Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee, in introducing a bill, S. 1886, to allow the governor of a state to waive the oxygenate content requirement for reformulated or clean-burning gasoline. The bill also requires U.S. EPA to conduct a study on whether voluntary standards to prevent releases of MTBE from underground tanks are necessary. This is the fifth bill I have introduced in this Congress to address the widespread contamination of drinking water by MTBE in my state. I do this in hopes that this bill will be a straightforward solution to a very serious problem--MTBE detections in ground and surface water in my state and at lest 41 other states. The Clean Air Act requires that cleaner-burning reformulated gasoline (RFG) be sold in areas with the worst violations of ozone standards: Los Angeles, San Diego, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, Milwaukee, Sacramento. (In addition, some states and areas have opted to use reformulated gasoline as way to achieve clean air.) Second, the Act prescribes a formula for reformulated gasoline, including the requirement that reformulated gasoline contain 2.0 percent oxygen, by weight. In response to this requirement, refiners have put the oxygenate MTBE in over 85 percent of reformulated gasoline now in use. MTBE stands for methyl tertiary butyl ether. The problem is that increasingly, MTBE is being detected in drinking water. MTBE is a known animal carcinogen and a possible human carcinogen, according to U.S. EPA. It has a very unpleasant odor and taste, as well. The Inhofe-Feinstein bill, S. 1886, would allow governors, upon notification to U.S. EPA, to waive the 2.0% oxygenate requirement, as long as the gasoline meets the other requirements in the law for reformulated gasoline. On July 27, the U.S. EPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline recommended that the 2 percent oxygenate requirement be ``removed in order to provide flexibility to blend adequate fuel supplies in a cost- effective manner while quickly reducing usage of MTBE and maintaining air quality benefits.'' In addition, the panel agreed that ``the use of MTBE should be reduced substantially.'' Importantly, the panel recommended that ``Congress act quickly to clarify federal and state authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of gasoline additives that pose a threat to drinking water supplies.'' This bill, while not totally repealing the 2 percent oxygenate requirement, moves us in that direction. It gives states that choose to meet clean air requirements without oxygenates to do so. It allows states that choose an oxygenate, such as ethanol, to do so. Areas required to use reformulated gasoline for cleaner air will still be required to use it. The gasoline will have a different but clean formulation. Areas will continue to have to meet clean air standards. MTBE has contaminated groundwater at over 10,000 sites in California, according to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Of 10,972 groundwater sites sampled, 39 percent had MTBE, says the state Department of Health Services. Of 765 surface water sources sampled, 287 or 38% had MTBE. Nationally, one EPA-funded study found, of 34 states, MTBE was present more than 20 percent of the time in 27 states. A U.S. Geological Survey report had similar findings. An October 1999 Congressional Research Service analysis concluded that 41 states have had MTBE detections in water. In California, Governor Davis concluded that MTBE ``poses a significant risk to California's environment'' and directed that MTBE be phased out in California by December 31, 2002. There is not a sufficient supply of ethanol or other oxygenates to fully replace MTBE in California, without huge gas price spikes and gasoline supply disruptions. In addition, California can make clean-burning gas without oxygenates. Therefore, California is in the impossible position of having to meet a federal requirement that is (1) contaminating the water and (2) is not necessary to achieve clean air. On April 12, 1999, Governor Davis asked U.S. EPA for a waiver of the 2% oxygenate requirement. I too wrote U.S. EPA--on May 18, 1999; December 3, 1998; September 29, 1998; September 28, 1998; September 14, 1998; November 3, 1997; September 24, 1997; April 22, 1997; and April 11, 1997. I have met with EPA officials several times and have talked directly to Administrator Carol Browner. To date, EPA has not granted California a waiver of the two percent. Again, today I call on EPA to act. In the meantime, I will continue to urge Congress to act. Time is of the essence. California Governor Davis is phasing out MTBE in our state, but the federal law requiring 2 percent oxygenates remains, putting our state in an untenable position. Refiners needs a long lead time to retool their facilities and time is growing short. A major University of California study released last year concluded that MTBE provides ``no significant air quality benefit'' but that its use poses ``the potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially ground water. . . .'' Oxygenates, say the experts, are not necessary for reformulated gasoline. California has developed a gasoline formula that provide flexibility and provides clean air. Called the ``predictive model,'' it guarantees clean-burning RFG gas with oxygenates, with less than 2 percent oxygenates and with no oxygenates. Several refiners, including Chevron and Tosco, are selling MTBE-free gas in California, for example, in the Lake Tahoe area. Under S. 1886, air standards would still have to be met and gasoline would have to meet all other requirements of the federal reformulated gasoline program, for example, the limits on benzene, heavy metals, emission of oxides of nitrogen. This is a minimal bill that will give California and other states the relief they need from a unwarranted, unnecessary requirement. It will allow states that want oxygenates in their gasoline to use them and those that do not to not use them. The bill does not undo the Clean Air Act. The bill does not degrade air quality. Importantly, it can stop the contamination of drinking water in may state by MTBE.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about the untimely death of Sacramento Mayor Joe Serna. This past Sunday, November 7, 1999, the City of Sacramento and the State of California lost an inspirational public servant and a great statesman. The death of Mayor Serna represents a loss for all of those who had the honor to know him, and for the entire City of Sacramento. Mayor Serna had a distinguished public career, culminating in the election as Mayor of our State's Capital City in 1992. He served his country and his community as an educator, Peace Corps worker and public servant. He was a man of compassionate spirit, dedicated ideals and principled acts. Mayor Serna's accomplishments, both personally and professionally, are many. Here are a few highlights: 1966--Earned his Bachelor's degree in Social Science and Government at California State University, Sacramento. 1966--Earned his Master's degree in Political Science at University of California, Davis. 1966--Served in the Peace Corps in Guatemala. 1969--Joined the faculty at California State University, Sacramento. 1975--Served as Education Advisor to then-Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally. 1981--Elected to the Sacramento City Council, where he would serve 11 years. 1991--Received the Distinguished Faculty Award. 1992--Elected as Mayor of Sacramento. 1995--Received the Economic Development Leadership Award by the National Council for Urban Economic Development. 1996--Reelected as Mayor of Sacramento. 1998--Led the effort for the redevelopment of downtown Sacramento. 1998--Received an honorary doctorate degree from Golden Gate University. I have known Mayor Serna for many years, and he was a visionary for Sacramento and the region. Mayor Serna led California's Capital City toward a more positive and prosperous direction. He was extremely dedicated to the economic revitalization and redevelopment of Sacramento. Under his leadership, the Sacramento City Council helped to revitalize the downtown community, the region's heart and center. He appointed the first Council of Economic Advisors to help frame the City's economic agenda. In addition, Mayor Serna assembled a negotiating team that preserved the Sacramento Kings, the region's National Basketball Association Team, when the King's owners threatened to move the team out of town. Mayor Serna was not only an honorable mayor, he was also a role model to the Latino community and an inspiration to all Californians. He was the first Latino elected as mayor of one of California's major cities, exemplifying the success that one can attain through education, hard work, and commitment--regardless of ethnicity. I believe Mayor Serna transcended ethnic politics without every losing sight of his ethnic background and his humble beginnings. Mayor Serna grew up working in the fields of San Joaquin County. In the early 1960's he was an activist with the United Farm Workers, fighting for farm workers and for disadvantaged people. He went on to earn his bachelor's degree in Social Science and his master's degree in Political Science. He later entered the Peace Corps to serve the people in Guatemala as a community-development volunteer. Mayor Serna went on to became a professor at California State University in Sacramento and then served his community as Mayor of the City of Sacramento. Along the way, he helped to inspire a host of talented Latino elected officials at all levels of government. Community leaders such San Joaquin County Supervisor Steve Gutierrez, State Senator Deborah Ortiz, and Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante attribute their participation in public service in part to the example and inspiration of Joe Serna. As Supervisor Steve Gutierrez said, ``Mayor Serna went from being a farm worker to organizer to an educator to mayor of Sacramento. He was truly an exemplary public servant and leader.'' Most recently, I had the pleasure to meet with Mayor Serna in Sacramento just hours after a heinous shooting had occurred at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles. We had an opportunity to discuss at length the issue of hate crimes and other regional issues. Mayor Serna was passionate about his community and he deeply cared for its people. Even until his final days, he worked for a better life for his fellow citizens. Joe Serna leaves a powerful legacy in many lives and a lasting vision for his beloved city of Sacramento. He was a dynamic leader, and we Californians were fortunate for his service. Mayor Serna will be sorely missed. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Isabel, the entire Serna family, and the community of Sacramento.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to San Francisco Police Officer James Guelff on the fifth anniversary of his death in the line of duty. This coming Saturday, the City of San Francisco will honor Officer Guelff by having his name enshrined at the corner of Pine and Franklin in San Francisco where he was slain on November 13, 1994. Responding to a distress call, Officer Guelff, stationed at Northern Police Station, reached the crime scene and was immediately fired upon by a suspect shielded by body armor and armed with an AK 223, an Uzi, two semi-automatic pistols, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. In an attempt to defend himself, Officer Guelff returned fire but his police issue revolver could not penetrate the gunman's kevlar vest and bulletproof helmet. Officer Guelff was killed under the barrage of the assailant's bullets as he attempted to reload his revolver. Officer James Guelff bravely faced an assailant with defensive armor and firepower no police officer should ever confront. In response to his death, his relatives and fellow officers embarked on a national campaign to restrict felons' access to body armor. This incident helped raise awareness of the unacceptable risks officers face on the street when they encounter gunmen with equal or better defensive protection. The bottom line is that criminals who use body armor have a deadly offensive weapon. It is a tribute to the memory of Office James Guelff and a tribute to the persistence and dedication of his family and fellow officers that California passed legislation restricting the use of body armor by felons. Earlier this year, I introduced the James Guelff Body Armor Act of 1999 to enact Federal regulations on body armor. First, the measure increases the penalties criminals receive if they commit a crime wearing body armor. Specifically, a violation will lead to an increase of two levels under the Federal sentencing guidelines. Second, it makes it unlawful for violent felons to purchase, use, or possess body armor. This legislation is included in S. 254, the Juvenile Justice Crime bill, which is in its final negotiations in a joint House-Senate conference committee. It is my hope that the Conference Committee will finish its job quickly so that we can provide a lasting tribute to Officer James Guelff. This legislation will better protect our police officers by making sure they are adequately supplied with body armor, and that hardened criminals are deterred from using body armor. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me on this special day in honoring Officer James Guelff and celebrating the life of a true American hero.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, I met with Alan Stepakoff, the father of six-year old Joshua, who was among five victims--three children ages 5 and 6; one 16-year old teenager and a 68-year old adult--gunned down at a Los Angeles Jewish community center last August by Buford Furrow, Jr., a white supremacist. Fortunately, the son and the four other victims survived the shooting and are on their way to recovery. Unfortunately, within minutes of this tragic shooting, the Nation learned that the same assailant had murdered in cold blood U.S. Postal Service carrier Joseph Ileto, a Filipino American, on account of his race. This episode is but one of a growing list of hate crimes targeting places once believed to be safe havens--including schools, synagogues, churches, community centers. This incident is a grim reminder of how hate can provoke violence against the young and innocent. Unless we address this hatred and violence in our communities immediately and unequivocally, the list of such horrific events will certainly grow. We have before us legislation that would address this growing blight on our society: the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. This important legislation was introduced by my colleague Senator Kennedy and adopted by the Senate as part of Fiscal Year 2000 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act. Unfortunately, the measure was stripped from the first Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill presented to the President. I urge my colleagues to insist on this provision's inclusion in the next such bill. This legislation is urgently needed to compensate for two limitations in the current law. First, even in the most blatant cases of racial, ethnic, or religious violence, no federal jurisdiction exists unless the victim was targeted while exercising one of six federally protected activities--attending a public school or college; participating in a service or program sponsored by a state or local government; applying for or engaging in employment; serving as juror in a state court; traveling or using a facility of interstate commerce; and enjoying the goods or services of certain places of public accommodation. These limitations have led to acquittals in several of the cases in which the Department of Justice has determined a need to assert federal jurisdiction and has limited the ability of federal law enforcement officials to work with state and local officials in the investigation and prosecution of many incidents of brutal, hate-motivated violence. A second limitation in current law is that it provides no coverage whatsoever for violent hate crimes committed because of bias based on the victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. As a result, federal authorities cannot prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes against others based on these characteristics. This is especially disturbing given the fact that according to the FBI, crimes against gays, lesbians and bisexuals ranked third in reported hate crimes in 1998, registering 1,260 or 15.6 percent of all reported incidents. Unfortunately, there are those who would stop short of supporting this important legislation because it extends protections to those targeted on account of their sexual orientation. The hate crimes legislation introduced this year would remedy would expand the legislation I authored in 1994, which provided a bifurcated trial and enhanced penalties for felonies spawned by hate that took place either on federal land or in pursuance of a federally protected right (such as voting or attending a public school). The Hate Crimes Protection Act broadens federal jurisdiction to cover all violent crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred, regardless of whether the victim was exercising a federally protected right. It would also include sexual orientation, gender and disability to the list of protected categories within current federal hate crime law, provided there is a sufficient connection with interstate commerce. At the same time, federal involvement would only come into play if the Attorney General certifies that federal prosecution is necessary to secure substantial justice. In recent years, the existing federal hate crimes law has been used only in carefully selected cases where the state criminal justice system did not achieve a just result. For many years I have been deeply concerned about hate crimes and the immeasurable impact they have on victims, their families and our communities. As I have previously mentioned, in 1993 I sponsored the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act, which was signed into law in 1994 as a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Today, I believe the Hate Crimes legislation will build on this effort by modifying the current laws to allow the federal government to provide the vital assistance to states in investigating of crimes of this magnitude. Sadly, hate crimes are becoming too commonplace in America. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, in 1998, 7,775 hate crime incidents were reported in the United States and 9,722 victims. Of that total, 4,321 or 58 percent of the crimes were committed on account of the victim's race. More than 3,660 victims of anti-Black crimes; 1,003 victims of anti-White crimes, 620 victims of anti-Hispanic crimes; and 372 victims of anti-Asian/Pacific Islander crimes. In that same year, 1,390 or roughly 16.0 percent of the victims were targeted because of their religious affiliation. The number of anti- Jewish incidents is second only to those against blacks and far exceeds offenses against all other religious groups combined. Moreover, while by most accounts anti-Semitism in America has declined dramatically over the years, the level of violence is escalating. Civil rights groups as well as federal and State authorities agree that in the last five years, reported hate crimes have increased annually, from 5,932 in 1994 to 7,755 in 1998. As of 1998, four States still do not collect hate crime data. Yet, even if all States were reporting these incidents, it would be difficult to gauge the true extent of the hate crime problem in this country because bias-motivated crimes typically are under reported by both law enforcement agencies and victims. And while these crimes have become more numerous, they have also become more violent. Monitoring groups have observed a shift from racially-motivated property crimes, such as spray painting, defacement and graffiti, to personal crimes such as assault, threat and harassment. On a national scale, according to FBI statistics, almost 7 out of 10 hate crimes are directed against people. Nonhate crimes, by contrast, are directed against people only 11 percent of the time. This legislation is long overdue. Looking back on this year alone, one might recall the litany of news stories describing a murderous rampage at a school in Littleton, Colorado; or the drive-by shooting attacks on Jews, an African-American, and Asian-Americans in Chicago, Illinois; or the two pipe-bomb explosions at the predominantly African American Florida A&M University; the brutal murders of two gay men in California; or the torching of synagogues in California; all despicable acts of virulent hatred. We should work to give our citizens protection from those who would do them harm simply based upon their race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. Enactment of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act would send a message to our nation and the world that the singling out of an individual based on any of these characteristics will not go unnoticed or unpunished. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to enact this important legislation prior the end of this session.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the chairman of the Clean Air Subcommittee, in introducing a bill, S. 1886, to allow the governor of a state to waive the oxygenate content requirement for reformulated or clean-burning gasoline. The bill also requires U.S. EPA to conduct a study on whether voluntary standards to prevent releases of MTBE from underground tanks are necessary. This is the fifth bill I have introduced in this Congress to address the widespread contamination of drinking water by MTBE in my state. I do this in hopes that this bill will be a straightforward solution to a very serious problem--MTBE detections in ground and surface water in my state and at lest 41 other states. The Clean Air Act requires that cleaner-burning reformulated gasoline (RFG) be sold in areas with the worst violations of ozone standards: Los Angeles, San Diego, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, Milwaukee, Sacramento. (In addition, some states and areas have opted to use reformulated gasoline as way to achieve clean air.) Second, the Act prescribes a formula for reformulated gasoline, including the requirement that reformulated gasoline contain 2.0 percent oxygen, by weight. In response to this requirement, refiners have put the oxygenate MTBE in over 85 percent of reformulated gasoline now in use. MTBE stands for methyl tertiary butyl ether. The problem is that increasingly, MTBE is being detected in drinking water. MTBE is a known animal carcinogen and a possible human carcinogen, according to U.S. EPA. It has a very unpleasant odor and taste, as well. The Inhofe-Feinstein bill, S. 1886, would allow governors, upon notification to U.S. EPA, to waive the 2.0% oxygenate requirement, as long as the gasoline meets the other requirements in the law for reformulated gasoline. On July 27, the U.S. EPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline recommended that the 2 percent oxygenate requirement be ``removed in order to provide flexibility to blend adequate fuel supplies in a cost- effective manner while quickly reducing usage of MTBE and maintaining air quality benefits.'' In addition, the panel agreed that ``the use of MTBE should be reduced substantially.'' Importantly, the panel recommended that ``Congress act quickly to clarify federal and state authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of gasoline additives that pose a threat to drinking water supplies.'' This bill, while not totally repealing the 2 percent oxygenate requirement, moves us in that direction. It gives states that choose to meet clean air requirements without oxygenates to do so. It allows states that choose an oxygenate, such as ethanol, to do so. Areas required to use reformulated gasoline for cleaner air will still be required to use it. The gasoline will have a different but clean formulation. Areas will continue to have to meet clean air standards. MTBE has contaminated groundwater at over 10,000 sites in California, according to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Of 10,972 groundwater sites sampled, 39 percent had MTBE, says the state Department of Health Services. Of 765 surface water sources sampled, 287 or 38% had MTBE. Nationally, one EPA-funded study found, of 34 states, MTBE was present more than 20 percent of the time in 27 states. A U.S. Geological Survey report had similar findings. An October 1999 Congressional Research Service analysis concluded that 41 states have had MTBE detections in water. In California, Governor Davis concluded that MTBE ``poses a significant risk to California's environment'' and directed that MTBE be phased out in California by December 31, 2002. There is not a sufficient supply of ethanol or other oxygenates to fully replace MTBE in California, without huge gas price spikes and gasoline supply disruptions. In addition, California can make clean-burning gas without oxygenates. Therefore, California is in the impossible position of having to meet a federal requirement that is (1) contaminating the water and (2) is not necessary to achieve clean air. On April 12, 1999, Governor Davis asked U.S. EPA for a waiver of the 2% oxygenate requirement. I too wrote U.S. EPA--on May 18, 1999; December 3, 1998; September 29, 1998; September 28, 1998; September 14, 1998; November 3, 1997; September 24, 1997; April 22, 1997; and April 11, 1997. I have met with EPA officials several times and have talked directly to Administrator Carol Browner. To date, EPA has not granted California a waiver of the two percent. Again, today I call on EPA to act. In the meantime, I will continue to urge Congress to act. Time is of the essence. California Governor Davis is phasing out MTBE in our state, but the federal law requiring 2 percent oxygenates remains, putting our state in an untenable position. Refiners needs a long lead time to retool their facilities and time is growing short. A major University of California study released last year concluded that MTBE provides ``no significant air quality benefit'' but that its use poses ``the potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially ground water. . . .'' Oxygenates, say the experts, are not necessary for reformulated gasoline. California has developed a gasoline formula that provide flexibility and provides clean air. Called the ``predictive model,'' it guarantees clean-burning RFG gas with oxygenates, with less than 2 percent oxygenates and with no oxygenates. Several refiners, including Chevron and Tosco, are selling MTBE-free gas in California, for example, in the Lake Tahoe area. Under S. 1886, air standards would still have to be met and gasoline would have to meet all other requirements of the federal reformulated gasoline program, for example, the limits on benzene, heavy metals, emission of oxides of nitrogen. This is a minimal bill that will give California and other states the relief they need from a unwarranted, unnecessary requirement. It will allow states that want oxygenates in their gasoline to use them and those that do not to not use them. The bill does not undo the Clean Air Act. The bill does not degrade air quality. Importantly, it can stop the contamination of drinking water in may state by MTBE.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am going to call them up and lay them aside.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, they are.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. One is amendment No. 1697, to place a $1,500 limit on credit to minors, unless they have independent proof of income or the card is cosigned signed by a parent or legal guardian. The second is amendment No. 2755, directing the Federal Reserve Board to conduct a study of credit industry lending practices.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I send two amendments to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set aside.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I rise in support of the amendment offered by the minority leader to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 in two steps by September 1 of the year 2000. Before addressing my remarks directly, I want to make two comments. The first is really to thank the senior Senator from Massachusetts for his prodigious, sustained, and enthusiastic work on a minimum wage increase. I very much doubt that this would be on the calendar were it not for his constant perseverance. The second is to say that I do not believe there is any piece of legislation that has been passed by this Congress or this Senate this year that can have the possible positive impact on Americans an increase in the minimum wage will at this particular point in time. I want to make that argument. This amendment is about families making ends meet. It is about people being able to pay for rent and put food on the table. The bottom line is that the current minimum wage is simply not enough to live on. An estimated 11.4 million workers will benefit from the passage of this amendment; 1.5 million of them are in California alone. For a full-time worker, a $1 an hour increase in the minimum wage means a $2,000 a year raise. That is an extra $2,000 to pay the rent, to buy groceries, to send their children to school. For these workers, an increase in the minimum wage will make a huge difference. Although the number of people living in poverty in the United States since 1992 has declined--and it has--by about 9 percent, from 38 million people to 