Bill Bradley

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. There was a motion made last night? I do not think there was a motion last night relating to any time allotted to the other side.

Mr. BRADLEY. Reserving my right to object, my understanding is Senator Nickles' amendment was on a second-degree amendment, and Senator Nickles chose to withdraw his second-degree amendment. I do not think there was ever an agreement on time.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I have no objection to time off the bill.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this amendment eliminates the tax increase on people making under $30,000 a year. This bill contains a tax cut for estates of $5 million, a tax cut in the amount of $1.7 million. We are not touching that tax cut, but we are trying to prevent the tax increase that will come in this bill for people making under $30,000 a year. The EIC offsets income taxes, Social Security, and excise taxes. The other side has talked only about income taxes. Last year, with $114 billion in Federal taxes, only $12 billion of that was income taxes from people making under $30,000 a year. Why increase taxes on those hard-working Americans? These are Americans who work every day, and they pay their taxes, and they support their families. This motion is progrowth and profamily. It deserves to be supported because it is a tax cut for individual working families.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, as Plato stated in his Republic, any society which would be strong and healthy, must ensure that every citizen finds an occupation which best suits his or her individual talents. Such a philosophy resonates through the halls of our Nation's vocational schools, and today I rise to honor the oldest vocational school in the country, the Middlesex County Vocational and Technical High School of New Brunswick, NJ. In the United States, vocational schools play a vital role in maintaining a balance in occupations that are needed to make our society tick and our economy hum. Vocational schools recognize the fact that young adults have talents that lie in a wide range of areas. A natural bent toward mechanics or carpentry which might be left untapped in the normal high school environment, is brought to light, cultivated and celebrated in a vocational high school. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the Middlesex County Vocational and Technical High School, the Nation's oldest such institution. In 1913, the New Jersey State Legislature of Public Law passed chapter 294, providing for the establishment of county vocational schools. A year later, H. Brewster Willis approved a plan to create a vocational school system in Middlesex County. Soon after, schools were set up in New Brunswick, Perth Amboy and Jamesburg which taught such skills as mechanical drawing, carpentry, printing, cooking, dressmaking and agriculture. Enrollment increased steadily over the years, and the influx of talented students spurred the board of education to create new schools and to expand existing ones. New courses were added and different age groups included as the program began to grow and realize its full potential. In 1949, the State board of education approved the establishment of the Middlesex County Adult Technical School for the purpose of providing full-time pre-employment training for adults in skilled trades and technical occupations. Today, the Middlesex County Vocational and Technical Schools remain a thriving and essential part of New Jersey's economic community. Therefore, I am pleased today to have the opportunity to honor the Middlesex County Vocational and Technical Schools on the anniversary of its establishment.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Will the Senator yield at that point for a question?

Mr. BRADLEY. The Senator said--would the Senator read again, once again, what was it the Joint Tax Committee said about the various taxes that were offset?

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the assertions by the other side that the child credit is more generous than the earned income tax credit for families with children at all income levels bewilders me. I have four kids. I make $15,000 a year. I have a very tiny income tax liability, very tiny. The child credit is not refundable. I get no benefit at all from the child credit--zero. I lose about $3,500 in benefits with the loss in the EITC at $28,000. The Senator picks the absolute perfect number. Why? Because the earned income tax credit loses its value the higher the income level. So when it gets to $28,000, it is not worth anything. At that point, clearly the child credit is more valuable. That is not policy. That is mathematics. Then the issue of--well, the chart that the Senator had with the growth of the EITC, it grows because we are giving them bigger tax cuts. That is why it grows. So you put that chart up, and you see the bars go higher and higher. That means a bigger tax cut for families earning under $28,000 a year. If you do not want a tax cut, then you want to support the program that would curtail this. Deny the third year of the tax cut. That is what you are saying essentially. Basically, the tax cut for working families was put in in 1993. It was phased in over 3 years and the other side is saying do not give the third year. That is why it grows. Once you get to the next year, it is flat because the tax cuts will have been provided. There will be no more tax cut in the fourth year. It is not some kind of conspiracy. It is mathematics. You give a bigger tax cut, you lose more revenue. We chose to give a big tax cut to offset Social Security, to offset income taxes for working families. And you know what. There are a lot of provisions in the Tax Code that say you get a credit against income. They are largely corporate. The other side is not calling that welfare. That is not welfare. But somehow when it offsets the income of a working family with kids, that is welfare. Mr. President, it is beyond me; 78 percent of the earned income tax credit goes to offset Social Security and income tax. The other portion is a refundable credit to those families making $13,000, $14,000 a year who otherwise would not get anything. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is correct. If you want to give those families something because they are working, but they do not pay any income tax and they are at a low enough income, they do not pay enough Social Security tax, you have to make it refundable and then you have to appropriate the money. That is what we do here. And this vast amount of money that is appropriated, as the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma says, is appropriated because there is not a way to offset the Social Security taxes. It is pretty simple. It is not complicated. And it boils down to whether you want to give a break to families with children or whether you do not. There is the big deal about families that do not have children. We do not want to give them anything. If you are making $16,000, $17,000 a year, you do not have any kids, somehow or another you do not get anything here. Forget it. You are not worth it. You are struggling. You are working hard. But somehow you do not qualify for this. In fact, we do not care about it. We do not care what your Social Security taxes are. Somehow you are a nonentity. We do not think that. We think that if you earn under $28,000 a year, you ought to get a break, particularly in a bill that gives $1.7 billion in relief for estate taxes.

