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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.