[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Boren, Mr. 
        Cochran, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hatch, and Ms. Moseley-
        Braun):
  S. 2109. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Social 
Security Act to provide improved and expanded access to comprehensive 
primary health care and related services for medically underserved and 
vulnerable populations through the provision of financial support for 
the development of community-based health networks and plans, to permit 
federally-assisted health centers to expand their capacity and develop 
and operate new sites to serve underserved and vulnerable populations, 
to provide certain financial and other protections for such networks, 
plans, and health centers, and to facilitate the involvement of, and 
payment to, entities serving underserved and vulnerable populations in 
the training and education of primary care health professionals, and 
for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I join with five colleagues from 
both sides of the aisle to introduce the Access to Community Health 
Care Act of 1994.
  This legislation will build a comprehensive, community-controlled, 
primary health care service infrastructure throughout this country--an 
infrastructure that will expand on the Community and Migrant Health 
Center approach that has a 30-year track record of success in diverse 
communities nationwide. Every major reform bill, from Representative 
Michel's legislation to Senator Wellstone's, recognizes this success by 
providing major increases for the C/MCH program, so I am more than 
willing to share credit for this idea. However, we go one step further 
in this bill to preserve and expand the proven health center concept in 
the developing health market. Also, I must caution that this does not 
pretend to be a comprehensive health reform bill, because it does not 
address the question of universal insurance coverage. However, any true 
health reform bill should incorporate this legislation to meet the 
needs of our urban, rural, and poor areas.
  As my colleagues know, Community and Migrant Health Centers exist in 
every State. Each center is a private, nonprofit corporation run by a 
community board, at least half of whom are center patients. The center 
agrees to accept patients without regard to their ability to pay, and 
to provide or arrange for comprehensive primary care. Care is provided 
on a sliding fee scale, and centers meet an array of quality and 
performance standards. In exchange, shortfalls in revenue from 
insurance and out-of-pocket charges--between 30 percent and 40 
percent--are made up by a Federal grant.
  This proven formula of payment-blind admissions, Federal support, and 
community empowerment has been a 25-year success story. Health centers 
have cut infant mortality by up to 40 percent, Medicaid costs for their 
patients by 33 percent, lengths of stay in the hospital by one-half to 
two-thirds, while reducing hospital admissions up to 67 percent. And in 
probably the most stunning statistic, total costs per patient, 
including Federal grant funds, insurance reimbursements, and out-of-
pocket patient costs, run less than $300 per year. In short, Community 
and Migrant Health Centers have been a cost-efficient model for the 
delivery of community-controlled health care in exactly the areas that 
need them most.
  Mr. President, our bill builds on this successful model in three 
ways. First, our bill guarantees expanded funding adequate to establish 
accessible primary health care in all underserved areas. This is 
critical because a health insurance card alone will not provide 
adequate service for people in underserved areas; without expanded 
access, the more than 40 million Americans in underserved areas will be 
shortchanged by health reform. They will seek emergency care at the 
hospital, and our national effort at cost control will fail.

