Bill Bradley

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that after I speak, then it would be the Senator from California. I know the Senator from New Jersey speaks after the Senator from North Carolina. The Senator from North Carolina shall speak, and then I will speak.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the majority leader for his statement and his commitment, and I will not pursue the amendment based on what he has said. I think that Senator Frist of Tennessee concurs. I simply want the Senate to know that this is an enormously important issue in terms of children who are born and forced out of the hospital in the first 24 hours instead of the first 48 hours, and we hope to revisit this issue when we come back in September. I am prepared to yield to Senator Frist if he has anything to say on this amendment.

Mr. BRADLEY. I am pleased to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I have an amendment that deals with newborns and insurance coverage for newborns, a bill that Senator Kassebaum and I introduced last year. It is a bill that had been improved greatly with the help of Senator Frist and Senator DeWine and a bill that I care deeply about.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senator Specter and Senator Wellstone, who initially joined me to serve as original cosponsors, to submit a resolution designating October 10, 1996, as a day of national concern about young people and gun violence. This resolution has enjoyed broad bipartisan support over the last several days. I have been asking other Members of the Senate if they would like to join as original cosponsors of this resolution. As of today, the date of its introduction, there are 81 additional cosponsors of this resolution to declare October 10 as a national day of concern about young people and gun violence. Mr. President, we are in a crisis in this country. America is losing a generation of young people to crime and violence. Last July, Cindy Villalba, a 20-year-old Rutgers University student, was slain in Paterson, NJ, when a bullet from a .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol careened into her chest. The assailant, Corie Miller, was 17 years old. The murder was a senseless tragedy. Ms. Villalba was sitting in a car talking to a friend, Julissa Vargas. Miller, along with two other teenagers, aged 19 and 18, approached the vehicle and demanded money. When the two women insisted they did not have any money and began screaming, Miller cocked the pistol and struck Vargas in the back of the head. The pistol then discharged, and a bullet struck Villalba in the chest, killing her instantly. Villalba, a catechism teacher at St. John the Baptist Cathedral, had just returned from Costa Rica, where she was teaching English to schoolchildren as a part of a Rutgers University program. A few months after the murder of Ms. Villalba, Desmond Carberry, then 12 years old, took a loaded gun and pointed it at his 10-year-old neighborhood playmate's head. He squeezed the trigger, killing Noel DaRoja. The children were playing unsupervised with a .22-caliber handgun at a third friend's house in Berkeley Township, NJ, on a day when school was let out early because of teacher conferences. They had a dispute, and use of the gun resulted from the dispute. Mr. President, the common theme in the murders of Cindy Villalba and Noel DaRoja is that children are killing and being killed at an alarming rate in this country. The number of juveniles murdered in 1994 was 47 percent greater than the number in 1980. Mr. President, juvenile homicides involving firearms tripled from 1980 to 1994. Ask any police chief of any major city in this country, and they will tell you the problem in violence is that now the weapons are more powerful and they are used more frequently. Teenage violence is skyrocketing. In 1994, one in five murdered juveniles were known to be killed by a juvenile offender. Juveniles were responsible for 14 percent of all violent crimes cleared in 1994, and young people were 17 percent of all persons arrested for murder that same year. Among young African-American males, murder is the No. 1 cause of death. Mr. President, young people in this country are understandably frightened. In 1993, 42 percent of students in grades 6 to 12 reported knowing of weapons in their school. That same year, nearly 75 percent of students were aware of incidents of physical attack, robbery or bullying. Almost one-third of the students had witnessed such attacks, and at least one-fourth were worried about being the victims of such attacks. Mr. President, this is not simply an urban problem. It is a national problem. During the 3-month period between December 1995 and February of this year, 31 teenagers were murdered in the largely suburban New Jersey counties of Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex, Somerset and Union. In January, 18-year-old Torrance Turner of suburban Lakewood, NJ, died after being shot in the face after a confrontation outside an apartment complex. In September 1994, 20-year-old George Corbett biked to a park in suburban Old Bridge with a .22-caliber rifle swung over his shoulder. Once at the park, he shot 14-year-old Christopher Shrimpton in the head, killing him instantly. This deadly confrontation resulted from a dispute between the boys after the Old Bridge police caught them trying to break into a car the summer before the shooting. Mr. President, the epidemic of violence is ensnaring our children at an alarming rate. I could go on and I could go on and on with story after heartbreaking story about kids killing kids and being killed. It is time to reverse this deadly trend because, if we do not, the future of America will perish before our eyes. It is time to make it unfashionable to carry a gun to school. It is time to make it unacceptable to resolve a dispute with a gun. It is time to give young people in this country a chance to stand up and retake their schools and their neighborhoods. Mr. President, the resolution that I am introducing today is designed to give American young people a chance to stop the carnage that is taking place on the streets that they often frequent. The resolution designates October 10, 1996, as a day of national concern about young people and gun violence. October 10 will mark a national observance, giving young people throughout the country the chance to sign a voluntary pledge. On this day young people will be asked to sign the pledge. Across this country, they will be asked to raise their hand in urban centers and small towns alike. They will be asked to raise their hand and say, ``I pledge that I will never bring a gun to school; that I will never use a gun to settle a dispute; and that I will use my influence with my friends to keep them from using guns to settle disputes.'' That is the pledge. Mr. President, by taking individual and collective responsibility for their decisions and actions, American young people can help chart a less violent future. Through the power of their collective voices, young people can demonstrate that the country, through their initiative and resolve, has come to terms with a crisis. A couple of years ago there was something called Hands Across America, where on one day, at one time, literally millions of Americans joined hands to make a very important point. It is my hope that every local television station, that local radio stations, that local institutions on that day, October 10, will cover young people in schools, raising their hand, and take this pledge. Mr. President, the distribution of the national pledge will give local communities and residents of those communities the power to control their own destiny. Instead of looking to Washington to stop the scourge of violence, young people will take the pledge, and they themselves, by their action, will stop the violence. Mr. President, this resolution does not concern the issue of gun control. It does not prevent someone from becoming a police officer, joining a State patrol, using a gun in hunting. It is designed simply for one purpose, and one purpose only. That is to curb the epidemic of gun violence and its deadly consequences for America's young people. This bipartisan resolution is supported by the American Federation of Teachers, who frequently are the targets of some of this gun touting, the National Education Association, the Council of Great City Schools, the National League of Women Voters, Mothers Against Violence in America, the National Parent Teachers Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the American Association of School Administrators, the