Bill Bradley

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, our country is a remarkable mosaic--a mixture of races, languages, ethnicities and religions--that grows increasingly diverse with each passing year. Nowhere is this incredible diversity more evident than in the State of New Jersey. In New Jersey, schoolchildren come from families that speak 120 different languages at home. These different languages are used in over 1.4 million homes in my State. I have always believed that one of the United States greatest strengths is the diversity of the people that make up its citizenry and I am proud to call the attention of my colleagues to an event in New Jersey that celebrates the importance of the diversity that is a part of America's collective heritage. On September 24, 1995, the Garden State Arts Center in Holmdel, NJ will celebrate its 20th Annual Slovak Heritage Festival. The heritage festival program will salute one of the many different ethnic communities that contributes so greatly to New Jersey's diverse makeup. Highlighting old country customs and culture, the festival programs are an opportunity to express pride in the ethnic backgrounds that are a part of our collective heritage. The Slovak Heritage Festival will highlight many aspects of the Slovak culture ranging from business to religion. Additionally, the 20th Annual [[Page S 14137]] Slovak Heritage Festival will contribute proceeds from their programs to the Garden State Arts Center's cultural center fund which presents theater productions free-of-charge to New Jersey's school children, seniors, and other deserving residents. The Heritage Festival thus not only pays tribute to the cultural influences from our past, it also makes a significant contribution to our present day cultural activities. The Slovak Heritage Festival will open with a business trade show with a number of different exhibits. Chaired by Joseph J. Talafous, this year's event will focus on free trade and economic development. At noon the festival will honor his excellency, the Most Reverend Michael J. Dudick, D.D., Bishop of Passaic, NJ, for his 15th anniversary of dedicated service to the Byzantine Catholic community. A mass will be performed by Bishop Frantisek Tondra, of Spis Kapitula, Slovakia. Following the Mass, the opening ceremony which includes the Slovak fashion show, will take place on the mall. The festival will also feature food, crafts, music, a soccer tournament, and traditional Slovak dancing. Congratulations once again on the occasion of the 20th Annual Slovak Heritage Festival. I offer my best wishes to all who are celebrating a day of pride in their ethnicity by attending the festival.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, our country is a remarkable mosaic--a mixture of races, languages, ethnicities, and religions--that grows increasingly diverse with each passing year. Nowhere is this incredible diversity more evident than in the State of New Jersey. In New Jersey, schoolchildren come from families that speak 120 different languages at home. These different languages are used in over 1.4 million homes in my State. I have always believed that one of the United States greatest strengths is the diversity of the people that make up its citizenry and I am proud to call the attention of my colleagues to an event in New Jersey that celebrates the importance of the diversity that is a part of America's collective heritage. On Saturday, September 23, 1995, the Garden State Arts Center in Holmdel, NJ, will celebrate the next in its series of 1995 Fall Heritage Festivals. The Heritage Festival Program salutes some of the different ethnic communities that contribute so greatly to New Jersey's diverse makeup. Highlighting old country customs and culture, the festival programs are an opportunity to express pride in the ethnic backgrounds that are a part of our collective heritage. Additionally, the Fall Heritage Festivals contribute proceeds from their programs to the Garden State Arts Center's Cultural Center Fund which presents theater productions free-of-charge to New Jersey's schoolchildren, seniors, and other deserving residents. The Heritage Festival thus not only pays tribute to the cultural influences from our past, it also makes a significant contribution to our present day cultural activities. On Saturday, September 23, 1995, the Heritage Festival Series will celebrate the 21st Annual Ukrainian Heritage Festival. Chaired by Oksana Korduba, this year's event focuses on the road to democracy and economic reform for the Ukraine. It is fitting that the Ukrainian Heritage Festival follows so closely on the heels of the fourth anniversary of Ukrainian independence. Upon gaining independence, Ukraine has worked diligently for both economic reform and democracy. In particular, Ukraine has taken significant steps to reform its economy by working to stabilize inflation, liberalize prices, and privatize industries. Further, through the creation and continued improvement of a constitutional framework, Ukraine is developing its own strong democratic tradition. I am delighted to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the Ukrainian-American community. During the long years when Ukraine suffered under foreign control, Ukrainian-Americans helped keep alive Ukraine's culture and traditions. The Garden State Arts Center's Ukrainian Heritage Festival, with its celebration of food, crafts, music, sports, and traditional folk dancing, preserves Ukrainian culture for all generations. On behalf of all New Jerseyans of Ukrainian descent I offer my congratulations on the occasion of the 21st Ukrainian Heritage Festival.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, on September 23, 1995, a distinguished New Jerseyan, Joseph E. Budd, will be appointed the grand marshall of the Middlesex County Pulaski Day Parade Committee. This appointment is based on Joseph Budd's lifelong commitment to his community and country. Joseph Budd, born in Sayreville, NJ, has lived a life of exemplary citizenship. As a youth, he graduated from South River High School, where he was an all-State baseball player. He than went on to play semiprofessional baseball with Holy Trinity and Saint Mary's of South River, N.J. After completing his education, Joseph joined the U.S. 77th Infantry Division in the Pacific theater. Joseph distinguished himself as a Sergeant of reconnaissance, receiving five battle stars and a Bronze Star in the Battle of Guam, for his outstanding bravery and superior leadership abilities. After leaving the military, Joseph continued to play an active role in the veteran community by serving as the past commander of Veterans of Foreign War Post 8025 in Somerset, NJ, and as a member of the American Legion Post 478. In addition, Joseph is also a member of the Catholic War Veterans Post 405 in New Brunswick, NJ. Employed by the Public Service and Gas Co. for 36 years, Joe retired as an office manager in the customer service center in 1987. Joseph Budd's strong work ethic carried over into his commitment to community service. Throughout his life, Joseph has been a committed member of a number of organizations. Joseph is the past president of the Kiwanis Club of New Brunswick, a member of the Bound Book chapter of Deborah Heart and Lung Hospital Foundation, past chairman of the Franklin Township Industrial Commission, noteworthy member of the Franklin Park Senior Citizen's Club and Retired Senior Volunteer Program of Somerset County, NJ. Congratulations once again to Joseph Budd on his selection as the grand marshall of the Middlesex County Pulaski Day parade.