34.5 million people, in California the number of people living in poverty has actually remained relatively unchanged, 5.19 million people to 5.12 million people living in poverty. As recently as 1997, California has actually seen a 5 percent increase in the number of people living in poverty. Despite the incredible economic growth the United States has experienced throughout the mid and late 1990s, in California more than 15 percent of the population of the seventh largest economic engine on Earth lives in poverty. That is incredible. This troubling statistic clearly shows that not all segments of the workforce are benefiting from the economic expansion. On September 4, the Center on Budget and Policy Priority released what I am sure my colleagues know, and hopefully will agree, is a very disturbing report on the widening gap between the rich and the poor over the last 20 years. California is an example of that gap. Based on data collected by the Congressional Budget Office, the study found that the average after-tax income of the top 20 percent of households increased from about $74,000 in 1977 to more than $102,000 in 1999. The average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of the economic earners in this country will almost double, going from $234,000 to $515,000 in 1999. This indicates that those in the top income levels are doing very well all across this great Nation. The bad news is that the income of the bottom fifth of households is actually falling. It has fallen from $9,900 to $8,700 over the same period. So while the top income earners are prospering, those at the lower end of the income scale are doing worse than a generation ago. When you have a high-cost State, this chasm is actually exaggerated. So what you have is a growing split between the very wealthy and the very poor in this country. In 1977, the top 1 percent of the U.S. households received 7.3 percent of the Nation's after-tax income, and 22 years later that has gone up; they received 12.9 percent. That is a 4.4 percent increase for upper income Americans. In fact, the top 1 percent will receive as much after-tax income as the bottom 38 percent. This means the 2.7 million wealthiest Americans will be earning the same amount as the poorest 100 million Americans. That is the case with 15 percent of the people in California. Over the past several years, we have seen an explosion in the creation of wealth that is unprecedented in U.S. history. The strong economy has brought prosperity to large numbers of people. But that is not the whole story. More individuals and families are earning less and having a difficult time making ends meet. It is time, I think, that we recognize this and do something about it. Passing the Daschle amendment is the first step we can take--50- cent minimum wage increase the first year and 50-cent minimum wage the second year. Perhaps the greatest testament to the inadequacy of the minimum wage is that many communities are now recognizing how inadequate it is. And they are moving on their own to create a new concept that is called a ``living wage.'' These jurisdictions are insisting that those who do business with the local government pay their employees a living wage salary. San Jose, CA, has adopted a living wage of $10.75. In San Antonio, TX, it is $10.13 an hour. In Boston, it is $8.23 an hour. In my hometown of San Francisco, there is consideration ongoing for a living wage of $11. More than 35 other localities and municipalities have adopted living wages. Clearly, it is a reaction to the inadequacy of the Federal minimum wage, which is generally too little too late to sustain people. So it is time for the Federal Government to follow the lead of our cities and take the simple step that is so important to millions of working families. Many families in this country are just one paycheck away from disaster, whether it is an illness, the need to move, or a car that breaks down. People live paycheck to paycheck, and they live with the fear that they might not be able to make it this month or next month. I think those figures and those statements are responsible for some of the things the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out on the floor a little bit earlier: The fear that families have, the stress that women work under, and the additional hours for women in the workplace more than men, the fact that so many children wish their family could have less stress, and could spend more time with them is all a part of this picture. People can work 40 hours a week. In the most industrialized country on Earth, those people still can't support their family, still can't repair a broken car, still can't pay their rent, and still live from paycheck to paycheck. In fact, a minimum-wage worker who works 40 hours a week 50 weeks a year earns only $10,300 a year. The poverty line for a family of three is $13,880, and, for a family of four, it is $16,700. So you have a worker who is working at a minimum-wage job and has a family, that worker is substantially below the poverty level and the family is below the poverty level. What happens? People are forced to hold two jobs. Families are forced to have both parents working. Children are often left alone because child care, of course, is too costly or nonexistent. Let me give you one case, a resident of San Francisco. Her name is Bernardine Emperado. She works more than 60 hours a week at a rental car job, and she supplements this salary by selling hot dogs at 49ers games on Sunday. Nobody can tell me rental car agencies shouldn't pay a minimum wage of $6-plus. Nobody can ever convince me of that. Despite two incomes, she can't afford her own apartment. She lives with her mother and college-age daughter. Something is seriously wrong with our wage scale if someone working 60 hours a week is unable to afford life's basic necessities. The traditional argument against raising the minimum wage is that when you increase wages, it costs jobs. And we just heard the majority whip make that point eloquently. The facts don't bear that out. Since the minimum wage was increased in October of 1996, we have gained 8.7 million new jobs in this country, most of them in the form of small businesses and new businesses. As a matter of fact, that has been the explosion--new businesses, small businesses, just the businesses that pay many of their people a minimum-wage salary. In a strong economy, raising the minimum wage will not cost jobs. And it is time to do it. As a matter of fact, there is no better time to do it than when the economy is flush. And the economy has not been this flush in a long time. I say to you that if we fail to raise the minimum wage, and to raise it on a regular basis, we will see virtually every city in this Nation, in addition to the 35 that are now doing it, enact their own living wage. This will vary. I think we will increasingly find this minimum wage is going to be $10 or more if it is left to the city. I think it is prudent to raise the minimum wage. I think this is the time to do it. I think it is unfair to ask someone to live on $10,000. I think for the millions of workers who, as a product of this action, will have $2,000 more in their pocket to pay for rent, to pay for clothes, to fix a car, to make a move, this is the single most important piece of social economic legislation this body can pass. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the pending amendment so I might send to the desk two amendments and then lay them aside.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Certainly. It is a unanimous-consent request so I might call up and then lay aside two amendments.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. To the bankruptcy bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Probably 10 to 15 minutes. I can certainly wait.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Financial Services Modernization Act. I would like to explain why I will vote in favor of this conference bill, but I also want to discuss one area where I feel this legislation falls significantly short--privacy. The financial modernization bill deserves the support of this body for several reasons: (1) First, it reforms our antiquated financial services laws. By allowing a single organization to offer any type of financial product, the bill will stimulate competition and innovation in the banking, securities and insurance industry. It will increase choice and reduce costs for consumers, communities and businesses. According to Secretary Summers, Americans spend over $350 billion per year for fees and commissions for brokerage, insurance and banking services. If increased competition yielded savings to consumers of even 5 percent, they would save over $18 billion per year. (2) By removing the barriers to competition, the act will also enhance the stability of our financial services system. Financial institutions will be able to diversify their product offerings--and therefore their sources of revenue. They will also be better able to compete in the global financial marketplace, which is rapidly changing. Though U.S. banks still maintain some of the highest numbers in assets, they no longer rank the highest among the world's top banks in profitability. The financial services modernization bill gives U.S. financial institutions the flexibility and expanded powers to stay competitive in the changing market. (3) The conference bill benefits Americans communities by preserving the Community Reinvestment Act. I am pleased to see that the act requires that banks maintain a good track record in community reinvestment as a condition for expanding into newly authorized businesses. This is the first time that a bank's rating under the CRA will be considered when it expands outside of traditional banking activities. I am also happy to see that the act applies CRA to all banks without exception. Despite these merits, there is