Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support Senator Murray's amendment to repeal the provision of current law that prohibits a woman in the armed services from using her own funds to pay for an abortion in an overseas U.S. military facility. I support this amendment for several reasons. First, the Supreme Court has clearly established a woman's right to choose. That right is not suspended simply because a woman serves in the U.S. military or is married to a U.S. servicemember. Second, women based in the United States and using a U.S.-based military facility are not prohibited from using their own funds to pay for an abortion. Having a prohibition on the use of U.S. military facilities overseas creates a double standard, and an undue hardship on women servicemembers stationed overseas. Third, private facilities may not be readily available in other countries. For example, abortion is illegal in the Philippines. A woman stationed in that country or the spouse of a servicemember would need to fly to the U.S. or to another country--at her own expense--to obtain an abortion. We don't pay our servicemembers enough to assume they can simply jet off to Switzerland for medical treatment. Fourth, if women do not have access to military facilities or to private facilities in the country they are stationed, they could endanger their own health by the delay involved in getting to a facility or by being forced to seek an abortion by someone other than a licensed physician. We know from personal experience in this country that when abortion is illegal, desperate women are often forced into unsafe and life- threatening situations in back alleys. If it were your wife, or your daughter, would you want her in the hands of an untrained abortionist on the back streets of Manila or Cordoba, Argentina? Or would you prefer that she have access to medical treatment by a trained physician in a U.S. military facility? Not only would these women be risking their health and lives under normal conditions, but what if these women are facing complicated or life- threatening pregnancies and are unaware of the seriousness of their condition? We are asking these women to risk their lives in the service of their country. Current law does not force any military physician to perform an abortion against his or her will. All branches have a ``conscience clause'' that permits medical personnel to choose not to perform the procedure. What we are talking about today is providing equal access to military medical facilities, wherever they are located, for a legal procedure paid for with one's own money. Abortion is legal for American women. U.S. servicemembers would pay with their own funds. To deny them access to medical treatment they can trust is wrong. It's that simple. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Congressman Sonny Bono introduced identical legislation last Thursday and the Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee of the House Resources Committee has scheduled hearings this afternoon on this legislation. I look forward to working with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to implement this agreement in law and the Appropriations Committee to provide funds as outlined in the settlement agreement. I hope my colleagues will join me today in enacting this legislation. exhibit 1 Submittal to the Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside, State of California From: Supervisor Wilson. Subject: Support of Legislation for Settlement With Torres- Martinez Indian Tribe. Recommended Motion: That the Board take a position in support of the attached draft legislation, proposed by Congressman Sonny Bono and providing for settlement with the Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe by providing compensation for acquisition of lands in the Coachella Valley; further, direct the county Executive Office to immediately forward copies of the Board Minute Order to members of California's Congressional delegation. Justification: The accidental creation of the Salton Sea in 1905-1907 resulted in approximately 12,000 acres of Torres- Martinez Indian Tribal lands in the southeastern Coachella Valley being either underwater or unusable. There has been litigation since 1982 by the Federal Government on behalf of the Tribe against Coachella Valley Water District and Imperial Irrigation District, and the Tribe itself filed litigation in 1991. In addition to the issue of compensation to the Tribe, the completion of Highway 86 is also at risk, as the alignment and construction of the highway is contingent on right-of-way on existing Tribal lands. The attached draft legislation has been developed in consultation with all parties, and I am advised that all are in agreement with its provisions. It provides the Tribe with funds to acquire 12,000 acres, either in entirety in the ``primary'' acquisition area (Avenue 56, also known as Airport Blvd., south to the Riverside/Imperial County line) which is adjacent to existing Tribal lands, or up to 640 acres (out of the total 12,000) in the ``secondary'' acquisition area (the remainder of the Coachella Valley, generally from Desert Hot Springs southeast to Avenue 56). Finally, the legislation authorizes the Tribe to establish a single gaming site, and provides land use jurisdiction within the secondary acquisition area with the ability to protest acquisition/conversion of land to Tribal status within 60 days of being notified of the Tribe's intent. County Counsel worked directly with Congressman Bono's staff in development of the draft legislation, and I urge the Board's support of this proposed settlement. Roy Wilson.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that will ratify the settlement agreement negotiated by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Justice, Imperial Irrigation Water District, Coachella Valley Water District, and the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe. This settlement agreement resolves a long standing dispute to replace reservation lands the Torres-Martinez Tribe lost due to flooding from the Salton Sea. In 1876, the Torres-Martinez Indian Reservation was created by a 640- acre section of land in Coachella Valley, California at the northern end of the Salton Sink. The Reservation was expanded in 1891 adding approximately 12,000 acres to the original 640-acre reservation. Between 1905 and 1907, flood waters of the Colorado River filled the Salton Sink, creating the Salton Sea, inundating approximately 2,000 acres of the reservation lands. In 1909, an additional 9,000 acres of land were then submerged under the Salton Sea. Today, the federal government holds 25,000 acres of the reservation in trust for the Tribe. Of this parcel, 11,800 acres is either currently under water or has been condemned as uninhabitable due to runoff and drainage water from the irrigation systems of the Imperial, Coachella, and Mexicali Valleys into the Salton Sea. Since 1982, the United States government, acting for the Tribe, has been negotiating with the Imperial and Coachella Valley Water Districts to compensate the Tribes for the loss of their reservation lands. In the settlement agreement, the Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe will receive $14 million: $10 million from the U.S. government and $4 million from the water districts. From these funds, the Tribe can acquire and take into trust 11,800 acres of land. Of these parcels, 11,160 must be contiguous to existing reservation land. The Tribe can acquire the remaining 640 acres within the Coachella Valley only if the local governing body or Riverside County