Presbyterian Church of the USA, United Church of Christ Office for Church in Society, the National School Board Association, the United Methodist Church and the General Board of Church and Society. Mr. President, young people are our most important resource. As a society, we have a vested interest in helping people survive, free from fear and violence, and survive into healthy adulthood. It is my hope, my sincere hope that all 84 Senators who have supported this resolution and cosponsored it, will share in their communities and States on this day of October 10, 1996, and oversee and participate with young people taking this pledge. Some people say, well, what is a little resolution, a little resolution designating a day? It is a focus, that is what it is. It is a focus. It is a focus that allows young people, wherever they are, to take some control over their school, to give those who want it to be a safer place a chance to organize around an action, a simple pledge. ``I pledge never to tell a lie''--we have all heard that before. It has some impact when it is taken seriously. ``I pledge never to take a gun to school, never to use a gun to resolve a dispute, and to use my influence to keep my friends from using a gun to resolve a dispute.'' A very simple idea. If adhered to, a very positive and successful idea.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I do not think we have really even started to talk about the consequences of this act on the lives of people who actually live in American cities. If this bill passes and we look ahead 5 years into the future, city streets will not be safer, urban families will not be more stable, new jobs will not be created and schools will not be better. None of these things will happen. Instead, this bill will simply punish those in cities least able to cope. With the repeal of title IV of the Social Security Act, the Federal Government would have broken its promise to children who are poor. It will have washed its hands of any responsibility for them. It will have passed the buck. What we need to do to change the broken welfare system is not block grants. What we need is not transferring pots of money from one group of politicians to another group of politicians without regard to need, rules or accountability. In fact, with the block grant, we will even be paying for people who have been shifted off the State welfare rolls onto the Federal SSI rolls. In 22 States that have cut welfare rolls, 247,000 adults went off AFDC and 206,000 went on to SSI. Because Governors are good at gaming Federal funding systems, we will be paying for these 206,000 people through the block grant at the same time we are paying for them through SSI. What we need is a steady Federal commitment and State experimentation so that we can change welfare in a way that will encourage marriage, get people off welfare rolls and into jobs for the long term. Sadly, this bill will produce the opposite result.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today, Senator Jim Jeffords and I are introducing a bill to create a special national commission to study retirement issues and recommend specific policies to improve the economic security of retired Americans. Millions of Americans are not saving nearly enough through pension plans or in their own personal savings accounts to provide for their retirements, and they cannot rely upon the Social Security system to provide a comfortable life for them. A crisis is brewing--and we will only be able to prevent it if we focus on solving our retirement savings problems now. That is what this commission is for, to start that process comprehensively and in earnest. The aging of our population is a principal contributor to the impending retirement crisis. Baby boomers are turning 50 this year, 1 every 7 seconds. The economic implications of this demographic shift are tremendous. By 2030, 20 percent of our population will be retired, compared to 12 percent today. There will also be a lot fewer workers in our economy to support a lot more retirees. In the 1940's, there were 42 workers for every retiree. Today, there are 4.8 workers supporting each retiree. In 2030, there will be only 2.8. Not only can we expect a lot more retirees, we can expect that they will be retired for a lot longer, with increasingly high expenses. Persons working today can expect to live about 25 percent of their adult lives in retirement, compared to 7 percent in 1940, because life spans are lengthening considerably. Enjoying a longer life is a miracle of science and good health management, but it is also very expensive. We will need to support ourselves for more years of retirement, and we will face dramatically rising health care costs, which disproportionately consume the incomes of retired persons, particularly as individuals live longer. Meanwhile, the Social Security system is expected to completely exhaust its resources by 2029. Yet 60 percent of all retirees (over the age of 65) rely on Social Security for at least 70 percent of their total retirement income. Unless we are hoping to support ourselves on the backs of our children or are willing to accept impoverishment and destitution in our retirements, we as individuals and as a nation need to be sure we are saving enough now to support ourselves in the future. But the fact is we are not. Despite the initiation of savings incentives such as favorable tax treatment for Individual Retirement Accounts and frequent warnings about the need to save, the U.S. savings rate remains among the lowest in the developed world. We should be saving more in our own personal accounts than our parents did since we are anticipating longer and more expensive retirements--but we are putting aside less. Moreover, far too many Americans will be unable to rely on an adequate pension income to supplement their meager savings. Nearly half of all full-time workers are not currently covered by an employer-based retirement plan. Although two-thirds of middle-aged employees are expected to receive some type of employer pension benefit upon retirement, the amount of these benefits may not be adequate to offer them security. The one-third who are not expected to receive pension benefits will be even less secure, forced to continue to work into their last years or become a burden on their families or whatever social safety net remains. Concerns about inadequate pension incomes are heightened by recent trends such as the movement away from traditional pension plans toward plans which give employees more responsibility for starting, maintaining, and investing their own retirement savings accounts. Our national public policy needs to understand the implications of this evolution and develop effective methods to educate and encourage Americans to make responsible investments for their retirements. We need to figure out how to encourage more employers to offer good pension plans. We need to know what prevents or deters Americans from participating in those plans. And we need to assess what government policy can do to encourage people to save more. The changing nature of our economic world and the workplace complicate these tasks. Old solutions may not be effective in today's environment of downsizing, outsourcing, and international competition. The availability, size, and security of pensions tighten as various industries are squeezed by global competition. Compounding the problem is the fact that workers anticipate changing jobs much more often in the past, so that many will leave each workplace before they have had a chance to accumulate a decent pension. Women may feel the pain of this problem even more acutely, because more women work part-time or in industries with poorer pension benefits, and because women more often enter and leave the workforce in order to care for children or elderly parents. We need a new approach to retirement policy that surmounts the insecurity implicit in our changing economic environment and delivers increased availability, security, and portability of decent pensions. We also need to recognize how other social changes play a role in reducing the opportunity for saving. For instance, the tendency of parents to have children later in life means a shorter period of time between when the parents become empty-nesters and when they retire. As a result, baby boomers and other generations will have less time in which to save for their retirement. This problem is further exacerbated by dramatic increases in college education expenses. While we are making some positive steps toward improving retirement security through our efforts to save