Bill Bradley

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today, for the third time, the Senate is attempting to resolve the many difficult issues that are involved with municipal solid waste flows. For the third time in the last 6 years, I have worked with my colleague on the Environment Committee, Senator Lautenberg, to defend our home State of New Jersey and the many ways in which we handle, recycle, or dispose of the tons of municipal solid waste produced every year. Last Congress, we were within a single vote of resolving this issue. All of the relevant parties hammered out a bill that was as fair as it could be to those States that are called waste exporters and those States that are waste importers--actually, most states are both. It responded to the needs of States that tried to manage solid waste flows within their boundaries. It tried to balance the contradictory impulses to create a more competitive waste market or to impose more restrictions on waste flow. It was not a great bill. But it was a pretty fair bill. And it was as least reasonably consistent. When the bill now before us was first reported to the Senate floor, it was a poor facsimile of last year's effort. Yet, fortunately, the bill's managers were willing to work with Senator Lautenberg, State officials, and myself to guarantee New Jersey the security we needed to move forward on this most contentious issue. Mr. President, this is not the easiest bill to support. Title I of this bill will be restrictive of interstate trade. It will give Governors and citizens the real ability to slow and ultimately stop the flow of municipal solid waste from State to State. Fundamentally, these actions are anticompetitive. They will result in more expensive waste disposal for many Americans and American businesses. Title II, however, has quite a different purpose. Title II responds to recent legal decisions that, if left standing, would greatly reduce the ability of a State to manage waste flows within its own borders. Because of this title II, as modified on the Senate floor, New Jersey will be able to continue its efforts to control and reduce the municipal waste flow. For years, many States have anticipated the need to manage internally waste flows, exactly because of the pressures for and against exports, as well as environmental concerns. In my State, we started very early to close inadequate landfills and waste facilities. Early on, we realized that to do the job of waste disposal right was neither cheap nor easy. New Jersey responded with State law setting up a broad program of environmentally progressive waste facilities. These facilities were not and are not cheap. Many counties in my State were essentially compelled to build facilities that they probably--or certainly--would not have built otherwise. Now these counties depend on mandated trash flows for revenue. Unfortunately, without some legislative redress, these revenues are at risk for many facilities. Additionally, the potential financial collapse of authorized waste facilities would certainly make it far less likely-- perhaps exceedingly unlikely--that my State ever develops a truly comprehensive waste management plan again. I have heard the arguments that, in a world of competition, we do not need to allow States flow-control authority. Trash would end up in the lowest cost facilities that meet the appropriate environmental requirements. Consumers and businesses would save money and the environment could be protected in this world. But title I obliterates any hope of truly competitive markets in solid waste. Once title I is adopted, trash is transformed from an issue of commerce to an issue of baldfaced politics. In such a world, my State has to have effective flow-control authority and that authority is provided in title II of this bill. In the best of all worlds, frankly, we probably would not be passing any bill. We would simply recognize that trash represents goods in commerce; that a bag of potato chips which moves freely from State to State is not mysteriously transformed once the chips are eaten. But all of my experience dealing with the interstate waste issue confirms to me that we are not living in that world now. I have seen political commercials run attacking my State. I have seen demagoguery. And I have seen efforts that were far more restrictive of interstate waste flows pass this body with overwhelming support. Mr. President, I have come to conclude that this bill does protect my State and will give us the flexibility we need to resolve these waste flow issues. To be truthful, I am not wild about this bill. However, it can be the basis for a resolution of this matter and it is a compromise that I will support, notwithstanding my obvious reservations. flow control and interstate waste

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon to submit a revised version of my bill to increase the Federal excise tax on tobacco products. My original bill would take the current tax level for all types of tobacco products and multiply it by 5.167. This would raise the tax on a pack of cigarettes from 24 cents a pack to $1.24 a pack. My revised bill goes one step further to help Americans-- particularly children and teenagers--achieve a tobacco-free future. Mr. President, I have been on this floor many times talking about the dangers of tobacco use. I have repeatedly stated that tobacco use kills well over 400,000 Americans every year--more than alcohol, heroin, crack, automobile and airplane accidents, homicides, suicides, and AIDS combined. And I have sought to bring attention to the fact that each year a growing number of teenagers start smoking, despite the fact that selling cigarettes to minors is illegal. Virtually all new users of tobacco are teenagers or younger, and every 30 seconds a child in the United States smokes for the first time. Yet there is another aspect of the tobacco story which has not received much attention on the floor of this body. Generally, when people think about the dangers of tobacco use, they think about cigarettes. They think about the lung cancer, the emphysema, and the heart disease which cigarettes cause in those who use them. And they realize that these health impacts are not limited to those who actually smoke the cigarettes. Rather, environmental tobacco smoke--smoke from other people's cigarettes--causes tens of thousands of deaths each year. But as grave as the impacts of cigarette smoking are, they are only part of the story of the death and destruction which tobacco products wreak on our society. There is another, less well-known yet still devastating side to the tobacco story. And that is the tale of smokeless tobacco products. The use of smokeless tobacco--namely snuff and chew--is skyrocketing in the United States. Between 1986 and 1990, sales of snuff grew by close to 50 percent. This increase follows several decades of decline in sales and use. Part of this increase can be attributed to increased social pressures placed on smokers, due largely to concerns about second-hand smoke. And part of it has been fueled by perception that smokeless products are a safe alternative to smoking. But the belief that snuff and chew are safe is absolutely false. Let me state this very clearly: smokeless tobacco can kill you. It kills in different ways than cigarettes do, but it kills nonetheless. Smokeless tobacco causes mouth cancer. It causes gum cancer. It causes throat cancer. These are just a few of the oral problems smokeless tobacco can cause. And the threat of developing these diseases, and of dying of them, is very real. Long-term snuff users are 50 times more likely to develop gum cancer and four times more likely to develop mouth cancer than nonusers. Nearly 30,000 new cases of oral cancer are diagnosed each year in the United States. Half of those people are dead within 5 years. Smokeless tobacco products are also highly addictive. A typical dose of snuff contains two to three times as much nicotine, the addictive substance in tobacco, as a single cigarette. Because of these health risks, snuff is banned in a growing number of countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Australia, and New Zealand. Despite these health risks, the use of smokeless tobacco is skyrocketing in the United States. So who are these new smokeless users--those individuals who are heading down a path of addiction, cancer, and death? For the most part, they are children. The average age of new smokeless users is 9\1/2\ years old. Two-thirds of smokeless users start their habit before they are even 12 years old. It is now estimated that 3 million Americans under age 21 use smokeless tobacco, including 1 out of every 5 high school males. Why is this happening? A large part of the explanation lies in the tobacco companies' aggressive marketing toward youth. But another part of the explanation is the cost of smokeless tobacco relative to cigarettes. Despite its dangers, smokeless tobacco is taxed at only about one-tenth the rate of cigarettes, making it a cheap alternative to cigarettes. And since kids are the most price-sensitive of all tobacco users, it is not surprising that they are turning to smokeless tobacco in ever growing numbers. My bill proposes to remove this price incentive for kids and adults to use smokeless tobacco. It does this by setting the Federal excise tax on tins of snuff and pouches of chew at the exact same dollar amount as on a pack of cigarettes. This means that the Federal taxes on these smokeless products will increase from their current level of less than 3 cents per container to $1.24 per container. In the previous version of my bill, I would have increased the tax on smokeless products by a factor of 5. While this is a significant increase, it is not enough to eliminate the incentive for cigarette smokers to switch rather than quit, or to discourage kids from ever starting the tobacco habit. Mr. President, I have spoken earlier this session about the many benefits which would be achieved by increasing the Federal tobacco tax. It will save billions of dollars in health care costs, not only for the Federal Government but for private insurers and citizens across the country. It will save countless lives. It will decrease unnecessary suffering. And it will discourage millions of children and teenagers from ever becoming addicted to tobacco. These changes to my earlier bill will make these benefits even more pronounced. Smokeless tobacco must no longer be seen as a safe and cheap alternative to cigarettes. Raising the excise tax will discourage children and teenagers from ever starting to use smokeless tobacco, and it will discourage adults from considering smokeless as a safe alternative to quitting tobacco use entirely. Mr. President, my tobacco tax bill, and the changes I am adding to it, are good health policy. They are good economic policy. And they are key to helping our children and teenagers achieve a tobacco-free future. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the lifetime achievements of my constituent, Dr. Anthony T. Padovano, who has bequeathed his personal papers to the archives of the Theodore Hesburgh Memorial Library at the University of Notre Dame. A leader in the post-Vatican-II Catholic reform movement and chairman of the literature program at Ramapo College of New Jersey, Dr. Padovano has dedicated over 30 years to the study and advancement of the Catholic Church. Ordained a Catholic priest in 1959, Dr. Padovano was closely associated with the Vatican II Ecumenical Council which met from 1962 to 1965. During this time, he emerged as an advocate for the ordination of married men and women, more democratic and participatory church discussion, significant church involvement in issues of social justice, and greater interreligious harmony. Throughout the 1960's and early 1970's, Dr. Padovano authored key letters for the National Council of Catholic Bishops and taught systematic theology at Gregorian University's Seminary until he married in 1974. Unable to remain at the seminary, but still able to follow his religious calling, Dr. Padovano became involved in the founding of Ramapo College and its mission of interdisciplinary learning as a professor of American literature and religious studies. A professor, award-winning author, and reform leader, Dr. Padovano continues his study of morality and ethics in our society. As founder and president of CORPUS, National Association for a Married Priesthood, and vice president of the International Federation of Married Catholic Priests, Dr. Padovano continues to address the most controversial issues confronting the Catholic Church. The Padavano collection carries with it 30 years of scholarship, authorship, and independent thought which will guide students of theology, the Catholic Church and its reform movement in their quest for greater understanding. I am honored to pay tribute, on behalf of New Jersey and the Nation, to Dr. Padovano, his scholarship and his generous gift to the University of Notre Dame.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to mark a joyous event, the founding of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. From its near-miraculous beginnings as a country born in strife, Israel enters its 48th year a prosperous and vigorous democracy. With the hyperinflation of the 1980's a distant memory, Israel enjoys stable economic growth with moderate inflation. Israel's economic problems are now the challenges of any developed country--generating and distributing wealth. As the circle of peace in the region expands, Israel will find itself well-placed to be a major regional economic power. Israel has renewed itself as the homeland of the Jewish people by successfully managing its latest ``aliyah,'' the absorption of Jews from the Soviet Union and its successor states. Both the infusion of new blood, and the national effort to welcome and absorb over half a million new citizens has reinvigorated the nation, while educating a new generation on the special responsibilities and benefits of life in Israel. Among the greatest of those responsibilities and benefits is the nurturing of a democracy that is the envy, not only of the Middle East, but of the world. To an extent perhaps matched only by the United States, Israel has welded diverse peoples into a democratic society. Israel understands the lesson so eloquently taught by former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek that democracy is more than elections. Democracy is a way of thinking, a way of acting and, most of all, a way of treating one's neighbor. The world has much to learn from Israel's successful experiment in representative democracy in an often harsh environment. Israel marks its 47th birthday closer to lasting peace than ever before. As a result of the warm peace with Jordan, Israelis are finally visiting the legendary red rocks at Petra. As a result of the multilateral peace negotiations, Israel is normalizing relations with Arab states in North Africa and the Persian Gulf. Israel is also inching closer to peace with its Palestinian and Syrian neighbors. However, as Israelis above all peoples understand, peace never comes cheaply, and Israel is facing a historic challenge as it tries to conclude genuine peace in the face of terrorism. All of us grieve with Israel every time another terrorist atrocity is perpetrated. All of us pray with Israel that the leaders and peoples of the Middle East, and those of us who support them, will find the wisdom to steer a path through the shoals of violence to a lasting peace. The United States Government and individual Americans have an important role to play in supporting Israel, its people, and its leadership, in making the hard decisions necessary for peace. I am proud of the record of the United States Senate in providing unstinting support of Israel, and I will be proud to continue that record. I am particularly proud of the contributions of citizens of my own State of New Jersey to Israel's development. These are people like Miles Lerman, active in fundraising and philanthropy for Israel, and the man most responsible for the Holocaust Museum in Washington, who form the unshakable foundation of America's unwavering support for Israel. Israel today is 47 years strong. I know I speak for the people of New Jersey, and the United States, when I wish her peace and continued prosperity.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995. Let me first say, Mr. President, that I share the concerns of the people of New Jersey and this country that our society is too litigious. I share the concerns of my colleagues and the American people that the cost of this litigation explosion is injurious to the social and economic future of this country. However, after reviewing this bill and assessing the arguments, both pro and con, I do not think that this bill strikes the appropriate balance between the desires of manufacturers and product sellers to streamline the product liability process and the ability of ordinary Americans to bring lawsuits seeking relief from injuries resulting from defective and dangerous products. Mr. President, I favor a cap on punitive damages for small businesses. I supported the amendment of my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, businesses with 25 or fewer employees and individuals with assets of less than $500,000. Small businesses are the engine that drives the American economy and provide for at least half of this country's new employment opportunities. While a cap on punitive damage awards should be sufficient to punish and deter future action, it should also reflect the fact that a cap that may be sufficient to punish a large corporation may in fact push a small business into the abyss of bankruptcy. However, Mr. President, I have grave concerns about the overall cap on punitive damages. The purpose of punitive awards is to punish the wrongdoer for egregious behavior and deter such behavior in the future. I believe that if we place a low cap on punitive damages, some corporations will not be discouraged from exposing consumers to dangerous products. Indeed, with predictable caps, Mr. President, wrongdoers may find it more cost effective to make dangerous decisions and risk paying punitive damages. Moreover, Mr. President, while this bill authorizes judges to increase an award of punitive damages beyond the limits of the cap, this safeguard is illusory because defendants have the right to receive a new trial--a right which they will surely exercise. Indeed, the provision in the bill will only lead to repetitive litigation, increase costs and prevent deserving consumers from obtaining their awards in a timely manner. Mr. President, I do not need to repeat the horror stories about women who have tragically suffered and died from using dangerous products, children who have been burned by flammable clothing, or hard working Americans, who have senselessly been injured and killed as a result of defective automobiles. What needs to be repeated is that the one constant in all of these horror stories is that the manufacturer knew of the dangerous defect and failed to take adequate steps to protect the public. Mr. President, punitive damages are available to police conduct that is so egregious that the offender disregarded forseeable dangerous consequences. Indeed, as this bill provides, punitive damages are only available where there is clear and convincing evidence of a conscious, flagrant indifference to the safety of others. Given the nature of the offense, Mr. President, I firmly believe that placing a cap on punitive damages will be counterproductive to society's efforts to police and deter such egregious conduct. Mr. President, under the present caps, cigarette manufacturers and those who irresponsibly market alcohol to intoxicated persons or minors who then kill or injure innocent victims in traffic crashes would continue to manufacture and market these products of destruction with less fear of having to one day pay the price for the massive damage that their products inflict on society. Moreover, firearms and ammunition are virtually the only unregulated consumer product in America. As such, the tort system is the only check on the safety of consumers. I am not willing, Mr. President, to place a cap on punitive damages when the result will be that such action will lessen the liability of the manufacturers who profit from these destructive products. Mr. President, while I also think that there is a need for joint and several liability reform, I cannot endorse the blanket elimination of joint and several liability for noneconomic damages that is in the present bill. Instead, Mr. President, I favor the approach currently in operation in New Jersey, which provides for proportional liability if the defendant is responsible for 20 percent or less of the harm, several liability for noneconomic damages if a defendant is responsible for between 20 percent and 60 percent of the harm, and joint and several liability if the defendant is responsible for 60 percent or more of the harm. Mr. President, this bill would preempt State product liability law ``to the extent that state law applies to an issue covered under the Act.'' Proponents of product liability reform argue that Federal legislation is needed to establish uniformity. However, the bill does not require States to have uniform State laws. For example, those States that do not now allow punitive damages would not be required to award them, even though the bill provides for the award of such damages. The effect of this provision is that States can offer their individual citizens fewer rights, but not more. Mr. President, this bill also excludes actions involving commercial loss. By excluding such actions, the bill places restrictions on the ability of individuals to seek redress from defective products, but does not place any restrictions on corporations to seek redress. For example, if a product explodes in a factory, the worker's recovery for injuries is limited by this bill; however, the factory owner may sue the product manufacturer or seller free from the restrictions of the bill for such speculative damages as the factory's loss of profits because of delays in production. Thus, the effect of this provision is to value material property over the health and safety of individual citizens. Mr. President, we have been told that there is a litigation explosion with respect to product liability and that corporations and the business