May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6469

mother, Maureen Grau, 42. This would rule

out summer courses, but the women want

enough money to pay their expenses all year.

Mrs. Grau received a degree in health and

physical education at the College of St.

Catherine in town. Mr. Grau received a degree in English and education at St. Thomas.

He taught, then worked as a mechanic. Four

years ago, he returned to college to become

a nurse.

Mr. Grau says he and his wife are not in a

position to help their college-age daughters

because they have five more children at

home, ages 8 to 17. ‘‘How am I going to educate them?’’ he asked. ‘‘I don’t know.’’

THE PAST—ERECTING A LADDER OF

OPPORTUNITY

For the Graus, the commitment to college

education goes back three generations on

Mrs. Grau’s side; four on her husband’s. But

for hundreds of thousands of low-income

Americans, like Elba Velez of the Bronx, the

‘‘War on Poverty’’ in the 1960’s brought access to college degrees for the first time.

Federal student-aid programs began small

but expanded under the Nixon, Carter and

Reagan Administrations.

Not since the G.I. Bill, after World War II,

had the Federal Government played so

strong a role in insuring that a specific segment of the population got a chance to go to

college. Minority enrollment, in particular,

showed a dramatic increase.

‘‘The generation that preceded this one has

tremendously benefited from Governmental

assistance to attend college,’’ said Jamie P.

Merisotis, the president of the Institute for

Higher Education Policy in Washington.

‘‘Both for individuals and the nation, the

payoff is clear.’’

Ms. Velez was on welfare in the 1970’s when

she decided to go to college. She had considered a job in Manhattan’s garment district

but said that when she saw the assembly

lines of uneducated women hunched over

heavy machinery, ‘‘I looked around and said,

‘This is not for me. I’m going to take charge

of my life. I’m not going to let anyone tell

me what I am going to be.’’’

Ms. Velez enrolled at Bronx Community

College in 1979. With the support of Federal

Pell grants—created in 1972—and state tuition aid for needy students, she received a

bachelor’s degree in business administration

from Baruch College in 1983.

‘‘I have more power,’’ she said. ‘‘I am able

to provide for my children, but I’m also able

to give back to the community.’’

But she is concerned about her children’s

future, with the cost of private colleges averaging $9,995 last year. ‘‘I just want my children to have an opportunity to go on to

school,’’ she said.

Her 19-year-old son, Daniel, a bookish

young man interested in science and creative

writing, gets a $13,975 scholarship from Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. In a

work-study job that pays $1,400 a year, Daniel re-stocks and cleans the salad bar in the

dining hall. He also receives $7,825 annually

in subsidized loans, as well as Pell and Supplemental Educational Opportunity grants.

He and his mother contribute about $2,090 a

year to make up the rest of Wesleyan’s

$26,790 tuition and board costs.

To offset college costs next year, Daniel

hopes to find summer work at a fast-food

restaurant.

His sister, Felicia, a senior at Central Park

Secondary School in East Harlem, was recently accepted at Syracuse University. Her

financial package covers only $19,000 of the

school’s $25,000 cost. Felicia cannot expect

much help from her mother.

And just last week, Ms. Velez learned that

she may be laid off at Bronx Community College as part of the cost cutting proposed for

the city university system.

THE FUTURE—$93,000 A YEAR AND STILL WORRIED

Walking into a noncredit class at New

York University more than two decades ago,

Carmen Vega Rivera remembers the sea of

mostly Hispanic and black faces. Like Mrs.

Rivera, many also were first-generation college students.

She and the others were enrolled in the

state’s Higher Education Opportunity Program, created in 1969 for students with both

academic and financial need who wanted to

go to private colleges. Gov. George Pataki

proposes cutting that, along with similar

programs at state and city universities,

though many legislators are fighting to restore the programs. H.E.O.P. alone would

save $22.5 million this fiscal year, the Governor’s office said.

