May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6763

Oklahoma City bombing. We were all

rightfully outraged that innocent children were killed in this senseless act of

violence. But we cannot and should not

accept the fact that millions of innocent children do not have adequate

health care, which results in the premature death and disability of many,

many children. Perhaps if we were able

to put a face on every single child who

suffers from lack of access to health

care, we would have a national policy

that ensures all children would have

their health care needs met.

There are important reasons why we

need to act soon. A report released a

few months ago by the Employee Benefit Research Institute shows that between 1992 and 1993, the number of uninsured people increased 17.8 percent to

40.9 million. The most alarming finding, however, is that children account

for the largest proportion of the increase in the number of the uninsured.

In 1993, 11.1 million children did not

have health care coverage.

In addition, if the enormous cuts in

the Medicaid Program that have been

proposed by some of my colleagues are

enacted, there will be a tremendous increase in the number of uninsured children. That is because Medicaid currently provides health care coverage to

approximately 13.5 million children

whose families could not otherwise afford to take their children to a doctor.

To address this problem, I will introduce legislation next month to ensure

that all children, beginning with children under 7, and pregnant women have

affordable coverage for comprehensive,

high-quality health care. My proposed

maximizes State flexibility while ensuring full accountability for results,

and relies on the private sector to deliver the highest quality care at the

lowest price.

If you agree that we need to protect

our children, I welcome your interest

and urge you to help me develop a proposal that all of us can support. Dr.

Birt Harvey of the Stanford University

Medical School states in Ms. Trafford’s

article, ‘‘We care about children as individuals. We don’t care about them as

a nation.’’ I hope we can work together

to change that.

The article follows:

[Washington Post, May 9, 1995]

WE LOVE THE CHILD, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE

CHILDREN?

(By Abigail Trafford)

It was the baby in the firefighter’s arms—

little Baylee Almon covered with dust and

blood—who became the symbol of the nation’s agony in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Long after rubble from the bombing is

cleared, we remember Baylee and the others

in the doomed day-care center.

Suffer the children.

We are a nation that loves children.

Obsesses about children. The child in pain,

the child in triumph—we hang on every detail. We open our hearts—and our pocketbooks—to help a high-profile child in need.

Children are our conscience.

Or are they?

You would certainly think so from the way

we respond to children in the news. We have

a track record for turning the child in the

public spotlight into a metaphor of what

kind of people we are and who we care about

most.

We held our breath when Jessica, the 18-

month-old toddler of Midland, Tex., was buried for 21⁄2 days in an abandoned well in 1987.

And cheered when she was hauled out by a

crane into the glare of television lights and

cameras.

We agonized over David, the boy in the

bubble. Born with a rare immune disease, he

died in 1984 after spending most of his 12

years of life inside a sterile plastic cage that

kept him away from common germs—and

away from human touch.

And last year, we grieved for Michael, 3,

and Alexander, 14 months, the two boys of

Susan Smith, the young South Carolina

mother who confessed to sending her sons to

a water grave.

Suffer the children.

Every child who makes the news taps into

the public’s huge reservoir of concern for

children in trouble, for children who are victims. But this outpouring of anguish and

generosity usually stops with the high-profile case.

The fact is that as a nation we neglect our

children, particularly the ones who are sick

and poor. That was the conclusion of a 1991

bipartisan national commission on children.

‘‘. . . at every age, among all races and income groups, and in communities nationwide, many children are in jeopardy,’’ stated

the commission in its executive summary.

‘‘If we measure success not just by how well

most children do, but by how poorly some

fare, America falls far short.’’

Advocates for children like to point out

that the United States is the only industrialized country that doesn’t have a national

policy to support children. While a patchwork of government and private programs

help certain groups of children, there is no

comprehensive commitment to the young

the way there is to the elderly. As Sara

Rosenbaum, co-director of the George Washington University Center for Health Policy

Research, explains: ‘‘Children are the most

vulnerable segment of society. They don’t

have the clout that other population groups

have. If children are falling apart, it has tremendous consequences for the nation.’’

To be sure, the prime responsibility for the

health and safety of children rests with the

family. But some families cannot provide the

basic supports. The needs, according to the

bipartisan report, involve many aspects of

children’s lives including housing, education

and protection from abuse.

One of the biggest needs is health insurance. An increasing number of children do

not have health coverage from private or

public sources. There is no national health

plan for children that automatically covers

them as the Medicare program does for the

elderly.