does not object. The Tribe's right to conduct gaming on lands taken into trust is limited and restricted to one gaming operation on one site. In return, the irrigation districts would be granted a permanent flowage easement over tribal and Federal lands within the minus 220 foot contour of the Salton Sink. The settlement of this land dispute has been a major concern for many years. It has taken more than ten years for all parties involved to reach a consensus on the settlement agreement. There have been competing interests and priorities for everyone involved, including completion of the construction of the Route 86 Expressway project. All parties involved in negotiating this settlement agreement have worked hard to reach a consensus to implement this agreement. The Tribe has agreed to give local communities the right to veto its purchase of land and Riverside County has passed a resolution in support of this settlement agreement. Moreover, construction of Route 86 will progress. I commend the Departments of the Interior and Justice, the Coachella and Imperial Water Districts, and the Torres-Martinez Tribe for remaining committed to resolving this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution passed by Riverside County in support of the agreement and correspondence I have received from the Water Districts and the Torres-Martinez Tribe indicating the accuracy of this legislation in completely implementing the settlement agreement, be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Congressman Sonny Bono introduced identical legislation last Thursday and the Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee of the House Resources Committee has scheduled hearings this afternoon on this legislation. I look forward to working with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to implement this agreement in law and the Appropriations Committee to provide funds as outlined in the settlement agreement. I hope my colleagues will join me today in enacting this legislation. exhibit 1 Submittal to the Board of Supervisors, County of Riverside, State of California From: Supervisor Wilson. Subject: Support of Legislation for Settlement With Torres- Martinez Indian Tribe. Recommended Motion: That the Board take a position in support of the attached draft legislation, proposed by Congressman Sonny Bono and providing for settlement with the Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe by providing compensation for acquisition of lands in the Coachella Valley; further, direct the county Executive Office to immediately forward copies of the Board Minute Order to members of California's Congressional delegation. Justification: The accidental creation of the Salton Sea in 1905-1907 resulted in approximately 12,000 acres of Torres- Martinez Indian Tribal lands in the southeastern Coachella Valley being either underwater or unusable. There has been litigation since 1982 by the Federal Government on behalf of the Tribe against Coachella Valley Water District and Imperial Irrigation District, and the Tribe itself filed litigation in 1991. In addition to the issue of compensation to the Tribe, the completion of Highway 86 is also at risk, as the alignment and construction of the highway is contingent on right-of-way on existing Tribal lands. The attached draft legislation has been developed in consultation with all parties, and I am advised that all are in agreement with its provisions. It provides the Tribe with funds to acquire 12,000 acres, either in entirety in the ``primary'' acquisition area (Avenue 56, also known as Airport Blvd., south to the Riverside/Imperial County line) which is adjacent to existing Tribal lands, or up to 640 acres (out of the total 12,000) in the ``secondary'' acquisition area (the remainder of the Coachella Valley, generally from Desert Hot Springs southeast to Avenue 56). Finally, the legislation authorizes the Tribe to establish a single gaming site, and provides land use jurisdiction within the secondary acquisition area with the ability to protest acquisition/conversion of land to Tribal status within 60 days of being notified of the Tribe's intent. County Counsel worked directly with Congressman Bono's staff in development of the draft legislation, and I urge the Board's support of this proposed settlement. Roy Wilson.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that will ratify the settlement agreement negotiated by the U.S. Departments of the Interior and Justice, Imperial Irrigation Water District, Coachella Valley Water District, and the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe. This settlement agreement resolves a long standing dispute to replace reservation lands the Torres-Martinez Tribe lost due to flooding from the Salton Sea. In 1876, the Torres-Martinez Indian Reservation was created by a 640- acre section of land in Coachella Valley, California at the northern end of the Salton Sink. The Reservation was expanded in 1891 adding approximately 12,000 acres to the original 640-acre reservation. Between 1905 and 1907, flood waters of the Colorado River filled the Salton Sink, creating the Salton Sea, inundating approximately 2,000 acres of the reservation lands. In 1909, an additional 9,000 acres of land were then submerged under the Salton Sea. Today, the federal government holds 25,000 acres of the reservation in trust for the Tribe. Of this parcel, 11,800 acres is either currently under water or has been condemned as uninhabitable due to runoff and drainage water from the irrigation systems of the Imperial, Coachella, and Mexicali Valleys into the Salton Sea. Since 1982, the United States government, acting for the Tribe, has been negotiating with the Imperial and Coachella Valley Water Districts to compensate the Tribes for the loss of their reservation lands. In the settlement agreement, the Torres-Martinez Indian Tribe will receive $14 million: $10 million from the U.S. government and $4 million from the water districts. From these funds, the Tribe can acquire and take into trust 11,800 acres of land. Of these parcels, 11,160 must be contiguous to existing reservation land. The Tribe can acquire the remaining 640 acres within the Coachella Valley only if the local governing body or Riverside County does not object. The Tribe's right to conduct gaming on lands taken into trust is limited and restricted to one gaming operation on one site. In return, the irrigation districts would be granted a permanent flowage easement over tribal and Federal lands within the minus 220 foot contour of the Salton Sink. The settlement of this land dispute has been a major concern for many years. It has taken more than ten years for all parties involved to reach a consensus on the settlement agreement. There have been competing interests and priorities for everyone involved, including completion of the construction of the Route 86 Expressway project. All parties involved in negotiating this settlement agreement have worked hard to reach a consensus to implement this agreement. The Tribe has agreed to give local communities the right to veto its purchase of land and Riverside County has passed a resolution in support of this settlement agreement. Moreover, construction of Route 86 will progress. I commend the Departments of the Interior and Justice, the Coachella and Imperial Water Districts, and the Torres-Martinez Tribe for remaining committed to resolving this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution passed by Riverside County in support of the agreement and correspondence I have received from the Water Districts and the Torres-Martinez Tribe indicating