Bill Bradley

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. I would be prepared to yield on the manager's time.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I think it says a lot if the Senate is not able to move forward on this good piece of legislation. I think this inability to move forward says two things. The first thing it says is that fundamental campaign finance reform will not begin in Washington. It will begin in the States. The opponents of this bill like the status quo. They do not want to change the status quo. They have not offered an alternative. They have only picked at the bill. They want to keep money and politics just as it is today because they know how to work the system. The fact is the American people have a different view. I am astounded how much opposition to this bill is rooted in a kind of Washington understanding of this country. The people in this country look at elected Representatives and Senators and they think we are controlled. They think we are controlled by special interest money. Some think we are controlled by parties that blunt our independence. Some think we are controlled by our opposition that prevents us from saying what we really believe and only saying things that will advance us to the next level of office. Some even think we are controlled by pollsters who give us focus views and phrases and paragraphs, that we do not think for ourselves, saying things because we have convictions in our heart. The fact is that the opponents of this provision do not get it. This year there will be referendums in California, Colorado, Alaska, Arkansas, and Maine, and all of those referendums will be sending one message: reduce the role of money in politics; cut back on the role of money in politics. Those referendums will be followed in the years to come by other referendums, and maybe after another 2 or 3 years the people in this body who like the status quo will change. I hope they will, because I believe money and politics today distort democracy. That leads to the second point. We need to confront the central issue. The central issue is Buckley versus Valeo. The only way to confront Buckley versus Valeo directly is with a constitutional amendment. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina and I have offered such an amendment for a number of years that would say simply that the Congress and the States may limit what is spent in a campaign in total and what an individual may spend on his or her own campaign. Until we take that step, we are going to be constructing Rube Goldberg types of contraptions to try to get around the central issue, which is, money is not speech. Anybody who believes that money is speech, in my opinion-- the Supreme Court said it was, and, therefore, it is the law of the land. That is why we need to amend the Constitution. But I do not believe that a rich man's wallet in free-speech terms is the equivalent of a poor man's soapbox. We have to confront that issue directly. Otherwise, we are going to be in these debates about antacid and bubble gum. Even that debate is a diversion from the central issue, which is changing the way we now do politics in Washington, but even that issue is based on a confusion. Capitalism is different than democracy. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky said, ``Well, we have to compare antacids and bubble gum because''--compared to what? I would suggest you compare the amount of money in politics in 1980 versus the amount of money in politics today and the size of the contribution and the sources of the money. Without question, money is distorting democracy. And, indeed, we have had other times in American history where there have been distortions in our democracy. We have changed it by recourse of the constitutional amendment. Many people will remember earlier in this century when women did not have the right to vote. The absence of that voice in the polling booths distorted democracy. We passed a constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote in order to restore a broader participation. I believe today money is playing the same role. The fact of the matter is that until we confront this issue, skepticism is going to be high. People say, ``Well, it is not the No. 1 issue on people's minds.'' That is true. The No. 1 issue on people's minds is, how do I put bread on the table? How do I pay the utility bill? How do I send my kids to college? They are dealing with the economic transformation which we are in. That is the No. 1 issue. But when they say, ``Do any of the politicians have any relation to my dealing with these issues,'' people say no, because politicians are controlled by money. That is why this is a linchpin issue.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today Bob Dole will leave the Senate. I have served with him for nearly 18 years, during which time, at different times, he has been the ranking member and chairman of the Finance Committee, minority leader, and majority leader. Over the years I have disagreed with him often, but I have also worked with him on many things, from one of my first amendments in the Senate on the strategic petroleum reserve to closing tax loopholes in 1982 to tax reform in 1986 to maternal and child health care issues to GATT agreements to aid to the Bosnian Moslems and countless other issues. Bob Dole is a good man and an extraordinary legislator. Although he is personally shy, he knows how to build a political consensus, use power, make things happen. He keeps his word, which is an essential ingredient in building trust. He listens well, a trait of the very best legislators. Any time you are trying to build a bipartisan majority, which is more the way it used to be in the Senate than the way it is now, you have to be able to listen. You have to understand intuitively where someone's bottom line is. And when an agreement will not be reached, you cannot view the other person as flawed, corrupt, and stupid, and expect that tomorrow they will forget your attitude. I do not remember Bob Dole ever acting out of a grudge or perhaps even harboring one. He never burned his bridges. One afternoon in my office more than a few years ago, Senator Dole and I visited with a Russian politician named Boris Yeltsin whose visit I was sponsoring. Yeltsin had been over an hour late and we were 25 minutes into our discussion when one of his aides informed him he was an hour late for a meeting with Secretary of State Baker, to which Yeltsin responded by saying, ``Humph, who cares about an appointed minister when I am meeting with those who are elected by the people.'' To which Dole responded, ``He's got his priorities right.'' That was the voice of Bob Dole, the democrat, the man who has a deep and abiding respect for the will of the people. Time and time again the people of Kansas gave him their votes. Although Senator Dole has given his life to public service, I sense he would be one of the first in this body to admit that a legislator's accomplishments are like sand castles built at the edge of the ocean surf--short-lived and often forgotten. Therefore, the only thing that any of us as Senators have is whether those who worked with us gave us their respect, and those who elected us felt well-served. In Senator Dole's case, I think the answer to each is yes.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the nation of Guyana as it celebrates its 30th year as a sovereign nation, and to pay tribute to the citizens of this nation whose dedication to their country enabled Guyana to develop from a small colony to an independent nation. Guyana was a Dutch colony from 1621 until it eventually came under the influence of the British who acquired formal possession in 1814. While still under British control, Guyana obtained its first constitution in 1928, although universal franchise was not recognized until much later in 1953. From 1957 until 1966 the People's Progressive Party was elected and controlled Guyana under a system of internal self rule. In 1965, the British Guiana Independence Conference met in London to the authorize a new constitution. When ratified on May 26, 1966, the new constitution marked the beginning of the independent nation of Guyana. Throughout its years as both a Dutch and British colony, Guyana became home to workers from many different lands. With a population of 739,553, Guyana is comprised primarily of East Indians and people of African descent. Guyana is also home to native South Americans as well as citizens of Chinese and European heritage. Guyana was one of the founding members of the Caribbean Free Trade Area [CARIFTA] which was established in 1968. Guyana has been called the bread basket of the Caribbean because it is blessed with many natural resources and the potential for a strong economy. Guyana is dually blessed with both natural resources and a vibrant and diverse people. These attributes ensure that in the years to come this young country will grow into a leader in its part of the world. Today, I rise to offer my congratulations to Guyana on the anniversary of its independence as a sovereign nation. The future of Guyana has never looked brighter. New Jersey's multi-cultural heritage has benefited from citizens from Guyana. I congratulate its citizens on their perseverance and potential, and extend my best wishes for continued success as an independent nation.