Mrs. Rivera was 49th of 500 students at the

High School of Art and Design in midtown

Manhattan but scored poorly on the verbal

portion of the Scholastic Assessment Test.

‘‘My chance of coming through the traditional admissions was not likely,’’ she said.

With intensive counseling, emotional support and tutoring in the special N.Y.U. class,

Mrs. Rivera received her bachelor’s degree in

education and the arts in 1976.

Now, at 41, she earns $65,500 a year as executive director of the East Harlem Tutorial

Program. Her husband, John, who manages a

commercial building, only recently began a

$27,000-a-year job. He had stayed at home for

the last decade to look after their son,

Jaime, now 10.

Still, even with a $93,000 combined income,

Mrs. Rivera said her family lives from paycheck to paycheck, renting an $800-a-month

apartment near Yankee Stadium. There are

bills for medical problems and deaths in

their extended family, and they support a 17-

year-old daughter, Taina, and her 7-monthold child.

If Mrs. Rivera had her dream, Taina would

attend New York University, she said. But as

the family now explores state and city universities, everything seems up in the air.

‘‘As a parent, it’s eating up my mind all

the time,’’ she said. ‘‘I’m thinking, ‘How am

I going to pull it off? Is it all going to work

out?’’’

∑ Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise

TRIBUTE TO AVIS B. BAILEY

∑

ftoday to pay tribute to a fellow Arkansan, Avis B. Bailey. Avis is the owner

of Avis Nissan in Fayetteville, and I

am proud to say, was honored last

week by the U.S. Small Business Administration as the 1995 Arkansas

Small Business Person of the Year. I

had a chance to visit with Avis and her

husband last week on the Capitol steps,

and I was immediately convinced that

this honor is richly deserved.

Avis Bailey was born and raised in

Prairie Grove, AR. The youngest of six,

she married right out of high school

and then moved with her husband to

Tulsa, OK. Twelve years later and a

single parent, she returned to northwest Arkansas and settled in Fayetteville, where she worked in her brother’s

transmission repair shop. In 1971, Avis

took another job as a cashier at Hatfield Pontiac and Cadillac, one of Arkansas’ oldest and most respected Cadillac dealerships. This became job No. 3

for her. However, in less than 2 years

Avis was out from behind the cashier’s

desk crunching numbers and in the

showroom selling Cadillacs. It was not

long before she became one of the

State’s top salespersons for automobiles and, within 10 years, manager

of the dealership.

Avis told me she could remember

when new Cadillacs started selling for

over $10,000. It was at that time that

her father told her she needed to get

out of the business. He said no one

would pay that much for a car. Mr.

President, 20-some-odds years and

many success stories later, Avis B. Bailey bought that Pontiac-Cadillac dealership where she started as a cashier. I

know many people who still dream of

owning a Cadillac someday, and here is

Avis with a whole parking lot full. Her

whole career is a testament to what

hard work and dedication can accomplish. She has truly risen through the

ranks of the small business world.

In 1991, Avis bought a Nissan dealership that was nearly bankrupt. Its

standing in the community was down,

but Avis took the initiative and the

gamble to take that failing business

and turn it around. Within 3 years, she

more than doubled the volume of sales

and her number of employees. Sales totaled $11.7 million in 1994 for Avis Nissan. Avis and her partners have also

bought four more automobile dealerships in Arkansas, adding both to the

economy and to the community. She

and her partners are now owners of

Mazda and Ford dealerships in northwest Arkansas as well.

Mr. President, we need more people

like Avis Bailey in this country. She is

more than a shrewd business woman.

She is filled with a spirit that can

make a difference. Avis avidly supports

the athletic programs of the University

of Arkansas, she is a member of both

the Fayetteville and Springdale Chamber of Commerce, and she’s a friend to

area grade schools, working to furnish

school supplies and clothing. We need

more people who aren’t afraid to roll

up their sleeves, work hard, and make

a difference in their communities. Mr.