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, on Tuesday, I spoke in opposition to final passage of the welfare reform bill. Although I was not able to complete my statement in the time available, I obtained unanimous consent that my full statement be printed in the Record. However, my full statement did not appear in the Record of September 19, 1995. Therefore, what follows is my full statement from that day. Mr. President, I will vote against this bill because it will wipe out every protection for poor families with children but would do nothing at all to repair what is really wrong with welfare. We have made some improvements to the bill, such as eliminating the job-training consolidation that never belonged in a welfare bill in the first place. And there are sections I strongly support such as the child support provisions which I wrote. But the fundamental structure is deeply flawed and can only lead to deeper poverty and more dependency. All we are really changing with this bill is the one thing that is not wrong with welfare--the financial relationship between State and Federal bureaucracies. That is not the problem. In fact, block grants create a new problem because States that have increasing numbers of poor families, because of a bad economy or simple population growth, would not have enough funds to assist their people. Federal politicians should not simply transfer pots of money to State politicians without any standards about what the money would be used for. We do not need to transfer money from one bureaucrat to another; we need a commitment to individual poor children. While this bill would abandon that commitment, the real problems with welfare would remain. The rules that penalize marriage and work. The indifferent local and county bureaucrats, who treat people as numbers and do nothing to help people take care of themselves. The brutal job market. The deeper cultural forces driving increases in divorce, illegitimacy and teen pregnancy. All these problems would remain. Many would get worse. All this bill does is require States to penalize the children who are the victims of these problems. It does nothing to help them avoid the bleak circumstances into which they have been born and live today. With all the rhetoric about changing welfare, how did we wind up with a bill that does nothing to change what is wrong with welfare? The answer is politics. Neither party was as serious about really changing welfare as it was about capturing ``the welfare issue'' from the other party. Democrats promised to ``end welfare as we know it'' by tinkering with the levers of government, mostly in positive ways, but not in a way that deeply changes the lives of people on welfare. Republicans promised to do even better: ``abandon the welfare state.'' They would toss aside the Federal responsibility for poor families and children altogether. But they did not know how to deal with the reality of poverty and welfare. So they came up with the solution of handing the whole problem over to States, for them to solve. Block grants create an appearance of change, not real change. The debate of the last few days, during which we accepted every amendment that did not challenge the underlying political rhetoric and layered the bill with billions in new Government spending, brought this cynical politics into the light of day. It is politics as usual, made worse by the fact that it is a transparent deceit. We have not improved the bill; all we are accomplishing is to move the bill forward to a conference at which every single one of these provisions, including this massive last-minute compromise, will be dropped without debate in the first 5 minutes. Even if they became law, these ornaments do nothing to repair the deep fundamental flaw at the heart of this bill. For those who think these provisions improve this bill enough to vote for it, [[Page S 14098]] I would like to remind you of what happened last week to my amendment that really would have addressed a central flaw in the bill. All I proposed to do was to require states to lay out the basic rules of their welfare system and assist all poor children who were eligible, unless their families were disqualified under the rules. The amendment made enough sense that the Majority Leader moved to adopt it by voice vote, but the majority staff was so determined to eliminate any hint of a reliable protection for children that we had to come back the next day and strike the provision on virtually a party-line vote. Unless the heart of this bill is changed, the United States will be the only industrialized nation in the world that will not guarantee basic protection for children from hunger and abject poverty. We can do much better than this bill. We can repair most of what is wrong with welfare, and over time, much that has gone wrong in our society that perpetuates welfare dependency. Instead of starting with political slogans, we have to start by looking at what really went wrong with welfare, and fixing it. We should not only protect families from poverty, but lift families into the economic mainstream, by building connections to private-sector employers. We should not only require teen parents to live at home, but create facilities like 15-Month houses for all those who lack a nurturing family. We should make clear to mothers on welfare that having an additional child will significantly worsen their life chances, but also reduce the penalties for marriage and savings. We should give States more responsibility, but also enlist the institutions of civil society--churches, neighborhood organizations, and YMCAs--to accomplish together what neither Government nor the market can accomplish on their own. This legislation does not abandon the mythical ``welfare state,'' but it does abandon our society's commitment to protect poor children from abject poverty, hunger, abuse, neglect and death. Meanwhile, it does nothing to fix the real problems. I would urge all of my colleagues to think twice before joining the rush to send this deeply flawed bill forward into a process where it will get even worse.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I wanted to just take a moment to offer my congratulations to Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy and the Appropriations Committee for presenting the Senate with a useful and constructive foreign operations bill. Unlike most or many of the foreign and defense-related bills that have come to the Senate floor in this budget cycle, this bill tries to be forward looking and positions America to continue to play an important role in the world. The committee, under the leadership of Chairman McConnell and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, was able to work within a tight budget constraint and still find extra funding for the truly essential programs for America in this post-cold-war world. Particularly, I would like to point to the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe where the committee increased funding from the House levels by $125 million for the NIS assistance and $11 million for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. Now, of course, it is up to the administration to use this money on good programs that help the people of the NIS, Eastern Europe, and the Baltics, and not use this money for American consultants. The committee also managed to squeeze out an extra $37 million to combat drug trafficking. Mr. President, I note the committee's action on international financial institutions. Every $1 of U.S. assistance to these institutions results in $20 of donor support for developing countries. So I was very pleased to see the committee find almost $200 million over the House level. These are just a few examples of the way Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy and their committee staffs and their committee were able to do more with less. In light of the overall reduction in foreign assistance resources, the committee decided to provide the administration with a great deal of flexibility and reduced the number of earmarks. As a strong supporter of the international children's vaccine program, basic education programs and primary health care programs for children in developing countries, I would urge the administration to use this flexibility the committee provided to adequately fund these programs. Again, Mr. President, I would like to offer my congratulations on a job well done to Chairman McConnell and his ranking member, Senator Leahy.