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I will not take 40 minutes, but I am very pleased to be joined by colleagues in the Chamber today in recognizing the 1996 national Race for the Cure. The race, which will take place this year on Saturday, June 15, is a unique opportunity to bring together the many people whose lives have been touched by breast cancer. This year, Capitol Hill has an opportunity to play a tremendous role in this race. Today is the first on-site Capitol Hill registration, and today is also the beginning of something very special in this race. For every Capitol Hill participant who registers, the company Eli Lilly has generously offered to match their registration fee in the form of a donation to Race for the Cure. So for every individual who signs up to participate, your contribution to the race will be doubled. In other words, one can really make a difference here and have that difference amplified. For all those who are unfamiliar with Race for the Cure, the race is a 5-kilometer run or, in my case, walk that raises money for breast cancer research and for early screening for underprivileged women in underserved communities in the District, Maryland, and Virginia. The race also allows a new generation of women to be made aware of the risks associated with breast cancer. Although we still do not have a cure, we do have screening devices which can increase the early detection that prolongs life. Education and awareness is one of our strongest weapons in the fight against breast cancer. Today in America, 500 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Most likely, each will be frightened, uncertain of her future, and in search of a treatment that, if it cannot cure her, will at least prolong her life. Each woman's family and friends, coworkers, and caregivers will worry deeply about her. Today in America, 150 women will die of breast cancer. Their lives will be ended prematurely, their family, friends, coworkers and caregivers will be grief-stricken. Listen to the enormity of the disease: Fully one out of nine women in this country will get breast cancer, one out of nine women. Since 1960, nearly 1 million women have died from this disease. With their deaths, millions of their loved ones, including children and aging parents dependent upon them, have suffered as well. We stagger under these numbers, even as we search for the causes and for a cure. All women are at risk for breast cancer, with the incidence increasing among older women and the mortality rate higher for African American women. While other factors that may put a woman at risk are being thoroughly investigated, we are still, ourselves, at risk for feeling helpless in the face of this killer. I speak about this with personal experience. In 1992, my own wife contracted breast cancer. Ernestine had a mastectomy and chemotherapy for 6 months. As I sat and watched the devastating impact of chemotherapy on her body, I thought to myself, 100 years from now people will look back and maybe consider this treatment like the leeches of the 18th century, it is so devastating. She persevered. It was a trauma for our whole family. It was, for me, the moment that I realized that sometimes catastrophe can overtake the best laid plans and that every day has to be lived to its fullest because one cannot take tomorrow for granted. That is kind of the secondary benefit of this whole experience, learning that every day must be lived to the fullest extent possible because one does not know about tomorrow. But one thing my wife feels very strongly, having come out of the treatment with flying colors, being cancer-free now for over 3 years, is that she does not consider herself a victim of breast cancer. She considers that she has triumphed over breast cancer. Early detection and more research for a cure will allow millions of other women to have that feeling as well; that they, too, have triumphed over breast cancer. So, remembering that the women who battle this disease are our wives, sisters, mothers, daughters, and friends, I am proud to join the estimated 30,000 other runners, walkers, rollerbladers and wheelchair participants, who will participate in the Race for the Cure on June 15. Today I ask all of my colleagues and the staff who work on Capitol Hill to consider participating in the race on June 15. There are already 55 registrants from the Bradley office. Last year I think we were No. 1. Registration is simple. In-person registration is available for all Hill participants today. Let me repeat that. Registration is available today at the Reserve Officers Association Building, which is on the corner of First Street and Constitution, right across from the Hart Office Building. Registering for the race will be one of the easiest tasks you can do today. Frankly, participating in the race on June 15 will be one of the most rewarding. If you have not done it, I urge you to do it. It will be a morning that you will not forget, and your efforts could really make a difference. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Mack in introducing a measure designed to provide for a continuing Federal role in protecting a valuable national resource--our Nation's coastline. The Shore Protection Act of 1996 states clearly that the Federal Government has an obligation to provide necessary support--both financial and technical--for projects that promote the protection, restoration and enhancement of sandy beaches and shorelines in cooperation with States and localities. Beach, shore and coastal resources are critical to our economy and quality of life, but 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. Every summer, thousands of New Jerseyans and visitors from all over the U.S. and the world, visit the beaches of the Jersey shore, generating roughly $11 billion in travel and tourism revenues. However, beaches are important not only to New Jersey's economy or to those of other coastal communities, they are important to the Nation's economy. Beaches support 28 million jobs, and coastal communities generate $1.3 trillion, or one-third, of the Gross National Product. Travel and tourism is the second largest sector of our economy, contributing over $746 billion in 1995 and amounting to a $26 billion trade surplus. Beaches are responsible for this economic boom. As the leading tourist destination in the U.S., coastlines generate 85 percent of tourism-related revenue. If we allow this valuable resource to simply wash away, billions of dollars in beach related revenues will disappear as well. The value of our coastline lies not only in the jobs and revenue that they generate, but also in the families, homes and business they protect from hurricanes, nor'easters and tropical storms. With almost 50% of all Americans living in our coastal communities, we simply must have healthy beaches as our first line of defense. Nourished beaches can also provide ecological and environmental benefits for certain species of wildlife by providing, or restoring, marine and littoral habitat. 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 bill makes the case that the preservation of an invaluable economic and environmental resource-- our shoreline--is of national significance. Our bill would permit all the local, regional and national economic and ecological benefits of a shoreline protection project to be considered when judging a project's merit. I am confident this comprehensive evaluation will demonstrate that shore protection projects are indeed of national significance. Mr. President, let me take a moment to outline the major provisions of the bill. Specifically, the bill would mandate a continuing Federal role in shore protection projects. The bill changes 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. Additionally, the bill would require 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. This bill 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 bill 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. The bill also 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. Protection of the Nation's shoreline must be a continued Federal priority.