the social security and health care systems, simplify pension laws, and provide increased savings incentives, our efforts are piecemeal. Unfortunately, the magnitude of the retirement crisis that is descending upon us is too awesome to be approached piecemeal. We need to understand how the elements of retirement income--private savings, employer-provided pensions, and social security--fit together to provide security, as well as how they do not. Then, in a comprehensive fashion, we need to consider what public policies might strengthen these various elements and provide true retirement security for all Americans. The Retirement Income Policy Commission which Senator Jeffords and I propose will be charged with this critical assignment. Sixteen experts from both the public and private sectors--chosen in a bi-partisan fashion by the House, Senate, and President--will sit on the panel voluntarily, without pay. Together, they will begin to explore the dimensions of our savings problem, understand its causes, and recommend better government policies to promote retirement security. Within one year of beginning their investigations, they will report their findings to the President and Congress, and the Commission will be dissolved. It would be easy to look the other way as the retirement crisis quietly descends upon us, but our responsibilities to our parents, our children, and ourselves demand that we do not. Taken alone, the aging of the baby boom generation gives urgency to this matter; when these demographics are coupled with our low savings rates, inadequate pensions, potentially debilitated social security system, and current economic and social trends, they harken a disaster. I urge my colleagues to support this modest first step toward averting that disaster. I am pleased that distinguished Senators from both sides of the aisle--Nancy Kassebaum, Bob Kerrey, John Chafee, Jeff Bingaman, Bill Cohen, and Ron Wyden--are original co-sponsors of the legislation which Senator Jeffords and I are introducing today. I am also pleased that endorsements of this bill or the very similar House companion bill have been made by the American Society of Pension Actuaries, the American Council of Life Insurance, the American Association of Engineering Societies, the National Defined Contribution Council, the Society for Human Resource Management, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and AT&T. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of endorsement be inserted in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I offer an amendment regarding a Department of Defense [DOD] policy of paying restructuring costs to companies that are involved in a merger. Mr. State of New Jersey is currently feeling the effects of a defense-industry merger. As a result of the Lockheed-Martin merger, a satellite plant in East Windsor, NJ, will close, causing substantial job loss. I have therefore taken a strong interest in the current DOD policy. Under this policy, DOD reimburses restructuring costs to contractors that are involved in mergers that lead to savings for the DOD. DOD payments can be used for, among other things, worker and plant relocation, severance pay, early retirement incentives, and continued health benefits. This policy has been called payoffs for layoffs and blamed by some for the mergers in the industry. It is my belief that layoffs in the defense industry do not result from this DOD policy. Rather, due to the end of the cold war, defense layoffs have become inevitable. While we are no longer faced with a Soviet threat, we must now come to terms with our runaway debt. These major transformnations--the end of the cold war and a spiraling budget deficit--have made job loss in the defense industry a reality and necessity. It is my belief that this policy makes good sense. Defense cuts have led to overcapacity, which encouraged mergers and cost cutting. It is not the reimbursement but the defense cuts that lead to layoffs, and it is appropriate for DOD to pay a fraction of those savings for assistance to workers laid-off from the merger. In light of the end of the cold war, our priorities must be twofold. First, we should encourage the Defense Department and defense contractors to reduce the excessive buildup from the cold war era. Our second priority must be to determine how to best help workers in the defense industry who have been downsized. I have come to believe that the DOD policy meets the priorities I have stated. Indeed, it encourages contractors to achieve savings for the DOD while providing the affected workers with benefits they desperately need. In a perfect world, companies that downsize would provide their employees with a respectable severance package that would include extended health care benefits. All to often, though, laid-off employees find themselves without these benefits, struggling to put food on the table, or make the next mortgage payment. In order to clarify the confusion regarding this policy, I would urge the Defense Department to continue to ensure that the payments made are used solely for restructuring costs, with a strong emphasis on the employees laid off. I would also urge the DOD to continue to monitor the savings certified by the companies, ensuring that the savings are greater than the restructuring payments. My amendment therefore calls for the GAO to analyze the restructuring costs paid by the DOD and to consult with the Secretary of Labor to determine the effectiveness of the assistance provided to laid off workers. The report should ensure that the payments are being used for justified costs and that the workers laid off are treated fairly. It is my hope that this amendment will help my constituents in East Windsor and those around the country affected by defense downsizing. This amendment assures that these workers will not be ignored.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today, Senator Jim Jeffords and I are introducing a bill to create a special national commission to study retirement issues and recommend specific policies to improve the economic security of retired Americans. Millions of Americans are not saving nearly enough through pension plans or in their own personal savings accounts to provide for their retirements, and they cannot rely upon the Social Security system to provide a comfortable life for them. A crisis is brewing--and we will only be able to prevent it if we focus on solving our retirement savings problems now. That is what this commission is for, to start that process comprehensively and in earnest. The aging of our population is a principal contributor to the impending retirement crisis. Baby boomers are turning 50 this year, 1 every 7 seconds. The economic implications of this demographic shift are tremendous. By 2030, 20 percent of our population will be retired, compared to 12 percent today. There will also be a lot fewer workers in our economy to support a lot more retirees. In the 1940's, there were 42 workers for every retiree. Today, there are 4.8 workers supporting each retiree. In 2030, there will be only 2.8. Not only can we expect a lot more retirees, we can expect that they will be retired for a lot longer, with increasingly high expenses. Persons working today can expect to live about 25 percent of their adult lives in retirement, compared to 7 percent in 1940, because life spans are lengthening considerably. Enjoying a longer life is a miracle of science and good health management, but it is also very expensive. We will need to support ourselves for more years of retirement, and we will face dramatically rising health care costs, which disproportionately consume the incomes of retired persons, particularly as individuals live longer. Meanwhile, the Social Security system is expected to completely exhaust its resources by 2029. Yet 60 percent of all retirees (over the age of 65) rely on Social Security for at least 70 percent of their total retirement income. Unless we are hoping to support ourselves on the backs of our children or are willing to accept impoverishment and destitution in our retirements, we as individuals and as a nation need to be sure we are saving enough now to support ourselves in the future. But the fact is we are not. Despite the initiation of savings incentives such as favorable tax treatment for Individual Retirement Accounts and frequent warnings about the need to save, the U.S. savings rate remains among the lowest in the developed world. We should be saving more in our own personal accounts than our parents did since we are anticipating longer and more expensive retirements--but we are putting