the accuracy of this legislation in completely implementing the settlement agreement, be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation having to do with the quality of air in passenger cabins of commercial aircraft. I want to begin for a moment by telling you how I got into this. Three years ago, obviously coming to the Senate, I began a whole series of flights from San Francisco and from Los Angeles to Washington, and I noticed something. I noticed when I rode a 747 I did not get a headache and the circulation in my hand did not cease. When I rode a 757 or a 767, I began to get rather severe headaches. If I fell asleep, the circulation in my hand ceased. This, then, promptly woke me up. I began to look into it. What did I find? I looked at Federal clean air standards for enclosed spaces. I found that the Federal standard for fresh air in prison cells is 20 cubic feet per person per minute. The fresh air standard for an office building, for a theater lobby, for a restaurant, is the same. Then I found there were no fresh air standards for commercial aircraft. So I asked, what are the existing levels? Let me tell you what I found. The average amount of fresh air circulation in a 757 is 9 cubic feet per person. The average amount of fresh air in a 767 is 9.1 cubic feet per person per minute. The new 737's, provide an average of 9.6 cubic feet per person per minute. Now, what is the significance? The significance is that it is less than one-half the fresh air that is required in a prison cell, an office or a restaurant. And then I began to ask flight attendants about the problems. What I learned is that stories documented of sore throats and headaches, of difficulty of breathing, of poor circulation in the body and swollen legs, of colds, flus, and airborne diseases, such as flu and tuberculosis are now beginning to spiral throughout the 1.4 million passengers per day that ride commercial airlines. Well, today I want to introduce in the Senate an idea whose time has come, and that is an aviation clean air act. This is also being introduced in the House of Representatives at the same time. Essentially, what this bill would require is that commercial airlines provide ventilation systems that provide 20 cubic feet of fresh air per person per minute in the cabin. This is equal to what is provided today by older aircraft, namely, the 747. Many of the larger commercial aircraft, such as the 737's, 757's, or 767's, as I said, provide less than one-half of what is provided by a 747. Second, the bill would ensure that air filters used in airplane cabin air recirculation systems are monitored and changed regularly. Third, it would require that airlines monitor humidity and ozone levels. Fourth, it would require the FAA to create a ``1-800'' number to receive reports of illnesses relating to air travel. I also want to introduce into the Record directly following my statement a statement of Patricia Friend, the international president of the Association of Flight Attendants; a statement of Andrew Parramore, a flight attendant; a statement of Joe Johnson, a member of the Association of Flight Attendants, and Janie Johnson, a member of the Association of Flight Attendants. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation having to do with the quality of air in passenger cabins of commercial aircraft. I want to begin for a moment by telling you how I got into this. Three years ago, obviously coming to the Senate, I began a whole series of flights from San Francisco and from Los Angeles to Washington, and I noticed something. I noticed when I rode a 747 I did not get a headache and the circulation in my hand did not cease. When I rode a 757 or a 767, I began to get rather severe headaches. If I fell asleep, the circulation in my hand ceased. This, then, promptly woke me up. I began to look into it. What did I find? I looked at Federal clean air standards for enclosed spaces. I found that the Federal standard for fresh air in prison cells is 20 cubic feet per person per minute. The fresh air standard for an office building, for a theater lobby, for a restaurant, is the same. Then I found there were no fresh air standards for commercial aircraft. So I asked, what are the existing levels? Let me tell you what I found. The average amount of fresh air circulation in a 757 is 9 cubic feet per person. The average amount of fresh air in a 767 is 9.1 cubic feet per person per minute. The new 737's, provide an average of 9.6 cubic feet per person per minute. Now, what is the significance? The significance is that it is less than one-half the fresh air that is required in a prison cell, an office or a restaurant. And then I began to ask flight attendants about the problems. What I learned is that stories documented of sore throats and headaches, of difficulty of breathing, of poor circulation in the body and swollen legs, of colds, flus, and airborne diseases, such as flu and tuberculosis are now beginning to spiral throughout the 1.4 million passengers per day that ride commercial airlines. Well, today I want to introduce in the Senate an idea whose time has come, and that is an aviation clean air act. This is also being introduced in the House of Representatives at the same time. Essentially, what this bill would require is that commercial airlines provide ventilation systems that provide 20 cubic feet of fresh air per person per minute in the cabin. This is equal to what is provided today by older aircraft, namely, the 747. Many of the larger commercial aircraft, such as the 737's, 757's, or 767's, as I said, provide less than one-half of what is provided by a 747. Second, the bill would ensure that air filters used in airplane cabin air recirculation systems are monitored and changed regularly. Third, it would require that airlines monitor humidity and ozone levels. Fourth, it would require the FAA to create a ``1-800'' number to receive reports of illnesses relating to air travel. I also want to introduce into the Record directly following my statement a statement of Patricia Friend, the international president of the Association of Flight Attendants; a statement of Andrew Parramore, a flight attendant; a statement of Joe Johnson, a member of the Association of Flight Attendants, and Janie Johnson, a member of the Association of Flight Attendants. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I see that the new majority leader has entered the Senate. I personally want to extend to him my very sincere congratulations on his election. As he knows, we have had occasion to work together on one bill, and it was ill-fated. It was a postponement of the base closure process. As I recall, we got 16 votes. However, with your election, I look forward to occasions where we will have a majority of votes. I congratulate the Senator. I know he will do just fine.