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Jewish War Veterans in the year of the organization's 100th anniversary, and to pay tribute to the members of their faith who have fought and died in the service of their country. The JWV is the oldest active veteran's group in the United States. Founded by veterans of the Civil War, the first members pledged to combat the powers of bigotry whatever the target, and to assist comrades and their families in need. They also pledged to gather and preserve the records of patriotic service performed by members of the Jewish faith. In the 100 years following, the JWV has been a crucial force in documenting the contribution Jews have made to America's military. From the American Revolution to the Persian Gulf war, hundreds of thousands of Jewish-Americans have fought bravely in defense of our Nation and its democratic ideals. The JWV has also made important contributions to the lives of their fellow Americans at peace. Its members have been leaders in the fight against racism and anti-Semitism in this country, and have used the strength of their organization to improve the care and well-being of veterans of all denominations. Today the Jewish War Veterans continue to do important work in communities throughout the Nation. Members volunteer their services to assist disabled and hospitalized veterans of all races and religions, and serve the community through education programs and scholarships. They have assisted Americans young and old, Jewish and non-Jewish. I am proud that so many members of the JWV live in my home State of New Jersey, and I congratulate them on their centennial anniversary.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, in 10 days it will be Mother's Day. This means something precious to mothers, grandmothers, and expectant mothers in this country. I, along with many others, also think it means something special to the Senate. It is our opportunity to take up and pass the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996. I have several letters with me today. These were addressed to the majority leader and the minority leader of the Senate. Each letter respectfully requests that a date for Senate floor action and a vote on the newborns bill be scheduled as soon as possible. This is what we can do for mothers and their families this Mother's Day. Let me remind us all of the history of the newborns bill. Last year, many of us began to hear disturbing stories about mothers and babies being forced to leave the hospital too soon after childbirth. While we can all agree that sometimes it makes good medical sense for mothers and babies to go home quickly, we have to recognize that, tragically, many times it is not good sense. We have been moved and saddened to learn of the deaths of babies and of serious and sometimes lifelong threats to their health and normal development that come from leaving the hospital too soon after childbirth. Many of us began to hear that the decision about whether or not a mother and her baby should leave the hospital was being made by the wrong people. We began to hear that those who should make this decision, the doctor or the health care practitioner attending the mother and baby, were in fact not making that decision. Instead, the decision forcing a woman to leave the hospital in less than 24 hours after childbirth was being made by a clerk at an insurance company shaving costs and shortening lives. I think many of us began to realize that this was the moment in a situation just like this when Government should step in to try to provide protection to mothers and babies. We all know the health care environment has changed, and changed with startling speed, over the last couple of years. Such a massive, fast change, even when positive, always creates instability and temporary imbalances. On occasion, it creates a serious problem. This is a serious problem--forcing women out of hospitals after giving childbirth in less than 24 hours. With this background, Senator Kassebaum and I introduced the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act, S. 969, about a year ago--last June. This is a bill that respects the authority of doctors and other health care practitioners, in consultation with mothers, to make health care decisions about the length of time their patient should stay in the hospital following childbirth. This is a bill that respects the flexibility that health plans need to manage care efficiently in our rapidly changing health care environment. Mr. President, the newborns act creates what my colleague and cosponsor on this bill, Doctor and Senator Frist has called a safe haven of time--a safe haven of time for doctors, mothers, and babies, 48 hours minimum for normal childbirth, 96 hours minimum for Cesarean sections. Under this bill, doctors, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and nurses will all be free to do their job. Mothers will be relieved of the fear that they may be sent home too early before their babies are stable and they are prepared physically and emotionally. Newborns will be watched and tested and assisted with their job of adapting to this world. When it is appropriate for mothers and newborns to go home before the end of a 48-hour period or a 96-hour safe haven, they will go home--if it is appropriate, they will go home. Followup care will be required and studied in greater depth because of the fine amendment that Senator DeWine of Ohio was able to add. Please understand that this bill does not require that all mothers stay in the hospital for a specified length of time any more than it requires all mothers to give birth in hospitals. A woman, in consultation with her doctor, may decide to leave the hospital before 48 hours, but in no event can an insurance company require that she leave in less than 48 hours. Mr. President, April 17, 1996, is an important day for the Senate. The Labor and Human Resources Committee held a markup on the newborns bill and, after careful consideration, the committee members voted overwhelmingly to send the bill to the full Senate. What I would like to do is return to the letters that are en route to the distinguished Senators from Kansas and South Dakota. One letter makes a bit of history. Six different professional medical groups have all signed the same letter asking for full Senate action in behalf of mothers and newborns. They are the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Nurses Association, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, all joined by the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation. All have joined together to say: As organizations representing health care professionals and advocates committed to quality maternity care, we urge you to schedule for consideration by the full Senate S. 969. We ask you to lend your leadership to guarantee that women and their newborns receive adequate insurance coverage at one of the most important times in their lives. Mr. President, this is remarkable unity and should inspire us in the Senate to do the same and take action. A second letter comes from more than 30 cosponsors and supporters of the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act. This letter says many of the same things: Let us move on this bill. Newborns and their mothers need it. It is very important. We hope-- The letter goes on to say-- we will be able to inform hundreds of thousands of interested mothers by Mother's Day when this vote will occur. Several of our women colleagues in the Senate--in fact, all of them-- have agreed to sign a third letter. Let me quote a few words from it. It simply says: ``What better Mother's Day gift can we give to new mothers than passing this bill?'' A fourth letter comes from the Center for Patient Advocacy, a nonpartisan organization devoted to quality of care for patients. They write and say much the same thing. They say pass the newborn bill. Pass it so that by Mother's Day we can assure mothers that they will be taken care of. Finally, I want to mention what I believe are the most important letters and pieces of correspondence of all. Those are from the more than 83,000--83,000 men and women, doctors and nurses, grandparents and families who have written my office alone to support this bill--83,000. The Baumans in my State of New Jersey, the Drumms of Philadelphia, the Joneses of New York, the Avandoglios of Tennessee, are just a few of the families who have generously shared their personal experience and support for this bill. The Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act has earned unprecedented, unified, professional support from doctors and prompted many thousands of Americans to write us in support of this bill. The bill has been carefully developed with input from all interested parties on both sides of the aisle and throughout the community. It has passed the wise review of the Labor Committee and passed with flying colors. Many in the Senate have indicated their support. I hope we will honor the occasion of Mother's Day and the voice of so many Americans by announcing as soon as possible that the Senate will vote on this bill and, in passing this bill, will say to mothers that now we understand that giving birth deserves the respect that the insurance industry has failed to give it in requiring women to leave hospitals in less than 24 hours. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. If the distinguished Senator from Wyoming will yield, I wonder if we can get some time agreement on the amendment that I offered. I know a couple other Senators would like to speak. Is that possible?

