Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from California, Senator Barbara Boxer, in commending and congratulating the Los Angeles Lakers for their outstanding season which was culminated last night in winning the 2000 National Basketball Association Championship. Without a doubt, the Los Angeles Lakers are one of the finest franchises in the history of professional sports. In defeating a gritty and hard-nosed Indiana Pacers team last night, the Lakers captured their twelfth NBA Championship in the true spirit of their ``Showtime'' years. The Los Angeles Lakers are a true sporting dynasty. They are the second winningest team in NBA history. Their record of 67-15, the best regular season record in the NBA's Eastern and Western Conference. Led by coach Phil Jackson, Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant the Lakers are a formidable opponent. Shaquille O'Neal was named league Most Valuable Player, led the league in scoring and field goal percentage, won the IBM Award for greatest overall contribution to a team, and became just the sixth player in the game's history to be a unanimous selection to the All-NBA First team. Shaquille O'Neal also was named Most Valuable Player of the 2000 All Star game scoring 22 points and collecting 9 rebounds. And he also dominated the 2000 playoffs scoring 38 points per game in the NBA Finals on his way to winning the Most Valuable Player award. Another top player was the 21-year-old phenom, Kobe Bryant, who overcame injuries to average more than 22 points a game in the regular season and be named to the NBA All-Defensive First Team. Kobe Bryant's eight point performance in the overtime of game 4 led the Lakers to one of the most dramatic wins in playoff history. Coach Phil Jackson, winner of seven NBA Championship rings and a playoff winning percentage of .718, has proven to be one of the most innovative and adaptable coaches in the NBA. And when you add to this terrific trio and strong supporting cast-- including Glenn Rice, A.C. Green, Ron Harper, Robert Horry, Rick Fox, Derrick Fisher, Brian Shaw, Devean George, Tyronn Lue, John Celestand, Travis Knight, and John Salley--the recipe for a championship was written. I also congratulate team owner Dr. Jerry Buss, General Manager Jerry West and all the others who worked so hard to return the championship magic to the City of Angels. But most of all, I would like to congratulate the myriad of Lakers fans who have pulled for this team through it all. The 1999-2000 Los Angeles Lakers will go down in history with those legendary teams of the past. And we can add the names of Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryan to the tapestry of Laker greats: George Mikan, Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and the incomparable Earvin ``Magic'' Johnson. These Lakers demonstrated immeasurable determination, heart, stamina, and an amazing comeback ability in their drive for the championship. They have made the City of Los Angeles and the State of California proud. The Los Angeles Lakers have started the 21st century meeting the high standards they established in the 20th century. In the years ahead, I have no doubt that this team will add numerous championship banners to the rafters of the Staples Center. Senator Boxer and I thought it would be fitting of offer this resolution today. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related thereto be printed in the Record, with no intervening action.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to join the Senator from Washington in this debate. I have just listened to the comments of the distinguished Senator from Missouri. I must say I profoundly differ with them. But let's for a moment say the Senator is correct. Then what is the fear of doing a study to take a look at the safety implications of SUVs and light trucks in single and multicar accidents? If the other side is so sure they are correct, they have nothing to worry about from a study being done. So why the gag order that prevents the Government from looking at this? I submit to you, Mr. President, in direct debate with the Senator, that as fuel economy standards have gone up, fatality rates per million miles traveled have actually decreased. That decrease is rather large. I wish I had a big chart, but you can kind of see it here. These are the fuel economy on-road miles per gallon going up, and here are the fatality rates to the year 2000 actually going down. Second, Ford Motor Company, by 2003, will have on the market a hybrid SUV which will get 40 miles per gallon. And Ford says that its 2003 version of its Escape sports utility vehicle will get twice that of other small SUVs, four times that of big ones. This comes from technology, from a hybrid powerplant, a small gasoline engine coupled to an electric motor. This SUV will get 40 miles to the gallon. Let me read a statement by the National Highway Traffic Safety Board: Collisions between cars and light trucks account for more than one half of all fatalities in crashes between light duty vehicles. More than 60 percent of all fatalities in light vehicle side impacts occur when the striking vehicle is a light truck. SUVs are nearly three times as likely to kill drivers of other vehicles during collisions than are cars. According to a study by the National Crash Analysis Center, an organization funded by both the Government and the auto industry: Occupants of a SUV are just as likely as occupants of a car to die, once the vehicle is involved in an accident. The explanation, of course, is that SUVs have high rollover rates; 62 percent of SUV deaths are in rollover accidents, but only 22 percent of car deaths are in rollover accidents. So you cannot say that the SUV/ light truck is a safe vehicle, even as a heavier vehicle. The statistics do not support it. Let me also say that Ford Motor Company itself, which depends on SUVs for much of its profit, has acknowledged that they cause serious safety and environmental problems. Let me quote from the New York Times: In its first corporate citizenship report issued at the company's annual shareholders' meeting here, Ford said that the vehicles contributed more than cars to global warming, emitted more smog-causing pollution, and endangered other motorists. The auto maker said that it would keep building them because they provide needed profit, but would seek technological solutions to the problems and look for alternatives to big vehicles. So here is a major American manufacturer admitting that SUVs are not safer. Let me finally, on this point, quote a GAO report: The unprecedented increase in the proportion of light cars on the road that occurred between 1976 and 1978, and 1986 and 1988, did not have the dire consequences for safety that would be expected if fatality rates were simply a function of car weight. Not only did the total fatality rate decrease, but the fatality rate for small cars, those at the greatest risk, if it is assumed that heavier cars are inherently safer than lighter cars, also declined sharply. So why be afraid of the study? If those who say safety is a problem are so sure, let's take a good look at it. Let's have unbiased sources take a look at it. The reason I feel so strongly is because I do believe that global warming is a real and vital phenomenon; that it is taking place all across the land, and that the largest single thing we can do to reduce global warming is to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide. By putting the same fuel efficiency standards on SUVs and light trucks as are on sedans, we essentially remove 240 million tons of carbon dioxide each year from the atmosphere. This year's House Transportation appropriations bill once again contains the provision which prevents this issue from even being considered. This is the seventh consecutive year this gag order has appeared. Why are they so afraid of a study? If you add to what the Senator from Washington said--and I think he is absolutely correct--that we are witnessing a new phenomenon this year in increasing gasoline prices which have exacerbated our Nation's dependence on OPEC and foreign oil, this policy does not make sense from another viewpoint. It costs the consumer more. Frankly, I am surprised there is this resistance. Since last year's debate, gasoline prices reached $2 per gallon in many parts of my State, and they are approaching $2.50 through much of the Midwest. This should harden our resolve to take a look at the situation. Today, the United States, with only 4 percent of the world's population, consumes 25 percent of the world's energy. Our CO2 emissions from vehicles alone exceed the total CO2 emissions of carbon dioxide from all but three other countries in the world today. My State of California is the third largest consumer of gasoline in the world, behind only the United States and Japan and ahead of virtually every other country. So California has a huge stake in this. We use more gasoline than China, Germany, and Russia. The situation is made worse by this loophole. SUVs and light trucks, which are as much passenger vehicles as station wagons and sedans, are only required today to have 20.7 miles per gallon per fleet versus 27.5 miles per gallon for automobiles. I am an SUV owner. I own three Jeeps. I love my Jeeps, but I do not see why they should not be just as fuel efficient as the sedan we also drive. At today's prices, light truck and SUV owners are spending an additional $25 billion a year at the pump because of this loophole. If SUVs simply achieve the same fuel economy standards as automobiles, consumers would save hundreds of dollars a year and thousands of dollars over the life of a vehicle. As this chart shows, the typical SUV burns about 861 gallons of fuel each year. The average gasoline price, if it is at $1.50 cents a gallon, costs consumers $1,290 a year. At $2, the cost increases to more than $1,700. If we simply close this SUV loophole and require these vehicles to meet the same standards as automobiles, SUVs would burn 213 fewer gallons of gasoline a year. That is a savings of 1 million barrels of oil a year, and it is a savings of 240 million tons of carbon dioxide going into the air. It is also a savings for the consumer of $318 each year. At $2, the savings is $420 a year. The real clincher is the pollution argument, and that is, the savings of 240 million tons of CO2 from going into the air and creating a greenhouse effect that warms the Earth. We also know that raising CAFE standards is the quickest and most single effective step we can take in this direction. I happen to believe global warming is real. I took a day and went to the Scripts Institute of Oceanography in San Diego and had a briefing. What I heard there doubly convinced me it is a real phenomenon. The weather is getting hotter, and the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1986; 1980 to 1999 was the hottest 20-year period ever recorded, and 1998 was the hottest year in recorded history. Yesterday the temperature in San Francisco, a usually very cold city, was 104 degrees. The Earth's average temperature has risen 1.3 degrees in the last 100 years, and computer models predict an increase of 2 to 6 degrees over the next century. Because of our temperate climate, the increase in the United States will be on the high end of that figure; meaning we will gain about 6 degrees in temperature over the next century. What does that mean? That means warmer weather in my State will make water even more scarce. It means it will destroy certain agricultural crops. It means it will lead to more frequent and intense Sierra forest fires and serious flooding at certain times of the year. In normal winters, our water gets stored in snowpacks until the spring when it is needed for drinking and farming, but warmer winters would cause significant amounts of winter precipitation to change from snow to rain, becoming runoff or, worse, floods into low-lying flood- prone areas, such as Sacramento. Drought conditions will worsen in the southern and central valley parts of my State, destroying water- dependent crops, such as rice, cotton, and alfalfa. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sea levels could rise 2 feet over the next century, further flooding low- lying areas, and greatly increasing the penetration of salt water into the California delta, the source of drinking water for 22 million people. That is why I am concerned. It is a legitimate reason to be concerned and it is doubly legitimate if you know something that is doable and can be done with no adverse impact, is, in fact, being done by some manufacturers and foreign manufacturers, and this Congress will not even take a look at what effect it would have on pollution, what effect it would have on safety. It is an ostrich syndrome par excellence. Mr. President, 117 million Americans live in areas where smog makes the air unsafe to breathe. Asthma of children is on the uptake, and roughly half of this air pollution is caused by cars and trucks. If we increase fuel efficiency, we consume less gasoline. This decreases smog and air pollutants. Given all these facts, I cannot figure out why anyone would not want to at least study whether CAFE standards should be updated. For 7 years there has been a gag order: Do not even take a look; both sides are certain. Senators Gorton, Bryan, and myself on one side; Senators Abraham, Levin, and Ashcroft on another. Let's settle it. Let's take a look. Let's have an independent study. Let's see who is right. It does not bother me to do that. I do not understand why it bothers anyone else. Half of all new vehicles sold in this country are SUVs and light duty trucks, and this is what makes this so compelling. This becomes then a stranglehold on energy efficiency, and it has produced an American fleet with the worst fuel efficiency since 1980. We are going backwards because of it. We are polluting the air more because of it. We are contributing to global warming more because of it. The United States saves 3 million barrels of oil each day because of the current fuel efficiency standards. Closing the SUV loophole adds 1 million additional barrels. That is a total savings of 4 million barrels of oil each day. Last year, opponents of our amendment argued that boosting CAFE standards would lead to increased traffic fatalities, layoffs, and higher sticker prices. If our opponents again are so sure of their arguments, what is the harm of allowing the Department of Transportation to study the costs and benefits of higher CAFE standards? Last year, I listened to some of my colleagues cite their concerns again about traffic safety. Based on what we heard today, I believe it is naive to think that bigger cars are simply safer. I was going to buy a bigger car not too long ago. I watched the crash tests. I saw this expensive, heavy sedan crumple up like an accordion. I decided not to buy it; it was not safer. The New York Times recently reported on tests conducted by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to demonstrate the propensity of SUVs to roll over. Here is a particularly poignant quote from the article: Because it is taller, heavier and more rigid than a car, an SUV or pickup is more than twice as likely to kill the driver of the other vehicle in a collision. Yet partly because these so-called light trucks roll over so often, their occupants have roughly the same chance of dying in a crash. So not only is an SUV driver more apt to kill someone else, but that same driver is not any safer. I think this should be disturbing to anyone who gets into any moving vehicle. With regard to job losses in the domestic auto industry, opponents of our amendment fail to offer any empirical evidence. A recent study by the nonpartisan American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy concludes that the consumer savings at the pump would actually translate to a net increase of 244,000 jobs nationwide, with 47,000 of these new jobs occurring in the auto industry. Let me repeat: The projections are, it will not mean a loss of jobs; it will mean a gain of jobs. And that gain of jobs has translated into a net increase of 244,000 jobs nationwide and 47,000 in the auto industry. I remember when automakers told us they could not make cars safer; they could not meet the original CAFE standards; they could not add seatbelts or catalytic converters; But they did. They said regulations and mandates would drive them out of business, but they did not. These same arguments have been recycled for decades. In 1974, a representative for Ford Motor Company testified in front of Congress that the implementation of CAFE standards would lead to a fleet of nothing but sub-Pinto-sized automobiles. Of course, that did not happen. Our Nation's fleet of vehicles are as diverse as ever and probably more diverse. The largest sedans and station wagons today get far better fuel economy than the 1974 Pinto. It is really a tribute both to the industry and to that industry's ingenuity. It is also a tribute to the CAFE or fuel efficiency program. One of the reasons that, for a while, the American automobile manufacturers lost their cutting edge in the 1970s was their reluctance to do the research and development necessary to build innovative new vehicles. But I am very proud to say that today's car companies are far more efficient and innovative and have the technology to increase the fuel economy of light duty trucks and SUVs to much higher levels than achieved by today's automobiles. I am disappointed that the automotive companies continue lobbying for this gag order. To me, it is like pushing things back into the 1970s, where the Japanese made all the advances, and the American industry refused to change its models, to move with the times, to put in the research and development that is necessary to build a better automobile. I thought those days were behind us. What do we have to lose by allowing the Department of Transportation to simply do their job and determine whether it makes sense to increase CAFE standards? Let me just touch on a couple of the safety fallacies. Again, in fact, vehicle fatality rates have been cut in half since CAFE standards were introduced. I pointed that out in the beginning. Only by stretches of fallacious logic do opponents contrive higher death rates to the CAFE standards. Let me give you some of these fallacies: First, the CAFE standards imply smaller vehicles. The answer: Higher CAFE is achieved by technology improvement, not by downsizing. Secondly, that lighter vehicles imply higher fatalities. The answer: Crashworthiness is determined not by size or weight but by design. Today's compacts are safer than large cars of 20 years ago. And finally, unbalanced risk assessment. The answer: Studies based on harm to small-car occupants neglect the risks that larger vehicles impose or inflict on others. So I am hopeful that because of the increase in fuel prices, because of the added cost to the consumer by the gag order, by the fact that every consumer, if this were to come to pass, would save $318, with an average cost of $1.50, and $504 with a higher cost a year, we can clearly make a showing that a study is necessary at this time. I thank the Chair and also the Senator from Washington. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join the administration and, particularly the Vice President, in introducing the Social Security Number Protection Act of 2000. This legislation is designed to curb the unregulated sale and purchase of Social Security numbers, which have contributed significantly to a growing range of illegal activities, including fraud, identity theft, and, in some cases, stalking and other violent crimes. Mr. President, in 1997, I introduced S. 600, the Personal Privacy Information Act, with Senator Grassley after watching in dismay as one of my staff downloaded my own Social Security number off of the Internet in less than three minutes. Nothing much has changed. For a mere $45, one can go online and purchase a person's Social Security number from a whole host of web businesses--no questions asked. Why is it so important to stop the commercial sale of individuals' personal Social Security numbers? Once a criminal has a potential victim's Social Security number, that person becomes extremely vulnerable to having his or her whereabouts tracked and his or her identity stolen. The Social Security number is the Nation's de facto national identifier. It is a key to one's public identity. The Federal Government uses it as a taxpayer identification number, the Medicare number, and as a soldier's serial number. States use the Social Security number as the identification number on drivers' licenses, fishing licenses, and other official records. Banks use it to establish personal identification for credit. The number is requested by telephone companies, gas companies, and even by brokerages when consumers set-up personal accounts. Thus, a criminal who purchases a Social Security number is well on his way to fraudulently obtaining numerous services in the name of an unsuspecting American. Partly due to this unrestricted traffic in Social Security numbers, our country is facing an explosion in identity theft crimes. The Social Security Administration recently reported that it had received more than 30,000 complaints about the misuse of Social Security numbers, last year, most of which had to do with identity theft. This is an increase of 350% from 1997, when there were 7,868 complaints. In total, Treasury Department officials estimate that identity theft causes between $2 and $3 billion in losses each year--just from credit cards. According to a recent survey of identity theft victims published jointly by the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and CALPIRG, the average identity theft victim has fraudulent charges of $18,000 made in his name. Typically, an identity theft victim spends approximately 175 hours of personal time over a two-year period to clean-up his credit record. Sometimes, this unrestricted sale of personal information can have tragic results. Amy Boyer, a twenty-year old dental assistant in New Hampshire, was killed last year by a stalker who bought her Social Security number off an Internet web site for $45. Armed with this critical information, he tracked her down to her work address. Here are some other examples of Social Security number misuse. Kim Brady, a constituent from Castro Valley, California, wrote to me that an identity thief obtained a credit card in her name on the Internet. The application ``was approved in 10 seconds even though the application only had [her] name, Social Security number, and birth date correct.'' When Ms. Bradbury contacted credit card companies and asked how a credit card was issued in her name despite false information on the application, the companies said they only look to ``see that the name and the Social Security number match.'' Another California constituent, Michelle Brown of Hermosa Beach, informed me that a criminal used her Social Security number to fraudulently assume her identity. The perpetrator rang up a total of $50,000 in charges including a $32,000 truck and $5,000 worth of liposuction. In addition, the perpetrator used Michelle's identity to establish wireless and residential telephone service, utilities service, and to obtain a year-long residential lease. Michelle notes that she has spent hundreds of hours trying to restore her good name and has endured ``weeks of sleepless nights, suffering from nearly no appetite, and nerve-shattering moments of my life spinning out of control.'' In another case, a retired air force officer was falsely billed for $113,000 on 33 different credit accounts after identity thieves stole his Social Security number. He and his wife have dealt with over a dozen third party collection agencies. They are also being sued by a furniture store in Texas and have had five automobiles purchased in their name. I am pleased to work with the Administration on this bill because no one should seek to profit from the sale of Social Security numbers in circumstances that create a substantial risk of physical, emotional, or financial harm to the person to whom these numbers are assigned. What would this bill do? The Social Security Number Protection Act would impose criminal and civil penalties for the sale and purchase of Social Security numbers. Specifically, it would direct the Federal Trade Commission to issue regulations prohibiting this sale. The legislation would direct the FTC to permit exceptions to this ban in a very narrow range of circumstances, including where an individual has consented to the sale, for law enforcement or national security reasons, in emergency situations to protect an individual's health and safety, for research or public health purposes, and where the use of the Social Security number is for a lawful purpose and is unlikely to result in serious bodily, emotional, or financial harm of a Social Security number holder. Mr. President, I think this is a very important step forward. The bill is carefully drawn. It simply prevents the sale of Social Security numbers for profit, which can result in enormous wrongdoing to the individual Social Security number holder. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. President, the significance of this debate, in my view, is this: The Norwood-Dingell bill--the Daschle amendment here--is a good bill. It would provide coverage for 161 million Americans, as opposed to the 48 million Americans covered by the Republican Senate bill. The beauty of what is happening here today is that if the Senate were to enact this bill, to pass this bill, we would have health care reform in the United States. The bill would go directly to the President, it would be signed, and the job would be done. Instead, the concern of many of us is that this is simply not going to happen. And we have a chance to make it happen today. I contend that no one should go out there and say they are for health care reform and not vote for a bill that has the opportunity to become a reality. That bill is the House-passed Norwood-Dingell bill, and we have that chance today. After the consideration of the bill on the floor last year, I went to California. California has the largest penetration of managed care in the Nation. I called together the CEOs of the big managed care companies and the California Medical Association. We proposed four things to them--four very simple things. One of them was the definition of ``medical necessity.'' The Senator from Tennessee just said: It is important to get the HMOs out of the business of practicing medicine. That is what I tried to do in the debate on the floor when the Senate bill was up--to change the medical necessity provisions to make sure doctors decide what is medically necessary, not insurance companies. So I thought I would go to them and ask them to voluntarily make changes in how medical necessity is determined, in medically necessary drugs and in two other areas. There was a lot of discussion and several meetings. The bottom line is that they are unwilling to change. The bottom line is that they did not come forward with a plan. The bottom line is I believe we are going to be in this situation where Americans are dissatisfied with the level of managed care provided to them by their plans until we pass a basic law. What law could be more basic essentially than Norwood-Dingell? Let's look at what it does. It assures nearby emergency room treatment for emergencies. That is common sense. It provides access to specialists for patients needing specialty care. In my view, that is a no-brainer. If you need it, you should get it. It provides access to drugs not on the plan's formulary, if medically necessary. It provides the ability to stay with your physician at least 90 days or until treatment is complete if a doctor terminates his/her contract with your plan and you require specialized care. It provides coverage of the routine costs of clinical trials. It provides access to a clear internal and external review process for denial of benefits. It holds plans accountable in the event of death or injury. A key issue in this debate and reflected in several parts of the Daschle amendment is who decides: Is it the doctor in consultation with the patient or is it an HMO bureaucrat, a green eyeshade? Under this amendment it is the medical expert who knows the patient and who decides, not the plan. This means that doctors decide which drug works best; doctors decide which treatment is appropriate; doctors decide when specialty care is needed; doctors decide how long someone will stay in the hospital. For example, this amendment requires health plans that have formularies to cover drugs that are not on a plan's formulary, if the doctor believes the non-formulary drugs are medically necessary. It also requires plans to refer patients with a serious or complex illness to a specialist for care. If a patient's condition requires the use of a specialist that is not available through the health plan, this amendment requires that plans cover services, at no additional cost, through a non-participating specialist. Both provisions are essential for persons living with a life-threatening or chronic illness. Restoring medical decision-making to those trained to make medical decisions is at the heart of this debate. Doctor after doctor in my state talks about how their decisions are challenged, countermanded, second-guessed, and undermined by HMOs, to the point that they can hardly practice medicine. Another important provision says that patients can continue treatment with their doctors for at least 90 days if plans have terminated their contract. A plan must continue to cover treatment for pregnancy, life- threatening, degenerative or disabling diseases and diseases that require special medical care over a prolonged period of time with the terminated provider. The amendment also requires plans to cover the routine costs of clinical trials, costs like blood work, physician charges and hospital fees. Clinical trials are research studies of new strategies for prevention, detection and treatment of diseases for which patients volunteer. These trials often involve analyzing new treatments, like promising new drugs, for diseases such as cancer. This provision is needed because a major deterrent to participation in trials is that insurers refuse to cover the day-to-day costs. For example, in the case of cancer, only 3-4 percent of adult cancer patients (40,000 people out of 1.2 million diagnosed) are enrolled in cancer trials. Another provision of the amendment would allow patients to go to the closest emergency room during a medical emergency without having to get a health plan's permission first. Emergency room staff could stabilize, screen and evaluate patients without fear that plans will refuse to pay the costs. According to the University of California, Los Angeles, Health Insurance Policy Program: ``Californians are confused about where they should turn for help in resolving their problems and most are not satisfied with the resolution of their problems. There is a need for a clear grievance procedure and independent review of health plan decisions to try to prevent adverse health outcomes to the extent possible.'' The Daschle amendment requires plans to have both an internal and external review for benefit denials. The review must be conducted and completed by a medical professional within 14 days or 72 hours in the case of an emergency. For external reviews, the reviewer must have medial expertise and a determination must be made within 21 days after receiving the request for a review. In the case of an emergency, that decision must be made within 72 hours. Senator Daschle's amendment would also allow patients to sue health insurance plans in state courts for denials or delays in coverage if the internal and external review process has been exhausted first, unless injury or death has occurred before the completion of the process. Plans complying with an external review decision would not be subject to punitive damages. Additionally, employers who were not involved in a claim decision would be exempt from such legal action. This provision helps patients keep their health plan accountable for the decisions made about their health. Another key issue before us is who is covered. Under this bill, all 161 million insured Americans would be protected. This is a vast improvement over the Senate bill which only covers 48 million Americans. How can we say one group deserves protections and another does not? The words of this Californian provide an accurate and poignant summary of the problem. Kit Costello, president of the California Nurses Association, said: Most Americans see a confusing, expensive, unreliable and often impersonal assembly of medical professionals and institutions. If they see any system at all, it is one devoted to maximizing profits by blocking access, reducing quality and limiting spending . . . all at the expense of the patient. . . . Who's in charge of my care? The average American believes that health insurance companies have too much influence and exert too much control over their own personal care--more than their doctor, hospital, the government or they themselves, sometimes more than all of them combined. Mr. President, people should not have to fight for their health care. They pay for it out of their monthly paycheck. It should be there for them when they need it. Last fall, after the Senate completed consideration of the HMO bill, I convened a group of HMO officials and health care providers in an effort to address some of the complaints we were hearing from patients and doctors in California. They met several times early this year. I asked them to try to reach agreement on at least four issues. One, medical necessity: Include clear language in contracts between plans and providers on medical necessity. I suggested the language like that that I proposed in the Senate which defined ``medically necessary or appropriate'' as ``a service or benefit which is consistent with generally accepted principles of professional medical practice.'' Two, payment of claims: Because at the time, 50 percent of physicians and 75 percent of California medical groups were reporting serious delays in payments by plans, I asked them to agree on a system for promptly notifying doctors when patients' leave plans and an assurance of prompt payment of claims. Three, low premium rates: According to a 1999 Price Waterhouse Study, California has one of the lowest average per member premium rates per month in the country ($120 monthly) in the commercial managed care marketplace. Of this, doctors receive around $35 for actual patient care. Payments in California are 40% less than those in the rest of the country. Over 75% of medical groups are in serious financial trouble in my state. I suggested that they develop payment rates to providers that are sufficient to cover the benefits provided in an enrollee's contract, rates that thus are actuarially sound. Four, formularies: Finally, physicians were telling me that it is difficult to find out which drugs are and are not on plans' formularies and that it was difficult to get exceptions from formularies for patients when drugs not on the formulary were medically necessary and more effective than those on the formulary. I had hoped they could work out better methods for letting doctors know which drugs are on the plans' formularies and to agree on a uniform method for allowing exceptions to formularies when nonformulary drugs are medically necessary. There were several meetings in January and February. It is now June. Even though there were several constructive discussions, little resolution was reached. And so, without voluntary action by the industry, legislation is all the more necessary. I hope the Senate passes this amendment today and sends it to the President for signature.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona to require the disclosure of donors to tax-exempt groups who engage in political activities. These groups use an obscure provision of the Tax Code--section 527--to shield the identity of contributors and use the funds to make anonymous attacks on candidates for public office. Section 527 organizations represent the latest attempt to bypass campaign finance laws and pour undisclosed money in the electoral process. There is no official public information about the number of such groups, who their officers are, where the money is coming from, and how it is being spent. Section 527 of the Tax Code was enacted to provide candidates, political parties, and PAC's with special tax treatment. These groups are required to register with the Federal Election Commission and disclose contribution and expenditure information. In recent years, however, the IRS has ruled that organizations which intend to influence the outcome of an election but do not expressly advocate the election of a candidate qualify as a political organization but are not required to file with the FEC. These groups can raise and spend as much money as they want to influence an election, but the public has no information on who or what they are. This is precisely the sort of activity that makes the political process appear corrupt and undemocratic. The American public is becoming increasingly disenchanted and uninterested in electoral process because they feel their voices are being drowned out by soft money donations to political parties. In the case of soft money, however, at least the amount of the contribution and the name of the group or person who is making the donation must be registered with the Federal Election Commission. These groups spend unlimited amounts of money and none of it has to be disclosed. This insidious hijacking of the campaign finance system must be corrected. It is a simple fact that the American public believes that large contributions are made to influence decisions being made in Washington. They are becomingly increasingly cynical of the process and fewer and fewer people are participating in elections. In 1996, voter turnout was 48.8 percent--the lowest level since 1924. Turnout for the 1998 mid-term election was 36 percent--the lowest for a nonpresidential election in 56 years. Congress has a responsibility to take steps to reverse this trend. The first step should be to require the disclosure of contributors to tax-exempt organizations. The Senate must act to close this loophole and we must do it now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Howard Krawitz of my office be granted privileges of the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Kerrey motion to strike the Section 1017 of the Defense Authorization Act regarding U.S. strategic nuclear force levels. I do not believe that the restrictions that this bill contains, which prevents the Department of Defense from reducing U.S. strategic nuclear delivery vehicles--warheads--below START I levels until START II enters into force, is necessary or, given the current international security environment, needed. Striking this provision does not mandate any cuts in U.S. nuclear forces: It merely makes it possible, now that the Russian Duma has ratified the START II treaty, for the U.S. to make further cuts below START I levels. In fact, I believe that it is important that the President, the Joint Chiefs, and the Secretary of Defense have the flexibility to determine the appropriate force level and alert status for U.S. nuclear forces based on military and security need. In fact, the original reason for including this provision in the Defense Authorization bill in 1998 was not based on military or security need per se, but rather to encourage the Russian Duma to ratify START II. Well, now they have, and the U.S. should be prepared to reduce our nuclear forces below START I levels, consistent with our national security needs, if and when Russia moves to reduce its forces below START I levels in a verifiable manner. That is what the Kerrey Amendment will allow. Before I conclude, I would also like to take a few minutes today to speak to some of the larger issues raised by this debate. We no longer live in the world of the superpower nuclear arms race of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. During the Cold War the threat of nuclear war was omnipotent, and the size and configuration of the U.S. nuclear arsenal was very much a function of the Cold War international security environment and the needs of nuclear deterrence with the Soviet Union. But the Soviet Union is gone. The Berlin Wall came down over ten years ago. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are now members of NATO. The world in the year 2000 is not the same as the world of twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. And I believe that our nuclear weapons policy should reflect these new realities. We live in a transformative moment for international politics: The security structures and imperatives that guided our thinking during the Cold War have either melted away or are malleable to change. Both Al Gore and George W. Bush recognize that. Why should the U.S. Senate remain captive to the thinking of the Cold War, or to the nuclear weapons counting arithmetic of the Cold War? The world has changed, yet as Dr. Bruce Blair, President of the Center for Defense Information, has pointed out, the Single Integrated Operating Plan (SIOP) which guides our nuclear weapons targeting, has been growing steadily since 1993, and grew over 20 percent in the last five years alone. It includes over 500 weapons aimed at Russian factories in a country whose economy is all but defunct and which produced almost no armaments last year, and over 500 Russian conventional military targets for an army of a country that can not even successfully invade itself. Something is amiss. Clearly we need to retain a force capable of robust deterrence. But we can not allow ourselves to pursue an outdated policy that dictates an arsenal far larger than new, current-day reality suggests we need or is advisable. I strongly believe that deterrence can remain robust with a smaller nuclear arsenal. Analysis by Dr. Blair and others suggests that with a force of 10 Tridents, each with 24 missiles, 300 Minuteman III land- based missiles, 20 B-2 bombers and 50 B-52 bombers we can assure the destruction of between 250 and 1,000 targets worldwide in retaliation for any strike against the United States. If this sort of retaliatory capacity does not deter any adversary, than it is hard to imagine what would. I also believe that it is critical, as we move into this new world, for the United States to review our own nuclear alert status and those of other nuclear capable-states. Right now the U.S. maintains 2,300 warheads on launch-ready alert: 98 percent of the Minuteman III and Peacekeeper land-based force on 2-minute launch readiness and 4 Trident submarines, two in each ocean, on 15 minute launch readiness. The Russians, likewise, maintain their forces on hair-trigger alert. Keeping these forces on hair-trigger alert is a potential accident waiting to happen, with devastating consequences if it does. In January 1995 a commercial space-launch off the coast of Norway in the middle of the night was almost misinterpreted by Russia as a U.S. Trident missile launch, despite the fact that we had pre-notified them about the launch. As I understand it, Russia prepared for a nuclear retaliatory strike. It was only at the last minute that the Russians realized that this was a commercial launch headed for space, not a nuclear weapon headed for Moscow and stood-down their forces. These risks--these needless risks which do nothing to add to our security but, just the opposite, make the world a less safe, stable, and secure place--need to be addressed. And they need to be addressed in a way that will allow us to embrace the challenge of the new century, not be held captive to the grim math of the old. As Governor Bush pointed out on May 23, ``These unneeded weapons are relics of dead conflicts and they do nothing to make us more secure.'' Mr. President, I think that it is important to point out that the Kerrey Amendment does not mandate that we cut U.S. nuclear force levels. It merely gives the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chief the flexibility to determine whether, if and how lowering U.S. force levels below the START I limits would be a net-plus for U.S. national security and, if it is, to do it. As Senator Kerrey has argued, by mandating force levels higher than are needed or desired for national security needs, we actually run the risk of undermining our security interests. If we force the Russians to maintain at hair-trigger status more nuclear weapons than they can safely control we run the risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch. If we maintain our own nuclear arsenal at high levels when it is unnecessary to do so, we encourage rouge nations to pursue their own nuclear weapons programs. A decade after the end of the Cold War, and on the cusp of the twenty-first century, I believe that it is critical that the United States Senate show a willingness to engage in the serious business of forging a new strategic vision. We must do so with no preconditions or preconceived notions about how many, or how few, nuclear weapons are necessary. If an objective review of our national security needs dictate that we should maintain an arsenal at START I levels, then I will be second to none in this body in insisting that our arsenal remain at that size. But if, as Governor Bush has suggested, deeper cuts are advisable, then I do not believe that artificial barriers to achieving this goal should be put in place by this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Kerrey Amendment and strike Section 1017 of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate reauthorized a very important piece of legislation: the Ryan White CARE Act. I want to thank Senators Kennedy and Jeffords for their work and commitment to reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act. The CARE Act provides access to health care for tens of thousands of low-income people living with HIV and AIDS. This vital Act is set to expire on September 30, 2000. We must move quickly to ensure that it is reauthorized. Without the CARE Act, access to important health-related services could be jeopardized for hundreds of thousands of people living with HIV/AIDS. Since 1990, the CARE Act has helped establish a comprehensive, community-based continuum of care for uninsured and under-insured people living with HIV and AIDS, including access to primary medical care, pharmaceuticals, and support services. The CARE Act provides services to people who would not otherwise have access to care. The CARE Act is particularly important to communities of color. The HIV epidemic is devastating communities of color. Currently, AIDS is the leading cause of death among African American men and the second leading cause of death among African American women between the ages of 25 and 44. Comparably, AIDS is the fifth leading cause of death among all Americans in this age group. A disproportionate number of African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos are also living with AIDS. Whereas African Americans represent only 13 percent of the total U.S. population, they represent 36 percent of reported AIDS cases. Likewise, Latinos represent 9 percent of the population but 17 percent all of AIDS cases. The Ryan White CARE Act is important to thousands of Californians. Two of California's largest cities, Los Angeles and San Francisco, are among the top four metropolitan cites with the highest number of AIDS cases in the United States. California has the second highest number of AIDS cases, with over 40,000 Californians currently living with AIDS. Through the CARE Act, Los Angeles has provided services to over 43,160 clients since 1996. San Francisco has provided services to 47,440 since 1996. These numbers alone demonstrate the significant impact the CARE Act has had on California. A majority of newly diagnosed AIDS cases in California are among people of color. Through 1998, over half of all AIDS cases are reported among racial and ethnic minorities in California. In Los Angeles, and Oakland that number rises to over 60 percent, according to the Ryan White CARE Act state profiles. Los Angeles County and San Francisco County were among the first sixteen eligible metropolitan areas to receive Title I emergency Ryan White CARE Act funds in 1991. California has been significantly impacted by the HIV/AIDS since the beginning of the epidemic, and has greatly benefitted from the Ryan White CARE Act since 1990. The CARE Act has been very successful in the past decade. Over the last several years, the CARE Act has: Helped to reduce AIDS mortality by 70 percent. Due to combination anti-retroviral therapies being made more widely available through the CARE Act, the AIDS death rate in 1997 was the lowest in nearly a decade. Helped to reduce mother-to-child transmission by 75 percent. Helped to reduce the number and length of expensive hospitalizations by 30 percent. It has also helped decrease the use of medical speciality care. Helped 97,000 individuals access drugs through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program in 1997. Helped 315,234 people receive HIV testing and counseling services in 1997. Helped 66,000 people access dental care in 1998. Promoted health and well-being which has enabled many people living with HIV to return to work and remain healthy, and actively participate in society. The CARE Act is more important now than ever. HIV/AIDS remains a health emergency in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 40,000 new cases are reported annually. According to the Centers for Disease Control, between 650,000 and 900,000 Americans are currently infected with HIV while the number of AIDS cases has nearly doubled over the past five years. According to Dr. Fauci at the National Institutes of Health, the worse is yet to come in the 21st century. The state of the epidemic points to the need for an increase, rather than a decrease, in health care and drug treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS. Communities of color and women will continue to be the most heavily impacted in the 21st century. We have made many advances in testing, treatment, and research since the early days of the disease and the beginnings of the Ryan White CARE Act. Drugs now exist that can prolong and improve the quality of life. These drugs are not a cure, but they enable many people to lead a more ``normal'' life. Our job is not done, however, until we have made certain that all people have access to these life-prolonging medications. The work we were able to accomplish in San Francisco for people living with HIV/AIDS is one of my proudest achievements as Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco. In 1981, when there were only 76 diagnosed cases, we provided $180,000 for prevention and social services for people living with HIV/AIDS. These were some of the first public funds allocated for AIDS in the United States. In 1987, during my last full year as mayor, 20,000 AIDS deaths were reported in San Francisco and we increased funding to $20 million. There was no federal Ryan White program then; I struggled to find this money in the city budget. Fortunately, for cities and States across the country, we now have the Ryan White CARE Act. I pledge to do all I can to eliminate AIDS. As I have said time and time again: I was there in the beginning and I plan to be there in the end. In the meantime, we must make certain that the uninsured and under-insured have access to life-prolonging HIV treatments. The Ryan White CARE Act has proven to be an essential and effective Federal program for the uninsured and under-insured. We must ensure the continuation of the Ryan White CARE Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today which will provide for the transfer of the Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir Project in the Central Valley Project to the Forest Hills Public Utility District. I continue to support the transfer of the Bureau of Reclamation projects to the local water districts which operate and benefit from them. This bill is important in one other way. The language in this bill will correct the financial inequity that affects CVP beneficiaries. Some of the costs of constructing Bureau of Reclamation projects have been allocated to other CVP contractors even though the projects have never been operationally integrated into the CVP. Thus, Irrigation and Municipal and Industrial (M&I) contractors such as Contra Costa Water District, East Bay MUD, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Sacramento MUD, City of Fresno and a number of others have incurred substantial costs without ever receiving any benefit. This bill has the bipartisan support of Congressman George Miller and John Doolittle in the House. And I can think of no opposition to assisting Forest Hills Public Utility District and other M&I contractors with this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today which will provide for the transfer of the Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir Project in the Central Valley Project to the Forest Hills Public Utility District. I continue to support the transfer of the Bureau of Reclamation projects to the local water districts which operate and benefit from them. This bill is important in one other way. The language in this bill will correct the financial inequity that affects CVP beneficiaries. Some of the costs of constructing Bureau of Reclamation projects have been allocated to other CVP contractors even though the projects have never been operationally integrated into the CVP. Thus, Irrigation and Municipal and Industrial (M&I) contractors such as Contra Costa Water District, East Bay MUD, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Sacramento MUD, City of Fresno and a number of others have incurred substantial costs without ever receiving any benefit. This bill has the bipartisan support of Congressman George Miller and John Doolittle in the House. And I can think of no opposition to assisting Forest Hills Public Utility District and other M&I contractors with this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to, from the Democratic side, more or less conclude the debate on the legislative branch appropriations bill. We believe it is a good bill. We are very supportive--both Senator Bennett and I--of Senator Mikulski's amendment. I am delighted she offered it. The men and women of the Capitol Police perform a vitally important job. Unfortunately, sometimes we hardly notice them. This is an opportunity to give them notice, respect, commendation, and say we are proud of you. The legislative branch appropriations bill restores the damaging cuts contained in the House bill and reaffirms our commitment to ensuring security in the Capitol and of the Capitol Police. I reiterate what a delight it has been to work with our chairman, Senator Bennett. My tenure as ranking member on this subcommittee has been marked by a sense of comity and equity which has really made this work a great pleasure. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as an original co-sponsor of Senator Moynihan's resolution commemorating the 10th anniversary of the free and fair elections in Burma which were overturned by a military junta, I rise today to mark that event and to discuss the repressive conditions that have dominated the lives of the Burmese people for the past 37 years and that continue to define the terms of their existence to this very day. For the past 12 years, a brutal authoritarian regime has denied the Burmese people the most basic human freedoms, including the rights of free speech, press, assembly, and the right to determine their own political destiny through free and competitive elections. In 1988, the government led by General Ne Win--who overthrew the popularly elected government of Burma in 1962--brutally suppressed popular pro-democracy demonstrations. In September of that same year, the Government, in a futile public relations gambit to deflect international censure, reorganized itself into a junta of senior military officers and renamed itself the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). The SLORC seemed to bow to international opinion in 1990, when it permitted a relatively free election for a national parliament, announcing before the election that it would peacefully transfer power to the elected assembly. Burmese voters overwhelmingly supported anti-government parties, one of which, the National League for Democracy (NLD)--the party of Aung- San Suu-Kyi--won more than 60 percent of the popular vote and 80 percent of the parliamentary seats. SLORC's public promises were a fiction. The military junta nullified the results of the elections and thwarted efforts by NLD representatives and others elected in 1990 to convene the rightfully elected parliament. Instead, SLORC convened a government-controlled body, the National Convention, with the goal of approving a constitution to ensure that the armed forces would have a dominant role in the nation's future political structure. The NLD has declined to participate in the National Convention since 1995, perceiving it to be nothing more than a tool of the ruling military elite. SLORC reorganized itself again in 1997, changing its name to the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). But an oppressive regime by any other name remains an oppressive regime. Burma continues to be ruled by a non-elected military clique, this time headed by General Than Shwe. And, even though Ne Win ostensibly relinquished power after the 1988 pro-democracy demonstrations, in reality, he continues to wield informal, if declining, influence. To this day, Burma continues to be ruled by fiat, denied both a valid constitution and a legislature representing the people. To solidify its hold on power and suppress Burma's widespread grassroots democracy movement, the military junta--whether it be named SLORC or the SPDC--has engaged in a campaign of systematic human rights abuses throughout the 1990s. It has been aided in this effort by the armed forces--whose ranks have swelled from 175,000 to 400,000 soldiers--and the Directorate of Defense Services Intelligence (DDSI), a military and security apparatus that pervades almost every aspect of a Burmese citizen's life. For many in Burma, the prospect for life has become nasty, brutish, and short. Citizens continue to live a tenuous life, subject at any time and without appeal to the arbitrary and too often brutal dictates of a military regime. There continue to be numerous credible reports, particularly in areas populated mostly by ethnic minority, of extrajudicial killings and rape. Disappearances happen with sickening regularity. Security forces torture, beat, and otherwise abuse detainees. Prison conditions are harsh and life threatening. Arbitrary arrest and detention for holding dissenting political views remains a fact of life. Since 1962, thousands of people have been arrested, detained, and imprisoned for political reasons, or they have ``disappeared''. Reportedly, more than 1,300 political prisoners languished in Burmese prisons at the end of 1998. The Burmese judiciary is an SPDC tool. Security forces still systematically monitor citizens' movements and communications, search homes without warrants, relocate persons forcibly without just compensation or due process, use excessive force, and violate international humanitarian law in internal conflicts against ethnic insurgencies. The SPDC severely restricts freedom of speech and of the press, and restricts academic freedom: since 1996, government fear of political dissent has meant the closing of most Burmese institutions of higher learning. And even verbal criticism of the government is an offense carrying a 20-year sentence. And while the SPDC claims it recognizes the NLD as a legal entity, it refuses to recognize the legal political status of key NLD party leaders, particularly General-Secretary and 1991 Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and her two co-chairs. The SPDC constrains their activities severely through security measures and threats. The SPDC restricts freedom of religion. It exercises institutionalized control over Buddhist clergy and promotes discrimination against non-Buddhist religions. It forbids the existence of domestic human rights organizations and remains hostile to outside scrutiny of its human rights record. Violence and societal discrimination against women remain problems, as does severe child neglect, the forced labor of children, and lack of funding and facilities for education. In sum, as the latest biannual State Department report on: Conditions in Burma and U.S. Policy Towards Burma notes, over the last six months the SPDC has made no progress toward greater democratization, nor has it made any progress toward fundamental improvement in the quality of life of the people of Burma. The regime continues to repress the National League for Democracy . . . and attack its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, in the state-controlled press. Burma's political repressiveness is matched only by its poverty. Burma's population is thought to be about 48 million--we can only rely on estimates because government restrictions make accurate counts impossible. The average per capita income was estimated to be about $300 in 1998, about $800 if considered on the basis of purchasing power parity. Things do not have to be this way. Burma has rich agricultural, fishing, and timber resources. It has abundant mineral resources--gas, oil, and gemstones. The world's finest jade comes from Burma. But the economic deck is stacked against Burma. Three decades of military rule and economic mismanagement have created widespread waste, loss, and suffering. Economic policy is suddenly reversed for political reasons. Development is killed by overt and covert state involvement in economic activity, state monopolization of leading exports, a bloated bureaucracy, arbitrary and opaque governance, institutionalized corruption, and poor human and physical infrastructure. Smuggling is rampant; the destruction of the environment goes on unabated. Decades of disproportionately large military budgets have meant scant spending on social development and economic infrastructure. There is no price stability. The Burmese currency, the Kyat, is worthless. There is a telling anecdote about this: one year, Burma asked the U.K., then its primary foreign aid donor, to give it paper so that it could print more Kyat because the Kyat was so devalued that Burma could not afford to buy the paper needed to print it. Imagine, the paper was worth more as paper than as money. I don't know if the story is true or not. The point is that in Burma's case, it easily could have been. In 1998-1999, the official exchange rate was 6 Kyat to one dollar; the black market rate was 341 Kyat to the dollar. This says it all. I could go on and on. But I don't need to. We all know that Burma's economy is a basket case. We all know that, for the Burmese people, mere existence, not life, is the norm. We all know that Burma cannot expect to begin the road to recovery, prosperity, and long term economic stability as long as the basic human rights and political will of the Burmese people are denied. The questions before us now are: what tools do we have for stopping this government's inhumanity toward its own citizens and for giving hope to the Burmese people? Are the tools we are now using the correct ones? The debate over unilateral sanctions represents a fundamental question in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy: Are U.S. interests advanced best by deepening relations or diminishing relations with a country that is not acting as we would like? I do not endorse sanctions as a panacea. Each case must be considered on its own merits. In Burma, I believe the United States government had a responsibility to respond to a situation in which the democratically-elected leaders had been summarily thrown out of office, assaulted, and imprisoned by renegade militarists. Consequently, in 1996, then-Senator Cohen and I coauthored the current sanctions legislation on Burma. The Cohen-Feinstein amendment required the President to ban new investment by U.S. firms in Burma if he determined that the Government of Burma has physically harmed, rearrested for political acts, or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the Democratic opposition. Shortly after Congress passed the Cohen-Feinstein Amendment, President Clinton implemented sanctions against Burma. Unfortunately, since Cohen-Feinstein went into effect on October 1, 1996 there appears to be little improvement in human rights conditions in Burma: The SPDC continues to implement its repressive policies. Nevertheless, until the SPDC shows a willingness to make progress towards democracy and improved human rights, the Cohen-Feinstein sanctions must remain in place. The sanctions make us a leader on Burma and in forging a common international position. I believe, for example, that the European Union would have a much softer line on Burma if not for U.S. policy. The EU has no economic sanctions in place, but has taken some other measures, such as a visa ban for members of the SPDC government and support of the U.S. in introducing the annual United Nations Human Rights Committee resolution on Burma. The United States must continue trying to develop a multilateral approach, particularly with the ASEAN nations, to bring additional pressure to bear on the SLORC. There is some indication that the sanctions are causing some hardships for the SPDC. For example, last year the SPDC let the International Committee of the Red Cross back into Burma under conditions the ICRC found acceptable, including access to prisons and prisoners. Although there was no clear link to the impact of sanctions in getting the ICRC back in, some analysts contend that the SPDC is heeding international pressure. This may indicate that the SPDC could be willing to make some positive changes, even though it is still an open question if they will change the ``core behavior'' that triggered the sanctions to begin with. The bottom line is that the current sanctions should not be lifted without some major concession by the SPDC. To lift any sanctions without a concession would send the wrong signal and give the SPDC the message that they could continue to stifle democracy. We should make it clear that the United States stands on the side of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Burma. We should make it clear that the United States stands on the side of Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League of Democracy and that we support their efforts to return Burma and its government to the people. I am pleased to co-sponsor Senator Moynihan's resolution which commemorates the 10th anniversary of the free and fair elections in Burma, and calls on the SPDC to: guarantee basic freedoms to the people of Burma; accept political dialogue with the National League for Democracy; comply with UN human rights agreements; and reaffirms U.S. sanctions as appropriate to secure the restoration of democracy. I look forward to the day when the United States has cause to lift the Cohen-Feinstein sanctions and welcome Burma into the community of free nations. In the interim, I urge my colleagues to support the Moynihan resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 2603, the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. This is my second year as ranking member of the legislative branch subcommittee. I have been very proud to serve alongside our dedicated and distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator Bennett. Senator Bennett is always very open and very willing to discuss the various issues that arise in relation to this bill. He has been very accommodating to my concerns as well as those of other Senators. I think he has displayed great knowledge of the various Departments and Agencies that fall under the legislative branch. It has been a real pleasure working with him. Thanks to the allocation to our Legislative Branch Subcommittee by the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, this appropriation is $145 million in budget authority greater than the House subcommittee's allocation, so the bill before us now restores the House cuts of 2,112 employees, including 438 Capitol Police officers. Although we were not able to fully fund every agency's request, I believe the committee has distributed the scarce resources as fairly as possible, and we were able to make modest increases in most agency accounts above last year's level. Overall spending is increased by 3.7 percent over last year's bill. In particular, I note that during markup of this year's bill, Chairman Bennett agreed to include committee report language recommended by Senator Mikulski, having to do with the need for better employee relations in the office of the Architect of the Capitol. Senator Mikulski came to the subcommittee hearing and questioned the Architect of the Capitol directly concerning these matters. As a result of her efforts, the committee report language directs the Architect of the Capitol to establish a position of employee advocate, in an effort to improve morale and employee relations in the office of the Architect. In his remarks, Chairman Bennett has outlined for the Senate the various components of the bill, so I do not want to repeat that summary. I do, however, wish to point out to the Senate that for the Capitol Police, the subcommittee in that regard has included an appropriation of $109.6 million for fiscal year 2001. This is an increase of $22.8 million, or 26 percent over last year's enacted level of $86.8 million. This will fund 100 to 115 new Capitol Police officers. The funding level, we believe, will enable the Capitol Police to implement the department's plan for posting two police officers at all key and critical entries and exits throughout the Capitol complex. I take this opportunity to thank all Capitol Police officers for their really outstanding service to the Members, to this Capitol, and to the tens of thousands of visitors to the Capitol each year. They do a great job. I know Senator Mikulski will be presenting a sense-of-the-Senate commendation to the Capitol Police, with which I strongly agree. I think it is important, because of what happened last year, to be able to really tell them how much we do appreciate their efforts. This can be a very thankless job, particularly when there are tens of thousands of visitors milling through the Capitol each and every week. So I think we both agree that they do a truly fine job and are, indeed, to be commended. I also thank Chairman Bennett for agreeing to include language in the committee report about which he spoke, which I requested, relating to the proposed merger of the police forces at the Government Printing Office and the Library of Congress with the Capitol Police Force. This study will enable a careful feasibility analysis to be carried out and completed prior to any consolidation. The GAO report, I believe, can be done by July 1, giving the conference the opportunity to review its findings at that time. I understand Chairman Bennett's intentions in this area. He believes the proposed merger will result in greater efficiencies for the overall legislative branch police force. I believe it can be carried out in a way, as he just stated, that can maintain the upward mobility and career path for officers. I share that hope, and I believe that prior to proceeding with such a merger, Congress should first have these views of the GAO to ensure that no unforeseen problems exist in relation to such a consolidation or merger. Chairman Bennett has agreed to that study, and the committee report ensures that the study will be completed by July 1. In closing, I express appreciation and recognition to the very capable staff who assisted Chairman Bennett and myself with the legislative branch bill: Christine Ciccone, Chip Yost, Jim English, Edie Stanley, and Chris Kierig. This is a very good bill. I urge my colleagues to give favorable consideration to its passage in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is fine.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in response to Chairman Bennett's suggestion, I would like to assure the Senator from Pennsylvania, as a member of the Rules Committee, I would be very happy to take a look at this and see what the problem is. The ranking member of the Rules Committee was here and is familiar with the subject. I believe he would be agreeable, as well, to take a look. And we will see what the problem is.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Levin amendment to the military construction appropriations bill, which strikes the provisions of the Byrd-Warner amendment on Kosovo which was attached to the bill in committee. Unfortunately, for an issue of such importance, this amendment came up very quickly in committee without, I think, due consideration and study. Since the committee markup last week I have had a chance to further consider and study this issue and I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue, at length, with senior members of the Administration, with Secretary Cohen, with Jack Lew, Director of the OMB, and with General Wesley Clark, the former supreme NATO commander. As a result of these discussions, I have some serious concerns about the potential impact of the Byrd-Warner amendment During the committee markup, proponents of this amendment asserted that the certifications called for by the amendment could be made ``tomorrow'' without delay. According to Mr. Lew, however, the certifications can not be met by July 15 of this year. The reason why these certifications can not be made, he has stated, is not because our European allies are not making efforts to meet their commitments--they are and in many cases they have--but for technical reasons. So we could very well find ourselves in a position whereby we have accomplished the policy goals of the Byrd-Warner amendment but, because technical reasons prevent Presidential certifications, we are forced to withdraw U.S. forces from Kosovo. Both Senator Byrd and Senator Warner have given assurances that these shortcomings will be fixed in conference. I very much appreciate these assurances. But I have reason to believe that it is not a simple fix, but that a number of issues needs to be addressed, and this may well prove difficult to accomplish. In addition, as General Clark has made clear, by setting in motion an automatic mechanism for complete withdrawal by 2001 that will telegraph our troop deployments and our policy, and which ties the hand of the next President, the Byrd-Warner amendment has an impact far beyond that originally anticipated in that it complicates and makes more difficult the U.S. role in Kosovo. I cannot ignore the conviction of General Clark that passage of this amendment would run the risk of destroying the NATO mission in Kosovo. As General Clark stated in his May 11 letter to Senator Levin, ``This action will also undermine specific plans and commitments made within the Alliance. At the time that U.S. military and diplomatic personnel are pressing other nations to fulfill and expand their commitment of forces, capabilities and resources, an apparent congressionally mandated pullout would undercut their leadership and parallel diplomatic efforts.'' Or, as Secretary Cohen said in a discussion I had with him just a short time ago, ``if the Senate passes this, it will weaken the allies' resolve rather than strengthen it.'' As General Clark concludes in his May 11 letter, ``A U.S. withdrawal could give Mr. Milosevic the victory he could not achieve on the battlefield.'' Because of these concerns, I find that I must vote in favor of the Levin motion to strike the Byrd amendment, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation that, if enacted, will enable the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to cut through and eventually eliminate the unacceptably long backlogs in its processing of applications for naturalization, adjustment of status, and other immigration benefits. I am pleased that Senators Abraham, Jeffords, DeWine, Leahy, Reid, Moynihan, Mikulski, Graham, and Durbin have joined me as original cosponsors of this important bill. All of us have heard the horror stories of the long delays in processing naturalization and immigration applications. What was once a 6-month process has now become a 3- to 4-year ordeal. The ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000,'' which I am introducing today, would provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service with the direction and resources it needs to reduce the current immigration backlogs and hold it accountable to get the job done. It is unacceptable that millions of people who have followed our nation's laws, made outstanding contributions to our nation, and paid the requisite fees have had to wait months--and in too many cases, years--to obtain the immigration services they need. The enormous delays in processing have had a negative impact on the reunification of spouses and minor children, and on businesses seeking to employ essential workers to help keep them globally competitive. The fact is, there are many victims of an agency that is in dire need of a change in the way it does business. Today, it has become all too clear that the INS needs to re-engineer its adjudication process, which will require both additional resources and strong congressional direction and oversight. The ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act'' would enable millions of law-abiding residents, immigrants, and businesses, who have played by the rules and paid fees to the INS, to have their applications