one issue of great concern to many Californians and many Americans--the lack of privacy provisions in the legislation. As my colleagues know, financial institutions are currently permitted to document, profile, and sell our most personal financial information. Financial institutions share and sell social security numbers, addresses, information about what stocks we own, what checks we write, what we charge on our credit cards and how much money we have in the bank. All of this without the knowledge or permission of their clients. I believe Americans should have the opportunity to prohibit a financial institution from sharing or selling this personal financial information. The bottom line is simple: Bank customers should have the final say in whether their bank sells or even shares their personal financial information. Regardless of whether that information is being shared with a financial institution within a bank's shareholding company or with a third party. The consumer should decide who has access to this personal information. According to an October 21st USA Today article, U.S. Bancorp sold customer information to a telemarketer membership program. U.S. Bancorp customers began complaining that they were billed for marketing services they never agreed to. According to the lawsuit against U.S. Bancorp, the bank's customers say they were never even contacted by the marketing service before the charges appeared on their statements. In one case, the suit says, a 90-year-old woman who had been a customer of U.S. Bancorp for more than 50 years was billed for a program that offers discounts on computer products. The woman didn't own a computer. Before she died, she tried for 11 months to get the telemarketing firm to remove the charges from her credit card account. The legislation does not do enough to prevent this type of problem. In another example, the Los Angeles Times reports that a small San Fernando Valley bank unknowingly became the accessory to a huge credit card scam. The bank sold 3.7 million credit card numbers to a felon, who then allegedly bilked cardholders out of millions of dollars. Under the act, people applying for a mortgage will have no say over who has access to their personal financial data. If a person has been treated for an illness and paid for their medical tests with their credit care or personal checks, that individual's bank and mortgage company will share this information, without the knowledge or consent of the client. Tax information, insurance information, and records of medical tests they have purchased will be fair game for financial institutions. This sensitive information should be kept private--not shared between banks, insurance companies, and securities firms. For 66 years--since the Glass-Steagall Act was enacted after the Depression--a boundary has existed between banks, insurance companies, and securities firms. This bill breaks through that wall, by allowing financial entities to merge. This change, while beneficial to the industry, should not come at the expense of the consumer. Industry groups are opposed to privacy provisions--and go so far as to say that privacy provisions could make it tougher for them to fight fraud. It's no surprise they feel this way, considering banks typically get 20-to- 25 percent of the revenue generated by the marketer. But a handful of financial companies already allow customers to restrict the use of private information--and it doesn't seem to be hurting them. American Express sends customers a notice once a year, asking customers if they want to receive product offers from American Express or outside merchants. Even if customers want the offers, the company never gives detailed information about a transaction history. If American Express can protect its customer's privacy, why can't all financial institutions? The conference bill includes only a weak privacy provision allowing customers to say no to their bank's disclosure of information to third parties--such as telemarketers. I think this is a serious flaw in an otherwise very good bill. In fact, the language adopted by the conference authorizes financial institutions and third parties to enter into joint marketing agreements that would allow them to skirt the opt- out requirement. And the bill intentionally does not restrict the sharing of private financial information among a financial institution's affiliates. I hope my colleagues will work with me in the future to see that Americans' privacy is better protected. The Financial Services Modernization Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. I believe the bill is good for the U.S. economy as well as our ability to compete in global financial markets. Despite my reserves about the privacy provisions in the bill, I support S. 900, and urge its adoption by my colleagues.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this week marks the fifth anniversary of the California Desert Protection Act, a bill I authored that was signed into law on October 31, 1994. This Act marked a watershed event for California and for the 2.8 million people who visit this pristine national treasure each year. This was the most extensive land-protection bill in U.S. history and protected the largest parcel of land in the continental U.S. The bill was unique in many ways. It designated national park and Bureau of Land Management wilderness areas comprising more than 7.7 million acres, the highest category of federal protection. It also designated the Death Valley National Park and Joshua Tree National Park in areas that formerly fell under less protected ``national monument'' status and created the 1.6 million acre Mojave National Preserve. At the time of its passage, the Desert Protection Act was the centerpiece of a long and contentious battle among a variety of different stakeholders. It faced enormous opposition from groups and individuals concerned about private property rights, grazing permits, mining claims, and access for off-road vehicle use. The bill took nearly eight years to pass over objections from miners, property owners, hunters, ranchers and off-road enthusiasts, who thought the legislation would restrict too much land and hurt business. I worked hard to craft a bill that protected private property rights and safeguarded the region's job base while preserving a treasured resource--the California Desert. I am proud to say that after 5 years there has not been a single instance of a land transaction that did not involve a willing seller and willing buyer. Grazing has not been impeded and valid mining rights have been upheld. The 25 million acres of California desert remain a place of extraordinary beauty and diverse resources. There are soaring sand dunes, ninety mountain ranges, extinct volcanoes, streams, lakes, wildflowers, the world's largest Joshua Tree forest, waterfalls and cactus gardens. The land also includes over 100,000 archeological sites, including the only-known dinosaur tracks in California, believed to be more than 100 million years old. More than 760 different wildlife species call the rugged California desert home. The protected land has aided in the recovery of the desert tortoise and has provided thousands of acres of needed habitat for big horn sheep. The Death Valley National Park consists of more than 3.3 million acres of spectacular desert scenery, interesting and rare desert wildlife, complex geology, undisturbed wilderness and dozens of historical and cultural interest sites. It contains the lowest point in the Western hemisphere, the Death Valley badwater, which rests 282 feet below sea level. The Joshua Tree National Park comprises two deserts and vividly illustrates the contrast between high and low desert. Below 3000 feet, the eastern half of the park is the land of the creosote bush, smoke trees and occotillo. The higher, cooler and slightly wetter Western part is dominated by Joshua Trees. But the crown jewel of the California Desert is the Mojave National Preserve whose geographical and wildlife diversity are practically unrivaled. The area contains eleven mountain ranges, four dry lakes, cinder cones, badlands, innumerable washes, mesas, buttes, lava tube caves, alluvial fans and one of California's most complex sand dune systems. I would like to especially thank Mary Martin, the Mojave National Preserve Superintendent for her diligence and the commendable job she has done balancing the diverse needs of the Preserve with those of all the stakeholders who work and/or use the land. The desert parks have attracted record numbers of tourists in recent years from across the globe. Tourism has increased the visibility of California's natural resources, created jobs for desert residents and brought additional income. In 1997, the three parks created more than 6,000 jobs and over $22 million in tax revenue from tourist expenditures. The passage of the California Desert Protection Act has been one of my proudest accomplishments in the Senate. But there is still more work to be done. To encourage out nation's westward expansion, in 1864 Congress gave the railroad industry every other section of land in a 50 mile swath in what is now the Mojave National Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park. Most of this remaining checkerboard arrangement of land is owned by the Catellus Development Corporation. Earlier this year David Myers, the Executive Director of the Wildlands Conservancy, brokered a deal with Catellus to sell these lands at well below market value. Through David's hard work, The Wildlands Conservancy raised $25.5 million in private funding and donated land. The Catellus Corporation agreed to donate an additional $16.4 million in land. Through the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund the U.S. would acquire 487,000 acres of protected land. This includes 150,000 acres of Congressionally designated Wilderness areas, 87,000 acres in the Mojave