Bill Bradley

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as if in morning business for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bradley and Mrs. Kassebaum pertaining to the introduction of S. 969 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kassebaum, the distinguished chairwoman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee and Mr. Rockefeller, to introduce legislation which seeks to ensure that newborn babies and their mothers receive adequate health care in the critical first few days following birth. Mr. President, we all know that the first few days after birth are a critical and challenging time for both the infant and the mother. At this crucial stage in life, infants and their mothers truly need the support of health care providers. Yet, more and more families are finding their access to health providers at this time is being limited severely. I say this because it is becoming common practice for health insurers to require that new mothers and their infants be discharged from the hospital 24 hours after an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, and 72 hours after a cesarean section. In some parts of the country, the hospital stay for a normal delivery is being reduced to 12 hours, and there is even talk of cutting it back to 6 hours. And in many cases, the mother and infant receive no professional follow-up care at home. The American Medical Association has dubbled these practices ``drive-through deliveries.'' Drive-through deliveries are not simply a matter of sending home mothers who are often exhausted and still in pain, and who may not have adequate social supports at home. They can also pose severe health risks for both the infant and the mother. National medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have all stated that the trend toward shorter hospital stays is placing the health of many newborns and mothers at risk. There are several reasons why they state this: First, numerous health problems faced by newborns, such as dehydration and jaundice, do not appear until after the first 24 hours of life. Since many of these illnesses can only be detected by health professionals, early hospital discharge can cause these conditions to go undetected, leading to brain damage, strokes, or even death. Second, the mother can also develop many serious health problems, including pelvic infections, breast infections, and hemorrhaging. Third, a 24-hour stay does not provide sufficient opportunity for the mother to be taught basic infant-care skills such as breastfeeding. This, combined with the fact that many mothers are simply too exhausted to care for their child 24 hours after delivery, often leads to newborns receiving inadequate care and nourishment during their crucial first few days of life. Let me assure you that these concerns are not just theoretical. A range of anecdotal and scientific evidence indicates that these problems are real, and growing. A researcher at Dartmouth's medical school recently concluded that newborns discharged less than 2 days after birth are more likely to be readmitted for jaundice, malnutrition, and other problems. Physicians across the country have noted a resurgence in the number of jaundiced babies they are treating. And newspapers across the country in recent weeks have relayed devastating stories about how local mothers and infants have been affected by these policies. Our bill seeks to counteract these negative effects of premature discharges by ensuring that newborns and mothers receive adequate care during those critical first days. It does this by requiring health insurers to allow new mothers and their infants to remain in the hospital for a minimum of 48 hours after a normal birth and 96 hours after a caesarean section. Shorter hospital stays are permitted provided that neither the mother nor the attending physician object, and that follow-up home health care is provided for the mother and infant. To those who would argue that a 48-hour stay is longer than is medically necessary, I would like to point out that this is a significantly shorter time than medical experts recommend for uncomplicated deliveries. In their guidelines for caring for newborns and mothers, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG] and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend stays of 48 hours for uncomplicated vaginal birth, and 96 hours following a caesarean birth--in addition to the day of delivery. ACOG has also pointed out that there is inadequate evidence to prove that early discharge is safe, and therefore that the recent trend toward shorter stays ``could be the equivalent of a large, uncontrolled, uninformed experiment'' on newborns and their mothers. [[Page S 9176]] A 48-hour minimum stay is also consistent with steps being considered by some States. For example, our bill is very similar to one which recently was passed unanimously by the New Jersey Legislature, and which should soon be signed into law. Maryland has also recently passed a law dealing with early discharges, and similar measures are being considered in New York and California. Mr. President, insurers may argue that they will pay for stays beyond 24 hours if there is a valid medical reason. However, many physicians have told me--off the record--that it is very difficult to convince insurers to grant an extension, no matter how valid the reason. They also state that the final decision is often made by someone with no experience in obstetrics. Finally, they state that many doctors are under financial pressures to avoid having patients stay beyond the 24- hour limit, so they are faced with a real quandary when a patient needs an extension. A recent report by Maryland's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene raises further concerns about what is considered a valid medical reason. This report found that among babies who were born prematurely, who were not fully developed, or who were diagnosed with a significant problem, about 22 percent were discharged from the hospital within 24 hours of birth. This study was based on data from 1992. I can only assume that the situation has gotten worse in the 3 years since. Mr. President, there is no greater advocate for controlling health care costs than this Senator. And I am impressed by some health insurers' success in slowing health inflation by reducing unnecessary care. At the same time, I also recognize that there is a very fine line between eliminating unnecessary care and reducing access to care which truly is needed. And when we end up on the wrong side of that line--as I think is happening in the case of newborns and their mothers--I believe it is both appropriate and necessary for us to take steps to protect the health of the American public. Concerns about controlling costs are justified, but they must not be allowed to outweigh concerns about doing what is best for patients. And let us not forget, Mr. President, that discharging mothers and newborns early creates its own costs, the cost to insurers of treating patients for conditions which could have been prevented or lessened if caught earlier, and the costs to the individual and society when a child suffers brain damage or other permanent disabilities because they did not receive adequate early care. Mr. President, America's newborns deserve a better welcome to the world than they are getting under the present system. Their mothers also deserve better. It is very important that health care costs be controlled, but the ultimate decision about health care must be based on medical factors, not financial ones. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure to congratulate New Jersey's very own Devils. As you may know, the New Jersey Devils have defeated the Detroit Red Wings to become the Stanley Cup Champions of the National Hockey League. This past Saturday night at the Meadowlands Arena in East Rutherford, NJ, the Devils concluded their courageous quest for the Stanley Cup with a 5 to 2 victory to sweep the four-game series. The New Jersey Devils may not have superstar players like Detroit. However, it is clear that through their classic gritty team play and a foundation of discipline, unity, and hard work, they overcame all adversity to achieve their ultimate goal. After last year's heart- breaking exit from the playoffs at the hands of the New York Rangers, this year's team forged through the playoffs with a vengeance to complete their mission. New Jersey's key players came through in the playoffs to inspire their team with clutch performances. Although it was forward Claude Lemieux who took the Conn Smythe Trophy as the Most Valuable Player throughout the Stanley Cup playoffs, there were a host of other heroes without whom the Devils would never have made it as far as they did. Captain and defenseman Scott Stevens, who shut down the opposition's superstars, goaltender Martin Brodeur, the second-year phenom who has emerged as one of the best goaltenders in the NHL, and native New Jerseyan Jim Dowd from Brick, who scored a clutch goal to win game two, are just a few examples. The Devils played ultimate team hockey in winning the Stanley Cup. Their now infamous neutral-zone trap defensive system put the Red Wings in a stranglehold tighter than any octopi their fans could throw onto the ice. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to once again offer congratulations to our Devils. Success in the professional sports arena, like many other endeavors, requires a great deal of dedication, hard work, and courage. And that is our New Jersey Devils. I am very proud to have them represent our State.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise reluctantly today to join the debate on Dr. Henry Foster's nomination as Surgeon General. I am reluctant because this has gone on too long; there should not be such fierce opposition to a candidate so clearly qualified as Dr. Foster. However, the debate continues, and I feel it is important to point out his qualifications, and thereby separate the germane issues from distractions, wordplay, and rhetoric. The facts of Dr. Foster's career speak for themselves. His work at Meharry Medical College, his service for a long list of organizations, including the March of Dimes Foundation and the [[Page S 8867]] American Cancer Society, are evidence of his dedication and professionalism. His I Have a Future Program has helped young men and women leave housing projects and embark on field trips, jobs, and college educations. The program was aptly chosen as No. 404 of the Thousand Points of Light. Who can deny that teaching job skills, self- esteem, communication skills, and counseling for at-risk youths is a light in these troubled times? Who can question the values of a man who builds up a community, provides support for teenagers, and encourages family participation in crucial life decisions? Dr. Foster was there for the teenagers of Nashville when their decisions were anything but simple. Violence, pregnancy, drugs, and poverty are problems that faced these youths, and which face us here today. We have a chance to provide America with a Surgeon General who has said that as the People's Doctor, he would try to ``replace a culture of hopelessness with one that gives young people a clear pathway to healthy futures.'' We can debate endlessly, lamenting the lack of values in America and condemning violence, but when we prevent Dr. Foster's nomination, we prevent him from continuing and expanding his fight against today's problems. Dr. Foster has used his position as a medical doctor and an educator to encourage abstinence and to give teenagers hope for the future, so that they will take the responsible path. He has used his knowledge and his expertise to bring adolescent health services to places where they are desperately needed. He has performed a function beyond the call of a traditional physician. In his own words, his work ``involves the entire families and the total social matrix of the surrounding community.'' In holding back this nomination, we hold back possible solutions to problems which face all of us, problems which will not be solved without work like Dr. Foster's, problems which will not go away, and problems which will not wait for political delays. We must listen to the facts in this case. By now, we are all familiar with Dr. Foster's outstanding achievements as a doctor, an educator, a scholar, and a community leader. We know that Dr. Foster has the support of the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and hundreds of other respected institutions and individuals. We cannot ignore the letters which pour in from informed organizations like these, all supporting Dr. Foster, and all condemning the politicization of this issue. We should look at Dr. Foster's numerous achievements, instead of creating a smokescreen of accusations. We should confirm Dr. Foster, and allow him to continue his hard work for at-risk teenagers, for families, for each and every one of us in this Chamber, and for this country.

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. This heritage festival program salutes many 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 [[Page S 8960]] 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, June 25, 1995, the heritage festival series will celebrate the 25th annual Irish Heritage Festival. Twenty-five years ago, when John Gallagherr chaired the very first Irish Heritage Festival, he initiated what has become a grand tradition. This year's celebration, chaired by Kathleen Hyland continues this tradition of highlighting Irish entertainers, food, and crafts, THe day begins early in the morning with a piping competition and will feature traditional Irish sports like hurling and Gaelic football. Additionally, a concelebrated liturgy with Msgr. Kevin Flanagan of St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church, in Parsippany assisted by numerous Irish clergy from throughout New Jersey, will be offered for lasting peace and justice in Ireland. After the liturgy a noon mall show will feature many gifted Irish entertainers including: Daniel O'Donnell, Celtic Cross, Richie O'Shea, Willie Lynch, Barley Bree, Mary McGonigle, and Mike Byrne Band. Over 25,000 people are expected to turnout to eat good food, enjoy traditional music and dance, and to avail themselves of the opportunity to pay tribute to their Irish heritage. On behalf of the almost 1 million New Jerseyans of Irish descent, who contribute so much energy and vitality to my great and diverse State, I offer my congratulations on the occasion of the 25th annual Irish Heritage Festival.