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I will vote against this bill because I think it would wipe out protection for families with children but would do nothing to repair what is really wrong with welfare. We have made some improvements in this bill, eliminating the job training consolidation that never belonged in the welfare bill in the first place. We tightened and strengthened child support enforcement. But the fundamental structure is deeply flawed and can only lead to deeper poverty and more dependency. All we are really changing in this bill is the one thing that is not wrong with welfare--the financial relationship between the Federal Government and the State bureaucracy. That is not the problem. In fact, block grants create a new problem because States that have increasing numbers of poor families, because of a bad economy or simple population growth, would not have enough funds to assist these poor people. Federal politicians should not simply transfer pots of money to State politicians without any standards about what the money would be used for. We do not need to transfer money from one bureaucrat to another bureaucrat. We need commitment to individual poor children. While this bill would abandon the commitment, the real problems of welfare would remain--the rules that penalize marriage and work, the indifferent local and county bureaucrats who treat people as numbers and do nothing to help people take care of themselves, the brutal job market, the deep cultural forces driving increases in divorce, illegitimacy, and teen pregnancy; all these problems would remain, and many would get worse. All this bill does is require States to penalize the children who are born into and live in the midst of all of this turmoil. With all the rhetoric about changing welfare, how did we wind up with a bill that does nothing to change what is wrong with welfare? The short answer is: politics. Neither party was as serious about really changing welfare as it was about capturing the welfare issue from the other party. Democrats promised to end welfare as we know it by tinkering with the levers of government, mostly in a positive way, but not in a way that deeply changes the lives of people on welfare. Republicans promised to do even better--abandon the welfare state. They would toss aside the Federal responsibility for poor families and children altogether. They did not know how to deal with the reality of poverty and welfare, so they came up with the solution by handing the whole problem over to the States for them to solve. Block grants create an appearance of change, but no real change. The debate in the last few days, during which we accepted every amendment that did not challenge the underlying political rhetoric, also indicates the problem. The legislation does not abandon the mythical welfare state. But it does abandon our society's commitment to protect poor children from abject poverty, hunger, abuse, neglect, and death. Meanwhile, it does nothing to fix the real problem. I urge everyone to think twice before joining the rush to send this deeply flawed bill forward into a process where it will get even worse.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Ukrainian independence. Tomorrow, Ukrainian-Americans will be honoring the fourth anniversary of Ukraine's independence in observance here in our Nation's Capital. Ukraine was established as a state in the 9th century, but has struggled valiantly against several invaders to gain its independence from foreign domination. On July 15, 1990, Ukraine's efforts successfully resulted in its declaration of sovereignty, followed by its declaration of independence on August 24, 1991. Upon gaining independence, Ukraine has continued to work for both economic reform and democracy. In particular, Ukraine has taken significant steps to reform its economy, working to stabilize inflation, liberalize prices, and privatize industries. Further, through the creation and continued improvement of a constitutional framework, Ukraine is developing its own strong democratic tradition. In light of Ukraine's efforts, it is fitting that members of this Chamber join in paying tribute to Ukraine's long struggle for freedom. I also wish to pay to tribute to the Ukrainian-American community. During the long years when Ukraine suffered under foreign control, Ukrainian-Americans helped keep alive the flame of Ukraine's culture and traditions. On behalf of the Ukrainian community in New Jersey and all Americans of Ukrainian descent, I am honored to pay tribute, on behalf of the Nation, to the Ukrainian community in commemoration of its independence day.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, our country is a remarkable mosaic--a mixture of races, languages, ethnicities, and religions--that grows increasingly diverse with each passing year. Nowhere is this incredible diversity more evident than in the State of New Jersey. In New Jersey, schoolchildren come from families that speak 120 different languages at home. These different languages are used in over 1.4 million homes in my State. I have always believed that one of the United States greatest strengths is the diversity of the people that make up its citizenry and I am proud to call the attention of my colleagues to an event in New Jersey that celebrates the importance of the diversity that is a part of America's collective heritage. On June 4, 1995, the Garden State Arts Center in Holmdel, NJ, began its 1995 Spring Heritage Festival Series. The heritage festival program salutes some of the different ethnic communities that contribute so greatly to New Jersey's diverse makeup. Highlighting old country customs and culture, the festival programs are an opportunity to express pride in the ethnic backgrounds that are a part of our collective heritage. Additionally, the Spring Heritage Festivals will contribute proceeds from their programs to the Garden State Arts Center's Cultural Center Fund which presents theater productions free- of-charge to New Jersey's school children, seniors, and other deserving residents. The heritage festival thus not only pays tribute to the cultural influences from our past, it also makes a significant contribution to our present day cultural activities. On Saturday, September 16, 1995, the Heritage Festival Series celebrated the Eighth Annual Festival of the Arts and Heritage of African-Americans. The first African-American Heritage Festival, founded by Clinton Crocker of Tinton Falls, NJ, was held in September, 1988. The festival took its place in the series in September, 1988. The festival took its place in the series of heritage festivals at the Garden State Arts Center under the leadership of Julian Robinson, then commissioner of the New Jersey Highway Authority and was so ably organized this year by Carol Washington. Clinton Crocker's early vision of a major festival which would reflect pride in the African-American presence in New Jersey, has laid the foundation for an outstanding event that celebrates the beauty and diversity of African-American culture. The festival presented a wide variety of performing arts including: soloists, African dance troupes, gospel singers, and African story-tellers sharing traditional tales. The festival also showcased ethnic foods from the African continent as well as African-American favorites and was undobtedly one of the highlights of the day. The African-American Heritage Festival has proven itself to be an outstanding event over the years. The festival continues to grow in popularity each year, more than doubling its annual attendance from its first year. With increased popularity has come increased profits which has led to the development of a Relief Fund for Uwanda and other needy African nations. Profits also go to fund recreational activities for needy seniors, the disadvantaged, and for scholarship funds for college students. Congratulations once again on the eighth anniversary of the Festival of the Arts and Heritage of African-Americans. Best wishes for continued success and to all who attended the festival to celebrate a day of pride in their ethnicity.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Reserving my right to object, is there a time for debate on the motion to strike the Bradley amendment?