National Preserve, 18,700 acres in Joshua Tree, land in Big Morongo, San Gorgonio wilderness, and the Kelso Dunes. This acquisition would formalize rights-of-way over 165 jeep trails and dirt access roads leading to 3.7 million acres of land used for hunting, hiking, sightseeing, camping and recreational vehicle use. The land includes the biggest cactus gardens in the world at the Bigelow Cholla Gardens. The acquisition also includes one hundred miles of scenic lands and historic water stops along historic route 66 and would help to conserve one of the single most intact portions of America's ``Mother Road'' which provided many Americans their first look at the Golden State and became the source of much of America's western migration folklore. The purchase is supported by an overwhelming majority of constituents in the 40th Congressional District including Republicans and Democrats alike and a broad coalition of interest groups from the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association. This transaction would be one of the biggest land acquisitions in California history and one of the most substantial gifts ever to the American people. It is my hope that we can take advantage of this rare opportunity to purchase these valuable lands and remove any remaining impediments for the millions of hikers, campers, and other recreationists who will continue to visit and enjoy this pristine area in the heart of California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address the African Growth and Opportunity Act and to discuss two amendments I hope to offer. I would like to begin by thanking the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for their good work on this bill. Anyone who has spent time in Africa knows the poverty and environmental problems inherent on that continent. The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, I believe, is the most hopeful vehicle for positive change that has come about. It opens the door to trade, investment, economic growth, and a higher quality of life for people of African nations. It will give Africans options and new abilities to build economically, to develop, to improve opportunities for trade worldwide, and to build new businesses on African and Caribbean soil. Sub-Saharan Africa is a market of some 700 million people. Yet less than 1 percent of our Nation's total trade is currently conducted with nations of this region. Expanding trade with this emerging market will help keep America competitive with Europe and Asia, who are already expanding their markets in the African nations. As the nations of sub- Saharan African reform their economies to spur economic growth, U.S. exporters will have access to new and larger markets for their products. This, in the long run, creates and sustains American jobs. Just as important, this legislation contains provisions to support and encourage democracy and human rights in sub-Saharan Africa. A country is not eligible for trade and investment benefits if it engages in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and does not respect basic labor rights, such as the right to organize and bargain, the right of association, and acceptable working conditions. Now, I recognize that those rights aren't as strong and enforceable as some might want. Nonetheless, they are the basic rights that are inherent in virtually every trade bill. Finally, as President Clinton noted, deepening our economic ties with these nations will also strengthen our cooperative efforts to address a host of transnational threats, such as environmental degradation, infectious disease, and illicit drug trafficking. I had intended to offer an amendment to address any potential impact this legislation might have on the domestic apparel industry of our Nation. The amendment I would have introduced would have created a tax credit of 30 percent for the first $12,300 in the first year of employment, rising to 50 percent over 5 years for domestic garment and sewn manufacturers who hire a worker who is at or below the poverty line in this country. For an individual, that is $8,240; for a family of four, it is $16,700. However, both the chairman and the ranking member of the Finance Committee have made it clear they don't believe tax credit amendments should be offered to this legislation, and I respect that. The offset we also had in mind, it turns out, has been utilized. However, the amendment has been scored. I will not offer this domestic textile worker tax credit amendment on this bill, though my intention is to offer it as a separate bill with an offset at a later time. I think this legislation would provide real incentive for domestic manufacturers to keep jobs in the United States, to hire American workers, and to keep them on the job. Moreover, by targeting the benefits to employees who, before being hired, are living at or below the poverty line, the amendment would also help move families off of welfare and public assistance and provide them good jobs in which they can support themselves and their families. My second amendment addresses the need for the United States to remain in the forefront of the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa. Mr. President, this bill inadvertently threatens to undermine the fight against AIDS in Africa. Approximately 34 million people, if you can believe it, in sub-Saharan Africa--that is the equivalent of the population of the State of California--are or have been infected with AIDS or HIV. And 11.5 million people of those infected have died--11.5 million people. These fatalities comprise 83 percent of the world's total HIV/AIDS-related death. Eighty-three percent of the death from AIDS in the world are in the sub-Saharan African countries. So the impact of AIDS in Africa is huge. It continues to be a major threat to the well-being of the entire African Continent. Frankly, it even threatens the well-being of this legislation if it is left unaddressed. Unfortunately, this legislation carries with it intellectual property rights for the American pharmaceutical companies which prevent the licensing, manufacture, and sale of cheaper generic AIDS drugs. That is a practice known as ``compulsory licensing.'' Without compulsory licensing, a practice fully consistent with international law, the vast majority of HIV/AIDS patients in Africa could not afford the more expensive drugs from American pharmaceutical companies and, thus, more will suffer and die simply without treatment. AIDS drugs in this country literally cost several hundred dollars a month. They must be taken several times a day regularly, and they often necessitate other drugs to ward off serious side effects of AIDS- reducing drugs. The amendment I have authored, which is cosponsored by Senator Feingold, on which we have worked with the staff on both sides, and which we believe will be acceptable to both sides, draws on a provision in Senator Feingold's HOPE for Africa bill. It allows the countries of sub-Saharan Africa to pursue compulsory licensing by preventing the U.S. Government from enforcing one specific U.S. intellectual property right that, when implemented, would prevent the license, manufacture, and sale of generic AIDS drugs in Africa. For those of my colleagues who may be concerned that this amendment may undermine wider intellectual property rights, this amendment acknowledges the World Trade Organization's agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property and that that is the presumptive legal standard for intellectual property rights. The WTO, however, allows countries flexibility in addressing public health concerns, and the compulsory licensing process under this amendment is consistent with the WTO's balancing of intellectual property rights with the moral obligation to meet public health emergencies such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa. When 11 million people die of a single disease, it certainly deserves and merits this kind of consideration. In effect, this amendment will allow the countries of sub-Saharan Africa to continue to determine the availability of HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals in their countries, and provide their people with more affordable HIV/AIDS drugs. It is clearly in the national interest of the United States to prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, and I believe that this amendment is an important improvement to this legislation if we are to continue to assist the countries of the region to bring this deadly disease under control. I am pleased to support the African Growth and Opportunity Act and the Caribbean Basin Initiative because I believe they are both in the national interest of this country. I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their support of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman very much. I appreciate that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that provides permanent resident status to Sergio Lozano who, with his younger sister and brother, were granted immigrant visas to come to the United States with their mother in 1997. Unfortunately, they lost the opportunity to be come immigrants when they tragically lost their mother in that same year. Sergio Lozano lived with his siblings and their mother, Ana Ruth Lozano, until her death in February of this year due to complications from typhoid fever. Since their mother's death, the three siblings have been living with their closest relative, their U.S. citizen grandmother who lives in Los Angeles and has since adopted the two younger children. Without his mother, Sergio does not have the legal right to remain in the United States. When he first arrived in the U.S. at 17, he was unable to obtain lawful permanent residence because immigration law prohibits permanent legal residency to minor children without their parents. However, as a child of 17, he was also outside the age