  Also, our bill adds flexibility to the current law to establish 
community owned and operated networks and plans consisting of essential 
community providers. These networks would agree to live by health 
center rules: providing care without regard to ability to pay, charging 
on a sliding-fee scale, agreeing to provide a comprehensive list of 
services, and accepting community control. In short, in areas that will 
not support several competing health plans, we provide the resources 
and structure for a community-controlled primary care system built on a 
model that has proven quality and cost-effectiveness for decades.
  The second thrust is to ensure adequate numbers of highly trained 
people to staff these facilities. As in the President's legislation and 
that of Senator Chafee, we would increase funding for the National 
Health Service Corps to provide scholarships and loan repayment for 
primary health professionals who agree to serve in shortage areas. 
Also, we would encourage health training in the geographic areas that 
most need health professionals by providing direct payment to cover the 
cost of their training. Current Medicare graduate medical education law 
only assures funds to institutions that operate accredited training 
programs, effectively locking in the available funding to existing 
medical schools and teaching hospitals. This bill would allow direct 
payment for the costs incurred at a center or network which is part of 
a hospital or medical school training program.
  The third thrust is to preserve the safety net of dedicated health 
providers in underserved areas so that they are not run out of business 
by market trends or by health care reform. The Government has invested 
in medical care for the good of all Americans--through research, 
training, tax breaks, and direct insurance. In areas that the market 
traditionally has not served and that will continue to be underserved 
without special efforts, we need to promote stable access and quality, 
and not lose our investment or jeopardize the health of citizens in 
those areas. To ensure continuing access, this legislation strengthens 
current Medicaid safeguards by ensuring inclusion of health centers 
under section 1115 or 1915 waivers. These provisions are modeled after 
methods used in Maryland, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to make sure that 
these providers are not put at undue risk. It also ensures continuation 
of a reasonable payment rate to these providers.
  Mr. President, this legislation meets the front-line health care 
needs of today's America. In my hometown of Charleston, SC, there is 
currently no pediatrician accepting new children on Medicaid. 
Similarly, a pediatrician in Spartanburg--population 43,000--writes to 
me that this is ``the only pediatric private practice that accepts 
Medicaid in the city of Spartanburg.'' Ninety-five percent of his 
practice is Medicaid. One wonders about the children who do not live 
near his office. The children can have insurance, but service is a 
struggle. Increasingly, I hear the same thing from senior citizens who 
move or whose doctors retire--no one wants their insurance. This 
legislation ensures a medical home for these people that is stable, 
highquality, responsive, and costeffective.
  Mr. President, we do not need to reinvent the wheel in primary care. 
We have a proven, effective model. Our challenge is to provide that 
proven model where it is most needed. There is bipartisan agreement on 
this point, and serious cost savings to be made. I urge our colleagues 
to join us, and parallel with our debate on the complexities of 
insurance reform, let us come to final agreement now that basic 
services will be available throughout this country.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join in 
cosponsoring the Access to Community Health Care Act of 1994. This 
legislation is essential for rural and urban medically underserved 
communities and should be integrated into the broader context of 
national health reform.
  The legislation builds on the highly successful Community Health 
Center and Federally Qualified Health Center Programs. Today, these 
centers provide primary and preventive health services to over 7 
million of America's poor, uninsured, and medically underserved. Their 
programs have produced a stellar track record, demonstrating that the 
special needs of high-risk populations can be served with quality and 
cost-effective care.
  America's network of community, migrant, and homeless health centers 
are responsibile for bringing doctors, services, and facilities to 
people in great need. For over 30 years, they have served in some of 
the most neglected, devastated, and economically distressed areas of 
the country. Their mission is to break the barriers to health care, to 
make health care accessible, and to keep people healthier and more 
productive, and out of hospitals and costly emergency rooms.
  Community Health Centers, like the 45th Street Clinic and Country 
Doctor in Seattle and Yakima Neighborhood and Columbia Valley in 
Central Washington, have succeeded where others have failed because 
they are part of the life of the communities they serve. They are 
partnerships of people, governments, and communities working together 
to meet health care needs. Their innovative outreach programs focusing 
on prevention, health education, and patient-centered needs, have 
merited widespread recognition and strong bipartisan support in the 
Congress.
  This bill not only provides for expansion of services, but assures a 
meaningful role for health centers as essential providers in the new 
health care environment. It also provides critical support for health 
center involvement in the training of primary health care 
professionals.
  This legislation is a realistic, commonsense approach. It builds on a 
program that has worked well in our neediest communities; that has 
demonstrated cost effectiveness; and that has yielded a substantial 
return to the American taxpayer.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I support the access to community health 
care bill, which will preserve the Community, Migrant and Homeless 
Health Centers [CHC's] and allow them to compete in the changing health 
care marketplace. I commend my colleague from South Carolina, Senator 
Hollings, for this bill. It has broad support among those who are 
interested in rural health issues and problems.
  I believe that this legislation will amke health reform work for 
underserved communities by significantly expanding America's health 
centers, developing strong, community-based networks, and involving 
essential providers in primary care training.
  It is important to continue building an infrastructure to facilitate 
coordinated approaches to solving rural health care problems. I believe 
this legislation is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of 
the Access to Community Health Care Act of 1994.
  This is a critical part of health reform if we are going to make sure 
that many citizens are not left out and if we are really going to lower 
costs and improve health.
  Mr. President, it is no secret that many areas lack adequate basic 
health services. And if we do not provide access to the basics--to 
routine and preventive care--we will pay more for hospital care.
  For three decades the Community and Migrant Health Center Programs 
have demonstrated an effective model for solving the diverse health 
care problems of underserved communities. They have brought community-
controlled, cost-effective preventive and primary care to the areas 
that need them most at a current per-person annual cost of well under 
$300. They have lowered infant mortality up to 40 percent. They have 
lowered Medicaid costs for their patients by 33 percent. They have 
reduced hospital admissions and lengths of stay. Clearly, this approach 
is a bargain and an effective solution we should expand.
  This legislation would amend the health centers programs to allow 
funding for networks of community providers. This will promote more 
efficient and comprehensive services in underserved areas. Also, these 
networks would operate according to proven health center principals--
comprehensive primary care services, community and patient control, 
enrollment without regard to ability to pay, and payment on a sliding 
fee scale.
  Also, this legislation would promote primary health professional 
training in rural and inner-city areas. Currently, Medicare GME funds 
flow only to hospitals and medical schools for training. This 
legislation would also reimburse health centers and networks for the 
costs they incur for training. This provision should expand 
opportunities for health professions students and improve recruitment 
in underserved areas.
  Mr. President, quality, trained personnel and quality, accessible 
facilities are the heart of health access. Insurance alone will not 
meet the health care gaps that face many of our citizens, but health 
centers have proven to fill these gaps. I urge my colleagues to support 
an expansion of this successful approach to primary health care 
delivery by supporting this legislation as part of health reform.
  The Access to Community Health Care Act of 1994 recognizes that 
community-based health care reform initiatives are the appropriate 
foundation for enhancing our health care delivery system in the United 
States. While I do have reservations over its total cost and the 
provisions relating to school-based clinics, overall I think it is a 
balanced measure which indicates our commitment to improve health 
services at the community level.
  Migrant and Community Health Care Centers are delivering critical 
health care services in Utah, in the most cost effective, 
compassionate, and professional quality imaginable. I am proud of the 
excellent job CMHC's are doing in Utah, and I am hopeful the Congress 
will provide them with the tools they need to do an even better job.
  I want to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding efforts 
of Bette Vierra, executive director of the Association for Utah 
Community Health, and all those who work with her to help citizens in 
the underserved areas of Utah receive the vital health care services 
they need. Their tireless advocacy for community health is an 
inspiration to us all.
  Finally, I also want to commend Senator Hollings for his leadership 
in drafting this legislation, and for his foresight in recognizing that 
expansion of the Community and Migrant Health Centers Program must be 
an essential part of our health care reform effort.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 2110. A bill to establish a Federal matching grant program for 
State and local law enforcement agencies to assist in upgrading 
firearms, providing training, and purchasing ammunition; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


               the law enforcement officer protection act

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this Senator will soon join law 
enforcement officials in Washington State and across the country in a 
candlelight vigil recognizing those officers who have fallen in the 
line of duty. As we debate the challenges our society faces from crime 
and violence, let us never forget those on the front line who protect 
us and our families. Let us remember those brave men and women who have 
made the ultimate sacrifice while trying to keep the peace that we so 
often take for granted.
  Since the onset of law enforcement in Washington State, 222 peace 
officers have been killed in the line of duty. For the Nation as a 
whole, the Department of Justice has estimated that one officer dies in 
the line of duty every 57 hours. This cannot be tolerated. Whatever we 
achieve in our deliberations on criminal justice in this body, we must 
provide law enforcement officers the protection and resources the need 
to do the job to which they are sworn.
  Recently a Seattle police officer nearly lost his life in a shootout 
with an armed bankrobber simply because he was outgunned. Officer Gene 
McClanahan carried a standard-issue six-shooter revolver which he 
managed to fire eight times, twice after reloading. At the same time, 
the suspect who carried a semiautomatic firearm was able to shoot at 
Officer McClanahan 16 times, hitting him twice. Thankfully, the 
officer's life was spared. Others who have found themselves outgunned 
and underequipped have not been so lucky.
  After hearing of this near-tragedy I was stunned to hear that police 
officers in the city of Seattle were not provided the firepower that 
they meet on the streets. Officers who wished to carry semiautomatic 
nine-millimeter sidearms had to purchase the weapon themselves at a 
cost of more than $300. Only recently had they even been given 
permission to carry this equipment on a voluntary basis and reimbursed 
for ammunition used in practice shooting. These officers who would 
sacrifice their lives were at an unbelievable disadvantage because the 
city would not finance a weapons upgrade. It is inconceivable to me why 
those who are willing to sacrifice their lives to keep our streets safe 
must use their own money to adequately protect themselves and the 
public. Those who protect and serve must not have to plead for training 
ammunition and adequate firepower.
  After receiving input from the Seattle Police Department, I drafted 
legislation which I will introduce today. This bill provides a modest 
level of Federal assistance to those law enforcement agencies in 
communities that have not financed a weapons upgrade and where cops are 
at an unacceptable risk of being outgunned. The legislation is entitled 
the Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act and establishes a matching 
grant for the purchase of equipment, ammunition, and training for an 
upgrade.
  News of this legislation already has had a positive result. Several 
weeks ago, under pressure from an anxious public, the city agreed to 
finance a weapons upgrade for the Seattle Police Department by the end 
of this year.
  Although Seattle police officers will eventually have the firepower 
they need and deserve to do their jobs, law enforcement officials in 
other communities still lack support from their elected officials to 
finance a weapons upgrade. This modest assistance is also limited in 
the time in which Federal funds would be available.
  Mr. President, this fiscally conservative Senator knows full well 
that this legislation should never be necessary. I am compelled, 
however, to urge acceptance of this measure if it encourages even one 
town to upgrade the standard issue firearms for its police officers.
  While we seek ways to get guns out of the hands of criminals and end 
gun violence, we can't give our men and women of law enforcement 
second-rate protection. Far too many brave men and women have died in 
the face of superior firepower. It is in their memory that I dedicate 
this legislation and ask for its immediate adoption.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from 
the Seattle Police Officers Guild be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               Seattle Police Officers' Guild,