community are suffering under the weight of this explosion. However, Mr. President, excluding cases of asbestos, product liability claims in Federal courts have declined by approximately 36 percent between 1985 and 1991. Moreover, in State courts, product liability cases are approximately 4 percent of all tort filings, .0036 percent of all civil caseloads and .00097 percent of the total State court caseloads. Mr. President, although there have been relatively few punitive damage awards in product liability cases over the last 25 years, we have been told that the threat of punitive damages encourages many product manufacturers to settle cases that they would have no problem winning in an effort to avoid having claims for punitive damages go to juries unfamiliar with the precautions that are now taken to insure that products are safe. However, Mr. President, the numbers simply do not add up to the conclusion that the business community is being treated unfairly by juries. Indeed, almost 60 percent of the product liability cases brought in 1993, plaintiffs were the losing parties. Mr. President, it has additionally been argued that these lawsuits increase the costs of producing products in this country and thus hurt American competitiveness. However, a 1987 Conference Board survey of risk managers of 232 corporations shows that product liability costs for most businesses are 1 percent or less of the final price of a product, and have very little impact on larger economic issues such as market share or jobs. In addition, the American Insurance Association, the largest trade association representing the insurance industry, has testified that this legislation will have virtually no effect on insurance costs. Mr. President, to put it succinctly, I do not think that the bill will really do what its proponents say it will do. As mentioned earlier, the proponents of this bill argue that the business community is suffering under the weight of a litigation explosion. They contend that this bill will decrease both the incidence and cost of litigation. Mr. President, no one disagrees that we are an overly litigious society. However, I am not convinced that this bill can correct the problem of litigiousness in society. Indeed, Mr. President, the fact is that the punitive caps provision providing for the automatic right to a new trial by defendants will serve to only increase the delay and cost of litigation. This bill tilts the scales of justice too far to the disadvantage of individual consumers. Thus, I cannot support legislation which will endanger the health and safety of hard working Americans. In conclusion, Mr. President, because of the above stated concerns, I must oppose the Product Liability Fairness Act of 1995. Vote on Amendment No. 690, as Amended

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I rise to explain my opposition to this resolution. Although this resolution calls attention to a serious problem, the persistence of Japanese trade barriers, it does not identify a workable solution. Japanese trade barriers need to come down. They need to come down because they contribute to America's bilateral trade deficit with Japan. Studies cited by the administration have found that removing every single Japanese barrier would reduce the bilateral merchandise trade deficit by around 20 percent. Note, however, that Japanese trade barriers do not themselves account for America's global trade deficit, only its composition. As the administration itself admits in the President's 1994 annual report on the Trade Agreements Program: The United States still suffers from relatively low savings at a time when domestic investment is growing rapidly. The shortfall between domestic saving and investment was larger in 1994 and was filled by a net increase in foreign capital inflows. The United States thus had a large surplus on its international capital account and a large offsetting deficit on its trade or current account. In plain English, our domestic budget deficit crowds out savings and requires us to import capital. This leads to our global trade deficit. Japanese trade barriers also need to come down because they reduce the Japanese people's quality of life and impede the process of democratization in Japan. Japan's democratization is also in our interest; it is the only way we will have a stable, democratic, prosperous Japanese partner in our efforts to secure a stable international environment. So, on this point, we agree, Japan's trade barriers must come down. However, the administration's strategy, which this resolution supports, is the wrong way to do this. Declaring unilateral trade war on Japan--and, make no mistake, that is what we are talking about-- would once again leave the United States isolated in the world. Europeans, Latin Americans, and Asians, fearing similar treatment from us in the future, would line up with Japan. Currency markets will react badly. If you think a rate of 80 yen to the dollar is disadvantageous to this country, as I do, imagine a rate of 75 or even 70. I am not alarmist when I say that this could threaten the position of the dollar as the international reserve currency. Indeed, Japan is already talking of switching its reserves out of dollars and into deutschmarks. This dispute is likely to end in the fledgling World Trade Organization. No matter what happened there, support would be weakened. Either the United States would lose, causing a tidal wave of calls to leave the World Trade Organization, or Japan would lose, leading to reduced Japanese support for the international trading system. Either way, we all lose. Finally, by strengthening the power of the bureaucrats, who are standing up to the Americans, a trade war would cut across the forces of transparency, democratization, and accountable electoral politics which are the ultimate answer to our trade imbalance. I have spoken many times of a better way to reduce Japan's trade barriers, one that works with the forces shaping Japan, does not cut across our interests in the new World Trade Organization, and depoliticizes the trade relationship. To repeat, I believe we can best address Japan's trade barriers by establishing a dispute resolution mechanism, similar to the ones in the United States-Japan and United States-Canada free trade agreements, to impartially adjudicate United States-Japan trade disputes. Madam President, it is ironic that we are voting on this resolution. In many ways, it is like judo. What appears strength is actually revealed as weakness. I, for one, believe in strength. This is why I believe we must take a strategic, long-term approach to the United States-Japan trade relationship. A strong America will negotiate and adjudicate, as I have described. A weak America will only, impotently, bash.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bradley pertaining to the introduction of S. 759 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the amendment offered by my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, and accepted by the Senate yesterday. The amendment provides for a $250,000 cap on punitive damages for individuals whose net worth does not exceed $500,000 and corporations, partnerships, associations, and units of local governments with fewer than 25 employees. Mr. President, small businesses are the engine that drives the American economy and provide for at least half of this country's new employment opportunities. As such, Mr. President, as we debate the issue of imposing a punitive damages cap, we need to ensure that small businesses are not punished disproportionately when they take actions which call for the imposition of such damages. Mr. President, punitive damages are designed to punish the offender and protect the public by deterring conduct that is harmful. I am, therefore, a strong proponent of the right of courts to police egregious conduct through the award of punitive damages. Thus, while a cap on punitive damage awards should be sufficient to punish and deter future action, it should also reflect the fact that a cap that may be sufficient to punish a large corporation may in fact push a small business into the abyss of bankruptcy. Mr. President, I have spoken to small business owners in New Jersey on this issue. What I have heard over and over again is that if they commit offenses that merit an award of punitive damages, they should be punished; however, the punishment and deterrent effect should reflect the economic situation of the small business offender. Mr. President, a $250,000 punitive damage award against a small business with assets of $400,000 may drive the owner out of business, while a $5 million punitive award against a large corporation with assets in excess of $500 million will have less of a deterrent effect. I cannot support such a disproportionate impact on small businesses struggling to meet their bottom line. Therefore, Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment offered by my colleague from Ohio which serves to balance our national interest in punishing and deterring harmful conduct and protecting the viability of small businesses.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce, for myself and Senator Hollings, the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act of 1995. This is a bill to improve the Federal Government's ability to deter illegal immigration by enhancing enforcement of existing laws that prohibit employment of illegal aliens and bar overstays by legally admitted visitors. Madam President, I have been watching the unfolding immigration debate with real concern. As I followed California's proposition 187 campaign, I realized the arguments over illegal immigration are occurring in a vacuum. We are trying to address the impact of immigration without understanding how it relates to the deeper transformations that are shaping our society. We find ourselves susceptible to the demagogic quick fix, and risk undermining the diversity that underlies our strength as an American people. Peter Drucker once said: Every few hundred years throughout Western history, a sharp transformation has occurred. In a matter of decades, society rearranges itself--its world view, its basic values; its social and political structures; its art; its key institutions. Fifty years later, there is a new world. And the people born into that world cannot even imagine the world in which their grandparents lived and into which their own parents were born. Madam President, we are currently living through such a period of transformation. Not since the age of democratic revolution coincided with the industrial revolution has our world undergone such sweeping change as we are having today. The forces at work in our lives today are as dramatic and powerful as the Declaration of Independence and the steam engine were two centuries ago. We face today a rapidly transforming world full of new opportunities. But those opportunities are accompanied by profound uncertainties and painful adaptations. Progress creates losers as well as winners. For example, the death of the Soviet Union has ended our fear of nuclear annihilation. At the same time, the resulting military downsizing has cost over 1.1 million jobs in the defense sector alone since 1987. As a