Missouri.

The daughter of Mrs. Ola Stanfill, Margaret

Stanfill Moore is a graduate of Hayti High

School, Class of 1930, where she was captain

of the girls’ basketball team and the county

high school tennis singles champion. Following high school, Margaret entered Nurses

Training at the Baptist Hospital in Memphis,

TN. After spending a year in private practice,

she joined the U.S. Army Nursing Corps.

It is with honor that I recognize Margaret

Stanfill Moore for her invaluable and outstanding service to our country. There is no more

honorable an occupation than saving the lives

of wounded American soldiers. The veterans

of World War II thank her, I thank her, and

America thanks her.

END THE CUBAN EMBARGO

fHON. JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I recently

wrote to President Clinton urging him to immediately begin negotiations with the Government of Cuba aimed at lifting the economic

embargo and normalizing relations.

For over three decades, we have tried to

force Fidel Castro from power by maintaining

a tight economic embargo on Cuba. But, that

embargo has failed to hasten Mr. Castro’s departure and has failed to fuel the type of internal pressures to advance the democratic reforms that so many of us want to see.

Instead, the embargo has encouraged and

strengthened the sentiments of nationalism in

Cuba, provoked an increase in immigration to

the United States—and it has provided Mr.

Castro with a perfect excuse to justify the failures of his system.

It is my hope that the Clinton administration

will recognize the obvious failures of our current policy and change course.

I would like to call my colleagues’ attention

to a recent article written for the Boston Globe

by Elizabeth Shannon entitled, ‘‘United States

Should End Its Embargo Against Cuba.’’ Ms.

Shannon, who is a writer and administrator at

Boston University, makes a compelling case

for changing our policy.

[From the Boston Globe, May 4, 1995]

UNITED STATES SHOULD END ITS EMBARGO

AGAINST CUBA

(By Elizabeth Shannon)

President Clinton’s reversal of our Cuban

refugee situation may be the administration’s first step toward changing a policy

which has been ill-advised and self-defeating

throughout this century. To insist on continuing and expanding the harsh and illogical embargo against Cuba when an accord favorable to both countries could be reached is

inconsistent with American self-interest.

What good is it to have 11 million people

near starvation or to create political chaos

on a small island just 90 miles off our shores?

Whatever Fidel Castro is—guerrilla fighter, oppressive dictator, unrelenting windbag,

nouveau capitalist—he is well aware of the

failure of the Revolution and is groping for a

way out, peering through the doors of private enterprise that are opening up to him

and liking what he sees.

Through his own mismanagement and the

loss of the $5 million annual subsidy from

the Soviet Union, the infrastructure of Cuba

is in shambles. The Spanish colonial mansions in Havana’s suburbs are in bleak disrepair. Black smoke from oil wells pollutes

the air. The few cars one sees are vintage

American models, making the streets of Havana look like a set for a Bogart film. Engines rust on unused rail tracks, and buses

have been replaced by ancient flatbed trucks

with benches nailed to the floor to serve as

public transportation.

Children beg on the streets of Havana. The

only miracle left, hard to fathom, is the good

nature and indomitable spirit of the Cuban

people and their faith, slightly frayed, in ‘‘El

Comandante.’’

Cuba is trying to deal with its economic

crisis by participating in joint private enterprise projects, mainly with Canada, Mexico

and Europe. It is also pouring money into

tourism, which is growing at the rate of 20

percent annually.

There is still no free press, radio or television and one wonders about the literacy

level when there are so few books to read.

There are no young, would-be Fidels in the

university; dissenters who still fear a knock

on the door at night.

Nevertheless, there is an easing of some of

the harsh, repressive social policies of the

past two decades. The availability of educational opportunities and day care centers

have made it possible for women to achieve

goals not available to them in the pre-Castro

days. Churches are open again after more

than two decades. The repulsive policy of informing—on one’s neighbors, friends, family—is becoming discredited.

The farmers’ markets that are now allowed

in the cities have eased the harsh deprivation of food supplies. Pork and fowl, beans,

rice and vegetables are plentiful. The markets are crammed with shoppers, trading in

dollars, the favored currency, instead of

Cuban pesos.

But the Cuban people, adoring as many are

toward their ‘‘Maximum Leader,’’ are restive

and eager for a better life.

A respected journalist who has lived in

Cuba through the Revolution said to me recently: ‘‘Castro will change. He is, above all,

a pragmatist and is keenly interested in how

history will judge him. Of course, he must

save face. Let him devise the words he will

use to roll with the change. Democracy? People here aren’t too interested in democracy.

They are most interested in getting food on

the table without having to stand in line for

hours, in having things work, in good gasoline, new cars, a transportation system, electricity that doesn’t work on whim.’’

Cubans want to talk business. And, ironically, it may be American businessmen

rather than politicians and diplomats who

change our Cuban policy. They are flocking

to the island.

It would seem that these moves toward

capitalism would make America happy and

might even make Sen. Jesse Helms smile.

But our reaction has been to tighten the embargo and punish those countries—our allies

and friends—who do trade with Cuba, creating more ill-will.

What guides our current policy toward

Cuba? It is a combination of inertia and our

indefatigible desire to punish Castro, to

bring him down, that feeds the inflammatory

rhetoric of Helms and the implacable hatred

toward Castro of members of the exile community, who are now threatening to shut

down businesses in Miami in protest of Clinton’s new policy. It does nothing to create a

viable climate in which to bolster Cuba’s

waning economy into a stable, thriving and

eventually capitalistic society.

If there is one lesson to be learned from

the story of Vietnam, so sorely reopened by

Robert McNamara’s memoirs, it is to recognize the fatal miscalculation of foreign policy-makers who, so sure of their direction,

don’t read the road signs. Policies conceived

in honest hope grow old and out-dated and,

eventually, fatal. The theory that to make

democracy work in Cuba we must ‘‘defeat

Castro’’ and punish the Cuban people is

flawed.

A European diplomat said to me in Havana: ‘‘Castro could probably defend Cuba

against 100,000 American Marines. There is

no way he could defend it against 100,000

American tourists!’’ This moment in Cuba’s

history is an opportunity for President Clinton to begin the process of negotiation. Perhaps Jimmy Carter could make a stopover in

Havana when he is in the area.

ABOLISHING THE SUBMARINE

fPATENT

HON. CARLOS J. MOORHEAD OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, recently, advertisements appeared in most of the newspapers in my 27th Congressional District, including the entire back page of the L.A.

Times. These advertisements were purchased

by a newly created group calling themselves

Intellectual Property Creators. The adds were

supporting the passage of H.R. 359, a bill introduced by my friend and colleague from

California [Mr. ROHRABACHER] . The purpose

of this type of lobbying is to bring pressure on

me and the subcommittee I chair, to process

this bill immediately. The bill, H.R. 359, is very

controversial and of dubious merit. However, I

have indicated that the subcommittee will hold

a hearing on this issue next year.

The issue is the change in the U.S. patent

law that occurred last year with the enactment

of the GATT implementing legislation which