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I do say to the distinguished majority leader that I was a little surprised when he said he would accept the amendment. I thought it was perfectly appropriate, because I would not characterize the amendment exactly as he has characterized the amendment. It does not create a Federal entitlement. It, first, does not add any additional spending. It does not touch the block grant. CBO has told us that it would not result in a penny of additional Federal outlays. Second, it does not entitle anyone to anything. A State can deny any individual--practically any person--benefits. It can deny benefits if you do not work. A State can deny benefits if you have additional children. It can deny benefits if you do not comply with the requirements of your individual agreement. The State can deny benefits, under this proposal, practically for anything. But what the State cannot do under this amendment is deny you benefits for no reason at all if you are a poor family who is eligible under the State's own rules. To those who object to this amendment, I just simply would like to ask, what is it that you want States to be able to do that they would not be able to do under this amendment? I, frankly, cannot imagine. I cannot imagine why States should not be required simply to say what their rules are for eligibility, what the benefits are, and who gets cut off, and then simply follow the rules. The only right that is created here is not a right to money, it is a right to know what the rules are. How do you determine who gets any benefits, unless the State has written rules that clearly state who is eligible? How do we decide that someone who fits the category of eligibility should not be given benefits if there are no rules? So I simply say that this is a very straightforward amendment. It is an attempt to add clarity to what will be a confused policy in States. I think it illustrates, once again, the problem of a block grant with no rules to implement the block grant. This came through in very vivid terms yesterday when we had an amendment--a well-intentioned amendment--that said in order to reduce illegitimacy, which is what all of us would like to do, a State that reduced illegitimacy would get a bonus, but the amendment read that the State would have to reduce illegitimacy without increasing abortions. So those are both pretty good intentions. But what that means, as I read that amendment, is that every woman in a State has to be asked if she has had an abortion. Otherwise, how do you determine how many abortions were performed in the State? The result of the amendment is a direct involvement of the State government in the lives of every woman in the State asking the question, have you or have you not had an abortion? Unless that is asked to every woman, how do you determine whether abortions have gone up or gone down? If you do not know whether abortions have gone up or gone down, how do you determine the offset against the illegitimacy rate? Mr. President, that amendment is another illustration of the problem with a block grant that has no requirement of any rule. This amendment would simply say that the State has to establish rules of eligibility and has to apply those rules of eligibility for every person who fits into that category. It is as simple as that. This is, again, not a new Federal entitlement. It is simply common sense. Mr. President, I am ready, if the majority leader would like to make the motion to strike at this time, to have the vote on the motion to strike.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, to empower citizens to take back their streets from criminals, it is vitally important that the Federal Government work in partnership with States and localities to deploy additional officers in communities around the country. However, Mr. President, equally critical to the success of State and local police forces in protecting American citizens is the commitment of the Federal Government to serve as a partner to ensure that State and municipal police officers have access to advanced technology and equipment to effectively fight crime. Mr. President, the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice [NIJ] provides this critical link between the Federal Government and local law enforcement agencies across the country. The mission of NIJ's Office of Science and Technology is to assist law enforcement, particularly on the State and local level, with upgrading their technological infrastructure. This involves the following functions: First, providing information on products and technologies; second, developing standards; third, testing and evaluating technologies and equipment; and fourth, research and development. Because of the critical mission of NIJ, the legislation that I am introducing today seeks an appropriation of an increase of $10 million each for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 to enable NIJ to continue and expand the work that it is doing to enhance the effectiveness of State and local police departments. Mr. President, research and development conducted by NIJ is a valuable resource for State and local law enforcement agencies that are often confronted by criminals who have access to the most advanced commercial technologies. The invention of soft body armor was developed out of a NIJ project. Since 1975, when NIJ first conducted field tests in 15 cities across the country, bulletproof vests have saved the lives of thousands of officers. NIJ is also responsible for significant advances in the field of forensic science. For example, NIJ brought DNA identification to the United States and developed new fingerprinting techniques which permits officers to lift fingerprints on major fixtures in the field, without removing the fixture. NIJ is currently developing products that will make police work safer and more efficient. For example, Mr. President, NIJ has developed a prototype rear airbag to use to control suspects in the back of a squad car with minimal disruption. NIJ has also developed a prototype retractable barrier strip to enable police to safely stop a fleeing vehicle, thereby minimizing the need for dangerous high speed chases which often result in injuries to police officers or innocent bystanders. Mr. President, many local police departments receive no assistance in identifying technology and purchasing equipment. They operate as solo actors. For example, a local police department recently spent 8 months conducting market research before purchasing motorcycle helmets. To address this problem, NIJ has established the technology information network--a combination of a law enforcement internet and consumers report--to afford police departments around the country access to timely and objective information on new products, technologies, and systems. Moreover, NIJ has held and participated in a series of successful conferences and town meetings to initiate dialog between law enforcement, the Federal technology community, and the private sector, and is establishing purchasing consortiums to allow local police departments to obtain the best prices for technical products and equipment. Mr. President, because the overwhelming majority of police work in America is conducted by State and local law enforcement, and only 13 percent of the crime fighting resources are controlled by the Federal Government, the answer to violence lies closer to home than to Washington, DC. With the establishment last year of NIJ's National Law Enforcement Technology Center, the agency has become the model for the decentralized relationship that exists between the Federal Government and State and local law enforcement. The National Law Enforcement Technology Center consists of seven regional research centers throughout the country. This virtual national center serves as a focal point for law enforcement research and development and information dissemination. The regional centers are centers of excellence for respective technologies and act as regional interfaces for State and local law enforcement agencies. This decentralized structure brings NIJ's work into the field, thereby fostering a closer working relationship with State and local law enforcement. For example, the agency has established test bed programs to field test new equipment in local police departments. Mr. President, the legislation that I am introducing today seeks an