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a group of young New Jerseyans whose perseverance and achievement warrant the highest praise. These are not heroes or public figures of the usual variety, but a group of high school students who have mastered an understanding of the basis of our Government, the Constitution. I am proud to announce that students from East Brunswick High School in New Jersey have won second place in the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals. Twenty-three students from East Brunswick High School came to Washington this May to compete against teams from all 50 States. After extensive study of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and preliminary competitions within the State, the students faced a panel of judges in a simulated congressional hearing. They were required to draw on their knowledge of the Constitution and American history to answer questions involving the subtleties and complexities of the Bill of Rights. I am proud to draw attention to these students, who on May 1 were prepared to discuss issues ranging from school [[Page S 8830]] prayer to classical republicanism and the natural rights philosophy. The achievements of East Brunswick High School serve as an example to students, educators, and legislators across the country. They remind us how important it is that every member of society, including parents, professionals, and legislators, participate in the educational process. Congressional support is crucial to the growth and development of future leaders. I am pleased to note that 98 Members of this body participated in this year's We the People program, which has reached more than 20 million students over the past 7 years. Of those 20 million, I would particularly like to congratulate the students of East Brunswick High School, under the guidance of their teacher John Calimano: David Bagatelle, Michael Barnett, Jessica Boar, Ross Cohen, Brian Cutler, Brian Fischer, Marc Gensler, Jonathan Goldberg, Cliff Katz, Ken Katz, Michael Katz, Scott Lanman, Keith Levenberg, Jennifer LoPresti, Eric Neutuch, Evan Rosen, Jeffrey Seiden, Gregg Slater, Sheryl Spinner, John Stapleton, Alison Tanchyk, Howard Wolfson, and Marc Yannaco. These students of East Brunswick High School will lead our Nation into the 21st century, with the knowledge and commitment to understand and defend our Constitution. Success like theirs bodes well for an educated, tolerant, and politically engaged America.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise to offer my gratitude and respect to a long-time member of my staff, Eugene Peters, who recently left my office after 10 years. I will miss Gene, as will everyone who worked with Gene on my staff, and his colleagues and counterparts on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Gene is a member of a very small club here--second-generation Capitol Hill staffers. His father held several high posts in the House of Representatives, and Gene worked his way through college, in New Jersey, by spending summers as an elevator operator in this building. By the time he joined my staff in 1984, Gene had turned to scientific and academic pursuits, completing graduate work in both engineering and public policy. But while he may have been taught to think like an engineer, he was a natural at the very different and less orderly demands of getting legislation passed. His instinctive, entrepreneurial skill was demonstrated by his ability to handle hundreds of issues at once and find opportunities in each one to improve the quality of life in New Jersey. Gene Peters deserves not only my thanks, but those of the people of New Jersey. The shore is clean again this summer, because, in part, of Gene. Open spaces, which are jealously guarded in a State so densely populated, remain pristine, because of Gene Peters. There is less lead in the air and soil, and more awareness of its dangers, because of Gene. And hopefully, before this year is over, the citizens of New Jersey will have better protection from gas explosions in part because of Gene's hard work. The quality that has made Gene a great member of my staff is a simple one, but rare: He knows his stuff. Behind his relaxed, dressed-down persona, Gene knows just about all there is to know about Federal energy programs, land-use and water policy, beach erosion and replenishment, wasteful agricultural programs and numerous other issues that came his way. Gene brought to all these issues not just enthusiasm and knowledge, but the perspective of a parent who understands that the environmental laws we pass have important and far-reaching implications for the well-being of future generations. His ability to keep the work he did in perspective set an example for my entire staff. I will miss him, and I wish him luck in his new position at the Independent Energy Producers Association.

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, New Jersey began its 1995 Spring Heritage Festival Series. This Heritage Festival program salutes many 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 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, June 17, 1995, the Heritage Festival Series will celebrate the 7th Annual Chinese Heritage Festival. Cochaired by Margaret Ko Ma of Murray Hill and Chia Wang Whitehouse of Freehold, this year's event promises to be a grand celebration alive with colorful costumes, traditional foods, ethnic arts and crafts and talented entertainers of Chinese descent. The day-long event will feature a martial arts display by the Shaolin Hung School, as well as traditional flower, lion and drum dancers and music from China will highlight the artistic program. Mall activities will also include an arts and crafts exhibit, vendors selling Chinese food and a fine arts exhibit will feature both traditional and modern Chinese art. On behalf of all New Jerseyans of Chinese descent, I offer my congratulations on the 7th anniversary of the Chinese Heritage Festival.