                                      Seattle, WA, April 20, 1994.
     Senator Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senator, State of Washington.
       Dear Senator Gorton: On behalf of the entire Board of 
     Directors, members of the Seattle Police Officers' Guild and 
     myself, we want to express our deepest appreciation and 
     thanks for your proposed legislation providing monies for 
     upgrading Police Officers' firearms.
       We unanimously support the passage of this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                              Kenneth R. Jakobsen,
                President, Seattle Police Officers' Guild.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Packwood):
  S. 2111. A bill to foster further development of the Nation's 
telecommunications infrastructure and protection of the public 
interest, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


        the telecommunications services enhancement act of 1994

  Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I think it is clear to all of us in 
Congress that the world is changing. It changes every day. The way we 
communicate in this world is also changing. We communicate differently 
with the people across the street or across this country or, indeed, 
across the world.
  What, however, is not changing is Congress. Congress has not over the 
past many years changed the way we have looked at communications law in 
this country. Communications technology has changed dramatically since 
the last time Congress addressed the question of communications policy. 
As a matter of fact, the last major communications act in Congress was 
adopted back in 1934--60 years ago. Over the past 60 years, it is clear 
that communication technology has made dramatic and serious advances in 
the way we communicate with our neighbors around the world.
  Unfortunately, because Congress has not kept up with the changes in 
technology, we find that the policy in communications has been made 
over the past several years not by those of us in Congress in response 
to our constituents but, rather, those policy decisions on what 
constitutes good communications policy have been made by a district 
judge in the District of Columbia and not based on a communications 
statute passed by the Congress but, rather, based on communications 
policy that has really been driven by antitrust legislation.
  Madam President, that is not the way Congress should legislate in 
this area. I am today introducing, along with Senator Packwood of 
Oregon, an amendment in the form of a bill to the currently pending 
legislation by our distinguished chairman of the full Senate Commerce 
Committee, Senator Hollings, which is known as S. 1822.
  I wish to say right here that Senator Hollings is to be commended in 
the strongest way possible for his recognizing that it is, indeed, time 
for Congress to act in this very important area. Senator Hollings has 
had a long series of hearings in developing his legislation, S. 1822, 
which is now before the Senate Commerce Committee. I think his approach 
to this is the proper approach and hopefully the amendment which 
Senator Packwood and I are offering today in the form of a bill will 
become part of that bill S. 1822 and, indeed, provide the real 
incentives which I think are so important if we are going to have a 
modern communications policy for the United States of America.
  Simply put, the legislation by Senator Packwood and myself will open 
up competition, both in the long distance market as well as the local 
service market, in a fashion that is easy to understand and easy to 
follow and is not complicated by what I fear under the current S. 1822 
would be up to 10 years or more of complicated litigation in the 
courts, again allowing the courts to make the communications policy as 
opposed to Congress.
  My legislation will remove barriers to injury in what are likely some 
of the most hotly contested areas of communication. One year after the 
date of enactment, most State or local statutes or regulations would 
prohibit the inability of any company to provide interstate or 
intrastate telecommunication services.
  Madam President, studies that have been done by independent 
organizations, which have looked at what I am suggesting is a way to 
develop competition, have come up with figures that I think very 
strongly support what I am attempting to accomplish.
  Studies have indicated that our legislation would create 3.6 million 
new jobs over the next 10 years, 977,000 of which would be in the 
manufacturing sector, manufacturing communications equipment. Our 
legislation would add $247 billion to the Nation's total real gross 
domestic product by the year 2003, a total gain of 3.6 percent over the 
10-year interval. It would lower the annual inflation rate by nearly a 
full percentage point on average over the coming decade, pushing long-
term interest rates more than a full point lower.

  In addition, the studies indicated that there would be an increase in 
total investment of $72 billion as lower interest rates would help 
boost productive capital formation. It would improve the Federal budget 
deficit by an additional $150 billion by the year 2003 and also would 
save consumers an average of $63 billion a year by lowering both 
telecommunication rates and cable TV rates and freeing a comparable 
amount of disposable income for other purchases.
  The study estimates, for instance, that of these 3.6 million new jobs 
created by removing these barriers to entry into communication 
businesses, 54,000 of those jobs would be situated in my own State of 
Louisiana, and about 14,000 of those new 54,000 jobs would be in the 
manufacturing area.
  One of the concerns that I have attempted to address in this 
legislation, Madam President, is the test that the current bill before 
the Commerce Committee would require before a local service company 
would be able to enter into long-distance service. I think most of the 
companies that have been testifying before our committee would agree 
that if the so-called original OHC test were to be applied they would 
be able to accept that as a measure that they would have to meet before 
they could provide long distance service. The problem with the bill 
that is pending before the Commerce Committee is that it goes beyond 
the traditional OHC test by providing additional requirements which 
would require a local operating company to show there is actual and 
demonstrable competition in each relevant area before they would be 
able to move into the long-distance service area. This, indeed, is the 
crux of the problem, Madam President, because the terms of what would 
be actual and demonstrable competition are undefined. There is no 
history of communications decisions by courts which really tell us 
clearly what is in fact actual and demonstrable competition.
  I am very concerned that the new standards encompassed in the 
existing S. 1822 would further complicate an already overly complicated 
situation and result in decades of litigation while local companies 
would argue that, yes, actual and demonstrable competition has been 
shown. Long-distance companies, on the other hand, would come in and by 
their studies show that no, it has not. And then we are off to the 
courthouse to litigate once again and have courts make communications 
policy as opposed to having communications policy made by Congress, 
which I think is the best place for it to be made.
  So our test is very simple. It simply says that after 1 year 
companies would be allowed to compete in other areas. The real problem 
that I think all of us are coming to realize in our committee and I 
think in other parts of Congress is that these giants that are in the 
communications business have pretty much said we want in yours but stay 
out of ours. They want in the other company's business but they do not 
want the other company to be able to come into their traditional line 
of business services.
  That I think is something which is just not acceptable. We have to 
have ground rules which everybody can understand. The legislation by 
Senator Packwood and myself would clearly spell out a definite period 
of time after which companies would be allowed to compete. We do not 
remove any of the protections that would be provided by the Federal 
Communications Commission and Department of Justice. In fact, we do not 
take any authority away from the Federal Communications Commission or 
the Department of Justice.