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. Amendment No. 3790 To Amendment No. 3743 (Purpose: To establish an Office for the Enforcement of Employer Sanctions)

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3790.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this amendment is a second-degree amendment to the one proposed by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. The amendment will improve the Federal Government's ability to deter illegal immigration by enhancing the enforcement of our existing laws. In particular, this amendment would create a separate office within the INS to ensure that our employer sanction laws are effectively and fairly enforced. The fact is that employment is the single most important enticement that brings illegal immigrants to our shores. If we want to address seriously the illegal immigration problem in this country, we must address ourselves to the root of that problem, which is the jobs. In 1986 we started down the right track with the Immigration Reform Control Act, better known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. In that bill we enacted, after considerable debate, employer sanctions which imposed civil penalties on employers of illegal aliens and criminal penalties for pattern or practice violations. We put very tough teeth in the law--up to a $10,000 fine, up to 3 years in jail. Those provisions are strong and, if enforced adequately, would deter the hiring of illegal aliens. This bill makes important headway in improving these laws. However, one critical element is missing: These laws, those that we passed in 1986, are not being adequately enforced. I have heard many in the Chamber complain that employer sanction laws are not working and perhaps should be eliminated. I agree that they are not working as well as they could be working, but the problem is not with the law. The problem is with the implementation of the law. The INS' ineffective implementation of these laws has been noticed time and again by independent observers, including the Jordan Commission and the Office of the Inspector General. For example, the Jordan Commission found that employer sanctions are accorded a low priority by the INS. The INS' own data bear that out. Between 1989 and 1995, the number of INS investigations of employer sanction violations dropped by more than 50 percent. Let me repeat that: From 1989 to 1995, the number of investigations by the INS of employer sanctions dropped by more than 50 percent. The GAO found that the number of agents assigned to the workplace enforcement dropped more than half between 1989 and 1994. Overall, financial resources allocated to the enforcement of employer sanctions also has declined significantly. While the INS is now increasing the number of workplace agents and resources directed toward the enforcement of employer sanctions, projections indicate that the INS will only employ, after these improvements are made, only employ about 708 workplace agents in 1996. Mr. President, 708 agents to cover a nation with 6.5 million employers--this contrasts sharply with the over 5,000 Border Patrol agents that the INS projects in 1996. This disparity is notable given that according to the INS' own estimates, their own estimates, about half of all illegal immigrants do not cross the border illegally but overstay their visas. Let me repeat that: Half of all illegal immigrants in this country are not sneaking across the border in the middle of the night but they are people that come into this country on a visitor's visa and overstay. They are people who come in on a visitor's visa, then get a job illegally. They are here in the workplace taking jobs away from Americans. The law says an employer who hires an illegal immigrant who overstays on his visitor's visa, for example, is subject to fine and possible imprisonment. Yet, nobody is going after these employers. There is not enough enforcement. Furthermore, the INS is failing to conduct investigations effectively. Like the Jordan Commission's report a year earlier, a September 1995 inspector general audit found numerous problems with the INS conduct of its employer sanctions investigations. The inspector general specifically found that ``the INS is sending a signal to the business community that it does not take seriously its enforcement responsibilities in the area of employer sanctions.'' Those are the words of the inspector general that the INS is not seriously pursuing employer sanctions. The problem is more, however, than numbers and authorizations. This bill provides much needed authorization for additional investigators available for the INS to use for employer sanctions. That is good. It does not go far enough because those investigators are not necessarily going to be directed toward employer sanction enforcement. Moreover, these investigators are likely to continue to be wasted on less important and less effective enforcement efforts. That certainly is the case if past practice is any indication. New investigators could deal with the part of the INS problems in this area, but only if they are used appropriately. As the critique of the Jordan Commission, the inspector general, and others have indicated, the problem is more than resources; it is more than simply a few more agents. Consequently, our solution must provide more than resources. Mr. President, what is needed is a separate office for the enforcement of employer sanctions that will focus its activities on the most serious problem, which is employers hiring illegals, not having anyone go after them, as well as address the problems of employers discriminating on the basis of national origin. It is clear that a fundamental change is needed in the INS bureaucracy to make these laws work. The amendment I am suggesting specifically addresses this problem by changing the task force provided by section 120(b) of the bill to an office for enforcement of employer sanctions and authorizing it for $100 million, the figure contained in the 1986 Immigration Act. The office will have two primary functions: to investigate and prosecute employer sanction violations, and to educate employers on the requirement of the law in order to prevent unlawful employment discrimination. I think this amendment corrects the weaknesses in the existing bureaucracy. It will separate and dedicate necessary resources to the enforcement of employer sanctions so that it will be accorded the priority that it deserves. Of equal importance, the creation of a separate office within the INS will tell employers that the INS is now serious about enforcing the employer sanctions provision, that it has the budget and the manpower to investigate and follow up leads on the worst violations of these laws. As well, it will send a strong message to the INS that it needs to improve its enforcement activities. I think it is also important to point out that this amendment does not add new sanctions or increase the burden on employers. It does not add one single form to the mountain of paperwork they must already fill out when they hire a new legal worker. It just asks that existing law be adequately enforced. Finally, and of equal importance, it will require better education of employers to prevent discrimination. In short, this amendment goes to the source of the illegal immigration problem in this country--the job magnet--by improving our mechanism for seriously working to eliminate that employment magnet, with adequate enforcement directed toward the problem, with no excuses, and with results required.