result, and not for the first time in our history, politicians and voters have seized upon immigration, especially illegal immigration, as a scapegoat for the deeper uncertainties we feel. Illegal immigration has also become a lightning rod for worries about the budget crises we face at all levels of Government. There is no doubt that illegal immigrants impose a cost on taxpayers. According to the estimates by the Urban Institute, the seven most affected States pay approximately $3.1 billion yearly on education, $471 million on incarceration, and $313 million on providing medical treatment for undocumented aliens. The Urban Institute's fiscal year 1993 estimates for my own State of New Jersey, which has the sixth largest population of illegal aliens, are $146 million for education, $6.6 million for incarceration, and $0.5-3.9 million for Medicaid, for a total of $153.1-156.5 million. Anger over illegal immigration inevitably creates a backlash against legal immigrants and even citizens of different ethnic backgrounds. However, this is a self-defeating response. Our country is increasingly a mixture of races, languages, and religions, as new immigrants arrive in search of economic promise and political freedom. By the year 2000, only 57 percent of the people who enter the work force in America will be native-born white Americans. That means that the economic future of all Americans will depend increasingly on the talents of nonwhite Americans. We will all either advance together or each of us will be diminished. We most need to appreciate the remarkable opportunity that our racial and ethnic diversity represents for the future of our country. Our immigrants and new citizens can be our guide to the cultural rhythms in the fastest growing areas of the world economy. Given high-quality and price-competitive goods, the cultural knowledge they have can American the advantage. Our diversity can mean more jobs, more prosperity for all Americans, if we can seize the moment and not run away from it. To do so, we must reinvigorate the institutions and organizations which integrate new arrivals into American society. I have spoken elsewhere of the crisis afflicting civil society in this country. One of the effects of the decline of the institutions of civil society is the weakening of the lodges, clubs, churches, Scout troops, and other organizations which used to give immigrants entree into American society. As a result, we all too often see groups of teenage immigrants operating on the fringes of society instead of productive new members integrating into the heart of American society. We cannot realize the opportunity presented by our diversity if we let frustration over the Federal Government's inability to control its borders spill over into action against those who are here legally. We must control illegal immigration in order to make our country safe for legal immigration. We must control illegal immigration if we are to make our country safe for diversity. There is no shortage of laws on the books to control illegal immigration. There are laws to punish employers and smugglers of illegal aliens, to deny illegal aliens most Government benefits and even to compensate the States for some of the costs associated with illegal immigration. The primary problem, however, is enforcement. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is underfunded and hindered by a history of incompetence that the current management is hard put to reverse. The INS cannot keep illegal aliens out of the country, track them once they enter, or remove them once they are identified. Its various databases are, frankly, a shambles. from the labor of illegal aliens. They profit from the general climate of neglect in which they can demand long hours of labor for low wages and few benefits. Madam President, sweatshops manned by illegal men, women, and children are a disgrace to America and a drag on the fortunes of legal immigrant and American workers. These are the very inhumane labor conditions and practices we try to improve in countries abroad, but they are here, in America, today. American workers and honest American employers should not have to compete against this exploited labor force. That brings me, Madam President, to my bill, the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act of 1995. This legislation contains three major provisions which can help end this gentleman's agreement and will enforce the laws that are on the books. The gentleman's agreement is: pass tough legislation, but do not enforce it. Talk about being tough on illegal immigrants, but allow certain economic interests to benefit from illegal immigrant labor. The first provision goes to, I think, the root problem, which is employment. Most illegal aliens do not come to the United States for health care or welfare or even education. They come to work. That means that the way to discourage them is not to punish their children by denying them medical care or education, as proposition 187 tries to do, but instead remove the employment magnet and remove the incentive that attracts them to the United States. Existing law, starting with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, contains provisions which would reduce employment opportunities for illegal immigrants if they were simply enforced. Before enacting fundamental changes in this bedrock piece of legislation, we should try enforcing the laws already on the books. Empty legislating is no substitute for enforcement. The place to start is employer sanctions. The 1986 act, better known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, imposes civil penalties on employers of illegal aliens of up to $10,000 per alien for repeat offenders. There is also a criminal penalty of up to 6 months imprisonment and a $3,000 fine for pattern or practice violations. Madam President, enforcement of employer sanctions is a low priority at INS. In part, this is because the labor regulatory function is different from the policing function usually done by the investigative branch of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. As in any bureaucracy, ``different'' means ``low priority.'' In addition, this branch has a mandate to focus on antismuggling and removal of criminal aliens. By implication, everything else has low priority. This low priority shows up in the figures. The 1986 act authorized $100 million per year to enforce employer sanctions, and even that was probably too little, but by fiscal year 1994, the appropriation had shrunk to $23 million. Funding has recovered somewhat since 1994, but remains well under the amount necessary to implement the law properly. As a result, the number of cases investigated has declined by nearly 50 percent from 1989 to 1994. In particular, the number of investigations resulting from leads, the most productive investigations, declined from 5,118 in 1989 to 2,240 in 1994. It is clear that as long as the same INS branch tries to perform investigative and employer sanctions functions, the latter will have to take a back seat. The way it is currently structured, employer sanctions will always take a back seat. My bill fixes this problem by creating a separate Office for the Enforcement of Employer Sanctions and authorizing it for $100 million, the figure that was contained in the 1986 Act. This first provision of my bill also addresses the potential for employment discrimination that exists in any employment eligibility legislation. For example, in 1990, a GAO study found that the 1986 act's employer sanctions provisions resulted in employment discrimination. The study suggested three causes for this: First, the employers do not understand the law's requirements; second, employers do not understand how to determine employment eligibility; and third, the prevalence of counterfeit documents increases employer confusion. As the GAO study implies, the problem is not with the law but with the INS's failure to educate employers about what the law requires them to do. Most employers, for example, still do not know that they must fill out an I-9 employment eligibility form for every employee, whether that employee is white, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, or otherwise. This is the key to combating discrimination, educating employers that this form applies to all. Note that the GAO study reports that an estimated 346,000 employers said that they applied the 1986 act's verification system only to persons who had a foreign appearance or accent, and recommends, among other steps, increasing employer understanding through effective education efforts. Madam President, my bill takes this problem head on by mandating that the INS Office for the Enforcement of Employer Sanctions be charged with ``educating employers on the requirements of the law, and in other ways as is necessary to prevent employment discrimination.'' The bottom line, then, is that my bill does not add to employers' burdens; it does not add one single form to the mountain of paperwork they must already fill out when they hire a new legal worker. Instead, it requires the Federal Government to explain the existing law to them. In this way, it will reduce the burden of uncertainty employers now bear. Let me point out as well that the bill complements other efforts by the administration, Senator Feinstein, Senator Simpson--the coauthor of the 1986 act--and others, to reduce the number of documents that can be used to confirm employment eligibility, make it more difficult to counterfeit the documents and develop a more reliable national employment eligibility data base. So, Madam President, the first initiative in the bill is to tighten up employer sanctions. Second, the bill prevents illegal aliens from reaping the rewards of their illegal entry into the United States. It prohibits adjustment of status within the United States for those seeking employment-based legal immigrant status. Further, it disqualifies those who have worked illegally in the United States from becoming legal immigrants. Currently, those in the United States illegally can try to adjust to a legal status, based upon family relationship or employment in a hard- to-fill job. While I do not advocate separating families, we can and should go after those who come to the United States illegally and expect to find an employer who will sponsor them for adjustment to legal status. My bill does this by forcing those who want to adjust for work- related reasons to do so outside the United States. So that, if they are denied, they cannot simply melt back into the population. In addition, by making previous illegal employment a disqualification for adjustment of status for work-related reasons, this bill denies illegal workers the benefit of their lawbreaking. Finally, Madam President, the bill addresses the problem of overstays by visitors admitted to this country legally. The debate on illegal immigration is focused on the United States-Mexican border. This is understandable, given the flow of illegal aliens across the border and the impact of this flow on border States. However, even sealing off the United States-Mexican border would not solve the problem of illegal immigration. Indeed, Madam President, the United States-Mexican border is less than half of the problem. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that 52 percent of all illegal aliens residing in the United States do not sneak across the U.S. border. Instead, they enter legally on visitor's visas and then overstay their visas. The percentage in my State of New Jersey is even higher, given its distance from Mexico and the sources of our illegal alien population. The INS estimates that 60 percent of New Jersey's illegal aliens enter the country legally on a visitor's visa and then just overstay, convinced that the The administration and Congress, fixated on the Mexican border, are ignoring this very substantial problem. My bill addresses it by requiring the INS to develop an entry and exit data base that will alert it to overstays by legally admitted nonimmigrants. It is pretty simple. We cannot hope to control our borders unless we know who is inside them. Once we know who is overstaying his or her visa and where that person is staying, we can easily take steps to remove that person from our country. It is a very simple step. It is not taken today, so you have 52 percent of the people who come on legitimate visas disappearing into the society as a whole. Madam President, the terrorist atrocity in Oklahoma City reminded us that we live in a dangerous world. Of course, non-Americans have no monopoly on terrorism. That is what Oklahoma City said as well. The evidence indicates that the Oklahoma City bombing was not perpetrated by an illegal alien. However, illegal aliens overstaying tourism visas have been implicated in terrorism in this country. For example, take Mohammad Salameh, who is accused of having rented the van used in the World Trade Center bombing. He was living in the United States illegally at the time of that crime. He entered this country legally, on a 6-month tourist visa, on February 17, 1988. And he still had not departed at the time the World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993--5 years later. Under current procedures, the INS had no idea of Salameh's failure to depart or his whereabouts in the United States. Under this bill, the INS would have been alerted to Salameh's overstay and illegal residence in the United States nearly 4\1/2\ years before the crime. So, Madam President, there you have it. Enforcement of employer sanctions, restrictions on rewarding aliens for illegal work, and measures to discourage overstays by legally admitted visitors. With these steps toward enforcing existing law, we can help to build common ground here at home, to parlay our diversity into strength, to protect legal immigration, and to lead the world by the power of our example. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ralph Neas, an outstanding leader for civil rights, who is being honored this evening by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Tonight, as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights [LCCR] celebrates its 45th anniversary as the Nation's oldest, largest and most broadly based civil rights coalition, Ralph Neas will be awarded the prestigious Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award for his ``selfless and devoted service in the cause of equality.'' During his 14-year tenure as the executive director of the Leadership Conference, Ralph has been a voice of compassion and reason and a tireless advocate for equality. Dubbed the ``101st Senator on Civil Rights'' by Senator Edward Kennedy, for his successful coordination of the lobbying efforts of 180 national organizations in the LCCR and for playing a major role in the passage of more than two dozen legislative victories, Ralph has demonstrated his effectiveness as a coalition builder. From the enactment of the 1982 Voting Rights Act extension to the recent enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, his efforts have truly made a difference with respect to securing civil rights for millions of Americans. Ralph's role in the civil rights community has not been limited to advocacy for the legislative arm of the civil rights community. In addition to his lobbying and legal research efforts, Ralph took on the role of executive director of the Leadership Conference Educational Fund. This independent organization supports numerous educational activities relevant to civil rights such as: an award winning public service advertising campaign promoting tolerance and diversity; a children's anti-discrimination campaign; and the publication of books and reports on emerging civil rights issues. Today, when our country is increasingly a mixture of races, languages and religions, I am delighted to pay tribute to the efforts of an individual who recognizes the importance of both preserving and celebrating the diversity of our society. The reality is that America is essentially a pair of ideals--liberty and equality. However, these are ideals that are still unrealized. To realize these ideals we need to recognize that our increasing ethnic and racial diversity is a remarkable opportunity. We need to recognize that we will either all advance together, or each of us will be diminished. Ralph Neas has spent the better part of a distinguished career working to ensure that--no matter the color of our skin, the shape of our eyes, our religion, our gender--we all advance together. I salute Ralph Neas for the dedication and leadership he has so generously given to the civil rights community and congratulate him on being awarded the Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today marks the 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, the first great crime of the 20th century. Over 1\1/ 2\ million Armenians were murdered by the Ottoman Empire and its successor between 1915 and 1923. Many in this country and throughout the world still mourn the relatives they lost in the Armenian genocide. It is important that we take a moment to remember this terrible crime against humanity. The 20th century has been not only a century of mass murder, but also a century of culpability in which the nations of the world have failed to act to prevent or halt genocide. The slaughter of Armenians was ignored. The international community was too slow to act when the Nazis began killing Jews and Gypsies. Our response to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Rwanda has been feeble. However, on this day, we not only mourn the losses sustained by Armenia, we also celebrate the contributions of Armenians to our civilization and culture, such as fellow New Jerseyans Christopher Babigian, a prominent physician and community leader, Krikor Zadourian, a leading businessman and community leader, and Haigaz Grigorian, a community leader active in relief work in Armenia, to name a few. Indeed, the American-Armenian community has done much to enrich New Jersey and the United States. Armenia itself, Mr. President, has now reemerged as an independent state in which Armenians can control their own destiny for the first time in centuries. Tragically, though, Armenia is a country which has thus far been forced to devote its resources to war rather than to building a peaceful, prosperous, life for its people. It is our responsibility to educate future generations about the dangers of intolerance and to fulfill the pledge of ``never again.'' Remembering the horrors of 1915-23 is one way of rousing ourselves to give meaning to this pledge.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my wholehearted support for the Sense of the Senate resolution proposed as an amendment today by Senator Kennedy. As a member of the Finance Committee, I offered an amendment to H.R. 831 that would have closed a loophole that allows wealthy citizens who renounce their American citizenships to avoid U.S. taxes. My amendment would have dedicated all of the savings from closing this loophole to deficit reduction. According to estimates of the Joint Committee on Taxation, my amendment would have reduced the deficit by approximately $3.6 billion over the next 10 years. Unfortunately, although the Finance Committee adopted this amendment on an undivided voice vote and the Senate approved it as part of H.R. 831, the joint House-Senate conference committee re-opened this loophole. Senator Kennedy's resolution simply expresses the sense of the Senate that in the interest of tax equity and in the face of on- going Federal deficits, we must close this loophole. Mr. President, the amendment that I proposed was fundamentally about fairness. Not only is it fair to those who enjoyed the benefits of U.S. citizenship to make billions and are now attempting to avoid paying tax on such gain, it is also fair to those Americans who stay behind to shoulder the burdens of citizenship. All my amendment would have done is treat those who renounce their citizenship on par with Americans who stay and pay their share of the tax burden. While U.S. citizenship confers tremendous benefit, it also requires responsibility. Although we may not always be happy about the amount, most of us willingly pay our fair share of the tax burden. However, for many Americans it becomes just too much when they have to pay not only their share of taxes, but also an additional share for those few, wealthy individuals who made their money in this country, but are now trying to skip town without paying their portion of the tab. Significantly, my amendment would have excluded pension income, real estate assets, and the first $600,000 in gain. As a result, of the roughly 850 U.S. citizens who renounced their citizenships in 1994, only a handful would be affected by the closing of this loophole. In fact, representatives from the Treasury Department testified that the amendment would have affected only 24 Americans each year. Mr. President, significant deficit reduction will be necessary to put our country back on the right track. However, until we close these special-interest tax loopholes for the few, we cannot ask for the shared sacrifice from the many that will be necessary to reduce the deficit. Therefore, I urge all of our colleagues to support the Kennedy sense of the Senate amendment. amendment no. 470--renewable energy