aside less. Moreover, far too many Americans will be unable to rely on an adequate pension income to supplement their meager savings. Nearly half of all full-time workers are not currently covered by an employer-based retirement plan. Although two-thirds of middle-aged employees are expected to receive some type of employer pension benefit upon retirement, the amount of these benefits may not be adequate to offer them security. The one-third who are not expected to receive pension benefits will be even less secure, forced to continue to work into their last years or become a burden on their families or whatever social safety net remains. Concerns about inadequate pension incomes are heightened by recent trends such as the movement away from traditional pension plans toward plans which give employees more responsibility for starting, maintaining, and investing their own retirement savings accounts. Our national public policy needs to understand the implications of this evolution and develop effective methods to educate and encourage Americans to make responsible investments for their retirements. We need to figure out how to encourage more employers to offer good pension plans. We need to know what prevents or deters Americans from participating in those plans. And we need to assess what government policy can do to encourage people to save more. The changing nature of our economic world and the workplace complicate these tasks. Old solutions may not be effective in today's environment of downsizing, outsourcing, and international competition. The availability, size, and security of pensions tighten as various industries are squeezed by global competition. Compounding the problem is the fact that workers anticipate changing jobs much more often in the past, so that many will leave each workplace before they have had a chance to accumulate a decent pension. Women may feel the pain of this problem even more acutely, because more women work part-time or in industries with poorer pension benefits, and because women more often enter and leave the workforce in order to care for children or elderly parents. We need a new approach to retirement policy that surmounts the insecurity implicit in our changing economic environment and delivers increased availability, security, and portability of decent pensions. We also need to recognize how other social changes play a role in reducing the opportunity for saving. For instance, the tendency of parents to have children later in life means a shorter period of time between when the parents become empty-nesters and when they retire. As a result, baby boomers and other generations will have less time in which to save for their retirement. This problem is further exacerbated by dramatic increases in college education expenses. While we are making some positive steps toward improving retirement security through our efforts to save the social security and health care systems, simplify pension laws, and provide increased savings incentives, our efforts are piecemeal. Unfortunately, the magnitude of the retirement crisis that is descending upon us is too awesome to be approached piecemeal. We need to understand how the elements of retirement income--private savings, employer-provided pensions, and social security--fit together to provide security, as well as how they do not. Then, in a comprehensive fashion, we need to consider what public policies might strengthen these various elements and provide true retirement security for all Americans. The Retirement Income Policy Commission which Senator Jeffords and I propose will be charged with this critical assignment. Sixteen experts from both the public and private sectors--chosen in a bi-partisan fashion by the House, Senate, and President--will sit on the panel voluntarily, without pay. Together, they will begin to explore the dimensions of our savings problem, understand its causes, and recommend better government policies to promote retirement security. Within one year of beginning their investigations, they will report their findings to the President and Congress, and the Commission will be dissolved. It would be easy to look the other way as the retirement crisis quietly descends upon us, but our responsibilities to our parents, our children, and ourselves demand that we do not. Taken alone, the aging of the baby boom generation gives urgency to this matter; when these demographics are coupled with our low savings rates, inadequate pensions, potentially debilitated social security system, and current economic and social trends, they harken a disaster. I urge my colleagues to support this modest first step toward averting that disaster. I am pleased that distinguished Senators from both sides of the aisle--Nancy Kassebaum, Bob Kerrey, John Chafee, Jeff Bingaman, Bill Cohen, and Ron Wyden--are original co-sponsors of the legislation which Senator Jeffords and I are introducing today. I am also pleased that endorsements of this bill or the very similar House companion bill have been made by the American Society of Pension Actuaries, the American Council of Life Insurance, the American Association of Engineering Societies, the National Defined Contribution Council, the Society for Human Resource Management, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and AT&T. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of endorsement be inserted in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that my colleagues voted today to confirm the nomination of Joseph Greenaway to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Mr. Greenaway, who is currently a corporate attorney with Johnson and Johnson, is an extraordinarily talented attorney who will serve the State of New Jersey with distinction. Mr. President, Mr. Greenaway was nominated by the White House to serve on the Federal district court in New Jersey on November 27, 1995. He was reported by unanimous vote out of the Judiciary Committee on March 13, 1996. During his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Greenaway impressed Members on both sides of the aisle with his stately demeanor and intimate knowledge of the law. Mr. President, Mr. Greenaway is no stranger to public service. Prior to joining Johnson and Johnson as a corporate attorney, Mr. Greenaway served as an assistant U.S. attorneys for the State of New Jersey from 1985 to 1990. While at the U.S. attorney's office, Mr. Greenaway, in his capacity as the chief of the narcotics division, coordinated narcotics investigations by all Federal agencies in New Jersey and supervised all narcotics prosecutions. During his tenure at the U.S. attorney's office, Mr. Greenaway handled, in addition to narcotics prosecutions, bank fraud, hijacking, check kiting, sexual abuse, and mail fraud cases. Mr. Greenaway also prosecuted perhaps the most significant drug case in the history of New Jersey, United States versus Pray. His prosecution culminated in the conviction of Wayne Pray, AKA ``Akbar'', a notorious criminal who for almost 20 years masterminded a multimillion dollar cocaine operation in northern New Jersey. In this case, Mr. Greenaway led a 15 month investigation, which required the cooperation of the DEA, FBI, Customs Service and ATF in New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, New York, and Texas. After a 6-month trial, the evidence showed that Akbar's operation imported 100-plus kilogram shipments of cocaine directly from Columbia to Mexico and across the United States border into New Jersey. The efforts of Mr. Greenaway resulted in Akbar being sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This court victory was indeed a victory for all New Jerseyans. Mr. President, Mr. Greenaway graduated from Columbia University in 1978. After receiving his law degree from Harvard Law School, where he served as a teaching assistant to Prof. David Rosenberg and was a member of the Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, Mr. Greenaway secured a prestigious judicial clerkship with the Hon. Vincent Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following the clerkship, he specialized in complex commercial litigation at the law firm of Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin, and Frankel. Mr. President, Mr. Greenaway's nomination has been supported by the New Jersey legal community, including the New Jersey Bar Association; Garden State Bar Association; New Jersey Corporate Counsel Association; National Bar Association; and George Fraza, the vice president and general counsel of Johnson and Johnson. Moreover, because of Mr. Greenaway's strong law and order background, New