Mr. BRADLEY. Yes.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I hope people will support this amendment. What is the problem with illegal immigration? Why are illegal immigrants coming to this country? Because they get jobs. Employers hire them. In 1986 we said, if an employer hires an illegal immigrant, taking that job away from an American, that person can be fined, ultimately can be put in jail for up to 3 years. Employer sanctions were the right policy in 1986. The problem is, they were not enforced. The number of inspections, the number of inspectors between 1989 and 1995, dropped 50 percent. Employer sanctions should be enforced. If so, we would have fewer illegal immigrants coming into this country. This amendment simply creates a special enforcement office in the Immigration Service, allocates such funds to do the job, and says to the Immigration Service, ``Enforce employer sanctions. Stop illegal immigration.'' I am pleased to yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the cloture motion. I oppose term limits at this time. I think the answer to the problems of democracy is not less democracy, but is more democracy. Why should we say to people in this country who want a particular Senator or Congressman to return to office that they arbitrarily cannot return them to office? I also regret the parliamentary circumstance here, the constitutional amendment on term limits. Many of us believe that the problems of democracy have deeper root causes than Senators and Congressmen staying in office more than 12 years and that, indeed, money is at the root of the problem in our democracy. I had hoped to be able to offer a constitutional amendment as an amendment here in these proceedings that would allow the Congress and the States to limit what an individual may spend on his or her campaign. In my view, it is money that is creating a much greater problem for our democracy than somebody staying in office for 13 years. I think fundamental campaign finance reform is what we need. I think it has to be radical. I think money and politics is a little bit like ants in your kitchen--you either have to get them all out, block all the holes, or some of them are going to find a way in. A fundamental campaign finance reform proposal would be limits in primaries and would be also, I think, financing the election in the general election, dividing it equally among Republican, Democrat, and qualified independents, and it would mean a constitutional amendment. That would allow the Congress and States to limit what an individual spends on his or her own campaign. Everybody knows that a wealthy person has a microphone and everybody else has a megaphone here. The ability to raise money is often the prerequisite for deciding to run for Congress. When everybody goes in to visit their campaign committee, whether it is Republican or Democrat, the first question that is asked them is not, ``Gee, have you been a good citizen? Do you have a good record? Do you have ideas on how to make the country better? Are you willing to put yourself on the line to do that? Are you willing to stand up for your convictions?'' It is, ``Can you raise $1 million?'' Better yet, ``Do you have $1 million to spend on your campaign?'' Imagine a world in which there are term limits, but without strong campaign finance laws. How is democracy going to be improved? You will have the Senators and Congressmen coming from the same cast, raising money from the same sources, in some cases financing their own campaigns themselves, and will simply have a more active turnover of the same problem that we have now. It will not solve the problem--money in politics--which is the root cause of a lot of our problems. It will simply bring more people who are dependent on a special interest who have to finance their own campaigns themselves. On the other hand, imagine a campaign or situation where you had strong finance laws but no term limits. Imagine general elections where Republicans and Democrats divided the money in a fund and they each had equal amounts of money, and the money could only come from people in their own State, and that is all the money that they had to spend. You would then have the possibility of a battle of ideas. There is no possibility of a battle of ideas where money dominates the process as much as it does today. Even if term limits passes but we do not address the issue of money in politics, we are not going to have as vibrant a democracy as we otherwise could have. There are no two ways about that. I rise today simply to make this point because I had hoped, as I said earlier, to offer an amendment, a constitutional amendment, that would allow the Congress and the States to limit what an individual can spend on his or her own campaign as a part of an overall campaign finance proposal. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. I regret that I cannot do that because of the parliamentary circumstance. I hope that I will before the end of this Congress. I think it is absolutely essential. Anything that fails to address the issue of money in politics and claims to be the answer to the problems of democracy is false advertising. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, last night Senators Domenici and Wellstone introduced an amendment to establish parity in treatment between mental health and physical health. I want to thank them for their leadership. Their remarks, along with those by Senators Conrad and Simpson, were moving and sometimes very personal. I know they were inspiring to me, and I believe to many others, as the strong vote in favor of their amendment suggests. I congratulate them. There is little doubt remaining even among the most skeptical people that biochemical disturbances are major precipitating factors for the major mental illnesses like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression. Nonetheless, longstanding biases, which are really fears in disguise, still frame our understanding and treatment of mental health disorders and mental illness. As Senators Domenici and Wellstone have said so well, it is time for this country to speak more openly and forcefully about the broad scope of mental health issues. Mr. President, last night we began the important work of reforming our health insurance practices so that more Americans have access to health insurance and greater protection against losing coverage. We will complete this step of that work on Tuesday. With this work, we have an excellent opportunity to begin to build a healthcare insurance structure that recognizes both physical and psychological factors in health and illness. One of the most promising directions in healthcare is the increased recognition of social and psychological variables. We know that depression is a better predictor of relapse among coronary patients than is a high cholesterol level. We know that breast cancer patients who participate in support groups experience greater longevity than those who do not. We know that 50 to 60 percent of patients who visit a primary care physician do not have a physical condition that can be diagnosed. Instead, they bring the sequelae of trauma, violence, and abuse. They bring masked drug and alcohol problems; they bring rage and impulse control problems that are often amplified by the loss of employment, marital and family strains. They bring a sense of hopelessness that can get so bad that suicide seems like the only way out. Mr. President, we know that emotional and behavioral factors, including tobacco use, obesity, and a sedentary lifestyle are ones contributing to physical health problems and huge healthcare costs. By treating physical, psychological, and other factors together in a collaborative setting, we can begin to control and change many of the manifestations of illness. This insurance reform debate has provided an occasion to highlight this model of health and subsequent opportunities to work toward greater parity for mental health treatment. Last night Senator Domenici has called the inequities in the treatment of mental illness and physical illness ``one of the real, continuing injustices in America today * * * someone with schizophrenia is just as sick as your neighbor with cancer.'' Senator Domenici is right. Serious mental illness is devastating in a way that few of us can imagine. Enough of the discrimination we have shown toward those who are mentally ill. Enough of the blind eye and deaf ear we have turned toward mental health. Today, Mr. President, I am asking that this country catch up with science, catch up with the reality of who goes to the doctor with what kind of problem. Today, Mr. President, we need to understand that compassion does not have to be costly. We can use our brains and show our heart and say it is time to work toward parity between mental health and physical health. We can work toward health care treatments that show that mind and body are not separate. As Senator Wellstone said last night, ``for too long mental health has been put in parentheses.'' I agree. I ask that we take away those parentheses that are more like prisons to those suffering and begin to study how we can provide better, comprehensive health care that is fair to all.