appropriation of an increase of $10 million each for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 to enable NIJ to continue and expand the critical work that it is doing to assist State and local police departments. The legislation specifically authorizes funding to provide NIJ with the resources that it needs to identify, develop, and purchase new technologies to provide a safer environment for police officers and more effectively curb crime. Mr. President, I have advocated a tough, comprehensive, approach to battling the menace of crime that has proliferated in our cities and towns. In authoring the Handgun Control and Violence Prevention Act, I have worked for a commonsense approach to stem the flow of illegal weapons that flood our streets and cause mass carnage. In proposing the Cop Killer Bullet Ban Act. I have sought to halt the manufacture and distribution of ammunition that is designed to kill those who are sworn to protect our communities. Mr. President, my approach to combating crime has also been a community-oriented approach, whereby the Federal Government and local communities act in tandem to uproot and eliminate the problem. Last year, this body passed the omnibus crime law, which included the community policing initiative, an $8.9 billion program designed to put 100,000 law enforcement officers on the streets. I provided a jumpstart for the community policing initiative in the omnibus crime legislation when I introduced a bill in March 1993 that authorized a major new expansion of community policing. In addition, I authored the community schools provision in the omnibus crime law, which provides for public school buildings to remain open for youth programs after school hours, on weekends, and over summers. Moreover, this year, I have introduced legislation providing for community response teams, composed of community volunteers, to assist victims of domestic violence. Mr. President, the work that NIJ is performing to enable police departments to more efficiently battle crime is consistent with my philosophy that together the Federal Government and local communities can share resources and crime fighting expertise to make our neighborhoods safer. The work performed by NIJ is invaluable. For example, NIJ has expanded its work in developing standards for law enforcement equipment, which will eliminate the risk of officers receiving substandard equipment. NIJ has also established a liability panel to assist law enforcement in using new technologies with a minimum of legal risk. The expansion of this work will only serve to strengthen police departments around the country as we continue to fight against crime. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, Senator Nickles has spoken to me about this amendment and as I understand he has modified his amendment. At this moment, I do not know if he has modified it.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BRADLEY. Reserving the right to object, I understand what the majority leader said about the amendment that I offered. I wanted to assure him that the second part of the paragraph that I was reading explaining the amendment would have gotten to that aspect of the amendment. But the majority leader cut me off and moved to pass the bill. So I appreciate what he said, and I look forward to tomorrow.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I thank the Senator from Maryland for offering it. I think it makes one very clear point, and that is children that grow up in two-parent families have a better chance than children who grow up in single- parent families. That does not mean that there are not a lot of single mothers who do a heroic job out there raising children against the odds, who teach them how to work hard and how to advance. It simply means that two incomes are better than one and that two supervisors are better than one. It is very interesting, because in the course of this debate, we discussed the family cap which says if you have an additional child, if you are on welfare, that child does not receive a payment. In my State of New Jersey, that would mean about $64 a month. We have the only family cap experiment in the country in New Jersey, and we deny a benefit to an additional child to a mother who is on welfare. But we also have a provision in the law that rewards marriage. It says that if a woman on welfare is married, her husband's income will not push her off of eligibility for welfare, up to about $21,000 in combined income. So what the distinguished Senator from Maryland is stating with this amendment is that we should have incentives in the welfare system for single parents to get married. We have that in the experiment in New Jersey at the moment. It is only a year old, so we do not have any conclusive results. I think it is an important amendment. That, then, underlines the deeper point the Senator from Maryland is making, which is that it is important in every child's life to have a father as well as a mother, a father involved with time and resources. It is very important. So I salute the Senator, and I cosponsor the amendment and hope that it will be adopted.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Domenici amendment. New Jersey is the only State that has actually implemented a family cap. It took effect almost 2 years ago as part of a comprehensive reform of welfare which combines such disincentives as the family cap along with strong positive incentives for welfare recipients to work, and to marry. Almost from the day the family cap took effect we have been bombarded with people declaring absolutely that it works, and absolutely that it does not work. We have heard that there is a 1- percent reduction in birth rates to parents on welfare. We have also then, based on an evaluation by Rutgers, heard that there was no difference in births. We heard there was an increase in abortions. Then we heard that there was but it was not statistically significant. Never have such dramatic conclusions be drawn from such shaky and preliminary numbers. Let me simply reiterate that from New Jersey's perspective--what everyone involved in the program has said--it is an experiment. I repeat, it is an experiment. We only have a year of data. We know only that a total of 1,500 fewer children were born to welfare recipients than over the previous 12 months. But births overall are down, and a difference of 1,500 births does not mean at all much compared to 125,000 total births in the State in the same period. At the same time, we penalize 6,000 families on welfare in which children were born. Is the tradeoff of 6,000 children denied benefits worth the 1,500 hypothetical children whose mothers thought twice before becoming pregnant, or, on the other hand, who had abortions? I do not know. Will these numbers change? Will the message sink in? I do not know. The basic point is that it is an experiment. We have inconclusive data. We should not mandate something when we do not know what we are doing. States should be able to experiment.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending measure be set aside for the purposes of sending amendments to the desk, not being counted against my time.