Jersey's law enforcement community has wholeheartedly endorsed the nomination. The New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association, the New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police, the Policemen's Benevolent Association of Newark, and the State Troopers Non-Commissioned Officers Association of New Jersey proclaimed without reservation their strong support for Mr. Greenaway. Mr. President, today is a great day for the citizens of New Jersey. Mr. Greenaway's impeccable character, excellent legal background, and demonstrated commitment to public service indicate that his addition to the court will only enhance the excellent reputation that the court enjoys. I applaud my colleagues for their action today, which will benefit the State of New Jersey for years to come. I also congratulate Mr. Greenaway, his wife, Veronica, and their son, Joey. I wish them every success as Joe Greenaway joins the Federal bench in service to people of New Jersey. Mr. President, this is a proud day for Joe Greenaway and his family. Joe is an outstanding person and will be an outstanding judge. Prior to this moment, he has had many highlights in his career. Probably the biggest professional highlight was his work over a lengthy trial of a drug kingpin in Newark, NJ, and sending that person to jail for life without parole. He is an outstanding law enforcement official. He was an outstanding corporate attorney, and he will be an outstanding judge. The people of New Jersey are fortunate to have his talents and the value of his service in the years to come. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today's passage by the Senate of S. 640, the Water Resources Development Act [WRDA], represents a continuing Federal commitment to the water resources of our country. Passage of this important measure is a direct result of the leadership and diligent efforts of my colleagues Senator John Chafee and Senator Max Baucus and I would like to thank them for all their hard work. Their efforts have resulted in an excellent bill that has not only my whole- hearted support, but the solid backing of this body. This strong support is unsurprising. This bill has much to recommend it. Our waterways and ports, which funnel billions of dollars of products throughout the Nation and generate hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country, will be better served by this bill. For those Americans who live in areas of the country that are prone to flooding, this bill provides for flood-control projects that protect their homes and the billions of dollars that their property represents. I know that my colleagues understand the important navigation and flood control projects provided for in this measure, but I would like to take a moment to call their attention to another significant provision in this bill. S. 640 includes important language that provides for a continuing Federal role in protecting a valuable national resource--our Nation's coastline. This language states clearly that the Federal Government has an obligation to provide the necessary support for projects that promote the protection, restoration, and enhancement of sandy beaches and shorelines in cooperation with States and localities. Mr. President, before I detail the significance of this language, I would again like to acknowledge and thank Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus for working with me on this issue as they readied WRDA for consideration by the full Senate. Their thoughtful consideration and leadership has been instrumental in achieving constructive progress on this issue and I look forward to continuing to work with them as the bill moves forward. To understand the significance of the inclusion of this shore protection language in this bill, it is necessary to understand the history that has led to today's congressional action on this subject. As many of my colleagues know, in 1995, the administration proposed an end to the Federal role in shore protection projects. Citing budgetary concerns, the administration proposal called for Federal involvement in projects that were of ``national significance'' only. This short- sighted policy ignores the fact that beach, shore, and coastal resources are critical to our economy and quality of life, but that they are fragile and must be protected, conserved, and restored. As a coastal State senator, who walks the beaches of the Jersey shore every year, I know first hand the economic and recreational benefits that are derived from healthy beaches. This is why on May 23, 1996, I joined with my colleague and co-chair of the Senate Coastal Coalition, Senator Connie Mack of Florida, to introduce S. 1811, the Shore Protection Act of 1996. This bill would provide for a Federal role in shore protection projects, including those projects involving the placement of sand, for which the economic and ecological benefits to the locality, region or Nation exceed the costs. I am pleased that Senator Chafee and Senator Baucus have agreed to include elements of the Shore Protection Act of 1996 in the Water Resources Development Act, which is the vehicle that authorizes the Federal involvement in civil works projects like shore protection. The history of Federal involvement in water resource projects dates back almost 200 years and includes a long history of involvement in shore protection projects. The role of the Federal Government in beach restoration projects was reaffirmed as recently as 1986 with passage of WRDA '86, the largest and most comprehensive authorization of the Corps Civil Works Program since the 1940's. The passage of WRDA '86 included cost-sharing requirements that made States a partner in the funding of these programs. For the past decade, the protection of our Nation's shoreline has continued to be a partnership between the Federal Government and the States. Despite the Clinton administration's new policy of eliminating Federal participation in beach restoration projects, the Environment and Public Works Committee continues to authorize new projects and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee continues to appropriate funds for these projects. However, these measures address shore protection projects on an ad hoc, rather than comprehensive and coordinated, basis. The language included in WRDA from the Shore Protection Act of 1996 challenges the administration's new policy and reaffirms a Federal role in shore protection. The language included states that one of the goals of WRDA is to ``promote shore protection projects and related research that encourage the protection, restoration and enhancement of sandy beaches, including beach restoration and periodic beach nourishment, on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal Government, States, and localities, and private enterprises.'' This puts the Senate on record as rejecting the Administration's policy and more clearly defines the Army Corps' mandate to undertake shore protection projects, specifically those projects which include the placement of sand. This mandate is further clarified by the adoption in WRDA of new definitions from the Shore Protection Act of 1996 that redefines ``shore,'' to include ``sandy beaches'' and expands ``shoreline protection project'' to include ``a project for beach renourishment, including the placement of sand.'' The inclusion of this language would mandate a continuing Federal role in shore protection projects by changing the mission of the Corps from one of general authority to do beach projects to a specific mandate to undertake the protection, restoration and enhancement of beaches in cooperation with States and local communities. I am pleased that this language was included in WRDA, and look forward to continuing discussions on the other important provisions in the Shore Protection Act that were not included in this measure at this time. These provisions include the requirement that new criteria be used in conducting the cost-benefit analysis of a proposed project. Currently, when undertaking cost-benefit analysis to determine the suitability of proposed projects, the corps is only required to consider the property values of property directly adjacent to the beach. The corps can take into account revenues generated through recreation, but is not required to do so, nor can the recreational values be weighed as anything other than an incidental benefit. The Shore Protection Act requires that the benefits to the local, regional and national economy and the local, regional and national ecology be considered. This comprehensive evaluation will demonstrate that shore