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure to congratulate New Jersey's very own Rowan College. As you may know, the Profs of Rowan College recently defeated Hope College by a score of 100 to 93 to become the 1995-96 NCAA Division III men's basketball champions. Rowan's basketball team is special in more ways than one. Having finished the year with a 28-4 record, the Profs have once again risen to the challenges and competition of college basketball. This is hardly Rowan's first trip to the Final Four. Under the tutelage of their coach, Dr. John Giannini, the Profs have proven to be no flukes, as they have reached the Final Four three years running. This championship season also marks the end of Terrence Stewart's stellar career. Terrence leaves Rowan College as its all-time leading scorer. Having been named this year's tournament most valuable player, Terrence has much to be proud of. As I can attest to, though, a championship team consists of a group of players who are all dedicated to the game, the work ethic, and the goal of being the best. Indeed, the entire team deserves praise and admiration. Having played in a Final Four tournament myself, I know first hand how much hard work, time, and energy these players have put into achieving this tremendous goal. For college athletes face not only the pressures of the hardwood floor, but also the day-to-day pressures of performing in the classroom. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to once again offer congratulations to Rowan College. Success in the sports arena, like many other endeavors, requires a great deal of dedication, hard work, and courage. I am very proud to have Rowan College represent our State.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to lend my strong support to the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance reform bill. At long last, we are actually moving forward on the basic reforms that will make health insurance once again serve the function of insuring and protecting American families against devastating illness or injury. The problem of health insurance is right at the center of the economic insecurity gripping American families. The 40 million or so people who have no insurance live in fear that a headache or stomach- ache will turn out to be a costly illness. But other workers, who have health insurance, are hardly blessed with security and comfort. As the American economy changes, they know that they can lose their jobs at any moment, with no certainty of being able to find new insurance, or if they do find new insurance, it might not cover the one medical concern that is most likely to become a problem. We have lost the idea of health insurance as real insurance, in which we all pay premiums to spread our own risks over a lifetime, and to share risks across a larger number of people. Instead, health insurance has increasingly become a short-term privilege, that comes and goes with the job, that only comes with certain kinds of jobs, and that comes with exceptions and uncertainties. When you combine that with the increasing insecurity about jobs, working families can't afford the risk. People are trapped in jobs just to keep their insurance, rather than moving on to find the job that would better use their skills, or setting out as an entrepreneur, as many dream of doing. This bill would restore the original concept of insurance to health care. It would allow workers to change jobs without putting insurance coverage at risk, to move from group to individual plans, and to buy insurance despite a preexisting condition. It will help small businesses afford insurance, and help people who want to start their own businesses to do so without worrying about the arbitrary nature of health insurance. It will help only some of the 40 million without insurance to become insured, but it will prevent that number from continuing to increase. Mr. President, I hope that after this legislation becomes law, we will not stop here but continue to closely watch the health insurance market and make whatever further changes need to be made to keep the focus on health and security. The first such change, which I hope will occur by Mother's Day, and perhaps even before this bill gets through conference, is to end the practice of insurance companies forcing new mothers and their infants out of the hospital within a few hours, even against the best judgment of the mother's doctor. In general, I am concerned that this bill, because it is so narrowly targeted at certain insurance practices, could have unintended consequences. I hope that if rates do increase sharply, or if insurers cut back certain areas of business, Congress should be willing to look at slightly broader solutions that would address the health care crisis without unintended consequences. I am generally confident, however, that this legislation will serve the purpose of protecting American families from the double risk of economic and health insecurity. I hope action will be completed quickly so that the President can implement these reforms without delay.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report to S. 735, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Almost 1 year ago today, the Oklahoma City bombing brought into sharp focus the reality and horror of domestic terrorism in America. The death toll of the bombing stands at 167, making it the deadliest mass murder in the history of the United States. While several strong crime fighting provisions that I supported in the Senate version of the bill were deleted by the conference committee, this legislation contains tools that will enable the United States to respond to the international and domestic terrorist threats and prosecute these despicable criminal acts. On balance, Mr. President, this legislation will enhance the ability of law enforcement to combat both foreign and domestic terrorism. Mr. President, the provisions in this bill are vitally important to our efforts to respond to international and domestic threats of terrorism. I, therefore, support this bill, and I am confident that because of our actions today, America will be more fortified against the evils of terrorism.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Nancy Kassebaum and Senator Bill Frist, in announcing a revised and improved version of S. 969, the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996. This bill requires insurers to allow mothers and their newborns to remain in the hospital for a minimum of 48 hours after a normal vaginal delivery and 96 hours after a caesarean section. Shorter hospital stays are permitted, provided that the attending health care provider, in consultation with the mother, determines that is the best course of action. S. 969 has garnered wide support and endorsements. Currently, 34 of our Senate colleagues, 21 Democrats and 13 Republicans are cosponsors. Major medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have endorsed this legislation. More than 83,000 Americans from every State in this Nation have communicated their support to my office. Today, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the clarifications and changes to S. 969 be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am very concerned about the inclusion in the farm bill conference report of language establishing a Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel. This seemingly innocent-sounding organization may actually be a device to delay needed food safety reforms, and give power over crucial safety decisions to a part-time, administratively unworkable group. Under the terms of the conference report, it would be superimposed over the Food Safety and Inspection Service as one more, unaccountable layer of government. Authorization for this new panel was contained in neither version of the farm bill, and it was not subjected to hearings in either body. It was slipped into the report at the last minute and has had no public or press scrutiny. Not only would it duplicate existing bodies such as the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, the panel would also be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act and its open-government requirements. Even worse, should it be used to delay or restrict needed safety reforms, the result will be disastrous, not just for consumers but also for the industry itself. At a time when Britain may be compelled to kill its entire cattle herd because of mad cow disease, the meat industry cannot afford any more actions which will diminish public confidence in our food supply. I am especially concerned that the new panel would delay issuance of the final version of the proposed pathogen reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System [HACCP] rule. This set of regulations, more commonly known as the E. coli rule, is crucial for controlling this deadly organism and modernizing American meat inspection. Mr. President, a year ago last March I introduced the Family Food Protection Act which built on these regulations and extended them even further. I was moved by the death of Katie O'Connell, a beautiful, happy 2-year-old girl from my home State of New Jersey who died from eating a hamburger at a fast food restaurant. Although her meal was contaminated with the deadly pathogen called E. coli, the meat that Katie ate had been declared safe by inspectors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Katie died from a disease that should have been detected through our Federal meat inspection system. Katie is no longer alive because that system failed her and her family and has failed thousands of others across the country. Diseases caused by foodborne illness often strike those most vulnerable in our society: our children. Two summers ago, health officials in New Jersey battled another outbreak of the disease that killed Katie O'Connell. One family, the McCormicks of Newton, NJ, had two of their children (ages 2 and 3) hospitalized. Their lives were in danger because they, too, ate meat that was declared safe by Federal inspectors in the Department of Agriculture. These cases are far from isolated: the Centers for Disease Control estimates that over 9,000 people die and another 6.5 million get sick from food borne illnesses each year. The USDA regulations proposed a year ago February would require a daily testing for salmonella at meat and poultry processing plants across America. Additionally, each