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I send all three amendments to the desk, en bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Senator Moynihan for putting together the only welfare alternative that is really based on what we know about welfare, what the problems are, what we can fix, and what we can't fix. As a member of the Finance Committee, I was struck by the fact that we held several months of hearings, heard from academic experts, State administrators, Governors, people who work with young mothers in residential programs, and job placement specialists. We heard all their suggestions about what could be improved, and then we proceeded to ignore all their advice. We simply ignored it. Instead we adopted a solution that serves the political purpose of claiming that we've eliminated welfare, but in reality, does nothing. It turns over the whole thing, with all its problems, to the States, in the hopes that they can figure it out. Senator Moynihan took the right approach. He looked at his own greatest accomplishment, the Family Support Act of 1988, and was willing to acknowledge that it had fallen short of our expectations in some very distinct ways: First, the JOBS Program overall was not successful at moving people into work. It put too little emphasis on real work and discouraged real education, leaving people to waste their time in empty job search programs and structured study halls. Some programs actually delayed recipients getting jobs longer than if they hadn't been in the program. But several counties and States found ways to do much better, by striving to place people directly into real jobs and building the training around those jobs. This amendment shifts the focus of the JOBS Program to build on its strengths rather than its shortcomings. Second, AFDC overall, and the JOBS Program in particular, don't give States enough flexibility to find their own solutions. That's not an argument for handing the States a fixed pot of money and washing our hands of the whole thing. Instead, it's an argument for giving the States flexibility within clear standards, requiring the States to structure the JOBS Program as they see fit but requiring results. This amendment does just that. Third, we made a mistake in 1988 that we are now on the verge of making all over again, in much greater magnitude: We made big promises and failed to invest. Taking individuals from the middle of the turmoil of America's cities, from the turmoil of their own families and neighborhoods, individuals who are caring for children, and helping them to become economically self-sufficient is an enormous challenge. It means giving each person almost constant attention, helping them find a way to balance work and family, helping them master new skills, compensating for the failures of the elementary and secondary school system. It means sticking with people after they find their first job, helping them keep that job and move on to a better one. It cannot be done with slogans or wishes. It requires an investment. Since 1988, we have spent only $1 billion a year on the JOBS Program, and much of that has gone unspent because States have not been willing or able to come up with their share. This amendment is the only alternative that makes realistic promises about getting people to work and puts the investment behind it. The argument I have heard against this amendment is simply that it retains the entitlement. That's an evil [[Page S 12888]] work, but what does it really mean? It means that States will get an amount of money equal to what they need--when hardship increases because of the economy, States will have the resources they need. It means that individuals who need help will get it, as long as they make an effort to become self-sufficient. Nobody is entitled to anything if they don't follow the rules. And the States can set the rules with greater flexibility under this amendment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Moynihan's alternative. It is the only welfare bill we will vote on that is based on reality and not slogans. It builds on the successful piece of legislation in 1988 by repairing its most glaring flaws. It will not end welfare as we know it, but it will reform welfare into a system that strengthens families, that connects parents to work, that brings fathers back into the family, and that promotes innovation. Those may seem like modest expectations compared to the slogans that we hear on this floor throughout this debate. But if we can accomplish this much, we will have reason to be proud. This amendment and this alternative deserves the Senate's support.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, our country is a remarkable mosaic--a mixture of races, languages, ethnicities and religions--that grows increasingly diverse with each passing year. Nowhere is this incredible diversity more evident than in the State of New Jersey. In New Jersey, schoolchildren come from families that speak 120 different languages at home. These different languages are used in over 1.4 million homes in my State. I have always believed that one of the United States' greatest strengths is the diversity of the people that make up its citizenry and I am proud to call the attention of my colleagues to an event in New Jersey that celebrates the importance of the diversity that is a part of America's collective heritage. On June 4, 1995, the Garden State Arts Center in Holmdel, NJ, began its 1995 Spring Heritage Festival Series. The Heritage Festival program salutes some of the different ethnic communities that contribute so greatly to New Jersey's diverse makeup. Highlighting old country customs and culture, the festival programs are an opportunity to express pride in the ethnic backgrounds that are a part of our collective heritage. Additionally, the Spring Heritage Festivals will contribute proceeds from their programs to the Garden State Arts Center's Cultural Center Fund which presents theater productions free- of-charge to New Jersey's school children, seniors and other deserving residents. The Heritage Festival thus not only pays tribute to the cultural influences from our past, it also makes a significant contribution to our present day cultural activities. On Sunday, September 10, 1995, the Heritage Festival Series will celebrate the 22d Annual German Heritage Festival. Chaired by Ted Hierl, this year's event is a wonderful opportunity for the German- American community to share its colorful culture with New Jerseyans and people from surrounding States through folk dancing, singing, food, and craft and cultural displays. Ted Hierl, of the radio stations WTTM/ Trenton and WJDM/Elizabeth will join Hansel Kronauer and Edith Prock, two of Germany's most popular entertainers as part of the evening's stage entertainment. The day promises to be full of fun, friendship and family. On behalf of all New Jerseyans of German descent, I offer my congratulations on the 22d anniversary of the German Heritage Festival.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, on Friday, September 8, following closely on the heels of our national celebration of the American worker, a prominent labor leader in my State will be honored for his many achievements on behalf of all New Jerseyans and my State's labor movement. Richard Tissiere, the business manager and president of the Laborers' Union Local 472, AFL-CIO, has devoted a lifetime of energy, enthusiasm, and hard work to both the local 472, his community and our country. Richie Tissiere's commitment to his union, exemplified by his perfect attendance record at union meetings for the entire 43 years of his membership, has contributed to the hard-won achievements of the American work force. Today's American worker enjoys a living wage, company paid health benefits, safe working conditions and a 5-day workweek as a direct result of the fruits of the labor of America's unions. This uniquely American compact between labor and management has rightly been the envy of the world. As the role of unions in today's work force undergoes growing pains, we must remember that we all--rich and poor, management and worker--are in this together. For most of our history as an industrialized nation we have understood this fact. We understood that workers were not interchangeable parts but partners in a quest for productivity and partners in a community. Richie Tissiere understands this compact and has devoted himself to ensuring that America's unique partnership between worker and employer remains a vibrant part of our society. Richie Tissiere's contributions to New Jersey have been many and they have been varied. I have had the pleasure of working with Richie when he served on my Labor Advisory Board in the State which is only one of the ways that Richie has touched so many of his fellow New Jerseyans. Generations of young soccer players have Richie and area labor unions to thank for supporting their leagues, boys and girls in Newark can tip their hats to Richie for his support of their youth clubs, and thousands of construction, highway, and mass transit workers appreciate the role Richie has played in the booming construction industry in the State. It is indeed fitting that the Essex-West Hudson Labor Council, AFL- CIO will pay tribute to Richie Tissiere, a fine New Jerseyan and a dedicated union supporter at their annual Labor Day Parade.