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Bob Dole first came to Congress at a time when the world--and he himself--was still recovering from the wounds of war, and America, catapulted into world leadership, was about to enter one of the most difficult periods in our young history as our Nation became bitterly divided over the Vietnam conflict. These events shaped the man who came to Washington to represent his home State of Kansas back in 1960. And, from my experience in working with him over the last few years in the U.S. Senate, it is clear that Bob Dole never forgot the values those experiences taught him. He has left an imprint on this body that deserves our recognition and our thanks. Having nearly given his life for his country in the battle for freedom, Bob Dole brought strong convictions about honor and public service with him to the U.S. Congress. And, having seen this Nation spill blood in battling its own conscience, he understood that--even in the rough and tumble world of politics--we can not afford to forget the warnings of our predecessors: United we stand; divided we fall. Bob Dole's tenure as majority leader reflected these convictions. He leaves the Senate having made an indelible mark on this body with his ability as a leader, his skill as a statesman, and his commitment to the service of his country. I have not always agreed with Bob Dole, but I have never found his door closed. That, to me, says more about the man than anything else. In my view, the mark of a true statesman is his willingness to listen to all sides of an issue in a search for common ground. But the mark of a leader is the ability to move people forward in spite of our differences in search of progress. Although I have not known Bob Dole for very long--I came to this body in 1993 and worked with him, first as minority leader, then as majority leader--I have come to hold high respect for him, and think of him fondly. These are very tumultous times, and his was no easy task. I have been particularly struck, time and again, by his willingness to seek solutions by forging agreements--even in circumstances where he had the votes to win on an issue and did not need to regotiate. I remember when the issue of moving the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem arose last year in Congress. Senator Dole had all the votes he needed to pass a resolution supporting the move. And yet, he listened to those of us who had concerns about the impact the wording of this resolution would have on what, at the time, was a very delicate phase of the peace negotiations in the Middle East. He did not have to listen. He chose to listen, and he chose to address our concerns. And we passed better legislation as a result. That is leadership. I have been struck by his forthrightness as majority leader--his word was his commitment, and his commitment was a matter of honor. These have been difficult times. But, although he and I did not always end up on the same side of an issue, I knew Bob Dole cared more about the integrity of the democratic process than he cared about short term political gain, and that he respected each and every Senator's place in that process--because we represent the America people. No, we did not always agree. But even on issues where we disagreed, I always knew where I stood, and I knew I could trust his word. Robert Dole will be remembered for his lifetime of service to the American people, and for helping to shape the course of our Nation during some of the most pivotal times. He deserves our praise and our thanks, and we wish him and Elizabeth well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, on May 23--13 days ago--there were three votes on budgets. There was one for the Republican budget, which received a party vote; there was one for the President's budget, which received a party vote; and there was one more on a budget put forward by the centrist coalition. Now, one of the things that became very clear in budget balancing in this body is that there are different points of view on both sides of the aisle. Republicans do not tend to support a Democratic budget, and Democrats do not tend to support a Republican budget. This was borne out. Well, for some 6 months, under the leadership of Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux, 11 Republicans and 11 Democrats sat down around a table and said, ``look, we know we have to balance the budget. How are we going to do it, and what does each party need to do?'' Believe it or not, we produced a document that came five votes short of being adopted by this body. With five more votes, we would not have needed a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and we would have balanced the budget within 7 years. I believe it is still possible to do succeed. I support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I even sponsored one, with a number of my colleagues, last year. But, in my view, if Congress does not have the will to actually balance the budget, it may, at some point, need castor oil. And that is all this amendment is. I heard people on the floor this morning make the statement that now is the time to bite the bullet. Now is the time to make the hard choices. Does this constitutional amendment restructure Medicare? No. Does it restructure Medicaid? No. Does it bring on welfare reform? No. Does it provide for ballistic missile defense? No. Does it have the tax increases to pay for one? No. Does it have a tax cut in it, which so many want? No. Does it solve any problem at all? No, it does not. It does one thing. It says that the people of three-quarters of the State legislatures will vote and decide whether there will be a constitutional amendment to balance the budget by the year 2003. The bill before us today is the same bill rejected by this body last year. I voted against it then because I do not believe it is the right amendment for this country, and I will vote against it today for these same reasons. Let me give you a couple of these reasons. A constitutional amendment cannot possibly be ratified right now in time to do any good. It would take the 3-year period that I described. The Medicare trustees announced yesterday the Medicare trust fund will actually reach insolvency in 2001--a year earlier than originally projected. This is a loud and clear message--or should be--that we do not have the luxury of waiting any longer to balance the budget. Additionally, the amendment before us says that, for all time, the Social Security trust fund will be stolen to balance the budget. This body would send to the States a constitutional amendment that would utilize the Social Security trust fund, for all time, to balance the budget. I think it is painfully clear to all of us that there is no way to achieve the goal of balancing the budget in 7 years without using, to some degree, funds that really should, by law, be set aside for Social Security. Our earlier speakers, including Senator Dorgan, Senator Hollings, and others know it as well as anyone in this body. Every plan put forward to balance the budget this year includes Social Security funds to some degree or another. However, today we are considering a constitutional amendment. The amendment would permanently use Social Security trust funds to balance the budget. It allows absolutely no flexibility to protect the solvency of the trust fund for future generations who will depend on it. That is not right because, all during this period, Americans will be working and paying payroll taxes for their Social Security retirement. Workers will pay their 6.2-percent FICA tax to contribute to their retirement and employers will match that 6.2 percent. People have a right to know that this trust fund will be there when they retire. This amendment, by locking into the Constitution the requirement that Social Security funds are used to balance the Federal budget, in perpetuity, abrogates that contract with American taxpayers. Under this amendment, Social Security funds could wind up being used to pay for general governmental programs, just as Senator Dorgan spelled out. It is like taking the pension fund, if you operate a company, and putting it on your operating budget. You just would not do it. Furthermore, I mentioned earlier that this constitutional amendment would have to pass muster with three-fourths of the States. If you think the debate in Congress has been difficult