  Our legislation utilizes and relies on them to implement this 
congressional policy and to enforce congressional laws that would be 
adopted. The FCC will continue its authority to impose safeguards 
including separate subsidiary obligations as appropriate to foster 
competition, to define and require equal access in interconnection for 
interLATA services, information services, and local carriers, and to 
take such other steps as are necessary to promote a competitive market.
  I think that the FCC has demonstrated ample skill in the past in 
these areas, in some cases requiring even more than the old, modified, 
final judgment requires.
  So they would not be restricted in their ability to protect 
consumers' interests by our legislation at all.
  I point to one feature of the Hollings legislation which I think is 
very important. Many of the long-distance companies have said that we 
cannot get into local service because local companies would not allow 
us in. The Hollings bill is very clear in this area by requiring that 
telecommunications carriers shall be deemed common carriers under this 
act and that the FCC would prescribe regulations to require these 
telecommunications carriers, upon bona fide requests, to provide to any 
telecommunications equipment manufacturer or any entity seeking to 
provide telecommunications services or information services 
interconnection, ability to interconnect to a local carrier's switches 
and the interconnecting of their services. It requires 
nondiscriminatory access. So they would be completely protected as a 
way of getting into the local service area.
  I think that our effort is to provide a better bill, a better way of 
accomplishing goals that we all share.
  I commend it favorably to our colleagues for inclusion as ultimately 
an amendment to the Hollings bill.
 Mr. PACKWOOD. Madam President, I join Senator Breaux in 
introducing the Telecommunications Services Enhancement Act of 1994. 
This bill is a simple bill. It lifts the barriers to competitive entry 
into the local telephone market within 1 year of enactment. It lifts 
the long-distance restriction on the Bell operating companies at the 
same time. It repeals the cable-telephone company crossownership ban, 
allowing telephone companies to offer cable in their telephone service 
areas upon date of enactment. It requires the FCC to ensure that 
providers of competitive services are subject to equivalent regulation. 
And it provides the Federal Communications Commission with the 
authority to conform its regulations to the realities of a competitive 
market.
  Madam President, back in 1978, the Commerce Committee began work to 
deregulate a number of industries. Airline deregulation came first, in 
1978. That was followed by truck and railroad deregulation in 1980, bus 
and partial broadcast deregulation in 1982, maritime and cable in 1984, 
and freight forwarders in 1986.
  By and large, all of these deregulation bills have worked well. They 
were all opposed by those inside the industry. They were opposed by the 
regulators. The pressure to act came from outside.
  When we deregulated the airlines, people feared some airlines would 
go bankrupt. Alfred Kahn, the father of airline deregulation, said at 
the time ``that's what we expect will happen.'' The market is not going 
to support weak carriers.
  People feared that soon there would be only three airlines--United, 
Delta, and American. In fact, soon there will be 30 airlines as the 
bigs spin-off to meet the competition of the smalls.
  Oregon has infinitely better service now than we had under regulation 
and we're at the end of the airline chain. We have 1,200 Delta 
employees who weren't in Oregon before deregulation.
  We deregulated trucks in 1980. The American Trucking Association and 
the Teamsters opposed the effort. But, ask any shipper today if the 
service is better than when they were regulated. Removing Federal 
economic controls on trucking has resulted in an estimated $30 to $50 
billion in savings.
  We also deregulated railroads in 1980. It has been an overwhelming 
success.
  We deregulated buses in 1982. We have seen new carriers enter this 
market and the industry is healthier today because of deregulation.
  We partially deregulated radio and television in 1982. And 
civilization continues.
  In 1984, we passed the Shipping Act and deregulated the maritime 
industry as much as we could considering international shipping 
conventions we must comply with.

  We deregulated cable in 1984. We got what we asked for from the cable 
industry in terms of more programs, better reception, more channels. We 
should not have reregulated the industry.
  In 1986, we deregulated freight forwarders, and this has worked out 
well.
  By and large our experience with deregulation is not that when it 
occurs the deregulated industry is dominated by a few giants. It is 
rather spurred and challenged by smart pygmies who frequently run 
circles around the giants. Sometimes they find a niche market and then 
expand gradually until they too become, if not a giant, why certainly a 
major player which may one day be a giant.
  The electronics industry generally has not been regulated. We lead 
the world in this area, although with some frequency we have to battle 
unfair competition from Japan and similar countries.
  If we were to totally deregulate the communications industry in this 
country, what would happen. I think we should pick a date a year or two 
or even three ahead of time and tell everybody the barriers are coming 
down on that date and say, ``Gentlemen, start your engines.'' I don't 
fear that US West would drive AT&T, Sprint, and MCI out of business. 
They would all become more challenged and innovative.
  When the modified final judgment was entered and AT&T was split from 
the Bell operating companies, it was argued that AT&T would dominate 
the long-distance market. They are still the biggest carrier, but 
domination is the wrong word. Not only is AT&T having to suffer the 
slings and arrows of the MCI's and the Sprints, but scores of smaller 
companies that are doing well--companies that did not exist a decade 
ago under regulation.
  I have concluded the same thing will happen in the communications 
industry generally if we deregulate it. That is why I support the bill 
being introduced by Senator Breaux. It says ``Gentlemen, start your 
engines.'' There will be no scarcity of competitors. Competition will 
thrive. The country will be better off for it.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Inouye, and Mrs. 
        Boxer):
  S. 2112. A bill to amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of 1990 to postpone until 1997 the base closure process otherwise 
scheduled to commence in 1995; to the Committee on Armed Services.