Mr. BRADLEY. If the Senator will yield, I think the Senator is quoting me in my conversation with him, and he should attribute that to me.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I know that this debate is being held opposite the eighth inning of the World Series. And I will keep all Members in the Senate guessing as to what the score is, so we can focus on the issue before us, which is the earned-income tax credit. Mr. President, the earned-income tax credit is a way to provide tax relief to working Americans of modest income. It is the most significant tax relief provided to working Americans of modest income that we have seen in the last 20 years. It has given many who are striving to make a better life for themselves and their families under very difficult circumstances the money they need to send their kids to parochial school, the money they need to maybe buy a little bigger apartment, pay the utility bills. It gives them the money that allows them to continue up the ladder of upward mobility. Mr. President, the bill that we are considering now raises taxes on those working Americans. It essentially defers the third year of the tax cut that was passed in 1993 for those working Americans. In 1981, we passed a tax cut that benefited disproportionately the wealthy, and Democrats constantly made the debate that we should defer the third year of that tax cut because the wealthy did not need more tax relief. We now have a proposal where the third year of a tax cut is about to be provided to working Americans of modest income, and the Republicans are attempting to defer that tax cut for working Americans of modest income. Mr. President, I oppose this effort. I opposed it in the committee. I think that it is shortsighted. I think that it is not progrowth. I think it is not profamily. I think to raise taxes on families earning under $28,000 a year in income is an antifamily, antigrowth measure. Mr. President, in this bill, according to the Department of the Treasury, almost 50 percent of the tax breaks go to people making more than $100,000 a year; at the same time, families with incomes below $30,000, which represent over 40 percent of the American families, face a tax increase. Now, Mr. President, if this were the only measure in this bill, this tax increase on working families, I would oppose it. If it were the only measure in the bill, I would oppose it. But it is not the only measure in the bill. There are many other provisions that benefit many special interests, but there is one provision, in addition to this tax increase on working Americans of modest income, that I think draws the distinction between the parties very clearly, and that is the estate tax provision in this bill. The estate tax is, of course, a tax assessed when one passes one's estate on to one's heirs. There is a $600,000 exemption, meaning that if you have an estate, when you pass away, if it is under $600,000 you pay no estate tax. Every year only 1 percent of those who die pass on estates of more than $600,000. Only 0.2 percent of those who die in a year pass on estates of more than $2 million. Embodied in this bill that increases taxes on families working and earning under $30,000 a year, is a tax cut for estates of $5 million, a tax cut of $1.7 million on average. Let me repeat that. In this tax bill is a tax cut of $1.7 million for estates valued at $5 million. Once again, Mr. President, the distinction is stark. While on the one hand, a $1.7 million tax cut is given to estates of $5 million, we have a tax increase on families earning under $30,000. I personally cannot understand the politics of this. I do not understand the politics of why. I do not understand the politics of really to whose advantage it lies, except those who get the $1.7 million tax cut. So, Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered says, ``Let's not increase taxes through eliminating the earned-income tax credit.'' I will get to that in a minute. But the other thing that this tax cut does is, frankly, increase the national debt. Let me repeat that. This tax cut increases the national debt. This is a deficit reduction package. A deficit reduction package is for the purpose of reducing the national debt. This increases the national debt. Why? Because in the budget resolution, there is a provision that says if there is an economic benefit from all this budget cutting, then that economic benefit, in its total amount, will be spent as a tax cut. That is what the budget resolution said. The CBO says if we enact this budget with these budget cuts that it will save about $170 billion that according to the budget resolution, over a period of 5 to 7 years, would be used for a tax cut. But this tax cut costs $221 to $224 billion. So this tax cut adds about $54 billion to the national debt over this period. There is no disputing those numbers. There are no mysterious letters from the Joint Tax Committee. There are no nuances on words, no playing on the difference between income, Social Security, and excise. There is just a stark number, a $54 billion more increase of the national debt. So it seems to me that on two grounds, this is not merited. First, because it gives it away to estates of $5 million a $1.7 million tax cut and raises taxes on families earning under $30,000. In addition to that, it increases the national debt by $54 billion over the period of this bill. But that is not the worst when it comes to the question of the national debt, because immediately after the window of 7 years, there is an explosion of debt. For example, the capital gains provision will cost about $40 billion in the first years, which is about $5 to $6 billion a year, but in the remaining years, it costs $30 billion. So it jumps from $10 billion, $11 billion, $12 billion a year. Or take the IRA proposal; the backloaded IRA cost $7 million in the first 7 years, and $12 billion, a little less than $2 billion a year, and in the next 3 years costs $21 billion, which is another $7 billion a year. So talking about the budget deficit, this is an explosion of the debt, an explosion of the debt in the outyears. On both those grounds, I strongly oppose these provisions. The question is, is this a tax increase? We have a very skillful maneuvering being exercised by the other side. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico reported his numbers that for people earning under $75,000, 72 percent of the tax cut goes to people earning under $75,000 a year. True. But let us look a little deeper. The bulk of that goes to people earning between $30,000 and $75,000. The tax increase on families earning under $30,000 is still there. In other words, what the distinguished Senator from New Mexico said can be true and still not refute the fact that there is a dramatic tax increase on families earning under $30,000. Then, of course, we have this famous joint tax study which concludes that less than 1.5 percent of all households will have an income tax increase as a result of EITC reforms. ``There it is,'' says the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Delaware, ``only 1.5 percent have an income tax increase.'' Maybe, but what about Social Security taxes? If you are earning $25,000 a year, the income tax is going to be a big problem; you are going to pay it. The big tax you pay is a Social Security tax, and the earned income credit is for the purpose of offsetting taxes and Social Security taxes. So everything that the Joint Tax Committee says in their letter can be true and a $20 billion increase in Social Security taxes can still be valid. So, Mr. President, anyway you cut this, this results in a tax increase for families earning under $30,000 a year. In my State, which has the second highest per capita income, that means about 13 percent of the families in my State will have a tax increase. I saw the distinguished Senator from New Mexico on the floor saying 40 percent of the families in his State would have a tax increase because they earn under $30,000 a year. That is because their per capita income is lower. So, Mr. President, we are going to hear a lot about errors and yet in the opponents' provision, only $1.6 billion deals with anything related to compliance. If they are so interested in fraud and error, why are they not doing more to deal with compliance? In the amendment I have suggested, I keep $1.6 billion in compliance measures. And then, of course, the other side will show a graph. ``This is a gigantic explosion of growth in this program, an explosion of growth.'' Mr. President, when you give somebody a tax cut, you lose revenue. In 1993, we chose to give families earning under $30,000 a year a 3-year tax cut, which means that tax cut grows. So when you see the chart that they might show that shows a figure with a line going up saying ``Growth of EITC,'' translate in your mind: Increasing tax cut for families earning under $30,000 a year. Yes, and if you do not want to give them a tax cut, then you would support the Republican position. If you believe they should have the third year of their tax cut, just as the wealthy had the third year of their tax cut under the bill passed in 1981, then you would support the Democratic position. Do we want to raise taxes on working families or not? Which is the progrowth, profamily policy? I do not think that there is much of an argument on the other side. They will say, ``Oh, no, we have a child credit.'' Bravo. Let me compliment them. I wish they had supported my amendment in the Finance Committee that would have stricken everything in this bill except the child credit, the adoption credit, the student loan interest deduction. They voted against it. Why? Because you want to have that other provision in the bill, the estate tax provision. Remember? A $5 million estate gets an average tax cut of $1.7 million. That is why you did not support the amendment and simply have a tax cut for working families, because you wanted the tax cut for estates of $5 million. Strike it from the bill, show us that you want only tax cuts for working families. If not, admit to what this game is all about. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, no one disputes what the Senator has just said. EIC is available for families under to $28,000. He is saying at the same time this is nothing but a welfare program. He is saying, fine, we will keep the welfare part of this. But if you start to make it a little bit--sorry. We will not offset your payroll taxes. I mean, that is not an answer to the problem that we posed. Yes, they posed it so that if you have poverty and you are right at the poverty level and you have family now, you have kids--not if you are single and poor, but if you have kids, then, yes, it will offset the Social Security earned income. Of course, you do not pay a whole lot of income taxes in poverty. You pay virtually no income tax when you are in poverty. So you only have Social Security. So the earned income would offset Social Security in poverty. But not at $28,000. Not when the family starts to make a little money. Not when they are making $20,000, $25,000, $28,000, $29,000. Not there, no, no, no. That way, you pay more taxes. Welcome to the middle class, the Republican middle class. You are middle class. You begin to make it? Pay more taxes. If you have that estate of $5 million, you get a $1.7 million tax cut. That is the story here. There is no other story. It has not been refuted. A 3- year tax cut in 1993 for working families? Republicans say do not give them that third year. Do not give them that third year of tax cut. Pro-family? Pro-growth? Hardly.