on this issue for the last few years, just wait until the voters of 50 States, or the legislatures of 50 States, start debating the permanent inclusion of the Social Security trust funds in the Federal budget under this balanced budget amendment. I venture to say that the likelihood of its ratification is dim, at best. Well, what is the upshot of all of this? The upshot is that we have the vehicle to balance the budget, without altering the Constitution, and we should just do it. I want to read this list. This is the first time I have ever seen this in the time I have been here. Forty-six Members--22 Republicans and 24 Democrats--voted for a centrist budget. The Republican supporters are: Bennett, Brown, Campbell, Chafee, Coats, Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, DeWine, Faircloth, Frist, Gorton, Gregg, Hatch, Hatfield, Jeffords, Kassebaum, Lugar, Santorum, Simpson, Snowe, and Specter. These 24 Democrats voted with the 22 Republicans: Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Bradley, Breaux, Bryan, Conrad, Feinstein, Graham, Inouye, Johnston, Kerrey, Kohl, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Moynihan, Murray, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Reid, Robb, and Simon. With the centrist budget amendment, we were five votes short of achieving the tax cut Republicans wanted, and minimizing the cuts in vital programs that Democrats wanted. We came within five votes of achieving significant savings for a wide variety of Federal program. In Medicare, we made enough changes to assure the solvency of the trust fund until 2007, and made some necessary changes in part B, as well. We took steps to meet the needs of Medicaid, restructuring the program, and provide welfare reform while retaining a Federal safety net. We also adopted a balanced tax cut, for individuals and businesses, including education, capital gains reform, research and development tax credits--all put together in a package that both parties could buy into. I was really very disappointed that there were not five other Members of this body who could stand up and we could get the job done. I do not believe that a constitutional amendment, particularly one that includes the Social Security trust fund, is ever realistically going to be ratified by three-quarters of the States. There are enough people in this Nation who pay those FICA taxes who do not want to see their FICA taxes used for anything other than their retirement. Therefore, I respectfully submit to this body that the centrist coalition, which balances the budget in 7 years, uses the Congressional Budget Office numbers, does not make unnecessary and precipitously deep cuts in important programs, represents the Nation's best interests and is really the way to go. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing support for an increased effort to find a cure for breast cancer and for the Race for the Cure which will take place on June 15. Every 3 minutes an American woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. Every 12 minutes an American woman dies of breast cancer. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women. The incidence is rising each year. This year, 184,300 new cases will be diagnosed and 44,300 women will die from breast cancer. In California this year, 17,100 new cases of female breast cancer will be diagnosed and 4,100 California women will die. Even though the Federal Government has spent almost $1.5 billion on breast cancer research in the last 20 years and Federal funding has quadrupled since 1990, we still do not have a cure. The annual race is an important event, bringing public attention to the need to continue the drive. It gives us all a way to keep up the momentum toward a cure. Breast cancer is not just a woman's disease. It also can afflict men. In addition, when a woman has breast cancer, her whole family is affected. Everyone must cope with the trauma, physical, and psychological. Women today must sort through many confusing messages. There is confusion about who should have a mammogram and how frequently. There is confusion about treatment options, like mastectomy versus lumpectomy, radiation versus chemotherapy. To help families better understand the disease, their options and research trends, the Senate Cancer Coalition which I chair with Senator Mack, is holding a hearing on June 13 from 1 to 4 p.m. in room 106 Dirksen. Experts will discuss the controversies surrounding frequency of mammograms and treatment choices. We will look at what the Federal research dollar has accomplished and the direction research should now take. We will examine the obstacles families face in getting good information and making informed decisions. Breast cancer is a devastating disease. I commend my colleagues for coming to the Senate floor today to express their concern and to stress the importance of continuing the Federal research race for the cure. This is an important role the Federal Government can play and one in which I am proud to participate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I echo the statement of my colleague, Senator Boxer, and only add to it that in a discussion with an editor of the Los Angeles Times on this matter yesterday, I think there is conflicting data as to whether there are certain guidelines or thresholds below which there is not prosecution. I believe this needs to be cleared up. I thank the majority leader and Senator Domenici for their understanding in this matter. I think it is important that there be an investigation on what prosecutorial guidelines, thresholds, any other provisions for prosecution of across border crime there may be. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in my short 3-year tenure in this body, I have never seen a better experience in working across the aisle than the effort that the centrist coalition has gone through since last October. I can only give my strongest accolades to Senator Chafee and to Senator Breaux, who called us together in meeting after meeting and listened patiently to what each one of us had to say. We discussed it. We voted. We went back and forth, figures and calculations were done and redone when they had to be, and decisions were made. I think everyone in this coalition, all 22 of us, 11 Republicans, 11 Democrats, accepts a basic premise that we have to address the budget deficit. I want to give you three basic facts on which this premise is based. In 1963, less than 30 percent of all Federal spending paid for interest and entitlements; more than 70 percent of our spending paid for discretionary programs--defense, education, training, R&D, roads, and bridges. Today, it is reversed. Two-thirds of spending addresses entitlements, not on budget, and interest, about which we can do nothing. Only one-third goes for discretionary programs. By 2003, more than 70 percent of all spending will be directed at interest and entitlements, blocking our ability to make needed investments in education, research, and strengthen the economy. I will never forget when friend and colleague Senator Conrad, in one of our meetings, said in a very emotional and very forthright way, ``You know, the choices are twofold: Either we agree to act now or we agree to reduce all benefits across the board by one-third and set tax rates at 80 percent or more for our children.'' In fact, that is the choice. Either do one of those options or do something that crosses party lines. I, like Senator Chafee, like Senator Breaux, like the others amongst us, truly believes that unless we have something that is bipartisan and crosses the aisle, we will not have