 defense base closure and realignment act of 1990 amendment act of 1994

 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, on behalf of myself, 
Senators Lott, Inouye, Boxer, and hopefully others, I am introducing a 
bill to delay the 1995 base closure until 1997. This is similar to an 
amendment we offered to last year's Defense Authorization Act that 
failed, but we are introducing this legislation once again because of 
the tremendous impact on our States and implications to U.S. national 
security.
  In just the last 5 years almost 250 military bases have been slated 
for closure in the United States and the Base Closure Commission has 
examined an additional 400-plus bases. Though our Nation needs to 
downsize our military in the aftermath of the cold war, I believe that 
base closures are proceeding too rapidly. We need to slow down and 
catch our breath, and we must be sure that we are not cutting bases 
today which we may need tomorrow. We must also ensure that we are 
prepared to meet our current financial obligations to those communities 
currently suffering from base closures, before we take on any new 
obligations.
  In addition, these actions have generated tremendous economic 
turmoil, regional recession, and dislocation for hundreds of thousands 
of people who depend on military bases for their economic livelihood--
all at a time when the Nation is just pulling out of an economic 
recession.
  The first major base closure round occurred in 1988. Since then, 
there has been a round in 1991 and again in 1993. All told, the Nation 
has lost over 300,000 direct and indirect jobs as a result of base 
closures, the majority in my home State of California.
  And, like clockwork, another base closure round is already in the 
works. The 1995 base closure round was established way back in 1990, 
when Congress adopted the Base Closure and Realignment Act. Whether 
additional bases need to be closed or not, this next base closure round 
must occur under current law and it must occur in 1995. In fact, the 
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps already have sent out 
questionnaires to all of their bases around the country.
  Though the cold war is over and some reductions in defense spending 
are appropriate, I believe that base closures are moving too quickly. 
We need to slow down and examine whether further base closures are 
appropriate. And if so, how many bases should be closed? Can we close 
more overseas bases? What should be the timetable for closing bases? 
Are base closures cost effective? Do we have the financial resources to 
close so many bases in such a short period of time? And, what is the 
price to the Federal Government, to the working men and women of 
America, and to the Nation's economy overall?
  The Congress and administration should answer these questions before 
proceeding with another base closure round. Communities across the 
country are still feeling the affects of the 1988, 1991, and 1993 base 
closure rounds as those bases continue to close their gates.
  By delaying the next round for 2 years, the Federal government will 
be able to examine the affects of previous base closures. We will be 
able to review our force structure and assess the need for additional 
base closures. And, we will give the economy time to fully recovery 
before throwing hundreds of thousands of working men and women out of 
work.
  Though the Soviet Union is no more, the world is still an unsafe 
place. There are currently more than 30 conflicts raging throughout the 
world, from Yugoslavia to Somalia, and from Republics in the former 
Soviet Union to the Middle East. Additionally, outlaw nations with 
dangerous dictatorship secretly strive to produce nuclear weapons. And, 
so far, Russia has taken only the most tentative first steps on the 
fragile journey to democracy.
  In downsizing our military, the United States can reduce troop 
strength and the stockpile of certain weapons, but still quickly build-
up again in time of national emergency. But, it is much more difficult 
to rebuild infrastructure. Once a military base has been closed, it is 
gone. Is our Nation closing bases today that will be needed tomorrow?
  I am also not convinced that base closures actually save money. I 
understand the need to shrink the deficit and reduce government 
spending. But are base closures truly cost effective?
  The 1988 base closure round will have cost an estimated $2 billion to 
implement. The total savings from those base closures will be less than 
$2.5 billion. Therefore, the total net savings from the entire 1988 
base closure round is only $500 million by fiscal year 1995. Only $500 
million will have been recouped from the 1988 base closure round after 
6 years, and at a cost of over tens of thousands of jobs and billions 
of dollars in economic activity nationally.
  In reality, these savings from the 1988 base closures may not be 
recovered for many more years to come. The Pentagon's estimates for 
environmental cleanup nationwide in the first base closure rounds is 
nearly $800 million. If this expense is considered, it will actually 
cost hundreds-of-millions of dollars to cleanup and shut down the bases 
slated for closure in just 1988 alone.
  Though environmental cleanup costs are not considered when 
calculating base closure costs, these monumental costs are a 
reality nevertheless. They must be paid for so that the communities 
suffering from base closure can begin the process of reuse and economic 
redevelopment. Otherwise, the bases remain shut and useless.

  As a rule, cleanup costs are grossly underestimated. For example, the 
cleanup costs for Mather Air Force Base have been revised upward by 360 
percent in just 3 years. The Sacramento Army Depot's costs have grown 
by 350 percent. Castle Air Force Base's costs have grown by over 300 
percent. And the story is similar for George and Norton Air Force 
Bases.
  If we abide by what history taught us, environmental cleanup costs 
will skyrocket.
  And, if other cost factors to the Federal Government are considered, 
such as unemployment compensation and defense conversion assistance, 
base closures become less and less cost effective.
  This Nation must first live up to its commitment to help the 
communities suffering from the first three rounds of base closures. It 
seems increasingly apparent that the BRAC accounts may be seriously 
short of funds. For example, in view of the cost increases that I just 
listed, the $4 billion planned for environmental restoration on the 
bases being closed from the first three rounds may be woefully 
inadequate. What then?
  Does the cleanup process just stop and the bases sit desolate and 
empty? That would devastate communities--communities that patriotically 
helped lead the way during the cold war--and would counter the 
administration's five-point base reuse proposal passed by Congress last 
year. These bases must be cleaned up in such a way that reuse and 
economic redevelopment can take place. This is the Federal Government's 
responsibility, no matter what that cost may be. I suggest we ensure 
that we can live up to our current responsibilities before we consider 
taking on new ones from a new round of base closures.
  And to those counting on the savings from base closures to fund force 
modernization and readiness, I must warn you that we may have to look 
elsewhere. The savings will come eventually, but probably not for 
decades. Counting on using these savings for other purposes could prove 
to be a serious mistake. We should not allow this estimated base 
closure savings dictate whether we decide to pursue an additional round 
of closures in 1995.
  A headlong rush toward closing more bases is dangerous and 
unwarranted--dangerous in an increasingly unstable world where the 
United States must stand ever more vigilant; unwarranted in an economy 
still trying to pull itself from recession. Let's give the 
administration and Congress time to examine the need for additional 
base closures. Let's assess the impact of the 1988, 1991, and 1993 base 
closure rounds. Let's determine what the true costs are. Let's examine, 
in terms of today's global unrest, the impact of further closures on 
the state of our national defense. And, let us give the economy time to 
recover before displacing hundreds of thousands of more workers and 
throwing the future of communities across the country into jeopardy.
  Let us delay the 1995 base closure round until 1997. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2112

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECION 1. POSTPONEMENT OF COMMENCEMENT OF 1995 ROUND OF BASE 
                   CLOSURE PROCESS.