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a group of students whose accomplishments are as varied as they are praiseworthy. On Thursday June 15, 1995, the young women of Mount St. Dominic Academy in Caldwell, NJ, will celebrate their championship season in three sports at their annual athletic awards dinner. With championship seasons in basketball, volleyball, and softball, the students of the Mount captured the attention of the Bergen Record as the ``sports story of the year.'' In addition to these championship titles, the school won the New Jersey Interscholastic Athletic Association's C. Clarke Folsom Sportsmanship Award for the 1994 basketball tournament. This award is made annually to the school whose players, coaches, cheerleaders, and fans demonstrate the ideals of good sportsmanship throughout the tournament. The Mount has made a name for itself not only through outstanding athletic ability; but through the commitment of the school to a strong academic and extracurricular program with an emphasis on community service. Students at the Mount participate in the Siena program of community service as part of their curriculum by donating their time to service projects, in addition to their regular studies and extracurricular activities. Although their prizewinning athletics certainly merit attention, I offer additional praise to these students for their school's unique commitment to community service. The Siena program teaches that the donation of time and energy in service to others is as meaningful as winning a championship season or scoring well on the SAT's. I can only admire a program which views giving back to the community as a basic part of education. In the words of the Mount's own Sister Fran Sullivan, these promising young women ``use their own giftedness to better the world.'' Mr. President, once again I offer my congratulations to these talented and generous young women, who are truly athletes, scholars and public servants.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished friend from Florida today on the floor of the U.S. Senate to talk about the Race for the Cure which will take place this Saturday, and the issue of breast cancer generally. Breast cancer is a dreaded and devastating disease which has reached epidemic proportions in America. During 1995 an estimated 183,000 new cases of breast cancer will be detected in women, and 46,000 lives will be lost to this disease--46,000 lives. The number is staggering. For this reason I am deeply committed to finding a cure for breast cancer, as much as a Senator can be committed. The real action is in science. But we cannot allow our wives, daughters, friends, and coworkers to be claimed by this disease. We must continue to battle for their well-being. Every woman is at risk for breast cancer. It is the leading cause of death among African-American women and it is the leading cause of death among all women between ages 35 and 54. Although the incidence of breast cancer increases sharply after age 40, younger women, even women in their twenties, are also diagnosed with and die of breast cancer. As a nation, we cannot afford to wait any longer to eradicate the leading killer of women in this country. Although we still do not know what causes breast cancer or how to cure it, we have begun to make significant strides. Federal funding for breast cancer research has quadrupled since 1990. [[Page S8294]] The discovery of breast cancer genes has made headlines around the world and restored hope that one day a scientific breakthrough will provide a cure. However, we cannot simply sit back and wait for the cure. Each and every one of us has a role and we can play it and we should play it. One way to help in this fight is to participate in something like the sixth annual National Race for the Cure this Saturday, on June 17. The purpose of this race is to both raise money and public awareness about how early detection and mammograms save lives. The Race for the Cure, and others like it across the Nation, has raised $27.5 million since it began, making the race's foundation the largest private funder of research dedicated solely to breast cancer. The Race For The Cure is a unique opportunity to bring together the many people whose lives have been touched by breast cancer. This year, 25,000 people are expected to participate in this special event. The size of this event clearly demonstrates the far-reaching impact this disease has had on American life. Since 1960, more than 950,000 U.S. women, nearly 1 million American women, have died from breast cancer. This is more than two times the number of all Americans who died in World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf wars. The fight against breast cancer is a continuing battle because breast cancer is the leading killer among women. I will join the estimated 5,000 runners, walkers, and wheelchair participants who will turn out in force on Saturday. I will probably be a walker, not a runner, but I will be there. And I will join with my family, my staff, and I will join all those who have triumphed over breast cancer. That is how my wife likes to refer to it, having had breast cancer in 1992 and gone through the agony of chemotherapy and all of the other assorted traumas that are associated with it. She does not like the word, ``survivor.'' She likes to say that she triumphed over breast cancer. So I will be joining all those who triumphed over breast cancer as well as the relatives of those who have lost loved ones. I will race or walk for a cure. I am very proud of my own office. We will be bringing about 56 people to race for a cure on Saturday. I will race with my staff and hope that one day, when a new generation of American women grow old, their children will learn about breast cancer in history books and not in hospitals or in college or at bedside. I encourage all my colleagues in the Senate to enter the race and urge them to help find a cure for breast cancer. With all of our help and the help of the American people, this race will be a tremendous success. Race for the Cure is, indeed, a race for life. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. BRADLEY. I yield all my time to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, as we conclude this morning business on the Race for the Cure, I simply pay tribute to a member of my staff, Katie Konnorton, who has coordinated the 56 people who will come from my office, associated with it, family members and staff members, to make the race on Saturday. She deserves a lot of credit. I think because of her and because of the commitment of other people on the staff, we will have a tremendous turnout, and I hope that other Senators' offices--I am very pleased the Senator from Washington is going to be there with her family, I respect that--I hope other Senators might check off that Saturday is the day for them to be counted for the cure for breast cancer: The Race for the Cure, Saturday, Senators' offices here in Washington. It sends the message of early detection and fight for a cure. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. President, this is the opening round of a very important debate. Nobody disputes that too much violence is coming into the home. It is coming into the home because it sells, because the market works, because people buy it. So the question is, how do you stop it from coming into the home? My first preference would be to shame those who are making money out of selling trash. But if that fails, Mr. President, then clearly there has to be another way to try to prevent the trash from coming into the home. The amendment offered by the distinguished Senators from South Dakota and Connecticut is the beginning of saying, well, what if the market will not be subject to shame? What if it will continue to put forth trash?

Mr. BRADLEY. Therefore, Mr. President, I think this is a very important Senate decision.