the votes to affect a 7-year balanced budget. If we do nothing, by the year 2012 entitlements and interest payments will grow so rapidly that they will consume all tax revenues. By 2000, interest payments will increase by more than 50 percent, pass national defense in size, and trail only Social Security as the second-largest Federal expenditure. So we have to move. The bottom line of this budget is that it is balanced over 7 years after thorough and comprehensive review of all areas of spending and continues the strict spending discipline for discretionary spending. As you have heard, the centrist plan includes approximately $154 billion in Medicare savings, $62 billion in Medicaid savings, $50 billion in welfare savings, and more than $50 billion from a diverse range of other programs, including housing, energy, natural resources, civil service retirement, veterans, debt collections and telecommunications. Additionally, the plan adopts $25 billion in savings by closing tax loopholes. Let me quickly walk through some of the elements of the plan. For Medicare, the plan adopts about $154 billion in savings over the next 7 years. The centrist plan rejects the steep cuts in Medicare to pay for tax breaks, but generates the needed savings through sound and pragmatic steps. It reduces the rate of increases for payments to physicians, hospitals, and nursing homes, outpatient services, durable medical equipment, and other payments. It establishes means testing on part B premiums for the wealthy. It freezes certain payments for home health agencies, such as visiting nurses in the home, while a system of fixed, preset payments is implemented. It strengthens enforcement against fraud and abuse. If the savings are applied to the trust fund, the funds solvency is extended just like the other budget plans. I would also like to address Medicaid. The centrist plan preserves Medicaid as the insurer for the disabled, the elderly in nursing homes, and low-income Americans, who have no other coverage. It reduces taxpayer costs by changing to fixed allocations and fixed growth rates. It facilitates expansion of managed care, a cost savings trend that California has led. However, we offer a balanced plan. It rejects the idea of permitting each Governor to define disabled, continues the current State partnership matching rates and it retains Federal nursing home standards. We also enact substantial welfare reform. The centrist plan creates a welfare block grant, and requires States to continue to pay their fair share. It creates a contingency fund, provides more child care funding than the other plans, with about $14.7 billion, requires 100 percent maintenance of effort and a State matching fund. It has 50 percent work standard by the year 2006, but maintains the Nation's safety net. It allows a waiver for work for single parents with children who cannot work or have no access to child care. It has a 20-hour work option for States, and a State would have the option to deny benefits to additional children born while on welfare. It clamps down on SSI, denying benefits for addicts or alcoholics. The CPI, which Senator Breaux has just addressed, is an important element of the plan. Senator Breaux raises an important point that we should all keep in mind. This centrist plan will continue to provide that someone receiving a COLA for a Federal benefit will, in fact, receive a full, accurate COLA. They will be able to count on it. I want to touch on the tax plan. Some say we should adopt no tax plan at all and that has been a point of contention between the two parties. We take what I believe is a modest, fair tax plan--providing a net $105 billion in tax cuts and a gross $130 billion of tax cuts. This is how the plan works out: About $67 billion of the tax cut is our child tax credit. We all agreed to a plan put forward by Senator Lieberman of Connecticut creating a KidSave IRA, where there is a $250 child tax credit, which increases to $500 if that money is put into an IRA. The plan seeks to provide about $11 billion for IRA increases and $1 billion is for educational assistance, offering a deduction for higher education expenses, interest on student loans, and penalty-free IRA withdrawals for education. Additionally, our centrist plan raises the self-employed deduction for health expenses from 30 to 50 percent. I would also like to address capital gains tax reform. I am one Democrat that ran for this office on capital gains reductions. Why? Because it makes sense. It helps the economy create jobs. It spurs investment. Our plan includes capital gains reform, dropping the corporate capital gains rate, from 34 to 31 percent, and seeks to cut individual capital gains, maximum bracket, from 28 to 19 percent. Our plan also provides estate tax reform to assist family-owned businesses and extends important, expired tax provisions like the R&D tax credit and the orphan drug tax credit and others on a revenue-neutral basis. This plan may not have everything. In fact, it includes some things I do not support. However, I am never going to get everything I want. Nor is anyone else in this body. So maybe by acknowledging that is sort of the first point of a budget anonymous program, somewhat like Alcoholics Anonymous. The only way to stop is to agree to something that, in the main, meets our basic contention and goals. This plan will help strengthen the economy. It will promote economic growth. It is fair, it is just, it is balanced, and it affects everyone evenly, right across the board. I believe the other House can support it, and I believe that, if the President takes a good look at it, he can support it, too. If we enact this plan, this Congress will have delivered on its commitment to enact a balanced budget within the 7- year period. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment 4002 offered by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Senator Lott. While its intent is surely positive, the effect would be to badly undermine United States interests with regard to Iraq. First of all, it calls on the President to do something that is beyond is authority. The President does not have the power to unilaterally renegotiate the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 986, which the United States voted for. Resolution 986 was passed in 1995 to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, whose suffering Saddam Hussein was cynically exploiting to fracture the anti-Iraq coalition. At that time, calls for sanctions to be lifted were increasing in the Arab world, and even from U.N. Security Council members France and Russia. The consensus on maintaining sanctions was eroding. Resolution 986 was a way of demonstrating to the world that our quarrel is with Saddam, not the Iraqi people, and to try to relieve some of their suffering, about which Saddam clearly does not care one bit. The resolution requires an iron-clad U.N. monitoring program to ensure that the proceeds from up to $2 billion of oil sales over 6 months are deposited in a U.N. escrow account, which Saddam cannot touch. They would then be used primarily for humanitarian relief. This morning, Iraq and the United Nations reached an agreement on implementing Resolution 986. Iraq will begin selling its oil within a few weeks. At that time, U.N. monitors will move in to ensure that the food and medicine is used properly and distributed equitably. In addition to humanitarian relief, the funds will be used for two other important purposes: To support the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, or UNSCOM, which is responsible for finding