       The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part 
     A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) in section 2902--
       (A) by striking out clause (iii) of subsection (c)(1)(B) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(iii) by no later than January 3, 1997, in the case of 
     members of the Commission whose terms will expire at the end 
     of the first session of the 105th Congress.'';
       (B) by striking out ``1995'' in subsection (c)(1)(C) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ```1997'';
       (C) by striking out ``1995'' in subsection (e)(1) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``1997''; and
       (D) by striking out ``December 31, 1995'' in subsection (l) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 31, 1997'';
       (2) in section 2903--
       (A) by striking out ``1996'' in subsection (a)(1) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``1998''; and
       (B) by striking out ``March 1, 1995,'' in subsection (c)(1) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``March 1, 1997,''; and
       (3) in section 2909(a), by striking out ``December 31, 
     1995,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 31, 
     1997,''.
 Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, last August, Senator Feinstein and I 
offered an amendment to the fiscal year 1994 national defense 
authorization bill which proposed delaying the 1995 round of base 
closures to 1997. Today, we are jointly introducing the same 
legislation in order to delay the next round of closures until 1997. 
Last year I was convinced that delaying the 1995 round of base closures 
was a good idea. Today, I am even more convinced that we need to delay 
the next and last round of closures by 2 years.
  What we must understand is that this Nation's defense not only won 
the cold war, but has paid a substantial price for that victory. Since 
1985, defense spending has been reduced 42 percent. Since 1990, 
spending for America's defense has been cut 35 percent. This year 
alone, active duty military personnel will be reduced by 85,000 people. 
Another 45,800 Guard and Reserve personnel positions will be 
eliminated. These personnel savings will result in $3.1 billion in 
savings to the Department of Defense.
  That sounds like a lot of money, but look at what we are doing. The 
fiscal year 1995 budget request also includes $5.7 billion for 
environmental cleanup and compliance, and that number continues to grow 
in the future. It is also important to understand that this $5.7 
billion does not include all the environmental money required to pay 
our base closure bill. In fact, the fiscal year 1995 budget request 
includes a $2.8 billion bill for base closure.
  The Senate needs to understand that the base closure process is 
broken; it does not work. We were told closing bases will save us 
money, scarce money badly needed to pay for training and readiness of 
our fighting forces. But that is not what is happening. In fact, last 
year, the Army was forced to reduce their tank training--Operational 
Tempo--by 180 tank miles because projected revenues from base closures 
never occurred. That is a nice way of saying, ``The money we thought we 
would receive for getting rid of bases never happened.'' No clearer 
example can be found which shows the impact base closures are having on 
our military readiness and training.
  Since 1988, 249 domestic bases have closed in the United States. In 
addition, 147 bases have had major realignments. Some of these 147 
bases have increased employment, but most have reduced employment. All 
the while, we were told that money would be saved, that if we did not 
close nonessential bases, in 5 years, we could not afford to buy 
airplanes, ships, or even tanks. Based on the results of tank training 
for 1994, however, the opposite is true. The base closure process 
reduced available money to support thank training.
  I ask my colleagues to look at the numbers. Where are the savings? 
How does this make sense?


                        the base closure process

  In 1990 Congress passed the Base Closure and Realignment Act which 
established a formal process to make it easier for the Secretary, the 
President, and the Congress to close bases. The secret was to create an 
independent Commission, nominated by the President and confirmed by the 
Senate, to review recommendations from the Secretary and issue their 
judgments on the Secretary's list to the President. The President then 
could either approve the list and send it to the Congress, or send it 
back to the Commission. The act was replete with schedules, deadlines 
and requirements.
  As a process, the Base Closure Commission has worked very well. After 
two rounds, together the Department of Defense, the President and the 
Congress, have sentenced 249 bases for closure. But the process is not 
without problems.
  In my own State of Mississippi, over $500,000 has been spent by the 
State and communities to defend three bases for the past 2 years. 
Mississippi has not been alone in contributing to the incomes of 
Washington consultants. This past year, the people of Charleston and 
the State of South Carolina spent over $1.5 million to defend their 
bases before the Commission this year. Estimates are that California 
spent over $4 million to defend their bases, yet they lost over 50,000 
jobs from closures in 1993.
  Not only has Mississippi spent exorbitant amounts to defend our bases 
from the Base Closure Commission's knife, we have faced double and 
triple jeopardy. In a court of law, the Constitution protects presumed 
innocents from the threat of double jeopardy. But the presumption of 
innocence and the threat of double jeopardy are unknown and unheeded 
protection for communities facing axe-like attacks of the Base Closure 
Commission. Mississippi has learned a hard lesson: once you get added 
to a list--even when you win--you stay on that list.
  These are communities which have supported our country in good times 
and bad. These communities have both suffered and benefited from the 
vagaries of defense spending. Never in the history of this country have 
these communities been under the constant threat of the budget knife 
the way they are under the base closure process. States like 
California, Florida, New York, Indiana, and South Carolina are only the 
first to fall victim to the defense budget contraction. The next State 
could be Georgia, Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, or even your State.
  The time has come to stop and catch our breath. We need to delay the 
1995 base closure round and reassess where we are. Are we so confident 
that we will not need the very defense basing structure we are now 
cutting with abandon? Can we clearly predict what will happen in 
Bosnia, Haiti, North Korea, or the People's Republic of China? I do not 
believe we can, and if we cannot, then prudence requires that we stop 
and wait to see where we are going.
  This bill does not terminate the base closure process. The bill only 
does two things: First, it acknowledges that we have cut a lot already 
and that we need to wait 2 years to see what we really need to keep.
  Second, this bill suggests that we need to have a better 
understanding of this new post-cold war world before we close 
additional bases in the United States. In no way does this legislation 
terminate the base closure process. It only says, ``Let's wait for 2 
years before we proceed further.''
  Now is the time to reassess where we are going in our defense 
spending. Now is the time for us to stop and consider what capabilities 
we will need in the future. Now is the time to stop closing bases and 
start counting the costs. So far, we have spent a lot of money. Let's 
make sure that we don't close more bases only because we have a 
schedule to keep. Prudence requires us to be careful that we are not 
cutting something we will wish we had kept open. Buying it back 10 
years from now will cost much more, possibly both in terms of money and 
American lives on the battlefield.
  I urge my colleagues to examine the myth of base closure. We are not 
saving money. We need to wait, catch our breath and figure out where 
the world is going. If there is a remote chance that in 10 years we 
will be forced to recreate a military presence which we closed in 
haste, we will have to pay a premium price for that presence. We need 
to wait, catch our breath and figure out where the world is 
going.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2113. A bill to remove the embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.