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the tremendous achievements of Alice Paul, a New Jerseyan, suffragist and dedicated believer in social justice. On August 18, 1995 the Alice Paul Centennial Foundation and the U.S. Postal Service will join together to celebrate a First Day of Issue Ceremony dedicating a new postal stamp that features Alice Paul. Alice Stokes Paul, born in Mount Laurel, NJ in 1885, gave birth to the woman's rights movement, facilitating some of the most important political and legal achievements made by women in the 20th century. The date of August 26, 1995 marks the 75th anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment, which granted women the right to vote. Accordingly, I am extremely pleased that it is at this time that the U.S. Postal Service has selected Alice Paul for their 78 cent stamp. Alice Paul's contributions to women's suffrage made possible the increased advancement and recognition of women in our society and throughout the world. After graduating from Swarthmore College in 1905 as a social worker, Alice Paul studied in England for a doctoral degree in economics. It was there that she became involved in the British women's suffrage movement led by the Parkhursts. Those 3 years in England showed Alice that women would have to adopt revolutionary methods that would take the vote, not wait passively for it to be given. Upon her return to America, Alice Paul reenergized the battle to win the right to vote for American women. In 1916, she founded the National Woman's Party, which worked to gain suffrage at the Federal level through a constitutional amendment. Proving to be an extraordinary organizer, fund-raiser, and politician, Alice Paul allowed nothing into her life that did not have a direct bearing on suffrage. In her later years, Alice often reminisced that she lived in a cold room so that she wouldn't be tempted to read novels late at night. Alice Paul fostered an incredible solidarity in those around her. She organized massive demonstrations, picketing rallies, conventions, and hunger strikes that raised the profile of the suffragist movement, revitalized other women's rights groups and awakened the consciousness of the entire Nation to the women's suffrage issue. Once the vote was won, when most suffragists believed that their work had ended, Alice Paul was just beginning her crusade. In 1923, 3 years after suffrage was granted, she authored the equal rights amendment, stipulating that neither the Federal Government nor States could abridge any rights on the basis of sex. From the date of its inception to its final passage by Congress for State ratification in 1972, Alice Paul kept the issue of the ERA alive before the Congress and State legislators for 54 years. In addition to her efforts on behalf of the right to vote and the equal rights amendment, Alice Paul successfully campaigned to make the nondiscrimination clause based on sex part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This clause granted women Federal protection for the first time in the realm of equal job protection and pay in the workplace. Furthermore, she worked to include equal rights clauses in the United Nations Charter and the United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights. In 1977, Alice Paul died in Moorestown, NJ, leaving behind a legacy of dedication to women's rights and social justice. To the very end, she worked with the fervent desire to see the equal rights amendment become Federal law. Even at the age of 88, she was directing the struggle for the passage of the ERA in the Maine Legislature--from the telephone of a nursing home. Her life exemplified what she once said in response to a question about her unwavering steadiness in the cause of women's rights: ``Well, I always thought once you put your hand on the plough you don't remove it until you get to the end of the row.'' In the case of Alice Paul, this simple resolve left a legacy that has forever [[Page S 12309]] changed the lives of men and women throughout the world.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a sense-of-the- Senate resolution that addresses a severe and growing public health crisis--the large, and increasing, number of children and teenagers who are using cigarettes and other tobacco products. The sense-of-the- Senate makes three simple points: First, the tobacco use among children and teenagers has been shown to lead to addiction, disease, and premature death. Second, it States that raising the Federal excise tax on tobacco products will prevent hundreds of thousands of American children and teenagers from using tobacco. Finally, my amendment, states the logical conclusion of these two previous statements-that the Senate should support an increase in the Federal tax on tobacco products in order to protect the health of children and teenagers. Mr. President, I would like to go through these three statements in order, explaining why I consider them to be irrefutable. First, I have stated that the tobacco use among children and teenagers leads to addiction, disease, and premature death. Let me offer a few statistics to demonstrate how widespread this problem is. More than 3 million American children and teenagers smoke cigarettes. Every 30 seconds a child in the United States smokes for the first time. And 90 percent of new smokers start when they are teenagers or younger. As if these statistics aren't frightening enough, they are soon going to get worse. Just last month the University of Michigan released a study showing that the rate of smoking among children has surged upwards over the last 4 years. In 1994, close to 20 percent of eighth graders surveyed said they used cigarettes. This is a 30 percent increase over the number of eighth graders who smoked in 1991. The trend is similar for high school seniors: in 1992, 28 percent said they smoked; by last year, this number had increased to over 31 percent. And these numbers don't even count the number of children who use smokeless tobacco products. Mr. President, the fact that well over 30 percent of America's high school seniors use tobacco is a cause for great alarm in this chamber and around the country. Although the tobacco companies may seek to deny it publicly, it is well know that tobacco use causes addition, disease, and premature death. Tobacco is directly linked to a wide range of illnesses, including heart disease, strokes, emphysema, lung cancer, oral cancer, and throat cancer, to name a few. One of every two long- term tobacco users will die prematurely as a result of their tobacco use. That totals to 1,100 deaths a day, or over 400,000 deaths a year--more than alcohol, heroin, crack, automobile and airplane accidents, homicides, suicides, and AIDS combined. Of every 1,000 20-year-olds who smoke regularly, 250 of them will die in middle age from tobacco-related illnesses. These individuals will cut an estimated 20 to 25 years off of their lives as a result of their tobacco use. Another 250 will die in old age from a tobacco-related illness. In comparison, only 6 of these 1,000 20-year-olds will die from homicides, and only 12 will die from car accidents. And, Mr. President, these statistics only show the number of today's children and teenagers who will eventually die from tobacco use; millions more will spend their lives addicted to nicotine, and will suffer from avoidable illnesses as a result of their tobacco use. Mr. President, most of today's kids do not know these statistics, and even if they know them, they often don't believe them. Last Sunday's New York Times contained interviews with a group of Texas teenagers who smoked. When asked about the health warnings listed on cigarettes, they replied with comments such as ``I heard they have a cure for cancer now.'' and ``I figure that if they really were so bad for you, they wouldn't be selling them everywhere.'' While these kids don't know about the health effects of smoking, they certainly know about the different brands of cigarettes. Last year, the tobacco industry spent