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues in recognizing today, October 19, as National Mammography Day. Today, 500 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Most likely, each will be frightened, uncertain about 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, co-workers and caregivers, will worry deeply about her. Today, 150 women will die of breast cancer. Their lives will be ended prematurely. Their families and friends, coworkers and caregivers will be grief-stricken. Tragically, today's numbers are every day's numbers in our Nation. Listen to the enormity of this disease: one out of nine women will get breast cancer; 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 on them, have suffered as well. We stagger under these numbers, as we search for the causes and the 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 women at risk are being thoroughly investigated, we are still ourselves at risk for feeling helpless in the face of this killer. However, we do have one sure thing to offer to women and today we bring that to national attention. With mammography, we offer the possibility of [[Page S 15312]] early detection. Along with breast self-examination, this is one of the best steps women can take for themselves in the fight against breast cancer. And it is the single best service our health care system can make available to all women in this struggle. Offering this service is not enough. We must also assure the quality of the service, especially the equipment used. Early detection made possible by mammography is wise health care. With early detection we can reduce the mortality rate by one-third. Furthermore, early discovery of the disease allows for less radical and less costly treatments. Equally important, with the provision of mammography, we say to American women that we understand the trauma of this disease and will persist in efforts to triumph over it. Remembering that these women are our wives, sisters, mothers, daughters, and friends, I am proud to add my voice in recognition of National Mammography Day.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Connecticut. Title II is authored by the only Cuban- American Democrat in the Congress, Bob Menendez of New Jersey. For once, we should be ready when the commander of a Communist dictatorship falls. All this says is when the dictatorship falls, we should have in place emergency relief measures and assistance that will effect the transition from a command economy to a market economy, from a totalitarian state to a democracy. It says for once let us be ready when a Communist dictator falls. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I have sent an amendment to the desk to ensure that high school exchanges with students from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union will continue to build bridges between our country and theirs. In essence, this amendment exempts the high school exchange program from the operation of section 107 of this bill, which would otherwise allow such programs to cut off if an NIS country engages in certain activity enumerated in that section. This program is unique. It calls for a personal involvement that other aid programs do not demand of Americans. It not only benefits the newly independent states, but it benefits Americans as well. Host families and American students learn from having foreign students in their homes and classrooms. Americans studying in Kiev, St. Petersburg, Vilnius, and Almaty are witnessing first hand the new frontiers of democracy and they return home with a better understanding of the people of those nations. Since 1993, over 12,000 high school students from the New Independent States have visited the United States to live with American families and study in this country. As their home countries of Armenia, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the other NIS countries are making the transition to post-Soviet societies, these students come to our country eager to learn about the privileges and opportunities that come with living in a democracy and free market economy. This program plays a tremendously important role in our relationship with the newly independent states. It allows these young students to experience life in a multicultural, market-based democracy. It forges connections between the people of this country and theirs, which will continue as these future leaders take back to their home countries a new perspective on the world and valuable, lasting bonds. But the impact of the exchanges goes beyond those students who are actually chosen to participate in the program. There is a ripple effect, as these students share their experiences with their families, friends, and fellow students back home. This unique program accords tremendous benefits and for that reason, it must be allowed to continue.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Hatch as well as Senator Cohen, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Specter, Senator Murray, and Senator Feinstein to submit a resolution to declare the week of October 15 the ``Week Without Violence.'' Mr. President, just look at yesterday's papers. Dateline Washington: A D.C. police officer dies after being shot while on duty. Dateline Arizona: One person dies and many more are hurt after suspected sabotage derails an Amtrak train. Dateline Philadelphia: A man is arrested for allegedly committing two sexual assaults. And the list continues. All of these stories are from yesterday's newspapers, where tales of death and violence fill page after page of newsprint. Unfortunately, there was nothing unusual about yesterday. It was just a typical day in America--where the headlines of today are torn from the nightmares of days past. These stories, and the hundreds like them across the country, focus a disturbing spotlight on the prevalence of violence in our society. The statistics are alarming. Every year, 2 million people are injured each year as a result of violent crime. There were a staggering 24,500 murders reported in 1993; losses from medical expenses, lost pay, property, and other crime-related costs total billions of dollars a year. But it does not stop there. Violence against women in their own homes causes more total injuries to women than rape, muggings, and car accidents combined. And half of all the women murdered in the United States are killed by their male partners. It continues. Instead of buying books and computers, our schools are buying the latest metal detectors and are hiring teams of armed guards. Schools have had to choose between education and safety. And still, 15 percent of suburban teenagers and 17 percent of urban teenagers say they have carried a gun within the last month. It is nearly inconceivable to think that parents have to send their children off to school each day worrying that they might be gunned down, but in many areas, that's a fact of life. These stories and statistics may be unbelievable, but they are true. Violence in our