and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and which is badly in need of funds; and to support the U.N. Compensation Commission, which settles international claims against Iraq, for Kuwait, but also for U.S. companies and individuals harmed by the Iraqi invasion. If we attempt to divert money from these causes, we will send a message that we don't care about the suffering of the Iraqi people. I cannot think of a better way for us to strengthen Saddam's standing inside Iraq. He would be able to blame the United States for his people's suffering. Diverting money from humanitarian aid would also threaten to split the coalition. There would be renewed calls for lifting sanctions outright, especially in the Arab world. Resolution 986 maintains all sanctions on Iraq. We would also undermine UNSCOM's crucial mission to ensure that Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs are dead and buried. And we would send a message that we do not care about Kuwait, or even U.S. citizens, being compensated for losses suffered on account of Saddam's invasion. It is certainly reasonable for the United States to seek compensation whenever possible for U.S. operations that support U.N. missions. But when those operations are in our interest, we need to be prepared to shoulder the burden. Operation Provide Comfort and Operation Southern Watch both serve U.S. interests by containing Saddam's military and protecting the Kurds and Shiites (not the Sunnis, as erroneously stated in the amendment) of Iraq. That is why President Bush started both these operations after the Gulf War and why President Clinton has continued them. In 1996, $646 million was authorized for Operation Provide Comfort and Operation Southern Watch, out of a total defense budget of $264.7 billion. Do you know what percentage of our defense budget that is? It is two-tenths of one percent of our total defense budget. That's right. For two-tenths of one percent of our defense budget, we are containing Saddam Hussein's military, preventing him from flying his aircraft or threatening Kuwait, and providing crucial protection to the Kurds and Shiites of Iraq. By any standard, that is a bargain. If we are not prepared to spend two-tenths of one percent of our defense budget to contain one of our most dangerous adversaries in a crucial part of the world, then why do we even have a defense budget? We shouldn't jeopardize our interests in Iraq by insisting on compensation for conducting operations that are so clearly in our Nation's national interests. Britain, France, and Turkey also participate in these operations without compensation. Although conducted with our allies, these operations are primarily U.S. operations, which means that we make decisions on how they are conducted. If we demand U.N. compensation for these operations, it is only a short leap to granting the United Nations greater say about the conduct of the mission. I doubt that the sponsors of the amendment would advocate giving the United Nations greater control over U.S. troops conducting Operation Provide Comfort and Operation Southern Watch, but it seems to be the inevitable outcome of demanding compensation. In short, this amendment urges the President to do something that (a) he cannot do, and (b) would badly undermine U.S. interests in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. military infrastructure

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention startling new evidence of a resurgence in severe cocaine abuse. A recent study conducted and released in California reveals that the use of cocaine is still very much present, that it causes severe health problems and that it shows no signs of slowing down. The report, conducted by the Public Statistics Institute, found that emergency room admissions for cocaine abuse have soared to an all-time high in California. After a surge in cocaine morbidity during the 1980's, there was a significant drop in 1990, then a complete resurgence to new highs in 1994. The report showed emergency-room admissions related to cocaine increased to 13,496 in 1994. This represents a 27-percent increase from the previous high of 10,660 in 1988, 79-percent increase over the previous low of 7,545 in 1990, and 266-percent increase over the 3,688 admissions a decade earlier, in 1985. Rates were substantially higher in densely populated cities in southern and northern California. The State's average of 42 admissions per 100,000 people was 270 percent higher in San Francisco, 108 percent higher in Alameda County, 38 percent higher in Contra Costa County and 47 percent higher in Los Angeles County. Outside the Bay Area, the rates also posted significant increases including a ten-fold increase in Sacramento County, 750 percent throughout the San Joaquin Valley, and more than 700 percent in Fresno County, and more than 650 percent in the central California region of Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, and Tulare counties. Thousands of cocaine users are arriving in hospitals every year for treatment of seizures, shock, brain hemorrhage, coma, vomiting, cardiac arrest, chest pain, fever, and acute paranoia. According to the study's researchers, these problems are only the tip of the iceberg relating to cocaine use. The decrease in 1990, perceived to be the result of Federal legislation regulating the chemicals to produce cocaine, appears to have only been a short pause in what seems to be a problem of epidemic proportions. The numbers were even more striking for patients of ethnic groups. The number of African-American patients soared from 63.5 per 100,000 in 1985 to 275 per 100,000 admissions in 1994. From 1990 to 1994, admissions among African-Americans rose 116 percent, 115 percent among Latinos. In contrast, admissions rose 36 percent among whites. Researchers speculate that the disparity may possibly be linked to the recently documented rise of methamphetamine use by whites. In just a very short period of time, the group that conducted this report--The Public Statistics Institute--has established a strong record for their nonpartisan, objective reports on drug use and emergency-room admissions in the State of California. This group's report on methamphetamine use in California was one of the first reports completed that showed a real epidemic is developing. The earlier methamphetamine report showed a 366-percent increase in methamphetamine-related emergency room admissions in California from 1984 to 1993. Hospitals in central California saw an unprecedented 1,742-percent increase in admissions. I am making these comments--and I attended a hearing last week on our Nation's drug control strategy--because I feel eradicating drugs from our society is one of our most pressing challenges. The President's drug control plan announced last week outlines important steps to meet this challenge. I am pleased to endorse his action and urge my colleagues to do so as well. I am especially pleased that two of the five major strategies under the plan respond to problems that are especially troubling in California methamphetamine and drug smuggling from Mexico. The President has proposed a comprehensive national methamphetamine strategy, which will attack the problem of methamphetamine from several sides, including enforcement, training police, legislation, regulations to control precursor chemicals, environmental cleanup of clandestine laboratories where methamphetamine is made, international cooperation, public education; and treatment. Specific legislative proposals to help control methamphetamine include two provisions which are very similar to sections of the Methamphetamine Control