protection projects are of national significance. The Shoreline Protection Act also requires that the corps report annually to Congress on beach project priorities. The corps will be required to submit information--reports--to Congress on projects that, when evaluated with the bill's new cost-benefit criteria, are found to merit Federal involvement. In current law, this authority is discretionary and has been suspended by the administration. Additionally, the act encourages the corps to work with State and local authorities to develop regional plans for preservation, restoration and enhancement of shorelines and coastal resources. Further the corps is encouraged to work with other agencies to coordinate with other projects that may have a complimentary effect on shoreline protection projects. A network of healthy and nourished beaches is essential to our economy, competitiveness in world tourism and the safety of our coastal communities. I know that many of my colleagues have heard the numbers before but they bear repeating. More than 28 million people work in businesses related to costal tourism, and healthy beaches contributed to a $26 billion tourism trade surplus last year. Protection of the Nation's shoreline must be a continued Federal priority and I appreciate Senator Chafee's leadership on this issue. By authorizing new shore protection projects in this year's WRDA and by associating himself with the provisions of the Shore Protection Act that call for a continued Federal role in shore protection, he has distinguished himself in the effort to preserve one of our Nation's most unique and valuable resources. I want to associate myself with Senator Chafee's remarks that state that he ``plans to work closely with Senators Mack, Bradley, and others to build on this provision as S. 640 advances.'' I look forward to continuing this dialog as the bill continues to progress. Technology To Decontaminate Sediments

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Public Trust and Environmental Accountability Act to improve collection, retrieval, and dissemination of vital environmental data needed for community information and disaster response. For the first time, under the Public Trust and Environmental Accountability Act, firefighters, plant neighbors, local governments, and the general public will have easy access to complete data on a plant's permit compliance and plant operation. Not only will the public be able to discover whether their local facility has had past environmental violations but they will also be able to research that company's compliance history throughout the United States using just one consolidated file, available by computer search. For example, last year, when the Napp Technologies plant in Lodi, NJ, exploded, the community surrounding the plant had little knowledge of what went on within the plant gates. If the Public Trust and Environmental Accountability Act had been in effect, local citizens would have known: what chemicals were stored onsite; what permits were held by the plant; what violations had occurred; whether there had been any accidents or releases of chemicals; and, when the plant was last inspected. Currently, data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is scattered and fragmented across the Agency or left in files at the State level. Instead of centralizing and coordinating all data by plant or location, much of EPA's information is kept in numerous duplicative files in the Agency's separate program offices where it is divided arbitrarily by the type of pollutant under regulation such as air, water, or solid waste. Thus using EPA data to build a complete compliance profile of a particular plant is both time consuming and unnecessarily difficult. However, my bill streamlines this unwieldy system by directing EPA to enhance access, encourage public use, and improve management of public information that it has collected under the Agency's many environmental statutes, pollution prevention initiatives and environmental permitting requirements. Under the act, EPA would create standard formats for information collection and improve the coordination of data which it has received from its various units and from other sources such as State agencies. The Act would also provide the public with greater computer access to EPA data bases. No additional data would be required from the private sector. In fact, the current reporting burden on industry could be reduced once streamlined data collection was in place. The bill also complements new EPA initiatives aimed at consolidating permit requirements and eliminating paperwork. This bill is an example of how we can use public power to help communities protect themselves through access to information rather than through additional programs or more bureaucracy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Public Trust and Environmental Accountability Act to improve collection, retrieval, and dissemination of vital environmental data needed for community information and disaster response. For the first time, under the Public Trust and Environmental Accountability Act, firefighters, plant neighbors, local governments, and the general public will have easy access to complete data on a plant's permit compliance and plant operation. Not only will the public be able to discover whether their local facility has had past environmental violations but they will also be able to research that company's compliance history throughout the United States using just one consolidated file, available by computer search. For example, last year, when the Napp Technologies plant in Lodi, NJ, exploded, the community surrounding the plant had little knowledge of what went on within the plant gates. If the Public Trust and Environmental Accountability Act had been in effect, local citizens would have known: what chemicals were stored onsite; what permits were held by the plant; what violations had occurred; whether there had been any accidents or releases of chemicals; and, when the plant was last inspected. Currently, data collected by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] is scattered and fragmented across the Agency or left in files at the State level. Instead of centralizing and coordinating all data by plant or location, much of EPA's information is kept in numerous duplicative files in the Agency's separate program offices where it is divided arbitrarily by the type of pollutant under regulation such as air, water, or solid waste. Thus using EPA data to build a complete compliance profile of a particular plant is both time consuming and unnecessarily difficult. However, my bill streamlines this unwieldy system by directing EPA to enhance access, encourage public use, and improve management of public information that it has collected under the Agency's many environmental statutes, pollution prevention initiatives and environmental permitting requirements. Under the act, EPA would create standard formats for information collection and improve the coordination of data which it has received from its various units and from other sources such as State agencies. The Act would also provide the public with greater computer access to EPA data bases. No additional data would be required from the private sector. In fact, the current reporting burden on industry could be reduced once streamlined data collection was in place. The bill also complements new EPA initiatives aimed at consolidating permit requirements and eliminating paperwork. This bill is an example of how we can use public power to help communities protect themselves through access to information rather than through additional programs or more bureaucracy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would like to alert the Senate that in the week of July 9, when the Senate returns after the recess, Senator Wellstone and I, and a number of other Senators on both sides of the aisle, will be submitting a resolution that will designate October 10, 1996 as a day of national concern about young people and gun violence. The announcement, I think, will be broad enough to include all segments of the political spectrum in a resolution to urge the reduction of gun violence among young people in this country. I believe that this is a very important initiative. There will be more information to come. This is simply to highlight the point that the first week back will be a major effort to get the Senate on record to make a very clear statement about young people taking pledges against the use of guns in their lives. Senator Wellstone spoke about that earlier today in morning business.