about $5 billion advertising their products, and much of this money was spent on marketing that appeals to kids. As just one example, consider the cartoon character Joe Camel. Six-year-olds are as familiar with Joe Camel as they are with Mickey Mouse. Kids can send away for posters, T- shirts, and sandals with Joe Camel emblazoned all over them. Can it be any coincidence that after the Joe Camel campaign was introduced, Camel's market share among underage smokers jumped from one-half of 1 percent to 33 percent? Mr. President, the second statement in my sense-of-the-Senate discusses one of the most effective measures the Federal Government can take to reduce children's use of tobacco. The statement simply says that raising the Federal excise tax on tobacco products will prevent hundreds of thousands of American children and teenagers from smoking. Mr. President, I do not consider this statement a matter of opinon--I consider it a fact. It has been proven in study after study. For example, a researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health concluded earlier this year that every 10 percent increase in cigarette prices causes demand among teenagers to decline by as much as 14 percent. And a researcher from the Business School at Duke University released a study just last month projecting that a 10 percent increase in the tax on cigarettes would save approximately 5,200 lives a year. These are just two of the studies proving my point. There are many more. And it doesn't take a professional researcher to figure out that raising the tobacco tax will discourage kids from smoking. Last Sunday's New York Times article included an interview with an 18-year- old girl who had been smoking since she was 12. When asked if she could think of a way to get people to quit smoking, she replied: Hike the price. If it was $4 a pack, I wouldn't smoke. Of course, I don't want them to do that, but I think if they were serious about it you'd get a lot of people saying, ``That's too much money for a smoke, so forget it.'' Mr. President, the Senate should act on this young girl's suggestion. The third statement of this resolution calls [[Page S 11791]] on the Senate to do just that--to protect the health of children and teenagers by raising the excise tax on tobacco. This statement is the logical conclusion of the two previous statements. If we are serious about protecting our children from addiction, disease, and premature death, then we must take effective action to discourage them from using tobacco. And, as study after study has shown, raising the tobacco tax is one of the--perhaps the--most effective way of reducing children's and teenagers tobacco use. National health organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society, strongly support this approach, calling for a dramatic increase in the tobacco tax in order to help deter young people from becoming addicted. My resolution also states that the revenues resulting from this increase should be used, at least in part, to fund Federal health programs. In this way, tobacco can help to offset a portion of the more than $22 billion in costs which it imposes on the Federal Government each year. Mr. President, just last month the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse stated that ``We're not only not making progress on getting smoking down among our children--we're beginning to lose the battle.'' Mr. President, it is time that the U.S. Senate joined the fight. Approving the sense-of-the-Senate can be the first step.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I am pleased to be a cosponsor because I think this is a true ``walk the walk'' amendment. We have spent countless hours in the 104th Congress ``talking the talk'' about fiscal responsibility. Now with this amendment we have a chance to back up our words by ``walking the walk.'' Mr. President, I considered offering a series of amendments to this bill to cut unnecessary spending. But I finally decided that doing so would not be the best way to make what is my basic point. That basic point is that we spend too much on defense because we spend it the wrong way. Our defense budgets are still structured to fight the cold war. Although it is easy to come to the Senate floor and talk about the so- called post-cold-war world, it is a little more difficult to analyze exactly what that means for America's security needs. We have already had two reviews that were supposed to do that, one by the Bush administration, the so-called Base Force Study, and one by the Clinton administration, the Bottom-Up Review. And both of those studies really only tinkered at the margin of clearly looking at what we need in a post-cold-war world to defend the interests of this country. Rather than rethinking the threats to America's security--which I think includes runaway deficits and the erosion of civil society as well as North Korea's nuclear program--these reviews have in fact been elaborate exercises in fighting the last war. Instead of taking a realistic look at the world as it is out there today, these reviews have trimmed a little here and trimmed a little there. But the result was to conform to what I call a cold war lite approach to the world. That is what this budget is, a cold war lite. It does not make any fundamental decisions about direction or what we need to do to defend this country in the so-called post-cold-war world. It simply does a little less here, a little less there. It is cold war lite. Mr. President, $257.7 billion would be left in this budget after this amendment passed, if it did pass--$257 billion. That is a lot of money, more than enough to fund our defense needs, but only if we eliminate programs that we no longer need and spend the money on what we need. Mr. President, I must say that looking at the debate and the budget, I see supporters of expensive but unnecessary weapons programs have seized upon the business-as-usual approach to defense budgeting, have seized upon the failure of both the Bush and the Clinton administrations to analyze what we need in a post-cold-war world to simply keep this program alive. The Comanche, for example--I mean this thing just will not die. Having been pruned back to $199 million and two prototypes--that is how far we got this thing down at one point--it has crept back up to $373 million and eight aircraft. It is simply not needed. The Bush administration tried for 4 years to kill the Osprey, for 4 years, and yet here it is--$762 million strong right there in the budget. It cannot be justified on defense needs. Mr. President, too big a part of this $265 million defense budget is nothing more than a jobs program. Take this bill, $7 billion over the budget resolution featuring $4.7 billion of unrequested add-ons; $7 billion above the defense resolution; $4.7 billion that was not even requested by the Defense Department or by the Clinton administration. Last night the Senate voted to keep $1.5 billion in this bill to sustain a submarine industrial base by building a Seawolf submarine, a submarine we do not need to secure our national defense. My constituents in the State of New Jersey will thus continue by the taxes they pay to come to Washington, that then go to the defense contractors to produce weapons systems that we do not need to defend our country. And my constituents in New Jersey are fed up with this kind of approach to our national defense. Given the magnitude of the problem, it makes no sense to nickel and dime this bill, this little amendment here, this little amendment there. I know it is being done. It probably will be done. But it is much better to take the approach of this amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Wisconsin and cut a big piece of pork with one slice. This is the way the Senate can send a signal to the administration and frankly to the Congress that the old way of thinking no longer works. Mr. President, this, then, will be, when we vote on this amendment, a vote to shatter the old way of thinking, and start the difficult and overdue process of rethinking our defense needs and priorities in this world. Cut $7 billion now, and pave the way for a better defense in the years to come. I yield the floor.