limit for adoption by his grandmother. As a result, Sergio, through no fault of his own, has been left in limbo in the United States. Without legal status, this young man can be deported by the INS despite the fact that he has no immediate family in El Salvador except their estranged father who was alleged to have been abusive to the mother and the children. Without the legislation, Sergio will most likely be separated from his brother and sister and sent back to El Salvador. Here in the U.S., he can remain with his brother and sister, further his education and continue to thrive in the loving environment provided by his U.S. citizen grandmother and uncles. I have previously sought administrative relief for all three Lozano children by asking the INS district office in Los Angeles and Commissioner Meissner if any humanitarian exemptions could be made in their case. INS told my staff that there was nothing further they could do administratively and a private relief bill may be then only way to protect the children from deportation. Since then, the two younger Lozano children have been adopted by their grandmother and have received approval of their lawful permanent resident petitions. Like his siblings, Sergio has too suffered a sense of loss and bewilderment after losing a parent. However. unlike his sister and brother, he stands to be deprived of the security of his American family and deported back to a land he no longer knows, if only as a consequence of being born two years too soon. Last year, the Senate passed by unanimous consent the private bill I introduced on behalf of Sergio Lozano and his siblings. However, the 105th Congress came to a close before the House was able to act. This year, I hope you will support the bill on behalf of Sergio Lozano so that we can help him begin to rebuild his life with his loving family in the United States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that provides permanent resident status to Sergio Lozano who, with his younger sister and brother, were granted immigrant visas to come to the United States with their mother in 1997. Unfortunately, they lost the opportunity to be come immigrants when they tragically lost their mother in that same year. Sergio Lozano lived with his siblings and their mother, Ana Ruth Lozano, until her death in February of this year due to complications from typhoid fever. Since their mother's death, the three siblings have been living with their closest relative, their U.S. citizen grandmother who lives in Los Angeles and has since adopted the two younger children. Without his mother, Sergio does not have the legal right to remain in the United States. When he first arrived in the U.S. at 17, he was unable to obtain lawful permanent residence because immigration law prohibits permanent legal residency to minor children without their parents. However, as a child of 17, he was also outside the age limit for adoption by his grandmother. As a result, Sergio, through no fault of his own, has been left in limbo in the United States. Without legal status, this young man can be deported by the INS despite the fact that he has no immediate family in El Salvador except their estranged father who was alleged to have been abusive to the mother and the children. Without the legislation, Sergio will most likely be separated from his brother and sister and sent back to El Salvador. Here in the U.S., he can remain with his brother and sister, further his education and continue to thrive in the loving environment provided by his U.S. citizen grandmother and uncles. I have previously sought administrative relief for all three Lozano children by asking the INS district office in Los Angeles and Commissioner Meissner if any humanitarian exemptions could be made in their case. INS told my staff that there was nothing further they could do administratively and a private relief bill may be then only way to protect the children from deportation. Since then, the two younger Lozano children have been adopted by their grandmother and have received approval of their lawful permanent resident petitions. Like his siblings, Sergio has too suffered a sense of loss and bewilderment after losing a parent. However. unlike his sister and brother, he stands to be deprived of the security of his American family and deported back to a land he no longer knows, if only as a consequence of being born two years too soon. Last year, the Senate passed by unanimous consent the private bill I introduced on behalf of Sergio Lozano and his siblings. However, the 105th Congress came to a close before the House was able to act. This year, I hope you will support the bill on behalf of Sergio Lozano so that we can help him begin to rebuild his life with his loving family in the United States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will create a national promotion, research and information program for Hass avocados. This industry-financed promotion program will help farmers without costing taxpayers any money. This legislation provides California's 6,000 Hass avocado growers with the ability to achieve together that which would not be possible alone--the establishment of a national program to enhance avocado marketing and consumption. Pooled industry resources create the potential for an impact much greater than what would be possible through a solely state-funded program. Like producers who have successful national promotion programs, including those for beef, cotton, dairy, eggs, pork and soybeans, producers of Hass avocados are seeking a new vehicle for expanding the consumer market for avocados. A nationwide promotion program would provide the avocado industry with the means to market avocados to a much wider consumer audience, and build demand at a time when the aggregate supply of avocados is rapidly increasing. California has a long history of state marketing programs for its many diverse agricultural commodities. In fact, the avocado industry has long benefitted from an innovative state grower-funded program administered by the California Avocado Commission. In recent years, however, increasing imports are supplying a larger share of the U.S. consumer market. In 1998, for example, import levels reached 100 million pounds, or nearly one-third the size of U.S. avocado production. If not offset by increased demand, this rapid escalation of supply will lead to market instability. Given this dynamic, it is only fair that the cost of a national promotion program be shared fairly among importers and domestic producers. The ``Hass Avocado Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1999'' is a self-help national checkoff program that will allow avocado growers to fund and operate a coordinated marketing effort to expand domestic and foreign markets. The avocado promotion program will be operated at no cost to the federal government and will be funded by U.S. Hass avocado growers and Hass avocado importers. The key elements of this avocado promotion legislation include: (1) an 11-member Hass Avocado Board comprised of both domestic producers and importers; (2) new programs for the advertising and promotion of avocados to develop new markets; (3) research on the sale, distribution, use, quality or nutritional value of avocados; (4) an up- front referendum of qualified producers and importers during a 60-day period preceding the effective date of the Secretary of Agriculture's implementing order; and (5) an initial assessment rate on Hass avocados on 2.5 cent per pound. Hass avocados are an integral food source in the United States and are a valuable and healthy part of the human diet. Avocados are enjoyed by millions of persons every year for a multitude of every day and special occasions. The maintenance and expansion of existing markets and the development of new markets and uses for Hass avocados is needed to preserve and strengthen the economic viability of the domestic Hass avocado industry for the benefit of producers and the benefit of other persons marketing, processing and consuming Hass avocados. Agricultural commodity promotion programs are a proven means of increasing market share for commodities. The Hass avocado growers in my state want to have a program that will help increase their market share of the consumer food dollar. California's Hass avocado growers have made extensive efforts over the last two years to unify the industry, which has resulted in the development of this highly supported national promotion program. The 1996-1997 value of domestic Hass avocado production was $259 million--a substantial market that could be even greater if properly promoted. This national avocado promotion program is an opportunity for Congress to help an agricultural industry create increased economic activity and job opportunities, with no expenditure of tax collars. I urge you to support this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will create a national promotion, research and information program for Hass avocados. This industry-financed promotion program will help farmers without costing taxpayers any money. This legislation provides California's 6,000 Hass avocado growers with the ability to achieve together that which would not be possible alone--the establishment of a national program to enhance avocado marketing and consumption. Pooled industry resources create the potential for an impact much greater than what would be possible through a solely state-funded program. Like producers who have successful national promotion programs, including those for beef, cotton, dairy, eggs, pork and soybeans, producers of Hass avocados are seeking a new vehicle for expanding the consumer market for avocados. A nationwide promotion program would provide the avocado industry with the means to market avocados to a much wider consumer audience, and build demand at a time when the aggregate supply of avocados is rapidly increasing. California