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. This heritage festival program salutes many 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 problems 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 Sunday, June 11, 1995, the Heritage Festival Series will celebrate the 23d Annual Jewish Festival of the Arts. Co-chaired by Amy Schwartz of Springfield, NJ and Martin Hacker of Metuchen, NJ, this year's event promises to be a grand show featuring many talented entertainers including: the Golden Land Klezmer Orchestra, singer Mike Burstyn, and comedian Freddie Roman. On behalf of all Jewish New Jerseyans, I offer my congratulations on the occasion of the 23d Annual Jewish Festival of the Arts.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that will make multiple murders an aggravating factor in determining whether a sentence of death is justified. Mr. President, on March 21, 1995, Christopher Green murdered four people and critically injured another in the robbery of a postal substation in my hometown of Montclair, NJ. Two postal workers, Ernest Spruill and Scott Walensky, and two customers, Robert Leslie and George Lomaga, were forced into a back room and made to lie down on the floor. They were then shot in the back of their heads multiple times at point blank range, execution-style, with a 9-millimeter Taurus semiautomatic pistol containing a 15-round capacity magazine. The magazine contained deadly, flesh-ripping Black Talon bullets which expand upon impact with human tissue. A third customer, David Grossman, entered the post office as the robbery was in progress. He was shot in the face. By the grace of God, however, he survived the attack. Yesterday in Federal court Christopher Green admitted his guilt in intentionally murdering Ernest Spruill, Scott Walensky, Robert Leslie, and George Lomaga, and of attempting to kill David Grossman. He told the court that he had worked for the Montclair Post Office for parts of 1991, 1992, and 1993, and had dealings with the substation where the crime occurred. Mr. President, Christopher Green further admitted that he knew that the substation had minimal security measures in place, and that thousands of dollars in cash were kept at the substation. He also stated in court that he knew Ernest Spruill and Scott Walensky. Mr. President, Christopher Green used a 9-millimeter Taurus semiautomatic pistol containing deadly Black Talon bullets. You may recall that Black Talon bullets produce razor-sharp, reinforced radial petals that expand upon impact into a mushroom or claw configuration, producing maximum tissue damage in the wake of the penetrating core. These bullets are designed for one purpose and that is to kill the intended target. Mr. President, Christopher Green admitted yesterday that he knew that the bullets that he possessed during the robbery-- Black Talon bullets--had the propensity to inflict tremendous internal damage when he viciously murdered Ernest Spruill, Scott Walensky, Robert Leslie, and George Lomaga, and attempted to kill David Grossman. Mr. President, for committing this horrible crime, Christopher Green will be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. While he will never walk the streets of America as a free citizen again, Mr. President, the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey expressed frustration that her ability to seek the death penalty in this case was limited because the death penalty statute does not list multiple murders as an aggravating factor. Mr. President, the determination of whether the death penalty is to apply is made in a separate trial following conviction. A jury must unanimously find certain statutorily defined aggravating factors to justify the imposition of the death penalty. Where the commission of a homicide occurs, such factors include, among others; first, a previous conviction of a violent felony involving a firearm; second, two previous felony drug offense convictions; or third, the murder of high public officials, including the President, as noted by the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, ``[i]nexplicably, multiple murder--even execution style murder--is not listed in the law as an aggravating factor.'' In order to fix this glaring limitation in Federal death penalty law, Mr. President, this bill would add multiple murders to the list of aggravating factors presently available to determine whether a sentence of death can be imposed on a defendant who commits homicide. When Christopher Green purchased the weapon used in this mass murder, police performed a background check and found that Green had no criminal record. Because he had no prior criminal record, the U.S. attorney was severely limited in her ability to seek the death penalty. This bill will therefore strengthen the death penalty law by providing that those who commit atrocious multiple murders will be prosecuted under the death penalty statute, irrespective of whether they have prior criminal records. Mr. President, I believe that the death penalty should be available where an individual commits multiple murders. The senseless spiral of violence burns in many places. No one is immune. Indeed, the mass murders in Montclair occurred in a community that was described in the recent issue of New Jersey Monthly as ``a desirable community where parents feel safe allowing young children to ride their bicycles around town.'' Because of this epidemic of violence, every tool in our legal arsenal, including the death penalty, must be employed to make our communities safe. Mr. President, the horror and devastation of violence impacts our communities in immeasurable ways. I was in Montclair recently, and I met with the widow of one of the victims. As I spoke with her, I saw the pain and despair in her eyes. I felt her anger, hurt, and confusion. Mr. President, her expressions communicated to me her yearning to understand exactly why this horrible event could claim her husband and devastate her life in this great country of ours. As I departed Montclair, Mr. President, I promised to return our communities to places where ``parents feel safe allowing young children to ride their bicycles around town.'' This bill, Mr. President, is one more installment of that promise. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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. This Heritage Festival program salutes many 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, June 10, 1995, the Heritage Festival Series will celebrate the 25th Annual Festa Italiana. Chaired by Eileen DiNizo, this year's event promise to be a grand celebration alive with colorful costumes, traditional foods, ethnic arts and crafts, and talented entertainers of Italian descent. The celebration will consist of both a day-long open air mall event, featuring piazza entertainment, food, crafts and a mass and an evening stage show highlighting renowned Italian entertainers. The Mall activities will kick-off with a traditional sing-a-long, dancing and comedy acts and will feature traditional food and crafts which will be available throughout the cultural exhibit area. Additionally, a liturgy will be concelebrated by the most Rev. Theodore E. McCarrick, Archbishop of Newark and clergy from throughout New Jersey. Immediately following the liturgy will be an evening stage show featuring many Italian artists including, comedian Freddie Travelena, singer Moreno Fruzzetti, and Anthony Rolando, two-time U.S. Accordion champion. On behalf of all New Jerseyans of Italian descent, which at 1.1 million people is the largest ethnic group in my State, I offer my congratulations on the occasion of the 25th Annual Festa Italiana.