President, I hope you will join me in

congratulating Avis Bailey on being

named the Arkansas Small Business

Person of the Year for 1995.

f∑

THE MISSING SERVICE

PERSONNEL ACT

∑ Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I

am pleased to cosponsor the Missing

Service Personnel Act of 1995, introduced by Senators DOLE and LAUTENBERG earlier this year.

The Missing Service Personnel Act is

a significant and an appropriate piece

of legislation. It would establish new

methods for determining the status of

missing service personnel and improving the means by which full accountability is achieved. Due in part to the

handling of POW/MIA cases by the Department of Defense and the United

States Government since the Vietnam

war, existing procedures have been

criticized as being unresponsive to the
S6470 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

needs of effected families. In fact, current law does not adequately address

issues that have emerged over the past

25 years regarding how missing persons

and their families are treated by Government officials. S. 256 would implement procedures which foster a sense

of trust and credibility between the

Government and families of missing

personnel, while attempting to ensure

fairness to all involved.

Considering the tremendous sacrifices our men and women make when

facing combat, maintaining credibility

and trust are crucial. Soldiers face the

terrible prospect of capture and, in

turn, their loved ones face the horrible

possibility of intense anguish and

heartache. We must assure our armed

services personnel and their civilian

counterparts that the United States

will do everything possible to return

them home safely in the event they

turn up missing in action. At the same

time, they must also be assured that

more open and fair procedures will be

established to determine their exact

status. S. 256 takes concrete steps to

achieve these objectives.

There are, however, some issues with

the bill that I think still need to be reviewed. For instance, S. 256 restricts

identification of recovered remains to

licensed practitioners of forensic medicine. Utilization of personnel in disciplines other than medicine which

may be appropriate are not permitted.

According to DOD, such a requirement

would be unreasonable during combat

operations or on the battlefield. Moreover, as this legislation would be retroactive to World War II, DOD may be required to review thousands of cases.

The Defense Department has indicated

that it does not have the personnel or

budget to handle such a workload.

These are some issues that I hope the

Senate Armed Services Committee will

look into when reviewing this legislation.

Overall, I believe that S. 256 is an important and noteworthy bill. The Government has been perceived as being

unresponsive to the needs of families

whose loved ones are classified as missing in action. This legislation would

safeguard the rights of missing armed

service members while addressing the

concerns of their effected families and

the Federal Government. I am pleased

to cosponsor the Missing Service Personnel Act.

ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, MAY 11,

∑

f1995

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it

stand in recess until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 11, 1995; that following the

prayer, the Journal of proceedings be

deemed approved, the time for the two

leaders be reserved for their use later

in the day, and the Senate then immediately resume consideration of S. 534,

the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

fPROGRAM

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for the

information of all Senators, the Senate

will resume consideration of the Solid

Waste Disposal Act tomorrow. Further

amendments are expected to the bill,

therefore Senators should anticipate

rollcall votes throughout Thursday’s

session of the Senate, and a late night

session could occur with votes into the

evening. A cloture motion was filed on

the substitute this evening. It is the

hope of the leader, Senator DOLE, that

the Friday vote could be vitiated if an

agreement can be reached to conclude

the bill by Friday. Otherwise, a cloture

vote will occur Friday morning.

APPOINTMENT BY THE VICE

fPRESIDENT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair, on behalf of the Vice President,

pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 276h–276k, as

amended, appoints the following Senators as members of the Senate delegation to the Mexico-United States

Interparliamentary Group during the

first session of the 104th Congress, to

be held in Tucson, AZ, May 12–14, 1995:

the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRASSLEY];

the Senator from Alaska [Mr. MURKOWSKI]; and the Senator from Washington

[Mr. GORTON

RECESS UNTIL 9:30 A.M.

].

fTOMORROW

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if

there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous

consent that the Senate stand in recess

under the previous order.

There being no objection, the Senate,

at 7:08 p.m., recessed until Thursday,

May 11, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.