                    bosnia arms embargo act of 1994

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, Senator Lieberman and I are introducing this 
bill to lift the United States arms embargo on Bosnia which is 
identical to the amendment the Senate passed earlier today by a vote of 
50 to 49.
  The passage of the Dole-Lieberman amendment sends a strong message to 
the administration and our allies to get moving. The vote on the Dole-
Lieberman amendment was close--but, the fact is there were a number of 
Senators who told me that while they were not ready to vote in favor 
today, they would be in a couple of weeks, if no action is taken by the 
administration and the United Nations to lift the arms embargo on 
Bosnia.
  This bill starts the clock ticking and lets the administration know 
that we are serious and determined. If final action is not taken on S. 
2042, if the House fails to act, or if no action is taken by the 
administration to lift the arms embargo, we will offer this as an 
amendment to other bills.
  The bottom line is that this issue is not going away. We can't sweep 
justice under the carpet, we can't forfeit America's leadership role. 
If nothing happens during the next few weeks, we will press forward 
once again.
  The United States must lift the arms embargo on Bosnia and let the 
Bosnians defend themselves. Let's allow the Bosnians to decide what 
they want to do, and stop making decisions for them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2113

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SEC.   . UNITED STATES ARMS EMBARGO OF THE GOVERNMENT OF 
                   BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

       (a) Prohibition.--Neither the President nor any other 
     member of the Executive Branch of the United States 
     Government shall interfere with the transfer of conventional 
     arms appropriate to the self-defense needs of the Government 
     of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (b) Termination.--The President shall terminate the United 
     States arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina upon receipt from that government of a request 
     for assistance in exercising its right of self-defense under 
     Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
       (c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term `United 
     States arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina' means the application to the Government of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina of--
       (1) the policy adopted July 10, 1991, and published in the 
     Federal Register of July 19, 1991 (58 Fed. Reg. 33322) under 
     the heading `Suspension of Munitions Export Licenses to 
     Yugoslavia'; and
       (2) any similar policy being applied by the United States 
     Government as of the date of receipt of the request described 
     in subsection (a) pursuant to which approval is routinely 
     denied for transfers of defense articles and defense services 
     to the former Yugoslavia.
       (d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as 
     authorization for deployment of U.S. forces in the territory 
     of Bosnia and Herzegovina for any purpose, including 
     training, support or delivery of military equipment.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 2119. A bill to provide for the payment to States of plot 
allowances for certain veterans eligible for burial in a national 
cemetery who are buried in cemeteries of such States; to the Committee 
on Veterans Affairs.


                  veterans plot allowance act of 1994

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, over a decade ago, Congress 
established the state cemetery grant program. This program, under which 
the Federal Government provides grants to states for establishing and 
maintaining state veterans cemeteries, was enacted in lieu of building 
additional national veterans cemeteries.
  As part of the program, the Federal Government not only provides 
grants to states, it also pays the states a $150 plot allowance for 
each eligible veteran that is buried free of charge in a State-owned 
veterans cemetery. This Federal-State partnership has worked well.
  However, when it comes to the plot allowance, there is a catch: 
States do not always receive it. A State is eligible for the plot 
allowance payment only if the veteran meets certain criteria. The State 
receives the plot allowance only for veterans who: First, were 
receiving veterans disability compensation or a veterans pension; 
second, died in a VA hospital; third, were indigent, and the body was 
unclaimed; or fourth, were, or could have been, discharged from the 
military due to a disability. At the same time, eligibility for burial 
in a national veterans cemetery is generally open to all honorably 
discharged veterans, space permitting.
  In other words, State-owned veterans cemeteries exist to relieve the 
federal government of the responsibility of building additional 
national veterans cemeteries. Yet, States do not receive the $150 plot 
allowance for burying all national cemetery eligible veterans. I 
believe this disparate treatment is in conflict with the very purpose 
for which state veterans cemeteries were established.
  That is why I am introducing legislation today to correct this 
disparity. The purpose of my bill is simple: to pay a state the $150 
plot allowance for burying without charge any veteran eligible for 
burial in a national veterans cemetery.
  With this proposal, states would receive plot allowance payments for 
about 5,000 additional veterans each year. Preliminary estimates from 
the Congressional Budget Office indicate the annual cost of the 
legislation would be $1 million.
  Mr. President, this is not an arcane and trivial matter. Several 
states have already threatened to stop burying veterans without charge 
unless the state is reimbursed for the cost of the plot. And, as more 
and more national cemeteries are closed to additional burials because 
of space limitations--in fact, by the end of the decade, more than half 
of all national veterans cemeteries will be closed--the state veterans 
cemetery system takes on increased responsibility and increased 
importance.
  If we are to ensure that America's veterans--the men and women who so 
bravely fought for our country--are given the opportunity for a decent 
and dignified national burial, we must ensure that there is a place to 
bury them. To do that, we must pass the legislation I am introducing 
today, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and 
letters of endorsement from the American Legion and AMVETS be printed 
at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2114

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF PLOT OR INTERMENT ALLOWANCE.

       Section 2303 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection;
       ``(c)(1) Subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall pay to any State, or agency or political 
     subdivision of such State, a plot or interment allowance of 
     $150 for the burial of any veteran who--
       ``(A) is eligible for burial in a national cemetery under 
     section 2402 of this title; and
       ``(B) is buried (without charge for the cost of a plot or 
     interment) in a cemetery, or a section of a cemetery, that--
       ``(i) is used solely for the interment of persons eligible 
     for burial in a national cemetery; and
       ``(ii) is owned by such State, or agency or political 
     subdivision.
       ``(2) The payment of a plot or interment allowance under 
     this subsection shall be in addition to any benefits provided 
     under section 2303 or 2307 of this title, or subsection (a) 
     of this section.
       ``(3) The Secretary may not pay a plot or interment 
     allowance under this subsection for the burial of any veteran 
     for which the Secretary pays a plot or interment allowance 
     under subsection (b)(1) of this section.''.
                                  ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                  Washington, DC., April 28, 1994.
     Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       The American Legion appreciates the opportunity to comment 
     on the draft legislation for the payment to States of plot 
     allowances for certain veterans eligible for burial in a 
     national cemetery who are buried in cemeteries of such 
     States.
       The draft legislation to be introduced is similar to H.R. 
     949, legislation passed by the House which will provide a 
     $150 plot allowance to all veterans buried in State veterans' 
     cemeteries who are eligible for burial in a national 
     cemetery. The American Legion supported this proposal in 
     testimony on March 4, 1993, before the Subcommittee on 
     Veterans Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives. Unlike the 
     House legislation, the Senate bill clarifies that the plot 
     allowance is to be paid to states even in cases of veterans 
     who die of service-connected disabilities, if they are buried 
     without charge.
       The State Cemetery Grants Program was designed to aid 
     states in establishing, expanding or improving state-owned 
     cemeteries for veterans. As further federal funding for the 
     expansion of national cemeteries is uncertain in the current 
     budgetary climate, more incentive has to be provided to the 
     states for continued participation in the State Cemetery 
     Grants Program. Contained within The American Legion position 
     on veterans' burial benefits is for a plot allowance to be 
     paid to the States for any honorably discharged veteran. We 
     strongly support the continuation and expansion of the State 
     Cemetery Grants Program, and believe the draft legislation 
     will enhance this goal.
       Attached is The American Legion's testimony concerning H.R. 
     949. If we can be of further assistance, please do not 
     hesitate to call.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John Vitikacs,
                Assistant Director, National Veterans Affairs and 
                                        Rehabilitation Commission.
                                  ____