society touches the inner city and the small town, rich and poor, black and white. Violence does not discriminate. But what can we do? Do we lock ourselves in our homes, shut out from society? Do we arm ourselves with latest automatic weapons? Do we try to strike first, to keep the harm away from us? Or do we identify practical alternatives to this violence? Do we try to make a difference? And do we try to leave a safer society for our children? The choice here is clear. In order to combat the rise of violence, we must be proactive. We need to provide real choices for our children. They do not have to resort to guns, violence, and hate. Toward that end, the YWCA is sponsoring a nationwide Week Without Violence campaign. Beginning this Sunday, the YWCA will provide a forum for identifying real solutions to the problem of violence. Through education and discussion, we can provide our children with real change. By working to fight violence in our communities, schools can again become centers for learning and homes can again be rid of the fear that has permeated their walls. Through the work of organizations like the YWCA, our communities can choose actions other than violence. In bringing its message to the schools, community centers, workplaces, and houses of worship, the YWCA's Week Without Violence can provide resistance to this rising tide. Violence against women does not have to continue. Assault and murder rates do not have to rise. Hate words do not have to dominate public discourse. There are alternatives. And the Week Without Violence will aid our communities in identifying them. In concurrence with, and in support of, the YWCA's Week Without Violence campaign, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, may we have order?

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Biden amendment to increase by $75 million the appropriation for enforcement of the Violence Against Women's Act. As an original cosponsor of the amendment, it is vitally important that Congress does not waiver in its commitment to ensure that women in America are free from the devastation of domestic violence. Domestic violence is a social sickness, and women and children are its most common casualties. Violence against women in the home is a heinous crime being committed behind locked doors and pulled shades in cities and towns across America. By committing this additional funding to the Violence Against Women's Act, Congress will give women the tools to bring this crime out of the shadows. Mr. President, a policeman recently said, ``The most dangerous place to be is in one's home between Saturday night at 6 p.m. and Sunday at 6 p.m.'' He forgot to add, ``Especially if you're a woman.'' A 10-year study found that in cases where the identity of the killer is known, over one half of all women murdered in America were killed by a current or former male partner or by a male family member. Studies have also shown that violence against women in the home causes more total injuries to women than rape, muggings, and car accidents combined. In my home State of New Jersey, there were 66,248 domestic violence offenses reported by the police in 1993. Overall, women were the victims in 83 percent of all domestic violence offenses. Mr. President, 41 women lost their lives as a result of domestic violence disputes in my home State in 1993. These are not nameless, faceless statistics, Mr. President, these are women who endured torture and abuse during their marriages and were violently murdered. Mr. President, I have introduced a bill to create community response teams around the country. Community response teams work in tandem with police to help victims of domestic violence right when a crisis occurs. By working together, community response teams and police can provide victims with the services so essential to them after they have been battered or beaten in their home. Mr. President, an increasing number of jurisdictions in the State of New Jersey are employing community response teams. For example, in Middlesex County, which includes South River, there are currently five jurisdictions with community response teams. South River, with a population of approximately 15,000, has a community response team employing 7 community volunteers. In Woodbridge, a community response team of approximately 30 volunteers is serving a population of 100,000. These community response teams, serving both large and small communities, are effectively assisting women who are suffering physical and mental abuse. Mr. President, Violence Against Women's Act funding is available for these successful programs in New Jersey to continue to aid victims of domestic violence. In addition, Violence Against Women's Act funding will assist in the fight against domestic violence by providing needed resources to prosecutors and police officers. Mr. President, if domestic violence is to be obliterated in our society, we need to provide communities with the resources they need to prevent instances of violence and protect victims from further abuse. By providing additional funding to the Violence Against Women's Act, Congress will strengthen the lines of defense in the battle against domestic violence.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the New Jersey State First Aid Council which is holding its 67th annual convention from October 5 through October 8. The New Jersey State First Aid Council has its roots in Belmar, NJ where at the scene of a fire in 1929, Charles Measure, the council's founder, saw a badly injured police officer receive only blank stares and helpless shrugs from a crowd of onlookers who did not know what to do to help staunch the flow of blood. Although someone eventually stepped forward and saved the officer's life, the incident convinced Measure that there was a need for organized emergency response to such crisis situations. From the ashes of that confused and terrifying scene arose a new sense of security and purpose in the State, as the New Jersey State First Aid Council was born. Developing a statewide organization was not easy, but Measure and his associates persisted until their idea became reality. In November of 1931, the eight squads came together to form