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I rise in support of the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act. The Oklahoma City bombing brought into sharp focus the reality and horror of domestic terrorism in America. The death toll of the bombing now stands at 167, making it the deadliest mass murder in the history of the United States. This legislation will enhance the ability of law enforcement to combat both foreign and domestic terrorism. It is a strong, adequate response to the serious problem of terrorism, and will provide the United States with the necessary tools to respond to the international and domestic terrorist threats and prosecute these despicable acts to the fullest extent of the law. Madam President, I had wanted to offer an amendment to this bill that was designed to make a technical correction to the existing law banning handgun bullets capable of piercing body armor. Law enforcement represents the first line of defense against threats to our internal security. My amendment therefore was designed to give the maximum level of protection to our police officers by extending the current composition-based ban on cop-killing bullets to provide that any bullet capable of penetrating body armor will be banned, regardless of the bullet's physical composition. I decided not to pursue adoption of the amendment, however, because of my concern that it would slow action on this important bill. I intend to offer this amendment to the next appropriate vehicle. Madam President, the provisions in this bill are vitally important to our efforts to respond to international and domestic threats of terrorism. I, therefore, fully support this bill, and I am confident that because of our actions today, America will be more fortified against the evils of terrorism.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the founding of Gloucester Township. Three hundred years after its incorporation, Gloucester Township has grown from a small farming community along the banks of what is now Timber Creek into one of New Jersey's premier residential communities. On June 1, 1995, residents of Gloucester Township celebrated their 300th year with a ceremony consisting of a reenactment of the 1695 Proclamation of Incorporation. After the ceremony, the tercentenary committee presented a hand-sewn quilt consisting of 33 panels which traces the township's unique history and highlights the area's historic sites. The quilt, lovingly crafted by over 20 volunteers, took hundreds of hours to complete and is a fitting tribute to a special community. Like the memorial quilt, Gloucester Township is a creation of the sum of its parts, incorporating many small, distinct communities--each with their own histories and special characteristics--to add color and form to the township. When the mayor and town council of Gloucester donned their colonial- era garb to reenact the Incorporation Proclamation, they payed tribute to an area of New Jersey that is rich in history. The community of Chews Landing, which predates New Jersey's statehood by years, is still sprinkled with old, historic homes many built during the days when George Washington and James Madison were subscribers to the St. John's Episcopal Church in Chews Landing. Other colorful figures in American history who have roots in Gloucester Township include: Lt. Aaron Chew, a local war hero; Abraham Clark, George Reed, and Charles Campbell, signers of the Declaration of Independence; F. Muhlenberg, a member of the Continental Congress and first Speaker of the House; William Patterson, former Governor of New Jersey; and Elias Boudinot, a member of the New Jersey Continental Congress and Director of the first U.S. Mint. Blenheim, home to the cemetery that is still known today as Wallin's Graveyard, was home to Charity Chew Powell and her husband Richard who lost 17 of their 20 sons in the American Revolution and other of our country's early wars. Gloucester Township is not only rich in history, it is also blessed with attributes that make the area such a wonderful place to live and raise a family. An outstanding school system, beautiful parks, an active little league, and a diverse population create an environment where the bonds of community can thrive. Approximately 56,000 inhabitants strong, Gloucester Township is no longer a small town on the banks of a creek. Still, the small-town belief that fellow residents are actually friends and family, still flourishes and has allowed Gloucester's different communities to live harmoniously as their community has grown. Today, when the fragile ecology of our social environment is as threatened as that of our natural environment, I am delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the inhabitants of Gloucester Township and the lessons they offer in community and modern living. Mr. President, I congratulate Gloucester Township once again, on their tercentennial anniversary.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, our country is a remarkable mosaic--a mixture of races, languages, ethnici-ties, 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, will begin its 1995 Spring Heritage Festival Series. This Heritage Festival program will salute 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, June 4, 1995, the Heritage Festival Series will open with the 24th Annual Polish Heritage Festival. Chaired by Stanley Kostenowcyk, this year's event commemorates the end of World War II and pays tribute to the bravery of American and Polish soldiers in their war efforts. A special commemorative exhibition on the Polish people's involvement in World WAr II will be held in the Robert Meyner Reception Center and will honor the memory of the 6 million Poles that disappeared during this dark period in world history. The festival will also feature food, crafts, music, and traditional Polish folk dancing as well as an outdoor liturgy concelebrated by Rev. Msgr. Joseph Marjanczyk, pastor of Our Lady of Mount Carmel R.C. Church of Bayonne, NJ, and Rev. Eugene Koch, pastor of St. Theresa's R.C. Church in Linden, NJ. Immediately following the outdoor liturgy will be a program featuring many talented Polish artists including: Lenny Gormulka and The Chicago Push; the Jimmy Sturr Orchestra with Carl Buda directing the St. Cecilia's Choir; Raymond Wojcik conducting the Garden State Philharmonic Orchestra; the pianist Jacek Zganiacz; the Hejnal Polish- American Dancers; and Emcee Barry Kaminski. On behalf of all New Jerseyans of Polish descent, a group that numbers over 400,000 people, I offer my congratulations on the occasion of the 24th Polish Heritage Festival.

Mr. BRADLEY

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate 30 percent of the proposed Medicare cuts and the entire cut to the NIH budget. These cuts would be offset with revenues generated by increasing the tobacco tax. Mr. President, my amendment presents a win-win-win situation. It will improve not one, not two, but three threats to our national health. First, it dampens the incredibly harsh blow which the proposed budget will deal to our Nation's oldest citizens. Second, it ensures that the NIH will be able to continue its current efforts to develop life-saving technologies. And finally, it will encourage our citizens--particularly our children and teenagers--to avoid the addiction, sickness, and death which result from tobacco use. The first national health threat which my amendment seeks to improve involves the proposed Medicare cuts. We are all aware that the budget resolution would reduce spending for the Medicare program by $256 billion over 7 years. This means that seniors will have to find an average of $3,447 more dollars to pay for their health care over the next 7 years. In my home State of New Jersey, seniors will have to come up with an additional $932 in the year 2002 alone just to pay for the additional Medicare costs which this budget imposes on them. For many seniors across the country, these new costs will be extremely difficult to bear. In 1992, the median income of seniors in this country was only about $17,000 a year, and over 20 percent of this income already goes for health-related costs. For the