of the Nation's 6,000 slaughterhouses and processing plants would have to develop operating plans designed to minimize possible sources of contamination--in other words, to design systems to avoid contamination in advance instead of fighting it after it breaks out. This proposal represents a significant improvement over the current system which has remained in place remarkably unchanged for over 90 years--since the reforms put in place in the wake of Upton Sinclair's wrenching expose, ``The Jungle.'' Ironically, a cost-benefit analysis was done on the proposed rule. Even though it used a very conservative figure for the value of human life, the ratio was still extremely favorable. According to the analysis, while the rule would cost $250 million per year initially, falling to $220 million a year once it was fully implemented, the benefits were at least $1 billion per year. If a more generous value were used for human life, the cost-benefit ratio was, of course, even more positive. And $220 million would be the cost to consumers only if every penny of the system's costs were passed along--just two- tenths of a cent per pound. That's right. Two-tenths of a cent per pound. So a consumer would have to buy 5 pounds of hamburger before incurring even a penny of cost. Contrast this with the cost to consumers of $1 billion to $3.7 billion per year attributable to lost wages and medical costs that otherwise would occur without the rule. Surely, the typical American would be more than willing to pay this modest price to avoid sickness or even death to a loved one. I don't want any more children to die. According to the USDA, the summer months are the prime time for food borne diseases. I question the need to reinvent the wheel at this time. Unfortunately, these proposed regulations have been the subject of countless hearings, roundtable meetings with industry and consumer groups, and on and on. At one point the industry even claimed that the E. coli organism was not technically an adulterant under our food safety laws in an attempt to deny the agency the ability to regulate. This new panel is yet another attempt to delay. Do we really need to waste years, lives, and money redoing old analyses and creating new ones in an effort to stall or even defeat these regulations? Mr. President, I am concerned that these regulations are already a target of members in the other body who would try to delay them further through appropriations riders and other techniques. Instead of delay, I urge my colleagues to stop interfering with these regulations. They are exactly the kinds of regulations we claim to want. They are cost- effective, deal with a serious problem, and have been subjected to close scrutiny by a wide variety of interests. We should not misuse the farm bill to thwart these important regulations.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would like to, if I could, get a few housekeeping measures out of the way. First, so that the Record can clearly reflect who is doing what to the bills that are before us at this moment, this is a bill that contains 33 titles. Every Senator should know that the Senator from New Jersey would not oppose moving 30 of those titles now, pass them by voice vote. I do not oppose them. I do not have holds on them. They can be moved now. If they are not moved now, someone does have a hold on them. It is not me. I also make the other point that the distinguished chairman alluded to saying that these bills in this package have been on the calendar for over a year. Well, maybe some of them have been, not all of them. Indeed, there are some bills in this package that have not even been reported from the Energy Committee. There was no vote in the Energy Committee on at least 6 or 7 or 8 of these bills. They were added on the floor into this big package without them ever being reported out of the Energy Committee or having a hearing in this Congress. Some had a hearing in the last Congress, so that is not a big deal. They should be reported out of the committee, but they were not. The other point is, the Senator from New Jersey has indeed not held all bills. The distinguished Senator from Alaska alluded to the fact that a bill that he was very interested in moved without any problem. So let us get that housekeeping matter out of the way first. We could move almost 30 titles by voice vote. Let us get to the real issue here, which is the Utah wilderness bill, which is one of the titles, which is the title that I strongly oppose. Why do I oppose this? This is the most important public lands bill since the Alaska land bill of 1980. This is the most important public land bill since the Alaska bill over 15 years ago. What are we talking about here? We are talking about declaring a part of Utah wilderness. There are two areas in question. One is the basin and range area. That is that vast area west of Salt Lake City, an area of salt flats and small mountain ranges. The writer John McPhee says that ``Each range here'' in the basin range ``is like a warship standing on its own, and the Great Basin is an ocean of loose sediment with these mountain ranges standing in it as if they were members of a fleet without precedent.'' So one of the areas we are talking about is this unique area, basin and range. The other area we are talking about is the great Colorado Plateau in southern Utah. The part of Utah that Harold Ickes, the first Secretary of the Interior during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, said almost the whole part of Utah should be a national park, that almost the whole part of that southern part of Utah should be a national park. It is a vast plateau and canyonlands of incredible beauty, vast plateaus like the Kaiparowits Plateau or the Dirty Devil Wilderness, some of the most remote and rugged landscapes in the West. Yet some of the most interesting records of those who inhabited this land before America--before Europeans ever came to the United States--are also located in this section of Utah, and the remains of the great Anasazi, who were here long before the first European set foot on this continent. All of this vast beauty is in southern Utah. It is a genuine wilderness: Remote, rugged, deep-cut canyons that are sandstone cut, with deep rivers. It is the place of Zion and Bryce and Canyonlands. It is unique. It deserves wilderness designation. We now have before the Senate the Utah wilderness bill. What is the problem with the Utah wilderness bill? Well, too little land is protected as wilderness; and too few protections are given to that land. In addition, the inventory process, the process by which the Bureau of Land Management determined which areas should qualify as wilderness, was flawed from the beginning. In the State of Utah, there are 22 million acres under the control of the Bureau of Land Management. Under the bill before the Senate, 2 million of these acres--2 million of those acres--will be set aside as wilderness. That is all, 2 million acres. Now, there are too few protections, as well. Just take the vast Kaiparowits Plateau, a plateau of juniper forests, trees that have been there long before the first European set his foot forth on the United States. It is a vast wilderness, one of the most vast wildernesses in the lower 48 States. Under this bill, about 50,000 acres of that plateau will be transferred to the State of Utah, an area for which a Dutch company is already negotiating to put a gigantic coal mine--a gigantic coal mine--in the heart of that wilderness. What about Dirty Devil? There, of course, the area that is excluded will be set aside for tar sands development. The legislation also would allow new dams, called reservoirs, new dams. One thought that in the Colorado Plateau this issue was settled in the 1960's when the dams that were proposed at Dinosaur Monument were defeated because the people of this country realized that this incredible beauty, silence and time standing still needed to be protected, should not be blocked by a dam with another lake going up the Canyonlands and destroying both the record of human habitation and the possibility of walking in the Canyonlands. What else? Well, roads and motor vehicles are allowed to an unprecedented extent in areas which are wilderness. Also, you give the State the right to designate which areas it wants without regard to environmental sensitivity, and with great concern that the lands that the Federal Government would exchange with the State will not be of equal value. In fact, in the Interior Department's comment on this bill, as embodied in the report, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Sylvia Baca, says the following: ``The tracts proposed to be obligated by the State have high economic value for mineral, residential, and industrial development. The fair market value of these lands may be 5 to 10 times more than the value of the lands that would be transferred to the Federal Government. Despite the imbalance in favor of State, the bill provides for increased compensation to the State if encumbrances on Federal lands being transferred result in an imbalance, but not the other way around. This would only add to the inequality of values in this proposed exchange. Mr. President, if the coal mining development is not enough, if the tar sands development is not enough, if the oil exploration is not enough, the new dams are not enough, if the roads and motor vehicles are not enough, if the kind of unequal value trade between State and Federal Government is not enough, what about this provision in the bill that sets aside the 2 million acres for wilderness, but attaches no water right to this wilderness land? These are areas that get 10 to 12 inches of rain a year--not much. What happens if that water is diverted, is used in another way, and does not get to the wilderness? Whatever