processed in a timely manner. This bill evolved from discussions with immigration advocates, the business community, State and local leaders, and the Administration. Specifically, this legislation would do three things. First, it would create a separate ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Account'' (``Account'') and authorize such sums as may be necessary to fund it. This account would permit the INS to fund across several fiscal years infrastructure improvements, including additional staff, computer records management, fingerprinting, and nationwide computer integration. Moreover, it would pay for these infrastructure improvements through direct appropriations rather than through increased application fees. Second, the ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000'' would require the INS to put together a plan on how it will eliminate existing backlogs and report on this plan before it could access any of the funds. In its report, the INS would be required to describe its current processing capabilities and detail its plans to eliminate existing backlogs in immigration benefit applications and petitions. And third, it would require the Department of Justice to submit an annual, detailed report to Congress, including data on the number of naturalization applications and immigration petitions processed and adjudicated in each of the fiscal years following enactment of the act. The act would also require the INS to report on the number of cases still pending in the naturalization, immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories. In some cases this would involve a state-by-state or regional analysis of INS's progress in processing applications in a timely fashion. In the past 7 years, 6.4 million people applied for U.S. citizenship--more than the previous 37 years combined. Today, INS faces a backlog of 1.3 million naturalization applications. Although the INS has put more resources into processing naturalization applications, this has come at the expense of processing other immigration-related applications, such as those for lawful permanent residence. At the beginning of this year, the INS had a pending caseload of 951,350 adjustment of status applications--an eightfold increase since 1994. As a result, major cities continue to face tremendous delays in the processing of INS naturalization and immigrant applications. Five cities--Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Miami, and Chicago-- handle 65 percent of the nation's naturalization workload. By now, most of us are familiar with the numbers. Indeed, it would be easy for one to look at and decry the statistics reflecting the enormous number of backlogged applications. Instead, I come to floor of the Senate today to talk about the human cost of these backlogs and what I intend to do through legislation to help the INS put itself on its proper course. As one who represents California, a State that is number one among immigrant-receiving States, I have seen firsthand how families and businesses can be disproportionately affected by the smallest fluctuations in INS resources and services. One out of every four Californians--about 8.5 million people--is foreign born. The average number of new immigrants to the State is more than 300,000 annually. Population growth of this magnitude is like adding a city the size of Anaheim, California each year. The constant processing delays at the INS have had a tremendous impact on the ability of immigrants to naturalize, and seek services related to their application for green cards, work authorization, and family reunification. On almost a daily basis, my office fields calls from people who have been waiting three or four years to naturalize or to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent resident. And this is after having paid a fee of $225 per naturalization application, and $220 for an adjustment of status application--per person. Imagine how much of an investment a family makes in order to play by the rules. Applicants for these services are never really sure if their application is still in the process or lost, especially when the expected time for a fingerprint or interview notice comes and goes. I have received numerous letters from constituents that vividly portray the human toil these backlogs have taken. For example, one person wrote that he and his family have been in the country legally for more than 10 years. They filed their request for permanent residency at the right time. Their file, however, has moved so slowly within the INS that one of their sons is now about to ``age out'' of qualifying for permanent residence because he will turn 21 soon. Just recently, I received a letter from a young student at Berkeley who filed a citizenship application in October 1996. She is still waiting to receive word from the INS on the correct status of her file. She was told by the INS in January this year that it had closed her case in June 1999 without her knowledge or ability to address any concerns they might have had with her case. In fact, she was never told there were problems with her case. Up until January, she had been told by the INS that she would be receiving her interview notice within six weeks. Unfortunately, six weeks became three years. Now, almost four years later, she has come to my office for assistance, wondering what she might have done to create this situation. The fact is, like millions of others throughout the country, she is a victim of an agency that is in dire need of a change in the way it does business. Millions of people are being prevented from participating in American civic life because of the inability of INS to process their naturalization applications in a timely fashion (e.g., they cannot vote, run for public office, assume certain government positions). U.S. citizens are unable to be reunited with their spouses and minor children because of the delays in INS processing. And thousands of American businesses, such as high tech companies like Sun Microsystems and others, have been prevented from getting qualified workers because of the INS's inability to provide access to a critical portion of their workforce. Lengthy delays and inconsistencies in INS processing have taken a toll on company projects, planning and goals. How does this legislation help Congress hold the INS accountable for the prompt delivery of services? If INS does not met the goals of set out in this legislation, it would have to explain to Congress why the backlogs persist and what the agency is doing to fix them. This legislation would also require the INS to describe the additional mechanisms and resources needed to meet Congress's mandate that backlogs be eliminated and that the processing of applications take place in an acceptable time frame. While funds devoted to enforcing our immigration laws have rightfully been increased in recent years, until very recently, Congress had not provided increases in funding to the INS specifically to deal with the increased missions that Congress has imposed on it. Nor has Congress provided adequate funding to deal with the increased number of naturalization and other immigration benefits applications that have been submitted in recent years and continue to be submitted. The business community, immigration community, and the Administration have indicated their support for mechanisms such as those included in my legislation. I wish to thank the following organizations whose valuable input and ideas helped shaped this important legislation: American Business for Legal Immigration; American Council on International Personnel; American Immigration Lawyers Association; Hebrew Immigration Aid Society; Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; National Association of Latino Elected Officials; National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; National Council of La Raza; United Jewish Communities; and United States Catholic Conference. Mr. President, the ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000'' would provide direction and accountability on how the INS uses appropriated funds. Passage of this legislation would send a strong congressional directive to the INS that timely and efficient service is not merely goal, but a mandate. I urge the Senate to act swiftly and pass this urgently needed legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation that, if enacted, will enable the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to cut through and eventually eliminate the unacceptably long backlogs in its processing of applications for naturalization, adjustment of status, and other immigration benefits. I am pleased that Senators Abraham, Jeffords, DeWine, Leahy, Reid, Moynihan, Mikulski, Graham, and Durbin have joined me as original cosponsors of this important bill. All of us have heard the horror stories of the long delays in processing naturalization and immigration applications. What was once a 6-month process has now become a 3- to 4-year ordeal. The ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000,'' which I am introducing today, would provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service with the direction and resources it needs to reduce the current immigration backlogs and hold it accountable to get the job done. It is unacceptable that millions of people who have followed our nation's laws, made outstanding contributions to our nation, and paid the requisite fees have had to wait months--and in too many cases, years--to obtain the immigration services they need. The enormous delays in processing have had a negative impact on the reunification of spouses and minor children, and on businesses seeking to employ essential workers to help keep them globally competitive. The fact is, there are many victims of an agency that is in dire need of a change in the way it does business. Today, it has become all too clear that the INS needs to re-engineer its adjudication process, which will require both additional resources and strong congressional direction and oversight. The ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act'' would enable millions of law-abiding residents, immigrants, and businesses, who have played by the rules and paid fees to the INS, to have their applications processed in a timely manner. This bill evolved from discussions with immigration advocates, the business community, State and local leaders, and the Administration. Specifically, this legislation would do three things. First, it would create a separate ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Account'' (``Account'') and authorize such sums as may be necessary to fund it. This account would permit the INS to fund across several fiscal years infrastructure improvements, including additional staff, computer records management, fingerprinting, and nationwide computer integration. Moreover, it would pay for these infrastructure improvements through direct appropriations rather than through increased application fees. Second, the ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000'' would require the INS to put together a plan on how it will eliminate existing backlogs and report on this plan before it could access any of the funds. In its report, the INS would be required to describe its current processing capabilities and detail its plans to eliminate existing backlogs in immigration benefit applications and petitions. And third, it would require the Department of Justice to submit an annual, detailed report to Congress, including data on the number of naturalization applications and immigration petitions processed and adjudicated in each of the fiscal years following enactment of the act. The act would also require the INS to report on the number of cases still pending in the naturalization, immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories. In some cases this would involve a state-by-state or regional analysis of INS's progress in processing applications in a timely fashion. In the past 7 years, 6.4 million people applied for U.S. citizenship--more than the previous 37 years combined. Today, INS faces a backlog of 1.3 million naturalization applications. Although the INS has put more resources into processing naturalization applications, this has come at the expense of processing other immigration-related applications, such as those for lawful permanent residence. At the beginning of this year, the INS had a pending caseload of 951,350 adjustment of status applications--an eightfold increase since 1994. As a result, major cities continue to face tremendous delays in the processing of INS naturalization and immigrant applications. Five cities--Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Miami, and Chicago-- handle 65 percent of the nation's naturalization workload. By now, most of us are familiar with the numbers. Indeed, it would be easy for one to look at and decry the statistics reflecting the enormous number of backlogged applications. Instead, I come to floor of the Senate today to talk about the human cost of these backlogs and what I intend to do through legislation to help the INS put itself on its proper course. As one who represents California, a State that is number one among immigrant-receiving States, I have seen firsthand how families and businesses can be disproportionately affected by the smallest fluctuations in INS resources and services. One out of every four Californians--about 8.5 million people--is foreign born. The average number of new immigrants to the State is more than 300,000 annually. Population growth of this magnitude is like adding a city the size of Anaheim, California each year. The constant processing delays at the INS have had a tremendous impact on the ability of immigrants to naturalize, and seek services related to their application for green cards, work authorization, and family reunification. On almost a daily basis, my office fields calls from people who have been waiting three or four years to naturalize or to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent resident. And this is after having paid a fee of $225 per naturalization application, and $220 for an adjustment of status application--per person. Imagine how much of an investment a family makes in order to play by the rules. Applicants for these services are never really sure if their application is still in the process or lost, especially when the expected time for a fingerprint or interview notice comes and goes. I have received numerous letters from constituents that vividly portray the human toil these backlogs have taken. For example, one person wrote that he and his family have been in the country legally for more than 10 years. They filed their request for permanent residency at the right time. Their file, however, has moved so slowly within the INS that one of their sons is now about to ``age out'' of qualifying for permanent residence because he will turn 21 soon. Just recently, I received a letter from a young student at Berkeley who filed a citizenship application in October 1996. She is still waiting to receive word from the INS on the correct status of her file. She was told by the INS in January this year that it had closed her case in June 1999 without her knowledge or ability to address any concerns they might have had with her case. In fact, she was never told there were problems with her case. Up until January, she had been told by the INS that she would be receiving her interview notice within six weeks. Unfortunately, six weeks became three years. Now, almost four years later, she has come to my office for assistance, wondering what she might have done to create this situation. The fact is, like millions of others throughout the country, she is a victim of an agency that is in dire need of a change in the way it does business. Millions of people are being prevented from participating in American civic life because of the inability of INS to process their naturalization applications in a timely fashion (e.g., they cannot vote, run for public office, assume certain government positions). U.S. citizens are unable to be reunited with their spouses and minor children because of the delays in INS processing. And thousands of American businesses, such as high tech companies like Sun Microsystems and others, have been prevented from getting qualified workers because of the INS's inability to provide access to a critical portion of their workforce. Lengthy delays and inconsistencies in INS processing have taken a toll on company projects, planning and goals. How does this legislation help Congress hold the INS accountable for the prompt delivery of services? If INS does not met the goals of set out in this legislation, it would have to explain to Congress why the backlogs persist and what the agency is doing to fix them. This legislation would also require the INS to describe the additional mechanisms and resources needed to meet Congress's mandate that backlogs be eliminated and that the processing of applications take place in an acceptable time frame. While funds devoted to enforcing our immigration laws have rightfully been increased in recent years, until very recently, Congress had not provided increases in funding to the INS specifically to deal with the increased missions that Congress has imposed on it. Nor has Congress provided adequate funding to deal with the increased number of naturalization and other immigration benefits applications that have been submitted in recent years and continue to be submitted. The business community, immigration community, and the Administration have indicated their support for mechanisms such as those included in my legislation. I wish to thank the following organizations whose valuable input and ideas helped shaped this important legislation: American Business for Legal Immigration; American Council on International Personnel; American Immigration Lawyers Association; Hebrew Immigration Aid Society; Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; National Association of Latino Elected Officials; National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium; National Council of La Raza; United Jewish Communities; and United States Catholic Conference. Mr. President, the ``Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000'' would provide direction and accountability on how the INS uses appropriated funds. Passage of this legislation would send a strong congressional directive to the INS that timely and efficient service is not merely goal, but a mandate. I urge the Senate to act swiftly and pass this urgently needed legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to use my 15 minutes to do three things. The first two are to debunk certain myths that the National Rifle Association has developed. The first is the myth they have developed with respect to the second amendment to the Constitution. Second is the myth that the gun laws are not being enforced. The third item I would like to discuss is the juvenile justice bill that has been awaiting conference now for about a year. Let me begin by talking about the NRA claim that the second amendment to the Constitution gives every individual the right to own any kind of weapon, no matter how powerful or deadly: From the Derringer to a Bazooka. From the .22 to .50 caliber weapon. From a revolver that holds 5 bullets to weapons of war with drums of 250 rounds. From the copper jacketed bullets to the black talon that rips apart organs as it passes through a body. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has never struck down a single gun control law on second amendment grounds. Let me just quickly read to you the second amendment. It says: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Contrary to the constant claims of the NRA, the meaning of the second amendment has been well-settled for more than 60 years --ever since the 1939 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller. In that case, the defendant was charged with transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines. In rejecting a motion to dismiss the case on second amendment grounds, the Court held that the ``obvious purpose'' of the second amendment was ``to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness'' of the State militia. Because a sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be used by a state militia--like the National Guard--the second amendment was in no way applicable to that case, said the Court. More than 40 years after the 1939 Miller case, in the 1980 case of Lewis v. United States, the Supreme Court again held that ``the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' '' Again, the Court pointed to the militia as the key to the right to keep and bear arms. Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the second amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the Federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice--in 1965 and 1990--the Supreme Court has held that the term ``well-regulated militia'' refers to the National Guard. And in the early 1980s, the Supreme Court even refused to take up a Second Amendment challenge, leaving established precedent in place. After the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns--making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors--the town was sued on second amendment grounds. The Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but went further to say--explicitly--that there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment. In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand. I was mayor of San Francisco when this took place, and I put forward legislation in the early 1980s to ban possession of handguns in San Francisco since at that time the homicide rate was soaring. The legislation passed. It was subsequently preempted by State law in a case brought and carried up to the State supreme court on the basis that the State of California had preempted the areas of licensing, of registration, and of possession, but it was not struck down on second amendment rights grounds. Perhaps this history is what led former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1991 to refer to the second amendment as ``the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word `fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. . .[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see--and I am a gun man.'' This was Warren Burger--a Nixon appointee to the Court. Burger also wrote, The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon. . .[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a `Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms . . . Erwin Griswold, former dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor General in the Nixon Administration said in 1990 that ``It is time for the NRA and its followers in Congress to stop trying to twist the Second Amendment from a reasoned (if antiquated) empowerment for a militia into a bulletproof personal right for anyone to wield deadly weaponry beyond legislative control.'' All told, since the Miller decision, lower Federal and State courts have addressed the meaning of the second amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999, the courts decided that the second amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a State militia--in other words, the National Guard, not an individual. And the NRA is clearly aware of this history. Despite all of the NRA's rhetoric and posturing on this issue, they know that the second amendment does nothing whatsoever to limit reasonable gun control measures. In fact, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady law and my assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association has made no mention of the second amendment. When the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected a second amendment challenge to California's 1989 assault weapons ban, the NRA elected to not even appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court, because they knew they would lose. In fact, even when part of the Brady law was struck down as unconstitutional, that decision was not based on the second amendment, but on a narrow States' rights issue. Another suit against the 1994 assault weapons ban was based on a ``bill of attainder'' argument, that Congress illegally targeted gun manufacturers--again, the suit is not based on the second amendment. Elsewhere around the country, the NRA has argued that various gun control laws violate the first amendment, or the privacy rights of gun owners, or even the equal protection clause because NRA members are treated differently than others. The second amendment is never even brought up. Nonetheless, many on the other side of the aisle may point to the one, single, lone exception to the long history of second amendment jurisprudence. On March 30, 1999, a United States District Judge in Texas struck down a federal law making it a felony to possess a firearm while under a domestic restraining order. In the Texas case, a man in the midst of a divorce proceeding was accused of threatening to kill his wife's lover. Although put under a restraining order and therefore barred from possessing a firearm under federal law, the man was subsequently caught with a gun and indicted for violating the ban. U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings dismissed the indictment, in part because the federal law, he said, had the effect of ``criminalizing'' a ``law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights.'' This was the first time such a decision was made by a federal judge, but it is important to note that this decision has been appealed. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Supreme Court, if it ever got to that level, would uphold this decision. The Texas decision clearly flies in the face of 60 years of second amendment precedent and, as Handgun Control has said, ``can only be viewed as a renegade decision.'' In fact, in his opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice and cite legal precedent supporting his decision, because no such precedent exists. This ruling is, as I have said, being appealed and since that decision, two federal courts, including a higher circuit court, have ruled that the second amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. That is the first myth. Now let me talk about the second myth being perpetrated by the National Rifle Association. That is that our current gun laws are not being enforced. Members have heard over and over again: We have the gun laws; now go out and enforce them. Of course we should be enforcing our gun laws. And of course we are. And the evidence clearly shows that gun prosecutions are up. In fact, since the passage of the Brady Bill just seven years ago, more than 500,000 felons, fugitives, mentally ill individuals, and stalkers have walked into a gun dealer and walked right back out again without a gun because of a background check. The NRA argues that prosecutions are down, but they fail to correctly interpret the statistics to recognize that state and federal cooperation have actually led to an increase in combined prosecutions during the Clinton administration. In fact, since 1992 the total number of federal and state prosecutions combined has increased sharply, and about 25 percent more criminals are sent to prison for state and federal weapons offenses than in 1992--from 20,300 prosecutions to 25,100. Federal numbers may be down, but there is a reason for it. The federal government is now focusing its prosecutions on higher level offenders, and turning the lower level offenders over to the states for prosecution. In fact, the number of prosecutions of higher level offenders--those sentenced to 5 or more years in jail--has gone up nearly 41 percent in 7 years. And the number of inmates in federal prison on firearm or arson charges have increased 51 percent from 1993 to 1998. Just last month, Senator Kohl of Wisconsin and I introduced an amendment which would expand Project Exile to 50 cities and provide law enforcement with ballistics technology that will make it far easier to identify and punish the perpetrators of gun violence. And I also support the President's request to fund at least 500 additional ATF agents and 1000 new prosecutors to focus on guns. But here's the rub, and here's the contradiction of the National Rifle Association. On the one hand, they say enforce the law, and then they go out and they oppose any effort to strengthen those laws. The NRA fought the Brady Bill for 10 years. The NRA defeated all attempts to allow the consumer product safety commission to regulate the safety of firearms. The NRA in 1986 got legislation passed which restricts Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from inspections of gun dealers to once a year. Even dealers who are the source of hundreds of gun crimes cannot routinely be inspected more than once a year without a special court warrant. For years, the NRA has even blocked the ATF computerization of gun sale records from gun dealers that have gone out of business. As a result, when a gun is traced as part of a criminal investigation, the files have to be retrieved manually from warehouses where old records are kept. This can add days or even weeks to an investigation. By the time the records are found, the trail may already be cold. And most importantly, the National Rifle Association fights against funding law enforcement agencies at levels adequate to enforce our current laws. As former New York City police commissioner William Bratten has said, ``The National Rifle Association has strenuously opposed increased financing for ATF and has successfully lobbied against giving it the authority to investigate the origin of gun sales.'' The result: ATF has been left underfunded, understaffed and unable to adequately enforce all the laws on the books. And the simple fact is that even if enforced, the current laws aren't enough. There so riddled with NRA induced loopholes, that they are easy to get around. And that's why you see children killing children today. Guns left loaded without safety locks, with no responsibility in the law, civil or otherwise, for parents to keep those guns and weapons in safe storage. Let me speak as a member of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, this body passed a comprehensive bill to address the problem of juvenile crime almost exactly one year ago. The House followed suit a month later. Both bills passed by wide margins, and this Nation was given hope that some solutions to the problems of gun violence and juvenile crime were close at hand. Yet simple fact is, the conference committee has met only once--in early August of last year. No real issues have been discussed. No progress has been made. The bills sit in legislative purgatory, apparently never to see the light of day again. Democrats in both Houses have been ready and willing to debate these issues in conference for months now. But time continues to tick by. It now seems clear that these bills will die a quiet death at the end of this session because the NRA opposes certain targeted gun laws passed by this body to keep the guns out of the hands of children, out of the hands of juveniles, and out of the hands of criminals. There is no one I have ever spoken to who believes a gun should not be sold without a trigger lock. There is no one I have ever spoken to who believes an assault weapon should be purchased by a juvenile. There is no one I have ever spoken to who believes we should not plug the loophole in my assault weapons legislation which permits the importation of clips, drums, or strips of more than 10 bullets--even the NRA agrees to that. And there is no one I know, outside of the National Rifle Association, who believes that two teenagers from Columbine should be able to go to a gun show and buy two assault weapons with no questions asked. That is what this is all about. As a result, all of the important issues we debated will go un-addressed: Gang violence, juvenile detention, firearm regulation reform, and a host of other problems will go unsolved. Mr. President, this demonstrates just how deeply these bodies are dominated by this one special interest group--these people who fervently resist any regulations on weapons, no matter how mild, no matter how targeted, and no matter how much the American people want it. The Columbine incident shocked this nation to its core and this Congress to action. But since we passed that bill one year ago, we have continued to see tragedy after tragedy, all because we live in a nation awash with guns, and we won't stand up to the NRA. In Atlanta, we saw a distressed day trader gun down his family and colleagues. In California, a hateful bigot killed a postal worker and then wounded five others at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills. The pictures of those young children being led away from the scene of the tragedy were not only heart-wrenching, but also clearly depicted the trickle-down of gun crimes in this country. Now the victims are young children. We even saw one six year old child bringing a handgun to school, apparently in retaliation for a slight the day before, and use that gun to kill another 6 year old. And every day since Columbine, another 12 children have died from gunshot wounds, in incidents of gun violence that go relatively unreported, and with outcomes not so public. These incidents will never stop until we do something to stop them. The death rate will never be diminished unless we stand up and take action. The Senate-passed juvenile justice bill is not an over-reaching statement with regards to gun control. Rather, the provisions in the juvenile justice bill are small, reasonable measures to make a difference in the lives of our children. None of those provisions should be controversial. Let me describe just a few of these provisions. This bill includes four common sense provisions to address gun violence: A ban on juvenile possession of assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines; Closing the gun show loophole; Requiring safety locks with every handgun sold in America; And my provision to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition magazines. Let me talk just a bit about this last amendment--my amendment to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The ``Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Import Ban Act of 1999'' passed the Senate as an amendment to S. 254 by voice vote, after a motion to table failed 59-39. The same amendment, offered by Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde on the House floor, passed by unanimous consent in the House. This amendment would stop further importation of large-capacity ammunition clips by eliminating the grandfather clause--as to these imported clips--that was included in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Large-capacity ammunition clips are ammunition feeding devices, such as clips, magazines, drums and belts, which hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. This legislation would not ban the sale or possession of clips already in circulation. And the domestic manufacture of these clips is already illegal for most purposes. Under current law, U.S. manufacturers are already prohibited from manufacturing large capacity clips for sale to the general public, but foreign companies continue to do so. As the author of the 1994 provision, I can assure you that this was not our intent. We intended to ban the future manufacture of all high capacity clips, leaving only a narrow clause allowing for the importation of clips already on their way to this country. Instead, BATF has allowed millions of foreign clips into this country, with no true method of determining date of manufacture. In fact, from July, 1996 to March, 1998, BATF approved over 2.5 million large-capacity clips for importation into the country. And recently, that number has sky-rocketed even further. Between March of 1998 and March of last year, BATF approved more than 11.4 million large-capacity clips for importation into America. Since that time, there have been millions more as well. The clips come from at least 20 different countries, from Austria to Zimbabwe. These clips come in sizes ranging from 15 rounds per clip to 30, 75, 90, or even 250 rounds per clip. At least 40,000 clips of 250-rounds came from England; Two million 15-round magazines came from Italy; 10,000 clips of 70-rounds came from the Czech Republic; 156,000 30-round clips came from Bulgaria; And the list goes on, and on. Mr. President, 250-round clips have no sporting purpose. They are not used for self defense. They have only one use--the purposeful killing of other men, women and children. It is both illogical and irresponsible to permit foreign companies to sell items to the American public--particularly items that are so often used for deadly purposes--that U.S. companies are prohibited from selling. Yet this amendment, along with the rest of the juvenile justice bill, remains stalled in conference. And the juvenile justice bill being held hostage by the NRA is not just a gun bill. That legislation also contains countless provisions to stem the tide of youth violence in general: A comprehensive package of measures I authored with Senator Hatch to fight criminal gangs; and The James Guelff Body Armor Act, which contains reforms to take body armor out of the hands of criminals and put it into the hands of police; And the Senate bill also provides for: A new $700 million juvenile justice block grant program for states and localities, representing a significant increase in federal aid to the states for juvenile crime control programs, including: Additional law enforcement and juvenile court personnel; Juvenile detention facilities; and Prevention programs to keep juveniles out of trouble before they turn to crime. The bill contains provisions regarding the nature and amount of contact allowed between juvenile offenders and adult prisoners. These are important provisions relating to the safety of youth offenders that have been worked out through extensive negotiations for months, yet they, too, remain in limbo. The bill encourages increased accountability for juveniles, through the implementation of graduated sanctions to ensure that subsequent offenses are treated with increasing severity The bill reforms juvenile record systems, through improved record keeping and increased access to juvenile records by police, courts, and schools, so that a court or school dealing with a juvenile in California can know if he has committed violent offenses in Arizona; and And the bill extends federal sentences for juveniles who commit serious violent felonies. There are some key issues that still need to be resolved, including the issue of who gets to decide whether a young offender is tried as a juvenile or an adult. It is my hope that the conference committee will give judges greater discretion in this area. But if the conference committee never meets, this issue--like so many others--can never be resolved. Mr. President, all of the common-sense provisions in this bill are now at risk of disappearing without a trace, and I urge the majority to proceed with the conference and come to a compromise. Let me now turn to more recent events. Mr. President, this past weekend, we saw a formidable gathering of people united in a common cause--750,000 at the National Mall and tens of thousands in other cities throughout America--marching in support of common-sense gun laws. These mothers, fathers, sons and daughters gathered together for one purpose--to tell this Congress that enough is enough. These moms and others were saying that we can, should and shall put an end to the violence that is taking 80 lives a day--12 of them children--in our nation. We must pass sensible legislation to prevent gun violence. There are those who will try to dismiss the Million Mom March as a one-shot affair, a day in the sun on the Mall, but I say such cynics do not know the power of a woman whose child is in jeopardy. Such cynics do not know the power of a million women united on behalf of the safety of their families. There are those, such as the National Rifle Association, who have even sought to deride the Million Mom March, as ``a political agenda masquerading as motherhood'' in full-page newspaper ads. While at the same time bragging about working out of the White House after November, the NRA said it was ``shameful to seize a cherished holiday for political advantage.'' But women throughout America have a message for the NRA--your time is up. It's a message so well articulated in a Tapestry on the Million Mom March web site. On this Tapestry, thousands of women have had their say about the senseless violence taking more than 30,000 lives a year. I'll pick out just a couple of these messages to share with you today. Here's Kerry Foley, Chevy Chase, Maryland: ``I am the mother of three and I am an emergency medicine doctor. I have seen the carnage of gun violence first hand--a high school student shot dead while mowing the lawns by a mentally ill person. A man who shot his brother to death in an argument over the TV remote. We are not safe. Our kids are not safe. I'll be at the march to add my voice to all of yours.'' And Karen Farmer, from Littleton, Colorado, ``The right for my child to live, far outweighs anyone's `right' to own anything.'' Mr. President, I ask approval to submit this Tapesty as part of the Record. It demonstrates the spirit, determination and commitment of women throughout America, the one force that I believe can finally break the gridlock that is keeping even the most common-sense gun laws from passage. This march was the culmination of a lot of pent up grief and frustration at the inability of Congress to act. On August 10, 1999, a hate-filled madman opened fire at a Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills, California, wounding five people, three of them children. This was but the latest mass shooting across our great country. Who can forget the horrors of Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas, and Littleton, Colorado to name just a few. But on that day last August, the dream of the Million Mom March was born. Mothers from New Jersey to California shared that dream and joined together this past Sunday, urging Congress to pass the four common- sense gun measures held in Conference Committee as part of the Juvenile Justice Bill since last June. And urging this Congress to approve new legislation for firearm licensing and registration. Mr. President I have been working on this issue for months, with community groups dedicated to preventing gun violence, with law enforcement officials, other Senate offices and even individuals involved in the Million Mom March. As Donna Dees-Thomases, organizer of the March, said ``licensing and registration is the foundation of sane gun laws. Without these basic measures, even current gun laws cannot be adequately enforced.'' The product of our work is the ``Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2000,'' a bill I introduced last week with the support of my colleagues, Senators Lautenberg, Boxer and Schumer. I began working on this legislation after the shooting at the Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills, when I became determined to find a better way to ensure that only responsible citizens have access to firearms. I believe that this legislation will begin to address three key problems facing our nation. First, too many criminals are finding it easy to obtain firearms. Our system of background checks has been a success--the Brady Law has stopped more than 500,000 felons, fugitives, stalkers and mentally ill applicants from obtaining firearms. However, under the Brady Law a background check is required only when a gun is purchased through a licensed dealer. Gun shows and private sales have long provided a safe haven for those persons who are not legally entitled to buy a gun. Only with a comprehensive system of licensing and records of sale can we hope to limit these illegal sales. By requiring that gun owners be licensed, that every transfer be processed through a licensed gun dealer, and that gun dealers record the transfer of guns, we will begin to limit the number of gun sales that fall between the cracks. Second is the problem of gun tracing. Gun tracing is the process through which law enforcement can take a gun found at the scene of a crime and, as the name suggests, trace it back to its owner. In this way, many crimes have been solved and many dangerous perpetrators caught. But without a national system of licensing and sale records, and without universal background checks, law enforcement often finds it impossible to track down the perpetrators of these crimes. Guns left behind, even those with serial numbers, turn out to be no more than dead ends for criminal investigators, because they may have been sold many times--even legally--with no background checks, no records kept, and no accountability. If we begin to record the transfers of these guns, we make it easier for law enforcement to trace a crime gun to the perpetrator of the crime. For this same reason, Senator Kohl and I recently introduced legislation to further the efforts of law enforcement to establish so- called ``gun fingerprints''--ballistics information that will allow law enforcement to trace those who use guns in crime even when the firearm itself is not found at the crime scene. Third, and what I believe is the primary benefit of this legislation, we place a greater burden of responsibility on those persons who own dangerous firearms. As Mike Hennessy, the Sheriff of San Francisco, recently pointed out in a letter to me, ``Most importantly,'' this legislation ``places responsibility for the tragic consequences of children having access to firearms squarely where it belongs, on the adult owner.'' This legislation provides criminal penalties for those adults who knowingly or recklessly allow a child access to a firearm, if the child then uses the firearm to seriously injure or kill another person. Mr. President, the problem of firearm injury goes beyond just criminal violence. Too many lives are lost every year simply because gun owners do not know how to use or store their firearms--particularly around children. In fact, according to a study released early last year, in 1996 alone there were more than 1,100 unintentional shooting deaths and more than 18,000 firearm suicides--many of which could have been prevented if the person intent on suicide did not have easy access to a gun owned by somebody else. And think of this--if a man goes into a barber shop to have his hair cut, the barber is licensed. When we women go to a beauty shop to have our hair done, the cosmetologist is licensed. If we want to fish, we get a license. If we want to hunt, we must get a license. If you're a pest control eradicator, you must have a license. If you want to drive a car--not a lethal weapon in itself--but certainly a lethal weapon if irresponsible people are driving it, you get a license. And as a matter of fact, you register the automobile. When a 16-year-old boy wants to drive a car, we make him prove that he knows the rules of the road, and that he can operate a car safely and responsibly. But if that 16-year-old uses his hard-won new license to drive to a gun dealer, he faces no written safety test, and no demonstration of proficiency whatsoever. It is time to recognize that a firearm is at least as dangerous as an automobile. These are the issues--keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, tracking down criminals once they have used a gun in the commission of a crime, and making sure that gun owners know how to safely use and store their weapons. I know that no single piece of legislation can solve the problems of gun violence in America. But in order to begin addressing these issues, I have introduced a bill that will require that all future transfers of handguns or semi-automatic guns that can take detachable magazines be recorded, and their owners be licensed. Now let me first discuss why the bill covers the guns that it does. The bill covers handguns because statistically, these guns are used in more crime than any other. In fact, approximately 85 percent of all firearm homicides involve a handgun. And the legislation also covers semi-automatic firearms that can accept detachable magazines, because these are the assault weapons that have the potential to destroy the largest number of lives in the shortest period of time. A gun that can take a detachable magazine generally also take a large capacity magazine. Combine that with semi- automatic, rapid fire, and you have a deadly combination--as we have seen time and again in recent years. Put simply, this legislation will cover those firearms that represent the greatest threat to the safety of innocent men, women and children in this nation. Common hunting rifles, shotguns and other firearms that cannot accept detachable magazines will remain exempt. Now as to those firearms that will be covered by the bill, there are two requirements placed on prospective gun owners. Regarding the licensing requirement first, this legislation requires that every person wishing to own a firearm covered by this bill must obtain a license--either from the federal government or from a state program that has been certified by the federal government. In order to obtain a license, a person will have to provide proof of identity, and be legally entitled under federal law to own a gun. This will entail providing several things to federal or local law enforcement: Provide information as to date and place of birth and name and address; Submit a thumb print; Submit a current photograph; Sign, under penalty of perjury, that all of the submitted information is true and that the applicant is qualified under federal law to possess a firearm; Pass a written firearms safety test, requiring knowledge of the safe storage and handling of firearms, the legal responsibilities of firearm ownership, and other factors as determined by the state or federal authority; Sign a pledge to keep any firearm safely stored and out of the hands of juveniles--this pledge will be backed up by criminal penalties for anyone failing to do so; And undergo state and federal background checks. Once an individual has received the license from the Treasury Department, that single license entitles the licensee to own or purchase any firearm covered by this bill. Only one license is required, no matter how many firearms are purchased. Licenses will cost $25 maximum and be renewable every five years. They can be revoked anytime if the licensee becomes disqualified from owning a gun under federal law. Right now, the United States is one of only two countries--along with the Czech Republic--that does not have a firearm licensing system. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why children under 15 in this country are 12 times more likely to die from gunfire than the children of 25 other industrialized nations combined. Only America, so advanced in other ways, remains so backward in how we regulate guns and gun owners. I believe that it is time to listen to the American people, and to enact common sense, reasonable legislation to ensure that all gun owners become responsible gun owners, and that guns themselves can be used more effectively to track down perpetrators of gun violence. The second requirement of this legislation is that all future transfers of firearms covered by this bill be recorded by a licensed gun dealer. This record of sale provision means that guns that are transferred in the future will, effectively, be registered. Registration is not a complicated issue, and it is one that every American will understand. We register many things in this country that are far less dangerous than firearms. We register cars and license drivers; We license barbers and cosmetologists: We register pesticides; We register animal carriers and researchers; We register gambling devices; and We register a whole host of other goods and activities--even ``international expositions,'' believe it or not, must be registered with the Bureau of International Expositions! The American people already support national gun registration overwhelmingly, despite a concerted campaign by some to change their minds. By requiring that firearm sales and transfers be recorded, we will establish some accountability for the use and care of those guns. Law enforcement will be able to track crime guns back to their legal owners, so owners will therefore need to be more careful about storing their guns so they are not stolen and also in reporting gun sales-- nobody wants to be responsible for a crime committed by someone else. As San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessy wrote to me, ``By requiring every transfer of handguns and semi-automatic firearms to be made through a licensed dealer, a chain of ownership can be established that can assist law enforcement in identifying firearms used in the commission of crimes.'' This record requirement is not so we can target law abiding citizens, but rather so that law enforcement can quickly apprehend criminals who use guns in crime. Firearms dealers already keep careful track of gun sales, and submit serial numbers to the ATF for later use in gun tracing. The new record of sale requirement will essentially mean that this same process will be expanded to all covered firearms. Penalties will vary depending on the severity of the violation: Those who fail to get a license will face fines of between $500 and $5,000. Failing to report a change of address or the loss of a firearm will also result in penalties between $500 and $5,000; Dealers who fail to maintain adequate records will face up to 2 years in prison--dealers know their responsibilities, and this will give law enforcement the tools necessary to root out bad dealers and prevent the straw purchases and other violations of law that allow criminals easy access to a continuing flow of guns; And adults who recklessly or knowingly allow a child access to a firearm face up to three years in prison if the child uses the gun to kill or seriously injure another person. Mr. President, the Million Mom March was just the beginning of a powerful movement for sensible gun laws. Like the women activists before them, mothers and others who led the fight to abolish child labor, to establish juvenile courts, to improve child care and broaden health coverage, the participants in this March are now united behind a cause that we cannot afford to ignore: Sane, common-sense gun laws; child-safety locks on handguns; a ban on minors buying assault weapons; closing the gun-show loophole that allows buyers to get around background checks; prohibiting the import of high-capacity ammunition magazines; and finally licensing gun owners and registering firearms. After all, we ask people to get licenses to drive a car and we register automobiles; why not gun-owners and firearms? I urge the Senate to pass the juvenile justice bill, and to continue the fight against gun violence demanded by those million people this past weekend.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Craig spoke on the floor about licensing and registration. I just wanted to correct one statement he made. Senator Craig said that ``The reality of licensing gun owners and registering firearms is something that almost all Americans have viewed as an anathema for a long while. Why? Because they really do believe that a gun once acquired is private property and it is no business of the government that they should know about it.'' Of course guns are private property, but the facts do not support the contention that the American people view licensing and registration as an ``anathema.'' According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last year, 90 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans support mandatory registration of any type of gun or firearm. A May report by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago shows similar findings, with 70 percent favoring gun-owner licensing and training in use of their guns. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken at the end of April shows seventy- six percent of those surveyed favored registrations of all handguns. And 69 percent favored the federal government requiring all handgun owners to obtain a special license. In fact, a recent Princeton Survey Research Association Poll indicated that even 66 percent of gun owners support the registration of all handguns.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to grant United States citizenship to Vijai Rajan. Ms. Rajan is a twenty-four year old permanent resident from India whose naturalization application was denied because of physical disabilities that make it impossible for her to take the oath of allegiance. Ms. Rajan has lived in the United States since she was four months old. Her sister, Inbhu, was born in Cincinnati and is an American citizen by right of her birth in the United States. Her father Sunder Rajan became a naturalized citizen in 1980. But Ms. Rajan's mother Shakunthala, was not naturalized until 1994, just after Vijai's 18th birthday. If both parents had become citizens before Rajan turned 18, she would have automatically qualified for citizenship. Unfortunately, due to this peculiar circumstance, the law now requires that Ms. Rajan undergo the rigors of the regular naturalization process, including taking the oath of allegiance, before she can become a United States citizen. An anomaly in the law has resulted in Ms. Rajan being left out of her family's American dream, for no other reason than because her physical disabilities prevent her from taking the oath of allegiance. Ms. Rajan suffers from cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, seizures, and Crohn's disease. American citizenship is the most visible sign of one's attachment to the United States. The naturalization process, including the oath of allegiance, should be credible, and it must be accorded the formality and ceremony appropriate to its importance. I would not support any steps that would detract from the meaningfulness, solemnity, and dignity of this time-honored tradition. In 1952, when Congress codified the requirements for becoming an American citizen, it required that the oath contain five elements: (1) support for the Constitution; (2) renunciation of prior allegiance; (3) defense of the Constitution against all enemies; (4) true faith and allegiance; and (5) a commitment to bear arms or perform noncombatant service when required. I believe these principles should remain intact. But I also believe that we should carry out these ideals with compassion and sufficient flexibility that persons who are so severely disabled, like Ms. Rajan, are not automatically disqualified from becoming U.S. citizens. I believe the case of Vijai Rajan is compelling and warrants Congress' immediate consideration. Moreover, I am aware that there are other cases in which a physical disability has prevented an otherwise qualified person from becoming an American citizen. I intend to work to enact legislation that will give the Attorney General the discretion to act on such compelling cases without having to resort to a private act of Congress. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this private legislation on behalf of Vijai Rajan.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to grant United States citizenship to Vijai Rajan. Ms. Rajan is a twenty-four year old permanent resident from India whose naturalization application was denied because of physical disabilities that make it impossible for her to take the oath of allegiance. Ms. Rajan has lived in the United States since she was four months old. Her sister, Inbhu, was born in Cincinnati and is an American citizen by right of her birth in the United States. Her father Sunder Rajan became a naturalized citizen in 1980. But Ms. Rajan's mother Shakunthala, was not naturalized until 1994, just after Vijai's 18th birthday. If both parents had become citizens before Rajan turned 18, she would have automatically qualified for citizenship. Unfortunately, due to this peculiar circumstance, the law now requires that Ms. Rajan undergo the rigors of the regular naturalization process, including taking the oath of allegiance, before she can become a United States citizen. An anomaly in the law has resulted in Ms. Rajan being left out of her family's American dream, for no other reason than because her physical disabilities prevent her from taking the oath of allegiance. Ms. Rajan suffers from cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, seizures, and Crohn's disease. American citizenship is the most visible sign of one's attachment to the United States. The naturalization process, including the oath of allegiance, should be credible, and it must be accorded the formality and ceremony appropriate to its importance. I would not support any steps that would detract from the meaningfulness, solemnity, and dignity of this time-honored tradition. In 1952, when Congress codified the requirements for becoming an American citizen, it required that the oath contain five elements: (1) support for the Constitution; (2) renunciation of prior allegiance; (3) defense of the Constitution against all enemies; (4) true faith and allegiance; and (5) a commitment to bear arms or perform noncombatant service when required. I believe these principles should remain intact. But I also believe that we should carry out these ideals with compassion and sufficient flexibility that persons who are so severely disabled, like Ms. Rajan, are not automatically disqualified from becoming U.S. citizens. I believe the case of Vijai Rajan is compelling and warrants Congress' immediate consideration. Moreover, I am aware that there are other cases in which a physical disability has prevented an otherwise qualified person from becoming an American citizen. I intend to work to enact legislation that will give the Attorney General the discretion to act on such compelling cases without having to resort to a private act of Congress. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this private legislation on behalf of Vijai Rajan.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on May 21, students and former students, their parents, teachers and administrators of Los Altos High School, will come together in Southern California to show their appreciation, and express their thanks and best wishes to Don Gunderson, who is retiring this year after 41 years as a music educator. Don Gunderson began his teaching career at the halfway point of President Dwight Eisenhower's second term, working with his mentor in Washington state, teaching instrumental music in the junior high, as well as music to elementary schoolers. Three years later, in 1961, Mr. Gunderson came to Anaheim, California to be the band, orchestra and choir director at Crescent Junior High School, which was still in construction when he was hired. Five years later, he began a very distinguished eleven-year career as the band and orchestra director at Savannah High School in Anaheim. In 1978, Mr. Gunderson rose to the college ranks, serving as head of the jazz and student teacher programs at California State University at Fullerton. Three years later, in 1981, Don Gunderson decided to return to high school instruction at Los Altos High School, in Hacienda Heights. At that time, Los Altos was one of the largest musical programs in Southern California, with a strong reputation in marching band competitions. For the next nineteen years, Los Altos High School would become more than just the home of one of Southern California's largest marching bands--it would be the site of one of our nation's internationally recognized music education programs. The Los Altos Entertainment Unit has performed at the Fiesta Bowl pageant twice and marched in the Tournament of Roses Parade four times. They've been here in Washington, where they performed at the White House, and traveled for performances in Florida and the Bahamas. Don Gunderson began building the music program's international credentials in 1982, when he led the Los Altos Entertainment Unit on a two week tour of England and Scotland. Knowing that very few, if any Americans, knew of Hacienda Heights, Mr. Gunderson was prepared when inquiring Brits asked where in the world is Hacienda Heights: ``We're not far from Disneyland'' was his reply. It's safe to say that after that 1982 trip, along with a return visit ten years later as guests of the British Military as part of the prestigious Royal Tournament, the people of Britain know how to find Hacienda Heights on a map. The same can be said for music-lovers that had the good fortune to see and hear Los Altos perform in Germany, Italy, Austria, and Switzerland. The Los Altos Entertainment Unit has been the recipient of countless awards and achievements. Los Altos was designated the Official Youth Band of the 1984 Summer Olympics, and was crowned three times as marching band champions at the Southern California Tournament of Champions. And that's just the marching band, color guard and dance team. Don Gunderson brought to Los Altos a commitment to a total music program, and strived to establish the same standard of excellence to the orchestral and jazz programs. Perhaps just as significant are the signs of recognition and respect given to this program in ways other than award ceremonies. Go to a Friday night football game at Los Altos and you're sure to find a few young people from other high schools in Southern California in the stands not to see the football team, but to watch and hear the Entertainment Unit. Those same football games certainly sparked the imaginations of young elementary and junior high school students, who would come home interested in learning music and being a part of the Entertainment Unit. Come to the football field on a night when the Entertainment Unit is rehearsing and you're sure to find parents, students, teachers, former students, and even students from other high schools in the stands. Trace the career paths of those who learned from Don Gunderson and yes, you'll find those who have gone on to rewarding careers in music and music education. However, there are many more alumni of the Los Altos Entertainment Unit that pursued other careers, but they carry with them lessons learned from Don Gunderson on football fields, concert halls, or the band room that go beyond musical notes on a page--lessons in teamwork, preparation, determination, and excellence. Mr. President, those who have learned and applied these and countless other lessons from Don Gunderson will have an opportunity to say thanks in a few short weeks. Let me join them in expressing my admiration to a man who has brought the joy of music to thousands of students and parents, and to countless more around the world who have heard the stirring opening fanfare, ``Conquistadores.'' Perhaps more important, let me express my own thanks to Don Gunderson for the honor and inspiration he has brought to the teaching profession for more than forty years. To borrow from the Los Altos motto, Don Gunderson has engaged and conquered. I wish Don Gunderson, his wife Judy and his family, all the very best.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the President for this Executive order. It is the right thing to do and it is a major help. I very much hope that the African countries will make use of this Executive order and acquire the necessary pharmaceuticals that we here in this country know can extend the lives and well-being of people. Almost 1 year ago, on May 11, the World Health Organization declared that HIV/AIDS is now the world's most deadly infectious disease. As of December of last year, the AIDS Epidemic Update, published by the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, U.N. AIDS, and the World Health Organization, notes the following: As the 20th century draws to a close, some 33.6 million men and women worldwide face a future dominated by a fatal disease, unknown just a few decades ago. According to new estimates from the Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS and the World Health Organization, 32.4 million adults and 1.2 million children will be living with HIV by the end of 1999. Sub-Saharan Africa bears the brunt of the HIV/AIDS with close to 70 percent of the global total of HIV positive people. Most will die in the next 10 years, joining the 13.7 million Africans who have already died, and leaving behind shattered families and crippled prospects for development. Indeed, the hardest hit African companies face infection rates in excess of 22 percent--that is 22 million people--an overall rate of infection among adults in sub-Saharan Africa eight times the rate of infection worldwide. In some countries of southern Africa, 20 to 30 percent of the population of the country itself are infected. You can see from this chart the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. You see the major countries affected that I am speaking about--Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia--leading with 16 to 32 percent of adults infected with HIV. The next tranche of 8 percent to 16 percent is in the orange and it drops down from there. In South Africa, you have almost 13 percent of the population infected; that is, 2.8 million people. In Zimbabwe, it is 25.8 percent; that is, 1.4 million people. In Uganda, it is 9.5 percent; that is, 870,000. In the Central African Republic, it is almost 11 percent; that is 170,000. In Zambia, it is 19 percent; that is 730,000. In Kenya, it is 11.6 percent or 1.6 million people. The destruction caused by HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, by far, surpasses the devastation caused by famine, war, and even genocide in Rwanda. According to the United Nations, over 10 times as many people were killed by AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa last year as by war. This chart shows the estimated adult and child deaths from HIV/AIDS during 1998--2 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, out of a global total of 2.5 million. You see why this is pandemic today, actually exceeding the bubonic plague in Europe centuries ago. The devastation caused by AIDS has dramatically reduced life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa from the highs witnessed in the early to mideighties, before the devastating effect of AIDS began to be felt. This chart shows that in Botswana, which is this line, life expectancy has fallen from the age of 61 to age 50. In Zimbabwe, it fell from 59 to 47. In Zambia, it fell from age 50 to 38 years. In Malawi, it fell from age 45 to 40 years. In Uganda, it fell from 48 to 38 years. If the present trends continue, life expectancy--already shortened by a decade or more in many sub-Saharan African countries--is projected to fall more dramatically still. In Zimbabwe, for example, life expectancy is expected to decline by 26 years by 2010, from the age of 59 to the age of 33. That is more than half the life expectancy in little more than two decades. I never thought I would ever see that kind of devastation in one country. AIDS is also affecting infant and child mortality rates, reversing the declines that have been occurring in many countries during the 1970s and 1980s. According to the U.N., AIDS, by 2010, the child mortality rates of children under 5 will increase by 200 percent in Botswana, by 100 percent in Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania, and Zambia by 100 percent, and by 300 percent in Zimbabwe. This becomes critical, if you understand that four pills can prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS from a mother to a child--four pills. Look at these expected child mortality rates. Over 30 percent of all children born to HIV-infected mothers in sub- Saharan Africa will themselves be HIV infected. More than 500,000--half a million--babies were infected this past year by their mothers, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. As these statistics in the U.N. AIDS Report that I cited attest, sub- Saharan Africa has been far more severely affected by AIDS than any other part of the world. Mr. President, it is not just adults who are being killed by AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Out of 510,000 children killed by AIDS throughout the entire world, 470,000 were African children. That is 92 percent of the world's total. What does that say for the future? Almost a half million children are killed in one continent alone. For anyone who has ever been a mother or a father, a grandmother or a grandfather, this number is mind numbing. Beyond the carnage of the deaths, this disease has the potential to destabilize already fragile political and economic systems in sub- Saharan Africa. The United Nations reports that 23.3 million adults and children are infected with the virus, up from 22 million a couple of years ago. Africa has only 10 percent of the world's population, but it has 70 percent of the worldwide total of infected people. That is what this chart shows. And it is shocking. Worldwide, there were 5.6 million new AIDS infections in 1999--3.8 million of them in Africa. That is two-thirds of the new infections of AIDS taking place in Africa. Every day, 11,000 more people are infected with HIV--1 in every 8 seconds--and 10,000 of the 11,000 new HIV infections that take place around the world occur in this area. Teachers, doctors, and nurses are today dying faster than they can be replaced. What does that say about the human development and the economic upward mobility of that country if the teachers, the doctors, and the nurses die faster than they can be replaced? In addition to the death toll striking down adults and children alike, as the ``Report on the Presidential Mission on Children Orphaned by AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa'' notes: Tragically, the worst is yet to come. During the next decade more than 40 million children will be orphaned by AIDS--40 million children orphaned by AIDS, and this ``slow-burn disaster'' is not expected to peak until 2030. According to UNICEF, the HIV-AIDS pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa is having and will continue to have more impact on child survival and maternal mortality than all other emergencies combined. Without a doubt, AIDS has placed an entire generation of Africa's children in jeopardy. Of the 13 million children orphaned by AIDS so far, 10 million of them are in sub-Saharan Africa. In Zimbabwe, there are currently 600,000 AIDS orphans, and the projection is that there will be more than 1 million by 2005. That is a 40-percent increase in orphans in one country alone in the next 5 years. Think about it for a minute. It is staggering. There are rumors that some of the leaders of these countries don't want to deal with the drugs that can prevent passage from the mother to the child because they don't want to deal with the number of orphans that are going to be present in that country. I find this also shocking. You have more than 1 million orphans in 5 years growing up in poverty, without parents and with little or no social structure. What does this say about the success of an African Trade Act, if you think about it? No teachers, no doctors, no nurses, and millions of orphans without parents, what does that say about economic and human development of a country? In South Africa, there are already close to 250,000 AIDS orphans. The number is expected to skyrocket to 2\1/2\ million by 2010. This is South Africa. This is from 1990 to 2010. Here we are at 2000, and this is what is anticipated to be the number of orphans by 2010. The number is 2.5 million in one country alone. How can this bill provide them with the resources to lead better lives in the future? What good will this bill do if this happens? All told, over 34 million people in Africa have been infected by HIV since the pandemic began. That is the population of the State of California. And an estimated 13.7 million Africans have lost their lives to AIDS--more than the entire population of Los Angeles and New York City combined. By 2005, if policies do not change, the daily death toll will reach 13,000--double what it is today--with nearly 4 million AIDS deaths in sub-Saharan Africa alone. A recent CNN Interactive story, ``AIDS in Africa: Dying by the Numbers,'' put the extent of the crisis in this way: . . . The bubonic plague is reckoned to have killed about 30 million people in medieval Europe. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that AIDS deaths and the loss of future populations from the deaths of women of child-bearing age means that by 2010, sub-Saharan Africa will have 71 million fewer people than it would otherwise. In all of these countries in sub-Saharan Africa, there will be 71 million fewer people because of AIDS in the next 10 years. Just think about that for a minute. I would also like to spend some time addressing the situation in several different countries in the region--some hard hit, some less so--so that my colleagues have a better sense of the chaos and disruption this disease is causing in individual countries and society. The statistics that I cite below are drawn from UNA's World Health Organization epidemiological fact sheets on AIDS and includes data up to 1997. By all accounts, in almost every country in the region, the situation has grown much worse in the past 3 years. There could be little doubt about the pandemic. Let's begin with Botswana. In Botswana, over 25 percent of the population between 15 and 49 is infected with HIV. That is 25 percent of the population. In Botswana's major urban areas, 40 percent of pregnant women are infected with HIV. From 1994 to 1997, the rate at which children have been orphaned in Botswana quadrupled. Almost 50 percent of Botswana's children under 15 are AIDS orphans. AIDS is responsible for over half of the deaths of all children under the age of five. Let's look at Ethiopia. Ethiopia has a relatively low infection rate for sub-Saharan Africa, just 9.3 percent, with 5.6 million out of a population of 60 million infected. Over 35 percent of women in Ethiopia age 20 to 24 have HIV. That is a rate 3 times higher than men. In 1985, less than 1 percent of prostitutes in Addis Ababa were HIV positive. By 1990, that proportion had reached 54 percent. This is the point of spreading of the disease. Very little is being done about it. Kenya currently has a relatively low rate of HIV infection. It is 11 percent. HIV prevalence is much higher in the major urban areas and is over 25 percent in Nairobi, where almost 90 percent of prostitutes are HIV positive. This is the wonderful city of Nairobi, where 90 percent of the prostitutes are spreading this disease heterosexually through the countryside. There are currently at least 350,000 AIDS orphans in Kenya, with the number expected to reach 1 million by 2005. By 2005, Kenya will have one million orphans, thanks to AIDS. That is a 200 percent increase. The cumulative number of deaths due to AIDS has risen from 16,000 in 1989 to 200,000 in 1995 and is expected to pass the one million mark this year. One million dead and one million orphans. Kenya is a beautiful country. It is shocking what is happening. I hope some of the pharmaceutical companies that lobbied against this amendment are listening. Mr. President, 75 percent of AIDS cases in Kenya occur among adults age 20 to 45, the economically most productive time of the population. The prevalence of HIV in pregnant women in urban areas has risen from 2 percent in 1985 to 16 percent in 1997. Let's go to Malawi. It is estimated around 1 in 7 of the population, age 15 to 49, is HIV positive. That is 15 percent of the population, or 670,000 people. More than 80,000 people died of AIDS in 1 year alone, 1997, and Malawi has an accumulative death toll of over 450,000 people. I hope the pharmaceutical companies are listening. Over 25 percent of women attending prenatal clinics in the urban centers test positive for HIV. Girls 15 to 24 years in age are six times more likely to be positive than boys the same age. Other infectious diseases are also on the upswing. Tuberculosis has tripled since the late 1980s, largely due to AIDS. By the end of 1997, over 6 percent of Malawi's children under 15 were orphans. Let's look at Nigeria, Africa's most populace country, with 118 million people. More than 2.2 million people, around 5 percent, are HIV positive. Although Nigeria appears to have a relatively low incidence at present, trend lines are not comforting. The prevalence in pregnant women in urban areas went from below 1 percent in 1991 to almost 7 percent in 1994. Likewise, the prevalence of HIV in prostitutes has more than doubled during this same period in urban areas, and increases from 3.9 percent to 23 percent in rural areas. Nearly 50 percent of the prostitutes in Lagos, the largest city, are HIV positive, spreading the disease. There were 350,000 AIDS orphans in Nigeria as of 1997. Let's look at South Africa. About 3 million people in South Africa are infected with HIV, 13 percent of a population of 43 million. Estimates are by 2010, 25 percent of South Africa's population will be HIV positive. By 1997, 180,000 children were orphaned. That figure will skyrocket to 2 million by 2010. There will be two million orphans in South Africa because of AIDS by 2010. Mr. President, 20 percent of pregnant women are infected. There are close to 400,000 deaths due to AIDS in South Africa since the beginning of the epidemic. Let's go to Zambia, with an infection rate close to 20 percent. It is one of the hardest hit countries in sub-Saharan Africa. As of 1997, over 770,000 adults and children in Zambia were AIDS affected. There are more than 630,000 estimated AIDS cases. There have been 600,000 cumulative deaths since the beginning of the epidemic. After Uganda, Zambia has the highest proportion of children orphaned by AIDS in the world. By the end of 1997, 360,000 children, almost 10 percent of the children under 15, were orphaned because of AIDS. Four simple pills could prevent the transmission of AIDS from a pregnant woman to a child. Mr. President, 28 percent of adults in the urban area and 15 percent in rural areas are infected with HIV. To give a sense of how the crisis is eroding social stability in Zambia, last year alone, 1,300 teachers in Zambia died from AIDS. Only 700 new teachers were available to take their place. How do you teach children to be able to get a job in the new marketplace that this bill hopes to bring about if the teachers are dying of AIDS, if the children are orphaned? Zimbabwe has one of the worst AIDS epidemics in the world. Currently, 26 percent of all adults age 15 to 49 are infected with HIV, more than 1.5 million out of a total population of 5.5 million. The United Nations Population Division has projected that over the next five years half of all child deaths in the country will be due to AIDS. As in Zambia, by the end of 1997 there were over 360,000 AIDS orphans in Zimbabwe and, as I mentioned earlier, projections are for Zimbabwe to be faced with over 1 million AIDS orphans in the next five years. The HIV/AIDS crisis is driving families in sub-Saharan Africa worn- down by widespread poverty to the brink of disaster, and eroding the ability of the regions governments to provide services while at the same time increasing the demand for them. This is especially true in health care, where AIDS-related illnesses sometimes account for almost half the hospital beds and in-patient days. The transition to democracy in the region may also be imperiled, and economic growth may grind to a halt as a result of the AIDS crisis destabilizing social structures. These numbers, and the impact this disease is having on individual counties in sub-Saharan Africa, is staggering, but it is difficult to capture the depth of the devastation and suffering in the region with statistics and charts. To try to give a better sense of the impact of HIV/AIDS, let me read the first few paragraphs from a story published in the Village Voice last year, part of a Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles by journalist Mark Schoofs. Let me warn you: the following is not for the faint of heart or faint of stomach. They didn't call Arthur Chinaka out of the classroom. The principal and Arthur's uncle Simon waited until the day's exams were done before breaking the news: Arthur's father, his body wracked with pneumonia, had finally died of AIDS. They were worried that Arthur would panic, but at 17 years old, he didn't. He still had two days of tests, so while his father lay in the morgue, Arthur finished his exams. That happened in 1990. Then in 1992, Arthur's uncle Edward died of AIDS. In 1994, his uncle Richard died of AIDS. In 1996, his uncle Alex died of AIDS. All of them are buried on the homestead where they grew up and where their parents and Arthur still live, a collection of thatch-roofed huts in the mountains near Mutare, by Zimbabwe's border with Mozambique. But HIV hasn't finished with this family. In April, a fourth uncle lay coughing in his hut, and the virus had blinded Arthur's aunt Eunice, leaving her so thin and weak she couldn't walk without help. By September both were dead. The most horrifying part of this story is that it is not unique. In Uganda, a business executive named Tonny, who asked that his last name not be used, lost two brothers and a sister to AIDS, while his wife lost her brother to the virus. In the rural hills of South Africa's KwaZulu Natal province, Bonisile Ngema lost her son and daughter-in-law, so she tries to support her granddaughter and her own aged mother by selling potatoes. Her dead son was the breadwinner for the whole extended family, and now she feels like an orphan. In the morgue of Zimbabwe's Parirenyatwa Hospital, head mortician Paul Tabvemhiri opens the door to the large cold room that holds cadavers. But it's impossible to walk in because so many bodies lie on the floor, wrapped in blankets from their deathbeds or dressed in the clothes they died in. Along the walls, corpses are packed two to a shelf. In a second cold-storage area, the shelves are narrower, so Tabvemhiri faces a grisly choice: He can stack the bodies on top of one another, which squishes the face and makes it hard for relatives to identify the body, or he can leave the cadavers out in the hall, unrefrigerated. He refuses to deform bodies, and so a pair of corpses lie outside on gurneys behind a curtain. The odor of decomposition is faint but clear. Have they always had to leave bodies in the hall? ``No, no, no,'' says Tabvemhiri, who has worked in the morgue since 1976. ``Only in the last five or six years,'' which is when AIDS deaths here took off. Morgue records show that the number of cadavers has almost tripled since the start of Zimbabwe's epidemic, and there's been a change in who is dying: ``The young ones,'' says Tabvemhiri, ``are coming in bulk.'' The wide crescent of East and Southern Africa that sweeps down from Mount Kenya and around the Cape of Good Hope is the hardest-hit AIDS region in the world. Here, the virus is cutting down more and more of Africa's most energetic and productive people, adults aged 15 to 49. The slave trade also targeted people in their prime, killing or sending into bondage perhaps 25 million people. But that happened over four centuries. Only 17 years have passed since AIDS was first found in Africa, on the shores of Lake Victoria, yet according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the virus has already killed more than 11 million sub-Saharan Africans. More than 22 million others are infected [and nobody cares]. Only 10 percent of the world's population lives south of the Sahara, but the region is home to two-thirds of the world's HIV-positive people, and it has suffered more than 80 percent of all AIDS deaths. Last year, the combined wars in Africa killed 200,000 people. AIDS killed 10 times that number. Indeed, more people succumbed to HIV last year than to any other cause of death on this continent, including malaria. And the carnage has only begun. In addition to the devastating health impact, HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa is also threatening to undermine economic, social, and political stability in the region--the very issues which the African Growth and Opportunity Act is intended to address. In Zimbabwe and Botswana, for example, where roughly one of every four people have AIDS, the disease has cut sharply into population growth with profound consequences. According to Karen Stanecki, chief of health studies for the U.S. Census Bureau: The zero growth is coming because people are dying in their young adult years, not after leading full lives and then dying. People are dying in the years when they're supposed to be most productive. As World Bank President James Wolfensohn said at the United Nations this past January: Many of us used to think of AIDS as a health issue. We were wrong. AIDS can no longer be confined to the health or social sector portfolios. AIDS is turning back the clock on development. As the HIV epidemic deepens in Africa, it is leaving an economically devastated continent in its wake. At the most simple level, already impoverished families that must care for a member who is ill with HIV/AIDS find that what little they had to pay for a child's education or invest for the future is now gone. The United Nations Joint Program on HIV/AIDS found that urban families in the Cote d'Ivoire, known as the Ivory Coast in this country, with a member sick from AIDS cut spending on their children's education in half and reduced food consumption by about 40 percent as they struggled to cover health care costs. Moreover, as the epidemic has worsened, so have estimates of its effect on African economies, even without taking into account broader human welfare issues. Indeed, because of the impact of HIV/AIDS, David Bloom, a professor of economics and demography at the Harvard School of Public Health, warns that ``The whole economy [in Africa] could unravel.'' In ``Confronting AIDS,'' the World Bank factored in labor supply issues and the amount to which health care would be financed out of savings to come up with a ``rough estimate'' of a 0.5 percent annual reduction in per capita GDP growth. I believe this estimate to be on the low side. One-half of 1 percent may not seem like much. Indeed, for countries with relatively high growth rates such as Uganda, that kind of reduction will not seem to be immediately crippling, but a lower growth rate has a cumulative effect. A country whose growth rate is 2 percent a year will increase its GNP per capita by 81 percent in one generation, or about 30 years. Each generation will live much better than the last. However, if AIDS reduces growth to just 1.5 percent per year, the same country will increase its GNP per capita by only about 50 percent in the same period. This chart shows the change in per capita GDP caused by AIDS in Kenya. The yellow is a no AIDS scenario, and one can see the enormous rise in GDP. The red is the AIDS scenario, even with the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and one can see how it is consequentially lower. Thus, in Kenya, for example, UNAIDS estimates that while per capita GDP was estimated to increase from 5,600 Kenyan shillings in 1990 to over 6,000 Kenyan shillings by 2005 without AIDS, with the impact of AIDS per capita GDP will remain stagnant over the same period of time. Likewise, in South Africa UNAIDS estimates that because of the impact of HIV/AIDS the Human Development Index--which measures the level of human development through a formula based on life expectancy at birth, adult literacy, school enrollment, and real per capita GDP has dropped by over 15 percent from 1995 to the present. That is a 15-percent drop due to AIDS in 5 years. Without HIV/ AIDS South Africa's HDI was projected to remain more or less the same. Finally, the combined effects of HIV/AIDS on health, economic life, the social fabric, and political institutions, has created a genuine threat to future stability and security in sub-Saharan Africa. That is why, at the initiative of Ambassador Holbrooke and Vice President Gore, the 15-member United Nations Security Council decided to address AIDS earlier this year. As Secretary General Kofi Annan told the Security Council: In already unstable societies, this cocktail of disasters is a sure recipe for more conflict. And conflict, in turn, provides fertile ground for further infections. And, as Dr. Peter Piot, Executive Director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, said: Visibly, the epidemic is eroding the social fabric of many communities. In its demographic, social and economic impact, the epidemic has become more devastating than war, in a continent where war and conflict appear to be endemic. As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke said, if we do not work with Africa now to address the problems associated with the HIV/AIDS crisis, ``we will have to deal with them later when they will get more dangerous and more expensive.'' It is in recognition of the destabilizing effects of HIV/AIDS in Africa that the Clinton-Gore administration has taken the step of designating AIDS a threat to U.S. national security interests, as reported the other week in the Washington Post. I believe the administration is to be congratulated for its recognition of the profound effects that this disease is having, and for this effort. There are many explanations for why this pandemic is sweeping across sub-Saharan Africa: Certainly the region's poverty, which has deprived Africans of access to health information, health education, and health care. Conflict, which has led to increases in refugee flows, and increases in prostitution have also played a role. Cultural and behavior patterns, which has led to sub-Saharan Africa being the only region in which women are infected with HIV at a higher rate than men, may also play a role. Clearly, in addressing the challenges presented by this disease there needs to be considerable emphasis addressing the health care infrastructure of sub-Saharan Africa and on additional resources for education. I intend to address both these points later. I also believe that if the international community is to be successful in meeting this challenge, we must make every effort to get appropriate medicine into the hands of those in need. In the United States and much of the industrialized world, even as sub-Saharan Africa has been ravaged by the impact of HIV/AIDS, we have succeeded, in large part, in turning HIV/AIDS into a chronic disease; not curing it--that must still remain a top priority--but managing it. We have done so, in large parts, by developing effective pharmaceuticals and getting them to those in need. Indeed, for too many years there were no effective drugs. I remember, as Mayor of San Francisco, I was the first mayor to implement a program to deal with AIDS in the United States, and remember trying to manage this disease in its early days, when cause, let alone treatment, was unclear; when drugs were simply not available; when HIV/AIDS was devastating our community, and many, many promising young people--many of them my friends--were struck down in the prime of their lives; and when we simply did not know how big the crisis would get, or if our health care system could handle it. So in some small way, I think I understand what policymakers in many sub-Saharan African countries are now going through. Now, thanks to recent medical research, we do have effective medicine. For example, some recent pilot projects have had success in reducing mother-to-child transmission by administering the anti-HIV drug AZT, or a less expensive medicine, Nevirapine, NVP, during birth and early childhood. In fact, new studies indicate NVP can reduce the risk of mother-to- child transmission by as much as 80 percent. Just think of the statistics on orphans and HIV-infected children that could be stopped with four of these pills. NVP is given just once to the mother during labor and once to the child within three days of birth. Three or four pills can mean that a child is prevented from being born with AIDS. For just $4 a tablet--a little more than the cost of a large latte at Starbuck's, not a lot here but a great deal in Africa--this inexpensive drug regime has created an unprecedented opportunity for international cooperation in the fight against AIDS. Currently, however, less than 1 percent of HIV infected pregnant women have access to interventions to reduce mother-to-child transmission. In addition to such drugs as NVP, drug ``cocktails" administered in a treatment regimen known as HAART--highly active antiretroviral therapy--antiretroviral drugs can allow people living with AIDS to lead a normal life. And use of the drugs can lead to long-term survival rather than early death. Such treatment has proven highly effective in developed countries, including our own. Although some pharmaceutical companies may try to tell you otherwise, most antiretrovirals drugs are relatively inexpensive to produce. AIDS Treatment News recently reported that: AZT in bulk can be purchased for 42 cents for 300 mg from the worldwide suppliers; this price reflects profits not only to the manufacturer but also to the middleman bulk buyer. The same drug retails at my local pharmacy for $5.82 per pill. This ridiculous price bears no real relation to the cost of production. Unfortunately--and inexplicably in my view--access for Africans to AIDS medications or ``antiretrovirals'' is perhaps the most contentious issue surrounding the response to the African epidemic. According to an article, ``Poor Nations Ravaged by AIDS Need the Right Resources'' that appeared in the December 1, 1999 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association: For as many years as antiretroviral therapies have been available, AIDS activists have accused pharmaceutical companies of price gouging and challenged them to reduce prices and cut their profit margins on drugs for people with HIV infection and AIDS. In a pilot drug access initiative launched in 1997 in Uganda, Cote d'Ivoire, Chile, and Vietnam, UNAIDS succeeded in negotiating discounts on drugs manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, Glaxo Wellcome Inc, Merck & Co Inc, and Roche Laboratories. In Uganda, the cost of dual antiretroviral drug therapy has been cut from $600 to $250 per month; triple combination therapy that used to cost $1000 per month is now between $500 and $600 (J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care. 1999;5:48-60). Dorothy Ochola, MD, coordinator of the drug access initiative in Uganda, said the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has offered free laboratory monitoring of patients for 2 years. While the program has helped hundreds of HIV-infected people in Uganda gain access to therapy, it is far from a cure-all. Along with government subsidies for drugs, the initiative offers less expensive drugs for palliative care and opportunistic infections, but patients must pay out of pocket for antiretroviral drugs. With a population of 21 million and the number of HIV-positive persons estimated at 930,000, Uganda's approximately 825 patients receiving antiretroviral drugs through the program are a drop in the bucket. Unfortunately, it is true that even at reduced rates in all too many cases the cost of combination therapy is beyond the means of most people living with AIDS and governments in sub-Saharan Africa. Combination therapy in South Africa was estimated at $334 per month or $4,000 per year, and UNAIDS reports that Brazil treated 75,000 people with antiretrovirals in 1999 at a cost of $300 million--or, again, $4,000 per person. I strongly believe that we have a strong moral obligation to try to save lives when the medications for doing so exist, and it is critical that the United States play a leadership role in the international community to increase access to life-saving drugs. For example, the United States should not oppose African governments and donor agencies from achieving reductions in the cost of antiretrovirals through negotiated agreements with drug manufacturers. The British pharmaceutical firm Glaxo Wellcome, a major producer of antiretrovirals, has already stated that it is committed to ``differential pricing,'' which would lower the cost of AIDS drugs in Africa. And I say, hooray; one company. These efforts are to be commended, and it is my sincere hope that companies willing to adopt ``differential pricing'' will help African countries get the drugs they need at prices they can afford. Now I will speak about compulsory licensing and parallel importing for a moment. This is the issue raised by my amendment and now the President's Executive order. The United States must not oppose ``parallel importing'' and ``compulsory licensing'' by African governments to lower the price of patented medications so that HIV/AIDS drugs are more affordable, and more people in Africa will have access to them. Through parallel importing, patented pharmaceuticals can be purchased from the cheapest source, rather than from the manufacturer. Under compulsory licensing an African government could order a local firm to produce a drug and pay a negotiated royalty to the patent holder. Both parallel imports and compulsory licensing are permitted under the World Trade Organization agreement for countries facing health emergencies--and there can be little doubt that Africa is facing a health emergency of monumental proportions. My amendment, cosponsored by my colleague from Wisconsin, would have simply codified current administration policy--as the administration has now opted to do itself via Executive order--which states that the U.S. Government will not oppose efforts by governments of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa to supply HIV/AIDS drugs to their citizens through compulsory licensing or parallel importing. This amendment did not create new policy or a new approach on intellectual property rights under the World Trade Organization agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, know as TRIPS, nor does it require IP rights to be rolled back or weakened. There are few in this body as committed to the notion of strict protection of U.S. intellectual property rights as I am. Just a few years ago, for example, when the United States and China were involved in a dispute over IPR protection for movies, music, and computer software, I worked with the administration to convince China that it was important to respect the rights of the patent holder and live up to its commitments to respect intellectual property rights. And, I am pleased to note, China's record since that time on IP issues has improved. The compulsory licensing process under my amendment was fully consistent with the WTO's approach to balancing the protection of intellectual property with a moral obligation to meet public health emergencies such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa. According to an opinion I solicited from the Congressional Research Service on this question, the amendment I offered: . . . would appear to be consistent with the TRIPS agreement since on its face it only prohibits U.S. government authorities, such as the U.S. Trade Representative (U.S.T.R.) From seeking a revocation of law or policy which offers adequate intellectual property rights protection consistent with the TRIPS agreement. . . . The TRIPS agreement permits compulsory licensing under certain conditions. . . . In other words, despite what some pharmaceutical companies have been saying behind closed doors about this amendment over the past few weeks, this amendment did not weaken intellectual property rights protection one iota. It left the bar exactly where it is right now. Let me be clear about this: My amendment--and now the President's Executive Order--does not