millions of seniors across the country who live on fixed incomes, finding an additional $3,447 over 7 years will mean having to give up something else which is important to them. It is estimated that there are already nearly 8 million seniors nationwide who are forced to choose each month between paying for their medications and paying for food. I can't help wondering how many millions more seniors will be faced with this horrible choice once the proposed cuts go into place. Increased financial burdens on seniors is only one of the negative consequences which will result from the proposed Medicare cuts. Along with having to pay more, seniors will likely find that their ability to choose their [[Page S7432]] own doctor restricted--perhaps not explicitly, but because financial limitations leave them with no choice but to join a managed care plan. Also, doctors, hospitals, and other providers are all likely to face reduced payments. They already receive far lower payments from Medicare than from private insurers, and if Medicare rates are reduced much further some may find that they can no longer afford to take Medicare patients. Those which do keep taking Medicare will be forced to shift even more costs onto their privately insured patients, creating a hidden tax on employers and individuals. Mr. President, the proposed Medicare cuts are bad news for seniors; they are bad news for health care providers; and they are bad news for employers and individuals nationwide. My amendment will make this bad news a little better. It does this by offsetting 30 percent of the proposed Medicare cuts with revenues generated by increasing the Federal tax on tobacco products. This means that $76 billion will be restored to the Medicare Program. It reduces the amount of additional money which each senior must find from $3,447 to $2,413 over 7 years. I understand that $2,413 is still an enormous amount of money for anyone on a fixed income to part with. But $2,413 is at least better than $3,447. Mr. President, Medicare cuts are just one of the national health threats which my amendment seeks to improve. The second threat is the proposal, contained in this resolution, to cut the budget of the National Institutes of Health by 10 percent next year and then freeze it through the year 2002. Mr. President, cutting the NIH budget is shortsighted policy at its worst. NIH-funded research impacts the lives of millions of Americans every day. Technologies and drugs developed with NIH funds not only improve Americans' quality of life; they also save lives. Without the basic research which is funded by the NIH, in a few years the private sector will have limited fundamental research upon which to base its own efforts. The result will be a dramatic slowdown in the development of life-improving and life-saving technologies. I have no way of knowing which of us in this room, or which of our loved ones, could benefit in the future from technologies which NIH is developing today. But I do know that we owe it to all present and future Americans to ensure that their access to these technologies is not limited due to shortsighted budget cutting. For those who are not convinced that NIH's role in improving and saving lives warrants restoring its budget, let me make one final point: Much of NIH research reduces health care spending. For example, the NIH recently estimated that approximately $4.3 billion invested in NIH research had the potential to realize annual savings of between $9.3 and $13.6 billion. This translates into a 200- to 300-percent annual return. I challenge my colleagues to find any type of Federal spending which provides an annual return of at least 200 percent. Given that payoff, we can't afford to not invest in the NIH. My amendment recognizes these immense benefits generated by NIH, and seeks to ensure that this research can continue at its present level into the future. To do this, the amendment restores the entire $7.9 million which the Republican resolution cuts from the NIH budget. Finally, Mr. President, this amendment addresses the national health threat created by tobacco use. It seeks to encourage our citizens-- particularly our children and teenagers--to avoid the addiction, sickness, and death which results from using tobacco. Mr. President, I have been on this floor many times talking about the dangers of tobacco use. I have repeatedly stated that tobacco use kills well over 400,000 Americans every year--more than alcohol, heroin, crack, automobile and airplane accidents, homicides, suicides, and AIDS combined. Furthermore, secondhand tobacco smoke will cause tens of thousands of additional deaths. This year, one out of every five Americans who dies will die from tobacco use. But of all the sad stories which can be told about the impact of tobacco use in this country, perhaps the saddest is the alarming rate at which children and teenagers are being hooked on tobacco products. Over 90 percent of new users of tobacco in this country are teenagers or younger. The tobacco companies know children and teenagers are easy targets, so they specifically aim their advertising at them. And their efforts are succeeding. Every 30 seconds, a child or teenager in the United States smokes for the first time. In addition to the enormous human costs of tobacco use--the addition, suffering, and death which could have been avoided--tobacco contributes substantially to health care costs every year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health care expenditures caused directly by smoking totaled $50 billion in 1993, and $22 billion of those costs were paid by Government funds. My amendment seeks to reduce both the human and the economic costs created by tobacco use. It does this by increasing the Federal excise tax on most tobacco products by a factor of five, which translates to an increase of $1 per pack of cigarettes. In addition, my amendment would tax smokeless tobacco products at the same price as cigarettes, in order to eliminate cost incentives for people to switch from cigarettes to smokeless. By raising the Federal excise tax on tobacco, we can discourage people--especially children--from starting the tobacco habit, and we can encourage others to quit. Conservative estimates predict that a 10-percent increase in the price of cigarettes will reduce overall smoking by about 4 percent. And for kids, who are more price sensitive than adults, the impact is even greater. The benefits of such decreased demand cannot be overstated. First, and most importantly, thousands of lives will be saved and the unnecessary suffering will be avoided. In addition, both public and private health insurers will save billions of dollars each year, due to reduced costs for treating tobacco-related diseases. Finally, the increased tax will yield $84 billion in Federal revenues over 7 years. Over half a billion of this amount will be used to help tobacco farmers convert to other crops. The rest of the money will go to help decrease the national health threats posed by the drastic Medicare cuts and by the reduction in the NIH budget. These revenues will enable the entire cut to the NIH budget to be offset, and the proposed Medicare cuts to be decreased by 30 percent. Some persons may question whether it is appropriate to ask smokers to absorb part of the blow which the proposed budget designates for seniors and providers. My response to that question is an unequivocal ``yes.'' According to a former Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, tobacco use is the largest single drain on the Medicare trust fund. This is the trust fund which is predicted to go insolvent in 2002. It strikes me as quite appropriate to ask persons who choose to use tobacco to help offset some of the costs of their choice. And it strikes me as quite inappropriate to ask other persons-- such as nonsmoking seniors and providers--to accept reductions at the same time that they are forced to help