the first district, and the council swung into action. Measure's decision to step forward and pioneer this first operation resulted in New Jersey trailblazing a path in first aid work in the United States. Mr. President, for the last 64 years, the council has served our State in countless ways. They have faithfully followed the tenets of their original constitution: `` * * * to bring together all first aid and safety squads; to organize and promote first aid in a systematic manner; to assist all squads in the purchase of supplies and equipment; to standardize all equipment, especially inhalators; and to further advance first aid instruction in conjunction with the Red Cross.'' Over the last six decades, the council's membership has swelled to 448 squads with over 14,000 members throughout the State. The council has also worked to promote community education and awareness regarding significant health issues. In recent years, the council has worked tirelessly in support of legislation to fund the training of emergency medical technicians and in 1992 the First Aid Technician's Act was passed. The act assesses $0.50 for every moving motor vehicle violation for a fund to pay for training and recertification of EMT's. The council has over $4 million in its coffers that will eventually be disbursed for training. I have often emphasized the inadequacy of relying purely on political means to solve problems in our society. Solutions are not to be found solely in maintaining alliance to a party, or in voting for a particular candidate, but are to be found in the development of a strong civic society and in confronting our problems at the community and family level. Therefore, I am happy to recognize the New Jersey State First Aid Council as an example of the volunteer spirit which I believe does more to strengthen our communities than many a bill or amendment. The volunteers of the New Jersey State First Aid Council display an enormous amount of compassion and respect for their fellow human beings, as well as a tireless commitment to creating a safer living environment in our State. Robert W. Snowfield, president of the council, has said that being a volunteer EMT is ``something you must possess in your heart and mind.'' This is undoubtedly true, since the only reward these volunteers receive at the end of a long day is the satisfaction that their sacrifices have helped to make their own community a better place to live. Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of this dynamic organization and its selfless, dedicated members and congratulate them on the occasion of their 67th annual convention.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Moseley-Braun amendment requiring that the transfer of enforcement of housing discrimination from the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] to the Department of Justice [DOJ] cannot take place unless DOJ is given adequate resources and manpower to continue administrative enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. Mr. President, I am opposed to transferring enforcement authority from HUD to DOJ. Establishing an organizational and physical infrastructure to handle administrative enforcement of housing discrimination at the Department of Justice represents a poor policy choice and a needless expenditure of taxpayer funds. Such a transfer would not result in improvements in either efficiency or function. However, Mr. President, I support this amendment requiring that such a transfer cannot occur unless continued administrative enforcement of housing discrimination is ensured. Pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, HUD has an administrative structure that is responsible for enforcing fair housing violations against individuals. Administrative functions include writing regulations, seeking voluntary compliance agreements with members of the housing industry, and establishing and overseeing a network of State and local agencies to process complaints under local fair housing laws and ordinances. Roughly 10,000 fair housing complaints are filed annually with HUD, and the agency has 10 regional enforcement centers around the country to process these complaints. In contrast to HUD's mandate to investigate individual complaints and to settle disputes administratively, DOJ has independent authority under the Fair Housing Act to enforce through litigation violations of the act where it finds a pattern and practice of discrimination. DOJ does not have the infrastructure to handle individual fair housing complaints. For example, it does not have an investigative agency with a field office structure to investigate individual complaints. Mr. President, transferring enforcement authority from HUD to DOJ would require DOJ to recreate a structure that already exists at HUD. While I oppose such a transfer, I nevertheless support my colleague from Illinois in requiring that such a transfer cannot occur unless the resources and manpower are provided to ensure continued administrative enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. amendment no. 2797 (Purpose: To provide for a study by the National Academy of Sciences) At the appropriate place, insert: ``Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to investigate and report on the scientific bases for the public recommendations of the EPA with respect to indoor radon and other naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). The National Academy shall examine EPA's guidelines in light of the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and other peer-reviewed research by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control, and others, on radon and NORM. The National Academy shall summarize the principal areas of agreement and disagreement among the above, and shall evaluate the scientific and technical basis for any differences that exist. Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress the report of the National Academy and a statement of the Administrator's views on the need to revise guidelines for radon and NORM in response to the evaluation of the National Academy. Such statement shall explain and differentiate the technical and policy bases for such views.''