create new policy or a new approach on IP rights under TRIPS, nor does it require IP rights to be rolled back or weakened. All it asked is that in approaching HIV/AIDS in Africa, U.S. policy on ``compulsory licensing'' and ``parallel importing'' remain consistent with what is accepted under international trade law. By doing so, this approach will allow the countries of sub-Saharan Africa to determine the availability of HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals in their countries, and provide their people with affordable HIV/AIDS drugs. It was, or so I thought, a simple, common-sense approach to dealing with one facet of one of the most pressing and important national security and international health issues that we face in the coming decades: The HIV/AIDS pandemic currently sweeping across sub-Saharan Africa. Let me provide one example of why the approach adopted by my amendment, and now the President's Executive Order, is necessary. On March 14 of this year, Doctor's Without Borders--the medical relief group that won the Nobel Prize last year--sent a letter to Pfizer calling on Pfizer to lower the price of fluconazole, a drug needed to treat cryptococcal meningitus, the most common systemic fungal infection in HIV-positive people, in developing countries. As the Doctors Without Borders letter notes, in Thailand fluconazole is available for just $1.20 for a daily dose. Yet in Kenya and South Africa, the daily dose costs $17.84, almost 15 times higher. That is unconscionable and is greed in the ultimate. What accounts for the difference in price? In Thailand a generic version is available. In Kenya and South Africa the only supplier is Pfizer. As Bernard Pecoul, director of the Doctors Without Borders Access to Essential Medicines Campaign has noted, ``People are dying because the price of the drug that can save them is too high.'' As the March 14 Doctors Without Borders letter notes, ``While we appreciate that patents can be an important motor of research and development funding, there must be a balance to ensure that people in developing countries have access to life-saving medicines.'' I could not agree more. Under pressure from Doctors Without Borders, Pfizer has since agreed to provide free fluconazole to South Africa. This situation never should have existed to begin with. Without ``compulsory licencing'' and ``parallel importing,'' which would allow access to cheaper generic drugs, more people in sub-Saharan Africa will suffer and die. So why, given that it represented a common sense approach to a devastating problem fully consistent with international trade law did my amendment meet such stiff opposition in conference? After long and hard consideration, I have concluded that there can be only one possible answer to that question: Profits and corporate greed. Simply put, the pharmaceutical companies which manufacture HIV/AIDS drugs would prefer to be able to sell drugs for $18 a dose rather than $1 per dose, with the additional $17 going straight to fattening the bottom line. If there was a legitimate policy debate to be had, why did the opponents of including this provision in the bill not wage their fight out in the open? The answer is because they had no arguments which would stand up to the light of day--so they restricted their activities to attacking this amendment behind closed doors, out of the public view. And they succeeded, in conference, with literally no one in the room except for a few members, in getting this amendment killed. The pharmaceutical companies who were opposed to this amendment-- opposed because they want to squeeze every last drop of profit from the suffering of the millions of HIV/AIDS victims in sub-Saharan Africa-- were successful, behind closed doors, in killing my amendment. The revenue created from the sale of HIV/AIDS-related drugs is staggering. Crixivan, used to treat HIV infections, produced $675 million in revenue for Merck, in 1998; Zithromax, used to prevent Mycobacterium avium complex in people with advanced HIV infections, produced over $1.04 billion in revenue for Pfizer, in 1998; Fluconazole, used to treat cryptococcal meningitis, produced $916 million in revenue for Pfizer, in 1998; Epivir, used in combination with AZT as a treatment option for HIV infection in adults and pediatric patients that are at least three months old, produced $595 million in revenue for Glaxo Wellcome, in 1998; Combivir, used as a treatment option for HIV infection in adults and adolescent patients that are at least twelve years old, produced $442 million in revenue for Glaxo Wellcome, in 1998; AZT, used for the treatment of adults with AIDS, produced $248 million in revenue for Glaxo Wellcome, in 1998; Taxol, used to treat AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma, produced over $1.2 billion in revenue for Bristol-Meyers Squibb, in 1998; Zerit, used for the treatment of adults with advanced HIV infections, produced $551 million in revenue for Bristol-Meyers Squibb, in 1998; Videx, used for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with advanced HIV that are intolerant to or deteriorating on AZT, produced $162 million in revenue for Bristol- Meyers Squibb, in 1998; Invirase, used for advanced HIV infections, produced $397 million in revenue for Hoffman-La Roche, in 1998; Hivid, used in combination with AZT for patients with advanced HIV, produced $65 million in revenue for Hoffman-La Roche, in 1998; Famvir, used for the treatment of recurrent mucocutaneous herpes simplex infections in HIV-infected patients, produced $172 million in revenue for SmithKline Beecham, in 1998; Gamimune N, used to prevent bacterial infections in HIV-infected pediatric patients, produced $235 million for Bayer, in 1998; Biaxin, used to treat disseminated mycobacterial infections due to Mycobacterium avium-intracellular complex (MAC), produced $1.25 billion in revenue for Abbott Laboratories, in 1998; Novir, used in combination with nucleoside analogues for the treatment of HIV- infections, produced $250 million for Abbott Laboratories, in 1998; Epogen, used to treat anemia related to AZT therapy, produced $1.38 billion in revenue for Amgen, in 1998; Sustiva, used to treat HIV-1 infections in combination with other antiretrovirals, produced $75 million in revenue for DuPont Pharmaceuticals in 1998. Viramune, used to treat HIV-infected adults experiencing clinical or immunologic deterioration, produced $154 million in revenue for Boehringer Ingelheim, in 1998; Serostim, used for the treatment of AIDS-wasting and cachexia, produced $88 million in revenue for the Ares-Serono Group in 1998; Viracept, used to treat HIV infection when antiretroviral therapy is needed in adults and pediatric patients that are at least two years old, produced $530 million for Agouron Pharmaceuticals, in 1998; and Abelcet, used to treat aspergillosis, a fungal infection, produced $73 million for The Liposome Company, in 1998. All of the above-mentioned drugs were among the 500 best selling drugs in the world, in 1998. Driven in no small part by the profits on HIV/AIDS drugs, the pharmaceutical sector has proven to be one of the most profitable corporate sectors in the world. In 1999 pharmaceutical companies had a 18.6 percent return on revenues, which is 17 percent higher than the number two sector on the list, and a 16.5 percent return on assets, which is 7 percent higher than the number two sector on the list. For shame, for opposing this amendment. Merck, the producer of Crixivan, had an 18 percent return on revenues and a 17 percent return on assets. Bristol-Meyers Squibb, the producer of Taxol, Zerit, and Videx, had a 21 percent return on revenues and a 24 percent return on assets. Pfizer, the producer of Zithromax and Fluconazole, had a 20 percent return on revenues and a 15 percent return on assets. Abbott Laboratories, the producer of Biaxin and Norvir, had a 19 percent return on revenues and a 17 percent return on assets. Amgen, the producer of Epogen, had a 33 percent return on revenues and a 27 percent return on assets. Ironically, the pharmaceutical companies would profit more from the approach embodied in my amendment than they do right now. Presently, most sub-Saharan African countries are not buying these drugs since they can not afford the price tag, so the pharmaceutical companies are not earning any money at all on these HIV/AIDS drugs in these countries. But if sub-Saharan African countries produced HIV/AIDS drugs through ``compulsory licensing,'' or purchased them by ``parallel importing,'' the pharmaceutical companies holding the patents on these drugs would receive royalties. I have a very hard time understanding how lobbyists behind closed doors prevail on this body, in the middle of a world health crisis, to prevent the use of cheaper drugs when the figures I have documented are decimating these countries in a major public health emergency. I don't know how they sleep at night. I really do not. I don't know how they can look at a country with 1 million or 2 million AIDS-produced orphans and sleep at night. I really do not understand it. Let me touch for a moment on what else is to be done. By itself, the approach of the Feinstein-Feingold Amendment, and the President's Executive order, will not solve the problem of HIV/AIDS in Africa. It only addresses one area--an important area, but only one--of a large and complex problem. As Dr. David Satcher, the Surgeon General of the United States, wrote in ``The Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic'' in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, in April 1998: More than a decade of experience has taught us how to control HIV/AIDS--we know what works. Many developed countries have successfully checked the spread of the epidemic. While development of therapy and a vaccine continue, prevention must be emphasized. The basic elements of prevention include education, behavior change, voluntary testing and counseling prevention of perinatal transmission, and political commitment. Each country must find the mix of methods appropriate to its particular conditions. Education about HIV/AIDS is necessary but alone does not change the behavior of populations. Promotion of voluntary testing and counseling must complement education. Testing and counseling break the deadly silence around HIV/AIDS and empower individuals to make informed decisions and change behaviors. Breaking the silence also will begin to diffuse the stigma surrounding the disease. We have seen success with behavioral change in Uganda and Thailand, the only two less- developed countries with extensive capacity for voluntary testing and counseling. It is known that perinatal transmission of HIV can be reduced by more than 50% by using antiretroviral therapy; however problems with access to these drugs limit their use in some countries. Transmission of HIV through breast-feeding and poor survival of orphans make the avoidance of disease via treatment for perinatal transmission more complex. We continue to work with international organizations, other governments, and pharmaceutical companies to lower costs and expand access to antiretroviral drugs. Current treatment for perinatal transmission, as well as use of antiretrovirals in general, in less-developed countries is also limited by the fact that very few people have been tested for HIV infection. Treatment of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is important to control the spread of HIV. One of the reasons HIV has spread so rapidly in Africa is that so many STDs go untreated. Untreated STDs break down natural barriers that prevent transmission. Access to even basic treatment for STDs remains a problem for many less-developed countries. Perhaps most important in the global battle against HIV/ AIDS is political commitment. Leaders at the national, provincial, and local levels of government must speak out about HIV/AIDS and encourage businesses and nongovernmental organizations to commit to work against the disease. I was encouraged by U.S. Vice President Al Gore and Deputy President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, who put the HIV/AIDS threat at the top of the international agenda at the recent meeting of the United States-South Africa Joint Commission. They set an important example for leaders in developed and less-developed countries. American medicine and public health have an important role to play in the global battle against HIV/AIDS by supporting international organizations such as the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, the World Health Organization, and the World Bank. HIV/AIDS can be likened to the plague that decimated the population of Europe in the 14th century. While the modern epidemic affects people of all age groups, those of working age are at highest risk, posing potentially dire economic, social, and political consequences for the global community. Unfortunately, the world continues to devote greater attention and resources to traditional national security issues such as wars, postponing notice of an epidemic that, if left to spread unchecked, will kill more people than any of the terrible conflagrations that have so marked this century. Because of the complexity of dealing with this issue, the Clinton- Gore Administration has asked Congress to commit $150 million toward vaccine research and AIDS treatment and prevention programs in Africa. The Administration's initiative dedicates $100 million for the prevention and treatment of HIV and AIDS in Africa, Asia and other regions, doubling current U.S. funding of AIDS prevention efforts. An additional $50 million will go to the Vaccine Fund of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations for research, and the purchase and distribution of vaccines for other infectious diseases in developing nations. The Administration's initiative, announced by the Vice President this past January, also includes plans for a public-private partnership with U.S. business leaders active in Africa, with a goal of developing workplace education programs designed to end the stigma and ``break down the barriers against discussing AIDS.'' The Vice President has also proposed specific funding for the U.S. military to work with armed forces in Africa to combat AIDS, an especially important initiative given the high rates of infection among soldiers. I believe that it is crucial that we provide support for these efforts at least at the level the Administration has called for. In fact, I am a cosponsor of a bill introduced by my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, which calls for USAID to make HIV/AIDS a priority in foreign assistance funding and authorizes $2 billion over five years, with at least 50 percent targeted at sub-Saharan Africa, for a comprehensive coordinated effort to combat HIV/AIDS, including testing, education, treatment, and the provision of medicines to prevent mother-to-child transmissions. I should note here that I was also disappointed that the Conference choose not to include an Administration initiative to provide a tax credit for the President's Millennium Vaccine Initiative tax credit proposal. This proposal would create a tax credit to encourage the development of vaccines for malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, or any infectious disease that causes over 1 million deaths annually worldwide. Such a tax credit would encourage the development of a vaccine for HIV/AIDS. As Dr. Seth Berkley, president of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative has put it: ``We need new prevention technologies, and the most critical one is a vaccine. . . . Ultimately, only a vaccine can stop the epidemic.'' These actions and policies must be part of a larger development effort if we are to help these sub-Saharan African countries control the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Debt relief must also be part of a this larger development effort. It is unconscionable that many of these countries are spending more than a quarter of their precious export earnings on debt service payments to bilateral and multilateral creditors. The World Bank is correct when it declares that debt burdens at these levels are unsustainable. The citizens of most of these countries are extremely poor, and they are burdened with unsustainable debts built up during the Cold War. These debts were accrued during the 1970s and 1980s by unaccountable governments. Debt service diverts scarce resources away from spending on health care, health education, and poverty reduction initiatives in these countries. Debt servicing absorbs up to 40 percent of national revenue among a majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. We must lead the international community in efforts to write-off unsustainable debts so these countries can spend more money health education, infrastructure and services, as well as other development needs. Let me conclude and thank the Senate for its forbearance. I am sorry for my display of emotion. I have watched people die of AIDS. I know what it is like. I can't imagine what it must be like in Africa where citizens maybe don't have a home, where they have an enormous cultural taboo attached to it, where there is no food, there is no medicine, and to know that a few pills can prevent the transmission of AIDS to a child for a nominal sum of money, and to know, literally, that in the coming years this could save 5 to 10 million people. Just to think of what went on behind closed doors by lobbyists for pharmaceutical companies is unconscionable. The TRIPS agreement, the World Trade Organization, at a time of national health emergency, permits compulsory licensing and parallel importing. For these pharmaceutical companies that have made the kind of money they have made--and I know they will say they spent millions and millions on research and development; I have a member of my family who was director of research for one of the companies that worked on an antiretroviral-- the bottom line is every one of these annual reports shows a substantial increase in profit. Yet in little-known countries in sub-Saharan Africa, people are literally dying by the millions. Today we are considering a trade initiative bill which aims at giving them a better way of life. What is the better way of life if you can't live? What is the better way of life if you are dying of AIDS? What is a better way of life if you were 1 of 5 million orphans born in sub-Saharan Africa? What is a better life if you were born one of these HIV-infected orphans? I find the act of pharmaceutical companies in opposing this amendment unconscionable. I thank the Chair for its forbearance, and I thank the Senate. I also thank the administration for doing a major act of conscience in the production of an Executive order which will allow the purchase of these drugs at the lowest possible rates. Exhibit 1 Executive Order access to hiv/aids pharmaceuticals and medical technologies By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 141 and chapter 1 of title III of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2171, 2411-2420), section 307 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 2421), and section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2151b), and in accordance with executive branch policy on health-related intellectual property matters to promote access to essential medicines, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. (a) In administering sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974, the United States shall not seek, through negotiation or otherwise, the revocation or revision of any intellectual property law or policy of a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country, as determined by the President, that regulates HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals or medical technologies if the law or policy of the country: (1) promotes access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals or medical technologies for affected populations in that country; and (2) provides adequate and effective intellectual property protection consistent with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) referred to in section 101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(15)). (b) The United States shall encourage all beneficiary sub- Saharan African countries to implement policies designed to address the underlying causes of the HIV/AIDS crisis by, among other things, making efforts to encourage practices that will prevent further transmission and infection and to stimulate development of the infrastructure necessary to deliver adequate health services, and by encouraging policies that provide an incentive for public and private research on, and development of, vaccines and other medical innovations that will combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa. Sec. 2. Rationale: (a) This order finds that: (1) since the onset of the worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic, approximately 34 million people living in sub-Saharan Africa have been infected with the disease; (2) of those infected, approximately 11.5 million have died; (3) the deaths represent 83 percent of the total HIV/AIDS related deaths worldwide; and (4) access to effective therapeutics for HIV/AIDS is determined by issues of price, health system infrastructure for delivery, and sustainable financing. (b) In light of these findings, this order recognizes that: (1) it is in the interest of the United States to take all reasonable steps to prevent further spread of infectious disease, particularly HIV/AIDS; (2) there is critical need for effective incentives to develop new pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and therapies to combat the HIV/AIDS crisis, including effective global intellectual property standards designed to foster pharmaceutical and medical innovation; (3) the overriding priority for responding to the crisis of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa should be to improve public education and to encourage practices that will prevent further transmission and infection, and to stimulate development of the infrastructure necessary to deliver adequate health care services; (4) the United States should work with individual countries in sub-Saharan Africa to assist them in development of effective public education campaigns aimed at the prevention of HIV/AIDS transmission and infection, and to improve their health care infrastructure to promote improved access to quality health care for their citizens in general, and particularly with respect to the HIV/AIDS epidemic; (5) an effective United States response to the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa must focus in the short term on preventive programs designed to reduce the frequency of new infections and remove the stigma of the disease, and should place a priority on basic health services that can be used to treat opportunistic infections, sexually transmitted infections, and complications associated with HIV/AIDS so as to prolong the duration and improve the quality of life of those with the disease; (6) an effective United States response to the crisis must also focus on the development of HIV/AIDS vaccines to prevent the spread of the disease; (7) the innovative capacity of the United States in the commercial and public pharmaceutical research sectors is unmatched in the world, and the participation of both these sectors will be a critical element in any successful program to respond to the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa; (8) the TRIPS Agreement recognizes the importance of promoting effective and adequate protection of the intellectual property rights and the right of countries to adopt measures necessary to protect public health; (9) individual countries should have the ability to take measures to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic, provided that such measures are consistent with their international obligations; and (10) successful initiatives will require effective partnerships and cooperation among governments, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector, and greater consideration should be given to financial, legal, and other incentives that will promote improved prevention and treatment actions. Sec. 3. Scope. (a) This order prohibits the United States Government from taking action pursuant to section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to any law or policy in beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries that promotes access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals or medical technologies and that provides adequate and effective intellectual property protection consistent with the TRIPS Agreement. However, this order does not prohibit United States Government officials from evaluating, determining, or expressing concern about whether such a law or policy promotes access to HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals or medical technologies or provides adequate and effective intellectual property protection consistent with the TRIPS Agreement. In addition, this order does not prohibit United States Government officials from consulting with or otherwise discussing with sub-Saharan African governments whether such law or policy meets the conditions set forth in section 1(a) of this order. Moreover, this order does not prohibit the United States Government from invoking the dispute settlement procedures of the World Trade Organization to examine whether any such law or policy is consistent with the Uruguay Round Agreements, referred to in section 101(d) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. (b) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not create, any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person. William J. Clinton.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I notice that the distinguished Senator from Alabama is on the floor. So I ask unanimous consent to yield to him, and then to have the floor returned to me when he concludes.