Mr. BRADLEY. Yes.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BRADLEY. As the Senator from California knows, I agree with her and with Senator Chafee wholeheartedly on the handgun issue. But the resolution that we will be bringing forward when we come back in July is a very simple resolution. It is aimed at young people in the country to get them to take action. It will establish October 10 as a national observance to counter gun violence, and it will ask young people across this country to take a pledge that, one, they will never carry a gun to school; two, they will never resolve a dispute with a gun; and three, they will try to use their influence with their friends to keep them from resolving disputes with guns. That is the resolution. That is what our hope is that this will become a very popular thing in the country among young people; that we will begin to see that influence felt across America; that we will have cosponsors on both sides of the aisle to make this very clear statement. I might say, this is an initiative that was started in the State of Minnesota, and it was started by some very public-spirited citizens who will have a big impact on, I think, the whole history of this country if we can get this pledge as popular in schools across this country as Reeboks are today or Nikes or any of the other shoes that people want to wear when they are younger than you or me.

Mr. BRADLEY. Certainly.

Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the Senator from California. I certainly will. I hope that by the time we introduce this resolution in July we will have 100 cosponsors.

Mr. BRADLEY. This is something that should be an unequivocal message for anybody in the Senate that cares about gun violence and young people in America, which I presume is every Member of the U.S. Senate. I thank the Chair and the managers for yielding. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia. I think this amendment is vitally important to prevent us from precipitously going down the path of NATO expansion without considering the consequences. This amendment forces us to ask the who and the when, to take a hard look at the consequence of NATO's expansion before we leap. I and many in this body are absolutely thrilled by the dramatic geopolitical changes in the last several years. The end of communism as far as an active, vital, dominant force in the landmass of the Soviet Union is a startling development. The breakup of the Soviet Union itself was a startling development. When the cold war ended, it thrust the United States, Russia, the former republics of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and our NATO allies all into uncharted waters. As long as the Soviet Union existed, the United States-Soviet rivalry was defined as an era in fundamentally ideological terms. It was the prominent feature of the international system in a bipolar world, and it was the primary justification for NATO, one of the two treaties--the other with Japan--that governed our sovereign commitments to allies around the world, commitments that required us to send American troops to defend the nations with whom we had made the treaty. Now the Soviet Union no longer exists. We are in a period of transition. As a result, NATO in particular is redefining its role in the world, in a world without the Soviet Union, which was the pretext for its founding. But just as NATO is trying to redefine its role in the world, so Russia itself is struggling to redefine its future. It is in the midst of that redefinition period now, in the midst of a Presidential election. In early May, I was in Moscow. I arrived the day that there were 30,000 or 40,000 supporters of Mr. Zyuganov in the streets, with red flags, pictures of Lenin, the whole thing, parading for their candidate. That same day I drove past the park and saw a candidate up on a big platform speaking, with great speakers, and four our five generals with ribbons standing next to him. I said, ``Who's that?'' They said, ``Zyuganov.'' I said, ``Stop.'' I and a Republican colleague melded into the crowd. I know the Chair might think it is difficult for me to meld into any crowd, but we did so. And I asked our interpreter, ``What is he saying?'' The interpreter said, ``He has just said that the German-Israeli-American conspiracy to destroy Russia will not succeed if I am elected President.'' To which my response was, ``Well, at least we were third.'' Indeed, he did not make a successful showing in the Presidential election. The first round has been held. Mr. Zyuganov and Mr. Yeltsin are in a final runoff that will be decided in the next several days. Russia is in a period of redefinition. It is beginning to say--will it cast its lot more in the direction of democracy, market reform, moving into integration into the world economic and political system, or will it once again retreat to a more isolationist position in the world? So the Presidential elections in Russia are very much about all this. As Russia defines itself internally, what kind of system it wants, what kind of democracy it wants, Russia will also continue to redefine itself in relation to both the West and the East. It has grave concerns and worries about China. It is very concerned about Turkish influence in a lot of the Central Asian republics. It has much less concern about the West. The war of ideology is over. There is no reason for them to fear the West. We know that. They see where their geopolitical worries are, to the south and to the east. They are now in the process of not only redefining themselves internally but also externally. In this process the nature of those relationships are not a foregone conclusion. The Eastern European countries that are seeking NATO membership are also in a process of transition. They have turned their backs on Soviet Russian influence and are firmly allying themselves with the West. We welcome that. We want them to be integrated into the West. We want them to become a member of the European Community. We want them to be a part of a Western future. They want to integrate as quickly as possible to get the economic benefits as well as the promise of greater security. So, Mr. President, as we consider NATO's expansion against this backdrop of sweeping change, of redefinition in the West as well as the East, I think we have to be honest about what we hope and what we can realistically expect to accomplish. First, on the issue of increased security and stability, the primary rationale voiced by the proponents of NATO enlargement is that it will increase security and stability in Europe. How that can be accomplished, though, in real terms has yet to be explained. Achieving stability is a long-term process that will require strategic dialogue with all parties. It will also require the completion of the fundamental economic and political reform process that the countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia are still undergoing. This is not going to happen overnight. It is far from certain that NATO's immediate expansion will promote either of those tasks. In fact, NATO expansion is likely to cut off or possibly even polarize a strategic dialog between the West and Russia about Turkey or about Asia or about where they perceive their threats coming from. Further, NATO enlargement is not an automatic guarantee of security, particularly, as this amendment suggests, as many important questions related to membership enlargement of NATO have yet to be answered, particularly with regard to the effect