pay for the costs of other people's unhealthy choices. By discouraging tobacco use, decreasing Medicare cuts, and restoring the NIH budget to its current level, my amendment presents a win-win- win situation. Our children and teenagers win, because they will be discouraged from starting down the road of addiction, sickness, and death caused by tobacco use. Health insurers and employees win, because health costs for tobacco-related diseases will be reduced. Health care providers and employers win, because this amendment will reduce payment cuts and cost-shifting. Seniors win, because the amendment will reduce the financial strains and the concerns about quality and access which will result from steep Medicare cuts. And we all win, as the NIH will be able to continue its current efforts to develop lifesaving technologies. For the sake of all these affected Americans, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, this amendment makes a very simple point: we can spend money just as easily through the Tax Code as we can through the appropriations process or through the creation of mandatory spending programs. The amendment that I have offered would simply require that in our annual budget process we establish targets for reducing tax loopholes-- just as we do for all other types of spending. Those targets would be enforced through a separate line in our budget reconciliation instructions for reductions in tax loopholes. We already do this for other entitlement programs. There is no reason not to do so for tax loopholes. The Senate would pass a budget resolution asking the Finance Committee to reduce tax loopholes, for example, by $10 billion a year or $20 billion or whatever the Senate decides is prudent. It would be up to the Finance Committee to meet those targets through the reconciliation process. This separate tax expenditure target would not replace our current revenue targets. Instead, it would simply ensure that the committee take at least the specified amount from tax loopholes. In other words, we would ensure that the committee would not raise the targeted amount from rate increases. I think we should be honest about the hundreds of billions of dollars that we spend each year through tax loopholes. Spending is spending, whether it comes in the form of a government check or in the form of a special exception from the tax rates that apply to everyone else. Tax expenditures are a large and rapidly growing form of spending by the Federal Government. According to the Budget Committee, in 1996, tax expenditures will cost over $480 billion; left unchecked, we will spend roughly $4 trillion on tax expenditures between now and 2002. In 1986, we dramatically scaled back these loopholes. However, since that time, they have grown at an astronomical rate. At a time when we are properly talking about other spending cuts, I do not believe that tax expenditures should be off the table. Tax expenditures or tax loopholes allow some taxpayers to lower their taxes and leave the rest of us paying higher taxes than we otherwise would pay. By requiring that Congress establish specific targets for tax loopholes as part of the budget reconciliation process, this amendment simply places tax loopholes under the same budgetary scrutiny as all other spending programs. Tax loopholes do not, as some would say, simply allow people to keep more of what they have earned. Rather, they give the few a special exception from the rules that oblige everyone to share in the responsibility of the national defense and protecting the young, the aged, and the infirm. Mr. President, in the face of a Federal debt rapidly approaching $5 trillion, we cannot afford to be timid. Our children's way of life is dependent upon our acting on the Federal deficit today and tomorrow and every year thereafter until we restore fiscal sanity to our budget. We cannot wait until we grow our way out of the debt. And we should not and cannot wait until deficits start drifting up in the latter half of this decade before we do something. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that by 2004 the national debt held by the public will rise to roughly $6 trillion. At that time, the national debt will equal almost 55 percent of our gross domestic product. By 2004, interest payments on that debt will be approximately $334 billion, or over 3 percent of our gross domestic product. One recent report stated that these interest payments will cost each of today's children over $130,000 in extra taxes over the course of their lifetime. Our national debt is nothing less than a mortgage on our Nation's, and our children's, future. Mr. President, let us not kid ourselves. As we have seen from this week's debate, addressing our burgeoning debt will not be easy. If it was, we would have done it years ago. Instead, it will require a very thoughtful, and sometimes difficult, debate over our Nation's priorities and what sacrifices [[Page S7430]] we are willing to make in order to balance the budget. This means that we are going to have to take a hard look at what we spend the taxpayers' money on. And that means all of our spending programs--tax expenditures included. The purpose of this amendment is simply to try to draw the Senate's attention to the very targeted spending we do through the Tax Code-- spending that is not subject to the annual appropriations process; spending that is not subject to the executive order capping the growth of mandatory spending; spending that is rarely ever debated on the floor of the Senate once it becomes part of the Tax Code. The preferential deductions or credits or depreciation schedules or timing rules that we provide through the Tax Code are simply entitlement programs under another guise. Many of them make sense, Mr. President. And I would be the first to admit that. Many, however, probably could not stand the light of day if we had to vote on them as direct spending programs. Given our critical need for deficit reduction, tax spending should not be treated any better or worse then other programs. It should not be protected any more than Social Security payments or crop price support payments or Medicare payments or welfare payments. What am I really talking about? I am talking about provisions that allow wealthy Americans to renounce their citizenship in order to avoid paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. That is already in the Tax Code. I am talking about letting wealthy taxpayers rent their homes for 2 weeks a year without having to report any income. That is already in the Tax Code. I am talking about providing production subsidies in excess of the dollars invested for the production of lead, uranium and asbestos--three poisons on which we spend millions of dollars each year just trying to clean up. That is already in the code. I am talking about tax credits for clean-fuel vehicles, cancellation of indebtedness income for farmers or real estate developers, special amortization periods for timber companies' reforestation efforts, industrial development bonds for airports or docks, special treatment of capital construction funds for shipping companies, et cetera, et cetera. Mr. President, let me be clear that this bill does not pinpoint specific programs and I am not suggested that we eliminate all tax expenditures. In fact, I support many of them. Instead, I am simply suggesting that we subject them to the same level of scrutiny as all other entitlement programs. If we are serious about deficit reduction--and for our Nation's future I sincerely hope that we are--then every segment of spending will have to be examined. We cannot do it fairly through discretionary spending cuts alone. Indeed, that is an area of the budget that is shrinking in terms of gross national product. Likewise, we cannot do it fairly through entitlement cuts alone. In order to achieve equitable, lasting deficit reduction, we will need to consider tax loopholes as well.