fragile life is there dies, and it is over. In Nevada, a State not totally dissimilar, not nearly as dramatic in some of its beauty as southern Utah, but still a remarkably beautiful State with a very similar topography, when the Nevada wilderness bill passed, the authors of that bill made sure that there was water attached to that wilderness so that you would not have a wilderness, essentially, destroyed. Finally, in terms of objections to the bill, there is a so-called hard release language. Now, the release language, which basically means when you do a wilderness bill you release lands, lands that are not wilderness, but you do not release them forever and ever, because at some other point you might want to consider whether they are wilderness. The bill as originally drafted said that the land should be managed for nonwilderness multiple uses only--that was dropped--and a substitute was offered that said ``the full range of uses.'' However, the existing amendment, the existing section of the bill, also says that ``lands released shall not be managed for the purpose of protecting their suitability for wilderness designation.'' This is a kind of belt and suspenders approach. The previous version of the bill as reported out had both belt and suspenders, two protections against further wilderness designation. The current version got rid of the suspenders but leaves the belt. It is still unprecedented in wilderness bills. Mr. President, these are all serious flaws with this bill that need to be addressed that might be able to be addressed. The flawed process is what makes me doubtful. Just a brief recapitulation: in 1964 the wilderness bill passed. What was the definition of wilderness in a 1964 bill? ``A wilderness, in contrast with areas where man in his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and the community of life are untrammeled by man and where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.'' That was the definition of wilderness. In 1976, that was applied to Bureau of Land Management lands about 280 million acres nationwide. And in 1976, 1977, the Bureau of Land Management was given 15 years to identify which areas under its control would qualify for wilderness, possibly, to inventory possible wilderness areas. But do you know what happened in Utah? In Utah, they completed it in 1 year. They inventoried all 22 million acres controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. At the end of that year, they eliminated 20 million acres for consideration as wilderness. What was the basis upon which they eliminated these 20 million acres? It was that they lacked outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. That is why they were eliminated. In the fall of 1980, a representative of the Sierra Club toured a section of the Kaiparowits Plateau with the Utah BLM Director, Gary Wicks. Their helicopter touched down on the southern tip of Four-Mile Bench, which is part of the plateau. She says: We stood on the edge of as far as the eye can see. Incredibly beautiful, utterly wild land. And I would say, ``Gary, why are you eliminating this from wilderness?'' And he would say, ``Because there are no outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation.'' And I would say, ``And there are no outstanding opportunities for solitude either?'' And Gary would say, ``You are right. You can have solitude here, but it is not outstanding solitude.' And the man kept a straight face while he said that. She concludes by saying, ``If the helicopter left us there, we would have known what outstanding solitude was all about,'' because she would have been left in this vast wilderness, one of the most rugged areas of America. But it was on the basis that these lands did not provide sufficient solitude that they were eliminated from wilderness designation. That flies in the face of virtually everything. Well, when only 2.6 million acres were set aside out of the 22.5 million acres, under the control of BLM, and only 2.6 were set aside, a lot of Utah people got very upset. They filed petitions and they filed briefs; they had 30 days in which to do that. And because of their efforts, it included 3.2 acres for wilderness. And since then, that is the amount of land in Utah today that had been managed as wilderness; 3.2 million acres are now being protected as if they were wilderness. In 1991, BLM came up with its final suggestion--1.9 million acres. The Utah congressional delegation introduced its bill, which was 1.8 million. Two days ago on the floor, they modified it to 2 million acres. Well, there was another group of Utah residents that said this was kind of a hurried process, with helicopter flyovers, and only cutting out 2.6 million. So they said, ``Let us do this scientifically,'' and they did that and came up with 5.7 million acres of Utah that should be wilderness. I do not know if it is 5.7. I am sure that there is some number lower than that which could preserve the wilderness areas. But I certainly know that 2 million is not enough and, particularly, with the language that is in this bill. The real irony is that this is an attempt, while the protections for mining, coal, tar sands, oil exploration, dams, et cetera, in a State where only eight-tenths of 1 percent of the jobs are in mining, in a State where only 2 percent of the State economic product is in mining. The future is not there. The future is in this beauty that is self- evident to anybody that comes to southern Utah or to the basin and range. The real irony is the Senator from New Jersey, who comes from a State that is 89 percent urban, is making this argument in a State that is 87 percent urban--one of the best kept secrets of the West, the most urbanized area of America. People from this country are coming into the cities. So I believe that this would even be in the long-term interest of the State. But that is not what this is about. The Utah economy is really not my province. It is my observation, as somebody who has looked at these issues. But what I want to preserve is the possibility for silence and the possibility for time that exists only in a wilderness. I would like to read, in closing, just two things from a book prepared by several writers about the Utah wilderness. One is by John McPhee, who wrote in ``Basin and Range'' the following, talking about that basin and range area west of Salt Lake City, that geologic formation that has been stretching for several million years. Reno and Salt Lake City, 7 million years ago, were 60 miles closer together. They are 60 miles further apart today because the geological structure is moving. When it moves, the crust cracks, and up pops mountain ranges. These are the mountain ranges that we are trying to protect in the broader wilderness bill. McPhee writes: Supreme over all is silence. Discounting the cry of the occasional bird, the wailing of a pack of coyotes, silence--a great spatial silence--is pure in the Basin and Range . . . ``No rustling of leaves in the wind, no rumbling of distant traffic, no chatter of birds or insects or children. You are alone with God in that silence. There in the white flat silence, I began for the first time to feel a slight sense of shame for what we were proposing to do. Did we really intend to invade this silence with our trucks and bulldozers and after a few years leave it a radioactive junkyard? Another writer--this will be the final one, and I quoted him the other day--is Charles Wilkinson. He was talking about taking his son into the Colorado Plateau. He says: One long hike took us down into a narrow canyon branching off the Escalante River. The sandstone walls, smoldering red, thrust straight up. Scattered pinyon and juniper, and ferns and grasses around the springs, accented the color embedded in the canyon sides. The Wingate Sandstone had been the rock of surrounding mountain ranges. During the Triassic, some 200 million years ago, water worked the mountains, wearing them into sand. Winds lifted the grains and piled them up as dunes on the desert floor. The sands hardened back into rock. Then the whole Colorado Plateau rose. . . The creek in this now canyon would have none of it, resolutely holding its ground against the upthrusting Wingate and younger formations on top of it, cutting down 1,000 feet into rock and time. Much of the day we walked up to our calves in the creek. Not long ago we scorned this land as remote, desolate. That thinking led to the postwar Big Build-up and the coal plants, dams, and uranium mines. But today we know southern Utah, in the heart of the Colorado Plateau, for what it really is. The geologic events were so cataclysmic and so recent, and the frail soils so erodible, that the Colorado Plateau holds more graphic displays of exposed formation than anywhere on earth. The dry air has preserved the ancient people's durable and magical rock art, villages, kivas, pots, and baskets to a degree found nowhere else. Yet our society seems to lack the will to care for the Canyon Country. The Utah congressional delegation . . . wants to declare some fragments of the backcountry wilderness and then throw the rest open to development. That would be so short-sighted, so contemptuous of time. The old images on the walls were made so long ago, the walls themselves even longer. Time runs out to the future, too: give our grandchildren, and those far down the line from them, the blessing of taking a daughter or son into the weaving, rosy side canyons, of finding their own Dream Panels, and of being instructed by the young person on how to scramble out. Time, oh, time . . . May we not forsake you now. Mr. President, this is about time and silence, and the chance for future generations to explore and understand this vast and beautiful wilderness.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. One minute.