that enlargement will have on NATO itself, including its nuclear posture and its security guarantees. Indeed, an expanded NATO is probably no more likely to respond militarily to an invasion of Eastern Europe than an unexpanded NATO. If we consider these countries sufficiently vital to our interest, the West will act without a treaty; if we do not consider them vital, no treaty is going to force a President to send American troops into the region. Nor will NATO's expansion guarantee the vital political and economic reform that is a prerequisite to security. You can have a lot of military armor deployed forward, a nuclear deterrent, and if you have an economy crumbling, because the comparative advantages available in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia cannot bring full fruit because the Western Europeans will block all their products from being imported into the markets of the West, it is a hollow victory. In fact, one might argue that NATO expansion enlargement may hinder such reform by encouraging the diversion of limited resources in these countries to military modernization rather than to economic development. Mr. President, it is important we also try to think through before we take this step. The amendment, I think, forces this thinking process. What does it say about Russia? We have to be honest about the role of Russia, both in our motivation toward expanding NATO and in our assessment of the potential stabilizing or destabilizing effect of enlargement. First, the motivation. Despite protestations to the contrary by some policymakers and NATO itself in its enlargement study, fears of Russian aggressiveness are clearly a significant motivating force behind NATO expansion. That is a legitimate feeling on the part of the peoples of Eastern Europe because they were dominated, occupied, by a Soviet Army for 45 years. Naturally, they have a fear, but to assuage those fears, do we want to jump headlong before we consider some of the larger strategic questions? I think this fear of Russian aggressiveness is obviously the case for these Eastern European countries seeking enlargement immediately. It could very well be the motivating force for many Western policymakers. What is the effect? While NATO's own study and others downplay the effect of NATO expansion on Russia, it is clear to even the most casual observer that NATO's enlargement is viewed as a threat by Russia, particularly given that those who would expand NATO are seeking to do so because of their fears of Russian aggressiveness reasserting itself as if it were a genetic quality. Russia's view of NATO expansion is not surprising when one looks at the post-cold-war world from a Russian vantage point. Russia has been stripped of its empire, gone the way of new republics, new countries, and is but one of 15 countries--the largest, but one of 15--in the former Soviet space. By expanding the West's military bloc--and that is what NATO is, that is why it was formed, that is what its primary funding is, let's be honest--by expanding the West's military bloc along its borders, Russia could not help but feel boxed in by an organization whose primary aim for most of its existence has been to act as a shield against a potentially aggressive Soviet Union. If expansion is accelerated, a threatened and increasingly nationalistic Russia may further isolate itself from the West, and the prophecy about Russian aggressiveness could easily become a self- fulfilling one. I think that is unlikely because of the economic circumstance in Russia. However, immediate NATO expansion enlargement gives a pretext for those who would play on those fears and those who would stir that pot. We need to think about this and ask some tough questions. If expansion is accelerated, a threatened and increasingly nationalistic Russia may further, as I said, isolate itself from the rest of the world. The hopes of Russia's implementation of START I or the ratification of START II would become increasingly remote. Tensions could increase. NATO's immediate enlargement will not solve our security concerns. Indeed, I believe it is very possible that it could heighten them. Rather than isolating Russia, we should seek to engage Russia and others in a long-term strategic dialog about what they perceive to be their security concerns. If we engage that dialog without a precipitous action of enlargement in that dialog, it will become clear that their concerns are more oriented toward China and to the Turkish activity in the former republics of central Asia than it is to the West, particularly NATO, particularly Western Europe, and certainly Eastern Europe. Mr. President, I think we should work to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons by ensuring implementation of START I and START II, but I have some reservations about precipitously expanding NATO at the expense of our own national security. Our consideration of these concerns is not, as proponents of enlargement like to argue, the result of Russia bullying the United States or NATO. It is in our own self-interest to consider the impact that enlargement would have on Russia. It is in our own interest to do this. If the purpose of NATO expansion is to increase security, our security, obviously, its destabilizing impact on Russian-NATO and Russian-United States relations need to be a part of that analysis. What about the effect on NATO and U.S. participation in NATO? Finally, we have to be honest about the effect of enlargement, as I said, on NATO itself and on the increased responsibilities it will entail for the United States. Enlargement could have significant repercussions for how NATO operates. I do not think these issues have been actually explored. That is really the purpose of the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Georgia. Enlargement will also require NATO to devote less energy to important reforms, helping it to adopt to the realities of the post-cold-war world, and the enlargement will impose even greater responsibilities and costs on the United States without any serious assessment of whether such responsibilities and costs are in the United States' interest. Mr. President, as the foregoing illustrates, NATO expansion is not an easy issue. It is a quick fix, a form of what I call ``cold war lite,'' that is likely to cause a lot more harm than good. It is more a leftover from cold war thinking than it is a rethinking of U.S. security interests worldwide. It is more a predictable human response to the call to assuage the worries and historical concerns of our friends in Eastern Europe than it is a longer term view of how to guarantee their security over time. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about precipitously rushing into NATO expansion. At a minimum, we should ask some difficult questions and take the time to study the issue seriously. I think that is precisely what the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia requires. I support the amendment fully. It is his amendment to decide how to pursue in the remaining hours. If he chooses to have a vote, I will be for it. If he chooses to wait and have a vote a little bit later, I will be for it then. It is enormously important that we ask the questions before we leap and find we have precipitated a response that will create less security, not more security, for the very countries to whom the enlargement is expected to give greater security. So, Mr. President, I support the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Not out of my time.