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feingold amendment to strike the language in this bill barring the Department of Housing and Urban Development from enforcing the Fair Housing Act against insurance redlining. The language in this bill will deny the protection of a basic civil rights law to people subject to discrimination by a particular industry. Because insurance redlining is a reality in America, efforts to eliminate such discrimination should be aggressively undertaken. Sadly, by stripping HUD of its enforcement authority, this bill will allow such discrimination to flourish. Mr. President, insurance redlining is a serious problem in this country. Recently, American Family Mutual Insurance Co. settled a redlining case by paying $16.5 million. The lawsuit was filed by seven African-American homeowners in Milwaukee who were either turned down, offered inferior policies, or charged more money for less coverage on home insurance policies. The insurance company settled the lawsuit after it was discovered that a manager at the company wrote to an agent who was willing to write insurance for African-Americans: ``Quit writing all those Blacks.'' In addition, Mr. President, the National Fair Housing Alliance conducted a 3-year investigation--partially funded with $800,000 from a HUD grant awarded when Jack Kemp was HUD Secretary--using white and minority testers posing as middle-class homeowners seeking property insurance coverage. The test covered nine major cities and targeted Allstate, State Farm, and Nationwide Insurance. The homes selected were of comparable value, size, age, style, construction, and were located in middle-class neighborhoods. The investigation uncovered the fact that discrimination against African-American and Latino neighborhoods occurred more than 50 percent of the time. Astoundingly, in Chicago, Latino testers ran into problems in more than 95 percent of their attempts to obtain insurance, while in Toledo, African-Americans experienced discrimination by State Farm 85 percent of the time. While white testers encountered no problems obtaining insurance quotations and favorable rates, African-American and Latino testers encountered the following problems: Failure by insurance agents to return repeated phone calls; Failure to provide quote information; Giving preconditions for providing quotes--inspection of property, credit rating checks; [[Page S 14361]] Failure to provide replacement-cost coverage to homes of blacks and Latinos; and Charging more money to blacks and Latinos, while providing less coverage. Mr. President, property insurance discrimination is illegal under the Fair Housing Act. Under Secretary Cisneros, HUD has been an active participant in enforcing the Fair Housing Act and ensuring that property insurance discrimination ceases. The insurance industry has been fighting in court to restrict HUD's authority to enforce insurance redlining. The industry has not been successful in the judicial arena in its efforts to stop HUD's enforcement activities. Thus, the industry has now turned to Congress to restrain stepped-up Federal fair lending enforcement efforts. Insurance redlining directly affects the ability of African- Americans, Asians, and Hispanics to purchase a home, because the denial of insurance results in the denial of a mortgage loan, which in turn results in the inability to purchase a home. Mr. President, opponents of affirmative action in Congress have argued that strong enforcement of civil rights laws is the appropriate mechanism to stop discrimination. However, efforts are now underway to strip the one agency that has been aggressively battling housing discrimination of its enforcement authority and remove a whole category of discrimination--insurance redlining--from the reach of the law. This effort needs to be stopped in its tracks.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, things are finally beginning to turn around in urban America. We have finally taken some small, tentative steps to give children a safe and nurturing environment, to help communities repair [[Page S 14377]] themselves, to help individuals find and get jobs, to help poor people develop assets for the future, and to restore strong financial institutions that help communities save their own money, invest, borrow, and grow. But just as the economics of urban America were starting to improve, this bill pulls out one of the most vital initiatives to bring capital, initiative, savings, and growth to those who have been isolated from it: the Community Development Financial Institutions Program. This initiative evolved from the Community Capital Partnership Act that I introduced in 1993. I am very disappointed that the committee included no funds for community development financial institutions, and I want to remind the chairman of the subcommittee that there is significant, passionate support in the Senate for the continuation of this program. Most of us take basic financial institutions for granted. We have savings and checking accounts, our bank lends our money to businesses in our communities, and we borrow ourselves when it comes time to buy a home or we have an inspiration to start a business. But in most American cities, the only financial institution they know is the check- cashing cubicle, which charges up to 5 percent just to cash a Government check, and takes the money back out of the community. People who want to save have nowhere to go and businesses have no access to capital. Within the 165 squares miles that make up the areas most affected by the Los Angeles riots, there are 19 bank branches, as compared to 135 check