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to finish consideration of a Rescissions bill that reduces the Operation and Maintenance Account of the Bureau of Reclamation by $10 million. This amount is identical to the sum rescinded by the House, and I support it. As the former Chairman and current ranking member of the Subcommittee with authorizing jurisdiction over the Bureau, I have seen opportunities for the Bureau of Reclamation to reduce spending. I have no doubt that this cut can be absorbed, given the streamlining that is now occurring within the Bureau. I note, however, that the Senate has wisely avoided commenting on particular operations. This has two benefits. First, it gives the Bureau the flexibility to deal with this cut in the most effective and appropriate manner. It won't be easy to cut this account, given that the fiscal year is half over. The project managers need to be creative and do not need legislative handcuffs. Second, the House report suggests that one way to balance this account is to stop a study of the San Joaquin River that was established in law through the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. This language is notably absent from the Senate report. As the author of this landmark CVPIA law, I am surprised at the House report language. This San Joaquin study is specifically ordered in this public law and, in fact, has a statutory deadline for action by the Bureau. Clearly, this statute is unaffected by any Committee Report language, and the law remains binding on the Bureau. Additionally, I am puzzled by this suggested target, since cutting the San Joaquin River Comprehensive Plan, either directly or through report language if possible, would not save the taxpayer any money. Indeed, the study is not even funded out of the Bureau's Operating Account! The Plan was established in the statute and financed through a surcharge on the sales of water from the Central Valley Project. In fact, if these funds are not spent on this Plan, the law still requires that the full amount be spent on other fish and wildlife restoration efforts. There can be and will be no deficit reduction from stopping this Plan. Mr. President, in summary, I'm pleased with the Senate action. Spending cuts will occur, as agreed with the House. And the San Joaquin study will continue, as specifically directed in public law. The restoration of the San Joaquin River would bring benefits throughout California. We need to know if this restoration can occur and how it would be achieved.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to three outstanding citizens of New Jersey who are being honored by the Kimball Medical Center Foundation of Lakewood, NJ on Wednesday, April 12, 1995. At the Ninth Annual Awards Program, Edmund Bennett, Jr., Thomas F. Kelaher, Esq., and Robert H. Ogle will each receive the Kimball Humanitarian Award as a way to recognize ``extraordinary leadership to the nonprofit sector of society, to acknowledge distinguished service towards the advancement of health care, and to honor individuals whose daily lives reflect the essence of humanitarianism.'' Today, when the fragile ecology of our social environment is as threatened as that of our natural environment, I am delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the efforts of these three individuals who recognize the importance of civil society. Civilizations cannot be constructed out of government and markets alone--we must also have a healthy and robust [[Page S5398]] civic sector--a place in which the bonds of community can flourish. Edmund Bennett, Thomas Kelaher and Robert Ogle recognize that civil society is the place where Americans make their home, sustain their marriages and raise their kids. They know that civil society is in our schools, fraternities, community centers, churches, PTAs, libraries and local voluntary associations. They recognize that a sense of common purpose and consensus need to be forged to tackle our nations' problems. Civil society is the sphere of our most basic humanity--the personal, everyday realm that is governed by values such as responsibility, trust, fraternity, solidarity and love. With every meeting attended, board sat on, speech delivered and helping hand that is extended, these three men challenge the notion that life today is too fastpaced and global in scope for individuals to make a difference in their own communities. I salute Edmund Bennett, Thomas Kelaher and Robert Ogle for their spirit of volunteerism, leadership among local voluntary organizations and their continuing contributions to their community.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the sesquincentennial anniversary of the founding of McCarter & English, the oldest and largest law firm in New Jersey. Originally a small firm with fewer than a dozen lawyers, McCarter & English has grown in both size and prominence in the century and a half since its founding. At its current size of 210 lawyers, with five offices and a sizable international legal services group, McCarter & English has established a reputation as one of the preeminent firms in New Jersey and the country. If you were to ask a member of the New Jersey business community to describe McCarter & English, they might use the word prestigious or perhaps venerable; if you were to ask a New Jersey historian the same question they would undoubtedly use a much different word and it would be colorful. Since its founding by Thomas Nesbitt McCarter in 1845, McCarter & English's unique history of legal representation has included: handling legal matters for one of New Jersey's most famous historical figures, Thomas Alva Edison; defending one-time client Annie Oakley in a libel case and successfully contesting the New Jersey Senate election of 1893. McCarter & English has contributed more than just color to New Jersey's legal history, it has also provided the State with many fine public and business leaders throughout the 15 decades since its founding. These leaders have included the founder's son Robert, who became New Jersey attorney general, son Uzal, who founded First Fidelity Bank and a third son, Thomas Jr. who created Public Service. This history of leadership in both the public and private sector continues today. McCarter & English plays an on-going leadership role in support of charitable, educational, cultural and civic organizations in the State. Generous contributions to the New Jersey Center for Performing Arts and other projects have played a vital role in the revitalization of downtown Newark. This commitment to the city of Newark, where McCarter & English has been headquartered since it moved from Newton, Sussex County in 1865, has helped Newark weather difficult times over the past three decades. McCarter & English has played an historic role in the development of New Jersey's business and legal communities and continues to play a vital role in these arenas. Once again, I congratulate McCarter & English on its 150th anniversary.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to introduce, along with Senator Moynihan, a bill that a would close a tax loophole that allows wealthy citizens who renounce their American citizenships to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. As a member of the Finance Committee, I offered a similar amendment to H.R. 831 that would have closed this loophole. My amendment would have dedicated all of the savings from closing this loophole to deficit reduction. According to estimates of the Joint Committee on Taxation, my amendment would have reduced the deficit by approximately $3.6 billion over the next 10 years. Unfortunately, although the Finance Committee adopted this amendment on an undivided voice vote and the Senate approved it as part of H.R. 831, the joint House-Senate conference committee re-opened this loophole. The bill that we are introducing today would close this loophole once and for all. Mr. President, this bill is fundamentally about fairness. Not only is it fair to those who enjoyed the benefits of U.S. citizenship to make billions and are now attempting to avoid paying tax on such gain, it is also fair to those Americans who stay behind to shoulder the burdens of citizenship. All this bill would do is treat those who renounce their citizenship on par with Americans who stay and pay their share of the tax burden. While U.S. citizenship confers tremendous benefit, it also requires responsibility. Although we may not always be happy about the amount, most of us willingly pay our fair share of the tax burden. However, for many Americans it becomes just too much when they have to pay not only their share of taxes, but also an additional share for those few, wealthy individuals who made their money in this country, but are now trying to skip town without paying their portion of the tab. Significantly, this bill would exclude pension income, real estate assets, and the first $600,000 in gain. As a result, of the roughly 850 U.S. citizens who renounced their citizenships in 1994, only a handful would be effected by the elimination of this loophole. In fact, representatives from the Treasury Department testified that provisions similar to those contained in this bill would affect only 24 Americans each year. Mr. President, significant deficit reduction will be necessary to put our country back on the right track. However, until we close these special-interest tax loopholes for the few, we cannot ask for the shared sacrifice from the many that will be necessary to reduce the deficit.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations as well to the women's team at the University of Connecticut, and I would like to call attention to a quote by its star player, Rebecca Lobo, in this morning's Washington Post. When she was asked what the victory meant to her, she said: This is just a picture-perfect way for someone to end their career. We are undefeated, we won a national championship and I did it with people I love. Mr. President, that openness is remarkable and should be applauded, and it correctly captures the feeling among members of a 35 and 0 team that wins a championship, and that is true both of a men's team that would win a championship and a women's team that wins a championship. My hope is that someday when a men's team wins a championship, the star player can say those exact words and feel as comfortable saying them as Rebecca Lobo did yesterday. I congratulate Connecticut for this tremendous accomplishment and Rebecca Lobo for her courage and leadership in difficult times in her own family situation, because of her mother having breast cancer, and also because of her determination that was shown every day that she went out onto the court with her teammates.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, if I could, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about this proposal, since it was the amendment that I offered in the Finance Committee that was adopted, passed the U.S. Senate, and went to the conference committee. I think this provision, or something very close to it, will pass the U.S. Congress this year. And it will pass the Congress this year because I think that the arguments against it will not stand. The point has been made that this is an exit tax. It is not an exit tax. It is a tax on the accrued gains while someone was a U.S. citizen. When someone opts to leave to escape the estate tax that he or she would otherwise pay, we are saying, no; when you begin the process of renouncing your U.S. citizenship, you will be taxed. This is not a tax on little people. As every Senator who has spoken indicated, this is a tax on the very wealthy. The amendment that I offered specifically excluded any pensions, any real estate owned by the individual, and $600,000 in gain, which means that the person would have to have assets of about $5 million before they could even reach the threshold of being taxed. So, I believe that citizenship comes with certain responsibilities. Those responsibilities are to pay one's fair share of tax; that is, both income tax and, upon death, it includes estate tax. I regret that this was dropped in conference. But I do not have any doubt of the commitment of the distinguished Senator from Oregon to see that this is going to be passed this year. I certainly do, and I say the distinguished Senator from Oregon does as well. I believe that we will see this passed this year. We had a hearing. There was nothing in the hearing that made me believe that we would not pass this in some form. There might be a change here or there. It will be effective February 6. So the message is out to all those around Washington who might be looking for nice arrangements that there will be no change in this date. If you have begun your renunciation of citizenship on February 20, do not expect the date to slip. It is February 6. So, Mr. President, I simply want to reassert my belief that this amendment will pass. I will offer it again. We will have a process to look at this. The distinguished Senator from New York, and I believe the Senator from Oregon, will also support this measure and it will pass and become law this year. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am very disturbed by the content of the amendment of the senior Senator of the State of Washington. The language of this amendment would allow the suspension of all environmental laws applicable to logging on certain forests managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM--all environmental laws. This language would cover any timber offered through September 1996, in a salvage sale, a term that is so broadly defined as to apply virtually to any kind of timber sale. The language of the bill says: A salvage timber sale means a timber sale for which an important reason for entry includes removal of diseased, damaged trees or trees affected by fire and imminently susceptible to fire or insect attack. Mr. President, as I read this amendment, that language means to limit salvage timber sales to areas where the trees are still made of wood; all wood would be susceptible to insect or fire. Therefore, all would be included in this amendment, and environmental laws for the logging of such timber would be not relevant. So, Mr. President, I hope that we will support the amendment of the Senator from Washington. I think she has taken a politically difficult and dangerous course, and has done so on the stand of principle and in a way that does not savage the environmental law. I salute her for doing this. Sometimes in haste, in an effort to respond to what is a crisis, we make big mistakes. This should not even be authorizing committee. It is not. It is the wrong piece of legislation on the wrong bill at the wrong time, and it should be rejected because it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, handgun violence is redefining the American way of life. We must own up to this reality and bring desperately needed rationality to our gun laws. This is why I rise today to introduce the Handgun Control and Violence Prevention Act of 1995. This legislation is one more important step in ensuring that the madness of gun violence in this country will be brought to an end. Every year, more than 24,000 Americans--65 a day--are killed with handguns, in homicides, by committing suicide, and by unintentional injuries. Handguns account for only one-third of all firearms, but are responsible for over two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths. Handguns are used in over 80 percent of all firearm murders. Ninety-five percent of the people injured by a handgun each year require emergency care or hospitalization. Of these, 68 percent require overnight care and 32 percent require a hospital stay of 8 days or more. In 1991, the United States led the developed world with 14,373 gun murders, as compared to 186 gun murders in Canada, 76 in Australia, 60 in England, and 74 in Japan. One difference between the United States and the other countries cited is that the other countries all have much stricter gun control laws. Mr. President, these statistics are not just idle numbers. A few days ago, Sheila Gillespie, a 65-year-old widowed mother of four, was shot in the forehead when she got out of her car to open her garage door at her home in West Caldwell, NJ. Two carjacking assailants, ages 17 and 19, followed her home, viciously shot her, stole her 1990 Honda and were later apprehended driving the car. Ms. Gillespie, who attended mass every day at her local church and is well-known as an outgoing and friendly person, is currently fighting for her life in an intensive care unit at University Hospital in Newark, NJ. Moreover, a few days after the senseless shooting in West Caldwell, four people were murdered and another critically injured in an apparent robbery attempt at a postal substation in my hometown of Montclair, NJ. Mr. President, two postal workers, Ernest Spruill and Scott Walensky, and two customers, Robert Leslie and George Lomaga, were forced into a backroom and made to lie down on the floor. They were then shot at point blank range, execution style, with a 9-millimeter Taurus semi- automatic pistol containing a high capacity magazine holding 15 deadly, flesh-ripping Black Talon bullets. A third customer, David progress. He was shot in the face and is currently fighting for his life in the hospital. Mr. President, the victims of the Montclair massacre were shot by an assault weapon. Because of a bullet from an assault weapon, Mr. President, Blanche Spruill, who telephoned her husband of 34 years, Ernest, at the post office on the day of the murder and got no answer, will never see nor talk to him again. Mr. President, because of a bullet fired from an assault weapon, Scott Walensky will never again see his wife, Mary Ann, or his three children. Mr. President, this is exactly the type of situation we intended to prevent when the assault weapons ban was passed in the 1994 omnibus crime law. Thus, any discussion regarding a repeal of the assault weapons ban must begin with the tragic fact that the wife of Scott Walensky is now a widow and his three children are now fatherless. Everyone is aware of the devastating gun violence that occurs on the streets of urban America. However, the recent mass murder in Montclair occurred in a community that was described in the recent issue of New Jersey Monthly as ``a desirable community where parents feel safe allowing young children to ride their bicycles around town.'' The plague of gun violence has engulfed America, and, Mr. President, the American people want to know one question from their elected officials: When will the spiraling, senseless gun violence occurring in the cities and suburbs of this country cease? This legislation, Mr. President, is an attempt to stop the senseless violence. Mr. President, some will argue that these grim statistics are the result of weak law enforcement, light sentencing, legitimate fear, and the waning of family values. Others will argue that they are the result of joblessness, poverty, and long-term neglect of our most violent neighborhoods. I have no doubt that the growing rate of violent activity has been aggravated in part by all these factors. However, accepting many of these causes of handgun violence does not erase the reality that crime and deviant behavior have become much more of a burden on our society because of the explosive growth in handguns. Disputes that were settled with fists and knives 10 years ago are now being settled with guns. The number, availability, and destructive ability of handguns has contributed significantly to this tragedy. Every single handgun used in a crime starts out as a legal gun. However, Mr. President, many of the weapons used in crimes are purchased illegally. The black market in illegal handguns is enormous and deadly. Gunrunners go to States with lax gun control laws, purchase hundreds of guns using fake identification, and then sell them on the street corners of our cities to anyone with available cash. Straw purchasers with clean records often stand in to buy guns for criminals and gun-runners. We must crack down on these rogue dealers, gunrunners, and straw purchasers. Only then can we prevent the illegal sale and use of guns. Only then can we help drive guns off our streets, out of our schools, and from our communities. The purpose of this bill, Mr. President, is to make it at least as difficult to use a handgun as it is to drive a car. A gun, like a car, can be a dangerous instrumentality. As such, since we require purchasers of cars to have valid operator's licenses, we should, at the very least, require that the purchaser of a gun obtain a license. Mr. President, when the evidence on the danger of handguns is made clear to us every day, it is irresponsible to allow an instrument which can cause so much physical and psychological damage to be made available to people on such a liberal basis. This bill makes it illegal to purchase a handgun without a valid, nationally uniform, State-issued handgun license. The license would be similar to a driver's license and consist of an identification card with a photograph. In order to acquire the license, a person would have to undergo a background check, present proof of residency in the State of purchase, get fingerprinted, and pass a handgun safety course offered by a local law enforcement officer. Only new purchases of handguns would require a license. Those who currently possess handguns would not have to acquire a license unless they wanted to purchase more handguns. To stop the transfer of handguns from strawman purchasers to criminals and others intending to commit crimes, this legislation requires that all handgun transfers be registered with appropriate law enforcement officials. If the person transferring the weapon does not register the transfer, he or she will be in violation of Federal law. To curb interstate gunrunning, this bill limits the purchase of a handgun by any one person to one gun a month. Mr. President, citizens have the right to possess a gun for personal protection. However, Mr. President, I honestly cannot say that someone who purchases 15 to 20 guns at one time is doing so for personal protection. Mr. President, when this provision goes into effect, maybe Interstate 95 will lose its nickname, the ``Iron Road,'' as it becomes more difficult to run guns from States with little gun control to States, like New Jersey, that already enjoy some of the protections in this bill. This bill also includes tough standards for Federal firearms dealers licenses. Federally licensed firearms dealers will have to pass strict background checks and meet all State and local laws. This will help guard against rogue gun dealers, who illegally sell thousands of firearms to drug gangs and violent criminals. Mr. President, this legislation also imposes stiff penalties on gun thieves. It further requires that dealers provide adequate security against theft from the dealer's place of business. Mr. President, this bill also increases the licensing fees for federally licensed firearm dealers to $3,000 over a 3-year period. Today, there are more gun dealers than grocery stores. This is outrageous, and I hope this bill will change that situation. Mr. President, the first anniversary of the Brady law recently passed. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [ATF] estimates that the number of applications to purchase handguns that were denied in the Brady States nationwide was approximately 41,000. In a survey of selected jurisdictions, ATF found that more that 15,500 persons who applied to purchase handguns, including 4,365 convicted felons and 945 fugitives, had their applications denied. Of equal importance, Mr. President, is the fact that as a result of enforcement of the Brady law and provisions in the Federal crime bill, there are now more gas stations than gun dealers in this country. As incredible as it sounds, Mr. President, just a few years ago there were more gun dealers than gas stations in America. These encouraging results, Mr. President, indicate that with strong legislation and tough enforcement, we can win the war on senseless gun violence. In closing, Mr. President, we must continue our fight to end the death and destruction of our children and our families, which is too easily becoming a fact of life in our cities and towns. I urge support for this responsible handgun licensing and registration legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, section 1071 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the FCC to permit sellers of broadcast properties to defer capital gains taxes on a sale or exchange if the sale or exchange is deemed by the agency to be necessary or appropriate to effectuate a change in a policy of, or adoption of a new policy by, the Commission with respect to the ownership and control of radio broadcasting stations. As such, the Commission has used tax deferral certificates for, among other things, the promotion of minority ownership of broadcasting stations and cable television systems. From a tax perspective, I believe that the FCC's tax deferral program is not appropriate tax policy. Over the past 16 years, and as the author of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, I have consistently advocated that we spend just as easily through the Tax Code as we do through appropriated and mandatory spending. I have consistently opposed these special interest loopholes. Indeed, in this bill, I offered an amendment that eliminated the granddaddy of all tax loopholes--one that benefits those who renounce their U.S. citizenship. By closing this expatriate loophole, we raise $1.3 billion that incredibly benefitted only 12 taxpayers. Tax loopholes raise taxes on those in society who do not use them and distort rational economic decisionmaking. Thus, as a member of the Finance Committee, I voted to place a moratorium on section 1071 effective as of January 17, 1995, thereby overturning commercial transactions that would have sheltered approximately $500 million in capital gains taxes. I am profoundly disturbed, however, that the issue of affirmative action has been interjected into the underlying issue of how to finance the 25 percent health insurance deduction for self-employed individuals. I support the concept of affirmative action, which is a remedial measure designed to identify qualified women and minorities and afford them the opportunity to enter the mainstream of American life and contribute their skills and talents to make America more competitive on the world stage. Further, I thought it best to consider affirmative action in full, not simply one small provision. As such, I voted in committee to place a 2-year moratorium on the application of section 1071 so that Congress could study the program and alternative ways to increase broadcast diversity. As the affirmative action debate rages, I will attempt to broaden the discussion to deal with the underlying issues of race in American society. In addition, I will be offering my views and suggestions about how to assure that individuals who are truly discriminated against on the basis of race and gender have a means of obtaining a remedy, not simply lip service. I challenge my colleagues to join me in this discussion. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Greek Independence Day--a national day of celebration of Greek and American democracy. Tomorrow, on March 25, 1995, all people of Greek descent will celebrate the 174th anniversary of the beginning of the revolution which freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire. A historic bond exists between Greece and America, forged by our shared democratic heritage. America is truly indebted to the ancient Greeks for giving the world the first example of direct democracy. As the solid stone of this neoclassically designed building provides a protected place for our own democratic government to flourish, the philosophical and democratic influences of the ancient Greeks provides the inspiration. It is therefore fitting that Members of this Chamber join in paying tribute to the long struggle for freedom that Greece endured. On March 25, 1821, when Germanos, the archbishop of Patros, proclaimed Greek independence, another link between Greece and the United States was forged. The American revolution served as a model for the Greek struggle for freedom and when the Declaration of Independence, translated into Greek, served as the declaration of the end of the Greek struggle, a circle was completed. The interconnection between Greek and American democracies lies not only in the philosophical underpinnings of our Government, but in many areas of American life. Percy Bysshe Shelley once said, ``We are all Greeks! Our laws, our literature, our religion, our art, have their roots in Greece.'' The tremendous influence that Greece has had on American life continues today through the activities of the vibrant Greek community in America. In every field--politics, entertainment, business, and education--Greek-Americans continue to contribute to American life. In particular, I wish to pay a tribute to the Greek-American community in New Jersey. Groups that are leaders in the New Jersey Greek community include: the Greek American Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey, the Greek American Voters League of New Jersey, the Hellenic American Bar Association of New Jersey, the Pan Gregorian Enterprises & Foundation, Council Generals of Greek Cypriot, the Order of AHEPA and the Joint Public Policy Committee of Hellenic American Women. On behalf of these organizations, the Greek community in New Jersey and all Americans of Greek descent, I am honored to pay tribute, on behalf of the Nation, to the Greek community on the anniversary of their independence day.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which would allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend a license already granted to the Mount Hope pumped storage project. It is my understanding that the FERC has no objection to this extension and that the agency itself would grant the extension, if it were not statutorily prohibited from doing so. I am very pleased to have Senator Lautenberg as a cosponsor on this legislation. The Mt. Hope project is an advanced pumped-storage hydroelectric plant. It will be constructed on an existing industrial site that has been active for almost 300 years. It will be largely underground, once it is established, and should have a very limited environmental impact. This project will cost $1.8 billion to construct and will be financed entirely by the private sector. It is estimated that this single project will create up to 1,300 jobs during construction and provide about $20 million annually in property taxes. Mr. President, the project's existing license will expire in August, 1996. When the license was originally requested and granted in the early 1990's, the sponsors presumed that the financing would be complete and construction underway by 1996, as required. Unfortunately, the extended economic recession intervened. Because of the general economic climate and the difficulty of financing any project of this magnitude, the start-up date has slipped. Normally, I am very hesitant to intervene in any way in a regulatory process. However, since I understand that the FERC has no objections and will support this extension, I am willing to move ahead. I also understand that the Congressman representing this district, Rodney Frelinghuysen, is preparing companion legislation. When the FERC granted the original license, they required public hearings and an extensive environmental analysis. While I understand that there is substantial local support for this project, this legislation will now be the subject of additional hearings. Before agreeing to move the legislation in the Senate, I will weigh carefully any new comments or concerns about the project and I will be contacting local community members to gauge the level of their enthusiasm and support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill printed following these remarks.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will save lives and property: the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act. I am very pleased to announce that my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, is joining we as a cosponsor of this bill. Exactly 1 year ago today, at 11:55 p.m., a fireball lit up the sky in Edison, NJ. This eery light was visible for miles around. At ground zero, a plume of fire and smoke rose hundreds of feet in the air. Within minutes, nearby apartment buildings caught fire. Within hours, these buildings were utterly gone. Hundreds of people were rendered homeless, their possessions completely destroyed. The physical casualties were miraculously low. Yet, damage was done. The nightmares persist. The memory and the fear remain. The community is rebuilding. The victims are healing and moving on. But, issues raised by the blast remain unresolved. Edison spurred a national debate on how we manage pipeline safety. My comprehensive one-call legislation--introduced in the House by Congressman Pallone--came within a hairsbreadth of becoming law last Congress. The signals are positive for this year: it's a truly bipartisan issue--Senators Specter and Lott have joined Senators Lautenberg and Exon and myself as cosponsors--pushed by a powerful private sector coalition. Since the Edison accident and the introduction of legislation, the value of these one-call notification programs have been recognized by the State of New Jersey, which now has a first-class program, the National Transportation Safety Board and the U.S. Department of Transportation. In fact, the need for a better program is a central feature of the pipeline safety reauthorization bill being proposed by the Secretary of Transportation and the Administration. There's more to the story, however. On February 7, 1995, the NTSB issued safety recommendations stemming from the Edison disaster. These recommendations should be taken very seriously. Edison was a wake-up call, where only by a miracle literally hundreds of people escaped serious injury. They certainly weren't saved by our public policies. My legislation will codify the NTSB recommendations into law. My bill will call for stronger materials in our pipelines, better pipeline identification procedures, improved leak detection, more effective safety inspection requirements and new analysis of siting risks. Every one of these is included specifically in the NTSB report. Mr. President, this is needed. This is also the least we can do. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation carefully and pass it without delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a brief description of the bill and the bill text be printed in the Record.