‘‘We care about children as individuals. We

don’t care about them as a nation,’’ says Birt

Harvey, professor emeritus at the Stanford

University Medical School and past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

‘‘It’s a crisis of conscience and it’s a crisis

of consciousness,’’ adds Susan S. Aronson,

clinical professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Pennsylvania and Hahnemann

University. ‘‘We’ve lost our perspective as a

society that we are responsible for children.’’

Statistics tell the dismal story. Since 1991,

the number of uninsured children has risen

from 9.5 million to 11.1 million in 1993, according to an analysis by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. The percentage of

uninsured children has also increased and of

the additional 1.1 million Americans who

have recently lost health coverage, more

than 920,000 are children. This increase occurred despite expanded coverage of children

under Medicaid.

What’s more, private coverage of children

has declined. The largest jump in uninsured

children took place in families where the father was working for a small firm with fewer

than 10 employees, researchers found.

Three basic options to cover all children

and pregnant women have been circulating

in the backwaters of the nation’s capital for

some years: provide subsidies for the uninsured to purchase health coverage, create a

Medicare type program for children, and

open up Medicaid to more families. While

there is a general consensus that all children

ought to have access to basic medical services, there is not a lot of agreement on how

to get there. And right now there’s very little apparent interest in Congress or the Clinton administration to do much of anything.

As Harvey observes: ‘‘It doesn’t seem like a

high priority—it doesn’t seem like a priority

at all.’’

Suffer the children.

f∑

RETIREMENT OF DEPUTY CHIEF

JOHN F. MORIARTY

∑ Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I

rise today to honor Deputy Chief John

F. Moriarty on his retirement from 50

years of service to the Stamford Police

Department in Stamford, CT, where he

was honored on April 29, 1995. Deputy

Chief Moriarty was born and raised in

Stamford, CT. Jack’s career began as a

special constable with the former town

police department on June 15, 1944, and

he served in this capacity until his appointment as a regular police officer 5

years later on November 17, 1949.

Jack Moriarty served during the consolidation of the city of Stamford and

the town of Stamford Police Departments into what has now become the

Stamford Police Department. During

his long and honorable tenure, he

served with 8 police chiefs, 13 mayors

and 1 first selectman. His dedication,

intelligence, and foresight to duty, all

contributed to Jack’s many promotions throughout the years, including sergeant, lieutenant, captain, and

ultimately deputy chief in November

1981. His final assignment was as commanding officer, administration and

support services, where he served with

distinction until his retirement on December 30, 1994.

Jack continues to reside in Stamford,

and is a life long member of Saint

Mary’s Roman Catholic Church where

he is one of the two lay trustees and a

member and past president of the

church’s Holy Name Society. He also

has a membership to an assorted selection of groups including the Knights of

Columbus, Saint Augustine Council No.

41, the board of directors of Saint

Camillus Health Center, Stamford Police Association, Inc., and the Police

Association of Connecticut. He and his

beloved wife Jean, have four children

and seven grandchildren, all with Irish

first names. Jack’s work and commitment to helping those in need has been

an inspiration to those who know him.

I salute Deputy Chief John Moriarty on

his retirement for his never-ending energy and steadfast devotion to the

Stamford Police Department.∑
S6764 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 16, 1995

NATIONAL POLICE WEEK

∑ Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this

week is National Police Week, 7 days

we set aside to honor the men and

women who put themselves in harm’s

way—every day—so that our neighborhoods and communities can be safer

places to live.

National Police Week was proclaimed

by President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

On the first day of this important

week, designated as Peace Officer Memorial Day, we pay tribute to the

brave officers killed in the line of duty.

At a special ceremony yesterday in our

Nation’s Capital, the names of those

men and women who gave their lives in

1994 were engraved into a memorial and

candles were lit in their honor. Our

hearts go out to the families and loved

ones of those who made the ultimate

sacrifice to protect and preserve our

way of life.

This year, in addition to offering our

deep gratitude, we should give our police officers a helping hand. While we

have won some important victories in

the war on crime—through the passage

last year of the crime bill and legislation to keep guns off the streets—we

still have a long way to go.

We know that our streets will not be

safe as long as our police officers are

outgunned and outnumbered. Last

year, 13 California police officers were

killed in the line of duty. Seven California officers have died in the line of

duty in the first 41⁄2 months of 1995.

They gave their lives to protect ours.