                                                       Amvets,

                                       Lanham, MD, April 29, 1994.
     Hon. Joseph R. Biden,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Biden:  Thank you for requesting AMVETS' views 
     on draft legislation that would allow VA to pay states a 
     burial plot allowance for all veterans buried in state owned 
     veterans cemeteries.
       While AMVETS firmly believes that it is the responsibility 
     of the federal government to provide the opportunity for 
     burial in a nearby national cemetery, we appreciate the 
     willingness of some states to assume that role. It is 
     incumbent upon the federal government to provide some 
     assistance to ensure state cemeteries are maintained in an 
     appropriate manner and AMVETS therefore supports your draft 
     legislation.
       As always Senator, AMVETS appreciates your support for 
     veterans issues and we look forward to working with you in 
     the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James J. Kenney,
                                      National Executive Director.
                                 ______

      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Pell, Mr. Robb, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Simon, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Graham, Mr. Mack, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Riegle, Mr. Levin, Mr. Daschle, 
        Mr. Durenberger, Mr. Wofford, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Simpson, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Specter, Mr. Metzenbaum, 
        Mr. Chafee, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Reid, Mr. Moynihan, 
        Mr. Gregg, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Breaux, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Glenn, Mr. DeConcini, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Bryan, 
        Mr. Burns, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bond, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Boren, Mr. 
        Mathews, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Murkowski):
  S.J. Res. 188. A joint resolution to designate 1995 the ``Year of the 
Girl Child''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


             year of the girl child, 1995 joint resolution

 Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, girls are the most neglected 
and undervalued resource worldwide. Gender inequality exists in the 
United States and around the world.
  In many cultures, young girls are routinely denied family resources 
so that there is more for the boys. In China, many family planning 
decisions are made based on gender; in India, girls are sold and denied 
a place in the family; in Africa, girls are subjected to genital 
mutilation. In many parts of the world, girls receive less by virtue of 
the power dynamic in the society.
  Recognition of the value of girls must begin within individual 
families and communities. Opening opportunities for the education and 
employment of girls and women is vital to achieving success in economic 
and social development.
  Mr. President, I am introducing this joint resolution to call 
attention to this situation. Women in the United States have a common 
challenge with women throughout the world. We must change things here, 
in our culture, and make things better for girls and women all over the 
world. We must work together to change the dynamic of the equation 
between powerlessness and gender, between poverty and gender, between 
exclusion from decisionmaking and gender. We need to turn that around, 
so that our entire community worldwide will have the benefit of the 
participation and the energy and intelligence that women have to bring 
to the table.
  This joint resolution will create greater awareness of the conditions 
under which girls live around the globe. But it is more than a symbolic 
gesture. This measure authorizes and requests the President of the 
United States to call upon all U.S. missions in foreign countries, as 
well as all United States diplomatic personnel, the Secretary of 
Education, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to encourage 
gender equality in education, health care, and all phases of family and 
community life.
  I am pleased that more than fifty Senators have signed on as original 
cosponsors of this joint resolution. Passing this joint resolution 
demonstrates that the United States Congress recognizes the plight of 
the girl child in the world today. Elevating the status of girls is a 
first step toward raising the status of women, which is, in turn, 
fundamental to balancing the world's population, environment and 
resources, and enhancing the quality of life for women and men.
                                 ______

           By Mr. ROTH:
  S.J. Res. 189. A joint resolution designating October 1994 as 
``National Decorative Painting Month''; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                   national decorative painting month

 Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today I am introducing a joint 
resolution to designate October, 1994 as ``National Decorative Painting 
Month.'' Companion legislation was introduced in the House by 
Congressman Geren in March.
  The Society of Decorative Painters has 33,000 members who are located 
in every State. The membership encompasses a variety of people who 
contribute their talents to this field, including teachers, designers, 
and people who promote our history and culture through decorative 
painting. American crafts contribute to our economy. The market in 
crafts has reached $90 million a year.
  The Society of Decorative Painters have given unselfishly of their 
time. The society has decorated the Christmas trees at Blair House 
since 1983, have decorated Christmas trees for the Smithsonian, and 
have donated ornaments at the request of vice-president Gore to be 
presented as our national gift to Helmut Kohl.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this joint resolution to pay 
tribute to the Society of Decorative Painters today. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in designating October, 1994 as ``National 
Decorative Painting Month''. I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the joint resolution be printed.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                             S.J. Res. 189

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,
       WHEREAS, the painting of decorative items on various 
     surfaces requires great skill, intensive training, and hours 
     of dedicated practice, and produces works of beauty, and
       WHEREAS, throughout history, decorative painting has 
     provided a medium for the preservation of history and 
     culture, and future, has been recognized as a fine art by all 
     of the world's great civilizations; and,
       WHEREAS, growing thousands of American decorative artists 
     have studied, explored, and enhanced the historic skills of 
     decorative painting, adding immeasurably to the cultural 
     enrichment of our Nation; and
       WHEREAS, the efforts of these artists bring rich beauty and 
     expanded dimensions to our national culture for the benefit 
     and enrichment of the lives of all citizens; and
       WHEREAS, the Society of Decorative Painters has created a 
     collection whose purpose it is to obtain and preserve works 
     of uniquely American decorative painting; and,
       WHEREAS, decorative artists in every state utilize their 
     talents to raise money to benefit art institutions, 
     hospitals, schools, and countless other philanthropic 
     organizations; and,
       WHEREAS, members of the Society of Decorative Painters have 
     enriched the Smithsonian Institution by decorating Christmas 
     trees therein, and have displayed the American spirit of 
     decorative painting by provided ornaments for the Christmas 
     Tree and wreaths at Blair House, and at the request of Vice-
     President Al Gore, donated ornaments which were presented as 
     our national gift to the German Chancellor; and,
       WHEREAS, decorative painters stand ever ready to donate 
     their services to make our nation a richer and more beautiful 
     place: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved By The Senate And The House of Representatives of 
     the United States of American in Congress assembled, That 
     October, 1994 is designated ``National Decorative Painting 
     Month'' and the President is authorized and requested to 
     issue a proclamation calling upon the People of the United 
     States to observe such month with appropriate ceremonies and 
     activities.

                          ____________________