cashing establishments. People who want to borrow have even fewer opportunities. They can buy a car or furniture on time, or on a rent-to-own plan, but if they want to borrow to get ahead, by starting a small service business or a store, they're out of luck. The ``McNeil-Lehrer Newshour'' last year interviewed some ambitious entrepreneurs in rural Arkansas, one of them a woman named Jesse Pearl Jackson, who owns a beauty salon. She needed a loan for new equipment, and when she went to a bank, she says the loan officer ``laughed me clean out the door. She said, `You want money for what?' She said, `You don't walk in here and ask me for an application for a loan. That is not the way you do it.' I said, `Well, if you will tell me what to do, then I will come back, and I will do it right the next time.' She was laughing so hard and making fun of me so bad I never went back.'' There is money to be made here, for any bank willing to take entrepreneurs like Ms. Jackson seriously, but large financial institutions without roots in the community are unlikely to see those opportunities. But there are islands of hope for people who want to save and invest in troubled communities. Last year I visited La Casa de Don Pedro, which operates a credit union in a very poor section of Newark. La Casa is a multi-purpose community organization that just happens to have a credit union. While I was there, a stream of members poured into the small building which houses the credit union, day care center, and other programs, depositing $20, $50, and $100 at a time. I did not see any banks in the vicinity of La Casa. If it were not for the credit union, many of the community's residents would have no place to deposit their money, secure small loans, or take advantage of other services we often take for granted. This fund does not, and should not, seek to create organizations that will be perpetually dependent on Government for support. Instead, it seeks to reach in at a point of leverage in capital-starved communities and get them started. It does not set development strategies for either the institutions or the communities they serve. Instead, it lets those involved in the struggle for economic recovery find their own path. There has been such widespread support for the idea of expanding community financial institutions, even though it is a relatively new idea to many people. I still hear some wariness, though, about this investment from people who argue that poor people do not save and that distressed communities do not have the resources to support economic development. The evidence contradicts this cynical view. In Paterson, NJ, last year, I visited one of the few banks that had not left that city. I struck up a conversation with a customer, who volunteered that she was depositing $100. Surprised, I asked her how much she generally saved in a week. She told me that she and her husband had five children and earned $20,000 last year--below the poverty line. But even on this income, they saved $3,000 that year, for health emergencies, for college, or to give their children a chance at a better life. Their experience tells me that saving for the future is a fundamental value of our country, not limited to the middle class, and that if we all had access to the institutions that make capitalism work, we could all be a part of vital, self-sufficient communities. Mr. President, I know we expect this legislation to be vetoed, because it sets all the wrong priorities. The defunding of the CDFI initiative is only one example. I hope that we will have an opportunity to reconsider this bill, to put all its priorities in order, and that when we do, we will find a way to continue to support community development financial institutions.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to a wonderful opportunity for my colleagues and their staff to do something good for both themselves and for America; to participate in the Healthy Choice American Heart Walk on September 28 at noon. America's national campaign to fight heart disease will start in the Nation's Capital with a walk on the National Mall involving thousands of our fellow Government and congressional leaders, celebrities, Federal workers, and others. It is fitting to begin this event in our Nation's Capital because heart disease is a national problem. It is our Nation's No. 1 killer and disabler, and it exacts a devastating emotional and financial toll each year. Of the 10 leading causes of death in our country, heart disease leads the list, and kills more of us each year than the next 9 causes combined. And the financial impact of heart disease and stroke accounts for about one-seventh of our Nation's entire health care bill. Local American Heart Association chapters have organized more than 800 walks involving thousands of people in cities and towns from coast- to-coast in late September and early October. The steps that will be taken on The Mall this Thursday begin a national round of Heart Walks in which over 400,000 Americans will participate. In the next few weeks, this army of walkers will cover more than 1.2 million miles and will raise more than $13 million for the American Heart Association. With the Heart Walk, we can all--quite literally--take meaningful steps toward conquering this killer. We can also advance our cause in two critical ways--by taking steps toward a heart-smart lifestyle and helping others by raising funds to support the ongoing education and research efforts of the American Heart Association. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to fit this into their schedules and to encourage their staff to participate as well.