has a long history of state marketing programs for its many diverse agricultural commodities. In fact, the avocado industry has long benefitted from an innovative state grower-funded program administered by the California Avocado Commission. In recent years, however, increasing imports are supplying a larger share of the U.S. consumer market. In 1998, for example, import levels reached 100 million pounds, or nearly one-third the size of U.S. avocado production. If not offset by increased demand, this rapid escalation of supply will lead to market instability. Given this dynamic, it is only fair that the cost of a national promotion program be shared fairly among importers and domestic producers. The ``Hass Avocado Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1999'' is a self-help national checkoff program that will allow avocado growers to fund and operate a coordinated marketing effort to expand domestic and foreign markets. The avocado promotion program will be operated at no cost to the federal government and will be funded by U.S. Hass avocado growers and Hass avocado importers. The key elements of this avocado promotion legislation include: (1) an 11-member Hass Avocado Board comprised of both domestic producers and importers; (2) new programs for the advertising and promotion of avocados to develop new markets; (3) research on the sale, distribution, use, quality or nutritional value of avocados; (4) an up- front referendum of qualified producers and importers during a 60-day period preceding the effective date of the Secretary of Agriculture's implementing order; and (5) an initial assessment rate on Hass avocados on 2.5 cent per pound. Hass avocados are an integral food source in the United States and are a valuable and healthy part of the human diet. Avocados are enjoyed by millions of persons every year for a multitude of every day and special occasions. The maintenance and expansion of existing markets and the development of new markets and uses for Hass avocados is needed to preserve and strengthen the economic viability of the domestic Hass avocado industry for the benefit of producers and the benefit of other persons marketing, processing and consuming Hass avocados. Agricultural commodity promotion programs are a proven means of increasing market share for commodities. The Hass avocado growers in my state want to have a program that will help increase their market share of the consumer food dollar. California's Hass avocado growers have made extensive efforts over the last two years to unify the industry, which has resulted in the development of this highly supported national promotion program. The 1996-1997 value of domestic Hass avocado production was $259 million--a substantial market that could be even greater if properly promoted. This national avocado promotion program is an opportunity for Congress to help an agricultural industry create increased economic activity and job opportunities, with no expenditure of tax collars. I urge you to support this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Lautenberg to introduce the Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act of 1999. This bill will reclassify powerful .50 caliber military sniper rifles under the National Firearms act, thus making it much more difficult for terrorists, doomsday cults, and criminals to obtain these guns for illegitimate use. Let me just talk a little bit about what a .50 caliber gun is, and then I will describe why I believe it is vital to tighten the rules surrounding their use and purchase. These .50 caliber firearms are weapons of such range and destructive capability that it seems unthinkable for them to fall into civilian hands. These .50 caliber guns, manufactured by a small handful of companies and individuals, are deadly, military style assault rifles. The M82A1, one common example of these guns, was manufactured with one purpose in mind--the efficient destruction of enemy armaments and personnel. These guns, weighing 28 pounds and capable of piercing light armor at more than 4 miles, enable a single shooter to destroy enemy jeeps, tanks, personnel carriers, bunkers, fuel stations, and even communication centers. As a result, their use by military organizations worldwide has been rapidly spreading during the course of this decade. But with the increasing military use of the gun, we have also seen increased use of the weapon by violent criminals and terrorists around the world. The weapons are deadly accurate up to 2,000 yards. This means that a shooter using a .50 caliber weapon can reliably hit a target more than a mile away. In fact, according to a training manual for military and police snipers published in 1993, a bullet from this gun ``even at one and a half miles crashes into a target with more energy than Dirty Harry's famous .44 magnum at point-blank'' range. And the gun is ``effective'' up to 7,500 yards. In other words, although it may be hard to aim at that distance, the gun will have its desired destructive effect at that distance--more than 4 miles from the target. The weapon can penetrate several inches of steel, concrete, or even light armor. Many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns--it is just too powerful. This gun was used extensively in the gulf war by American troops. Ideal for long range destruction of personnel, light armor or communications, there is no question that this gun is an effective wartime tool. Recent advances in weapons technology, however, allow this gun to be used by civilians against armored limousines, bunkers, individuals, and even aircraft--in fact, one advertisement for the gun apparently promoted the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars' worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars' worth of cartridge.'' One new version of the .50 caliber weapon is a modified machine gun capable of accepting ammunition belts, and yet is still allowed for civilian use by BATF. This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover GAO investigators ``You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so far, it hits a school bus full of kids. The government will definitely ban .50 calibers. This gun is just too powerful.'' Mr. President, a recent study by the General Accounting Office revealed some eye-opening facts about how and where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug traffickers, and violent criminals. One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased 10 of these guns and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition and other guns. At least one .50 caliber gun was recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the guns are making their way into the hands of criminals worldwide. Accoring to a recent news story, another .50 caliber sniper rifle, smuggled out of the United States, was used by the Irish Republican Army to kill a large number of British soldiers. And ammunition for these guns is also readily available, even over the Internet. Bullets for these guns include ``armor piercing incendiary'' ammunition that explodes on impact, and even ``armor piercing tracing'' ammunition reminiscent of the ammunition that lit up the skies over Baghdad during the Persian Gulf war. Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored limousine or maybe to ``take down'' a helicopter. In fact, our own military helps to provide thousands of rounds of .50 caliber ammunition, by essentially giving away tons of spent cartridges, many of which are then refurbished and sold on the civilian market. The bill I offer today will begin the process of making these guns harder to get and easier to track. Current law classifies .50 caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to the least government regulation for any firearm. Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and even handguns are more highly regulated than this military sniper rifle. In fact, many states allow possession of .50 caliber guns by those as young as 14 years old, and there is no regulation on second-hand sales. Essentially, this bill would re-classify .50 caliber guns under the National Firearms Act, which imposes far stricter standards on powerful and destruction weapons. For instance: NFA guns may only be purchased from a licensed dealer, and not second-hand. This will prevent the sale of these guns at gun shows and in other venues that make it hard for law enforcement to track the weapons. Second, purchasers of NFA guns must fill out license transfer applications and provide fingerprints to be processed by the FBI in detailed criminal background checks. By reclassifying the .50 caliber, Congress will be making a determination that sellers should be more careful about to whom they give these powerful, military guns. ATF reports that this background check process takes about 60 days, so prospective gun buyers will face some delay. However, legitimate purchasers of this $7,000 gun can certainly wait that long. Clearly, Mr. President, placing a few more restrictions on who can get these guns and how is simply common sense. This bill will not ban the sale, use or possession of .50 caliber weapons. The .50 caliber shooting club will not face extinction, and ``legitimate'' purchasers of these guns will not lose their access--even though that, too, might be a reasonable step, since I cannot imagine a legitimate use of this gun. The bill will simply place stricter requirements on the way in which these guns can be sold, and to whom. The measure is meant to offer a reasoned solution to making it harder for terrorists, assassins, and other criminals to obtain these powerful weapons. If we are to continue to allow private citizens to own and use guns of this caliber, range, and destructive power, we should at the very least take greater care in making sure that these guns do not fall into the wrong hands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.