Knowing they put themselves at such

great risk every day, we cannot in good

conscience send a single officer out on

the street without doing everything

possible to give them the tools they

need to protect us.

I urge everyone take a stand for the

safety of our Nation’s peace officers.

Call upon your legislators to continue

to enact tough crime measures, and to

oppose any weakening of the crime bill

or the assault weapons ban. Do it to

honor the brave men and women who

help keep our streets safe, and do it for

your community and those you love.

I ask that a list of the brave California peace officer killed in the line of

duty in 1994 be printed at this point in

the RECORD.

The list follows:

IN MEMORIUM

Officer Clarence W. Dean, Los Angeles Police Department.

Captain Michael W. Tracy, Palos Verdes

Estates Police Department.

Sergeant Vernon T. Vanderpool, Palos

Verdes Estates Police Department.

Officer Christy Lynne Hamilton, Los Angeles Police Department.

Group Supervisor Arnold C. Garcia, Los

Angeles County Probation Department.

Reserve Officer Ted H. Brassinga, Palo

Alto Police Department.

Officer William E. Lehn, Fresno Police Department.

Officer Miquel T. Soto, Oakland Police Department.

Officer Richard A. Maxwell, California

Highway Patrol, Bakersfield.

Officer Charles D. Heim, Los Angeles Police Department.

Officer Michael A. Osornio, La Habra Police Department.

Officer James L. Guelff, San Francisco Police Department.

Officer Thomas B. Worley, Los Angeles

County Safety Police.

f∑

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to

call the roll.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the

quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a

number of unanimous consent requests.

These have been cleared with the leadership on the other side of the aisle.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT—WHITEWATER RESOLUfTION

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10:30 a.m. on

Wednesday, May 17, the Senate turn to

the consideration of a resolution to be

offered by Senator D’AMATO establishing a special committee to conduct an

investigation involving the Whitewater, and it be considered under the

following time agreement: 2 hours, to

be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member

of the Banking Committee; that no

amendments or motions be in order;

and that, following the conclusion or

yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the resolution without

any intervening action or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

fEXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go into

executive session and immediately proceed to the consideration of Executive

Calendar Nos. 31, 113, 115, and 116, en

bloc; I further ask unanimous consent

that the nominations be confirmed en

bloc; that the motions to reconsider be

laid upon the table en bloc, that any

statements relating to the nominations

appear at the appropriate place in the

RECORD; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s actions.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The nominations considered and

agreed to en bloc are as follows:

INTERNATIONAL BANKS

Robert E. Rubin, of New York, to be United

States Governor of the International Monetary Fund for a term of five years; United

States Governor of the International Bank

for Reconstruction and Development for a

term of five years; United States Governor of

the Inter-American Development Bank for a

term of five years; United States Governor of

the African Development Bank for a term of

five years; United States Governor of the

Asian Development Bank; United States

Governor of the African Development Fund;

United States Governor of the European

Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Lawrence Harrington, of Tennessee, to be

United States Alternate Executive Director

of the Inter-American Development Bank.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION

The following officer, NOAA, for appointment to the grade of Rear Admiral (0–8),

while serving in a position of importance and

responsibility as Director, Office of NOAA

Corps Operations, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions of Title 33, United States Code, Section

853u:

Rear Adm. William L. Stubblefield, NOAA

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Jeffrey M. Lang, of Maryland, to be Deputy

United States Trade Representative, with

the rank of Ambassador.

TREATY WITH PANAMA ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL

fMATTERS—TREATY DOCUMENT

102–15

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed

to the following treaty on the Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 3, Treaty

Document 102–15.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LOTT. I further ask unanimous

consent that the treaty be considered

as having been passed through its various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of resolution

of ratification; that the two committee

provisos be considered and agreed to,

and no other provisos, reservations, or

understandings be in order; that any

statements be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD as if read; that when

the resolution of ratification is agreed

to, the motion to reconsider be laid

upon the table; that the President be

notified of the Senate’s action; and

that following disposition of the treaty, the Senate return to legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for a

division vote on the resolution of ratification.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All those

in favor of the resolution of ratification will rise and stand until counted.

(After a pause.) Those opposed will rise

and stand until counted.

In the opinion of the Chair, on a division, two-thirds of the Senators

present and voting having voted in the

affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to.

The resolution of ratification is as

follows:

Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present

concurring therein), That the Senate advise

and consent to the ratification of the Treaty

between the United States of America and