Act, which I introduced earlier this year in a bipartisan effort with Senators Grassley, Reid and Kyl increase penalties for trafficking in precursor chemicals required to make methamphetamine, and impose stiff civil penalties on chemical supply houses that furnish vital precursor chemicals to clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. Senator John McCain recently joined us in cosponsoring the Methamphetamine Control Act, and I am hopeful that the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on this bill in the very near future. Passing legislation on methamphetamine alone will not solve our Nation's drug crisis. We must also commit our resources to fighting the entry of drugs across our border, from Mexico. Mexico is the dominant entry point for the illegal drugs which flow into our country and especially into my State of California. The Southwest Border Initiative--which is another very important part of the President's anti-drug strategy--adds hundreds of new enforcement agents and prosecutors to our border with Mexico, where they are sorely needed, including 657 additional Customs staff at ports of entry along the border; 700 new Border Patrol agents; and new agents for the DEA and FBI. Overall, the President's Drug Control Strategy calls for increased funding for drug control to rise from $13.8 billion to $15.1 billion in the next 2 years. In the end, I'm sure my colleagues will agree that we don't need another report to tell us just how bad the drug problem has become in this country. We're losing an entire generation to the scourge of drugs. With the increasing availability of methamphetamine and crack, the problem is only going to get worse. Congress must choke off the supply of these drugs and set tough, strong penalties against those who profit from the drug trade. There are three steps each Member of Congress can take, starting today, that will take steps toward this goal. First, support the President's drug control strategy, including the budget requests necessary to carry it out. It's a Presidential year, so some on the other side of the aisle may be less likely to support this plan. I urge everyone in this Chamber to review the plan, make it better, but pass it quickly. Second, pass the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, which has bipartisan support and which makes reasonable steps of stopping this horrendous drug from spreading from the Western states to the entire Nation. Third, speak out against drugs in our communities, to our young people, so we can reach them before it is too late. No more message, in the end, is more effective than for everyone--community leaders, elected officials, and, most important, parents--to give a resounding message to our young people to stay away from drugs. I thank the Chair for this opportunity and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Grassley amendment to the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The budget provides the Congress with a framework in which it must work. By overly restricting the margins of that framework, we eliminate our ability to make the broad budget decisions necessary to meet our future defense needs. Senate Concurrent Resolution 57 preserves the Senate's flexibility to consider funding for those programs in the defense budget that should be eliminated and to make increases based on military evaluations and needs for the future. The level of funding the President requested this year has been questioned by many individuals, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. John Shalikashvili and the service Chiefs. We need the flexibility in the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution to consider the additions these leaders of our Armed Forces have requested and accept or reject them on their own merits, not through a sweeping budget cut.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, earlier I sent an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Boxer and myself which relates to the triple fencing of the Southwest border, particularly in the vicinity of San Diego and Mexico. This is an amendment to that amendment which has been worked out with Senator Kyl and which I believe, hopefully will be acceptable to both sides. Senator Kyl and I have discussed this. We have also discussed it with Doris Meissner, the INS Commissioner. We have worked out language to which INS now agrees. Essentially, the language would authorize the appropriation of $12 million for the construction, expansion, improvement, and deployment of triple fencing. In addition, that currently under construction where such triple fencing is determined by the INS to be safe and effective, and in addition, bollard-style concrete columns, all weather roads, low-light television systems, lighting sensors and other technologies along the international land border between the United States and Mexico south of San Diego, CA, for the purpose of detecting and deterring unlawful entry across the border. I believe this amendment in full is acceptable to both sides. Commissioner Meissner has also agreed to send a letter to Representative Hunter which would State that the INS is in the process of testing triple fencing, will continue that testing, and is prepared to add to it where it has proven to be effective and safe. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. Mr. President, I send a modification to amendment 3777 to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Abraham-Feingold amendment. Let me not mince words. This amendment, in my view, is a bill killer, it is a bill gutter, it decimates the foundation of employer sanctions. It will provide, if it passes, a bill that is gutless, toothless, aged, and will not work. We must make employer sanctions work. And let me tell you why. The reason why is, take my State, California. We have 2 million people in California illegally. How do these people survive? They survive one of two ways--they either get on benefits through fraudulent documents or they work. How do they work? With employer sanctions, an employer is not supposed to give them jobs. My opponents would have you believe that every employer wants to break the law, that every employer is going to hire people simply because they know them. I can tell you from the State that has the largest number of illegal immigrants in the Nation--40 percent of them--that is not the case. Employer sanctions can only be effective if there is some method of verification. The Simpson-Kennedy language is a pilot to ask the INS to see how we can verify information that employers receive. Let me show you graphically why it is important that we do so. The birth certificate, which Senator Simpson has pointed out correctly, is the most counterfeited document in the United States. Let me show you why. Let me show you a few forms for birth certificates. This is one from the State of Illinois. It is a fraudulent document that has not been printed upon. This is a second one from the State of Illinois. There are literally tens of thousands of different kinds of birth certificates in the United States. This is a form from somewhere in Texas. So the birth certificate is easy. These papers are duplicated in the right color, that of Austin, TX, then they are put out wholesale. They are then laminated, as you see here. And no one can tell the difference. Same thing goes here. This is a forged copy of a record of marriage, a marriage certificate. This is another from Cook County, IL, a forged copy of a marriage certificate. This is another one, a forged copy of a marriage certificate. This is a forged GED application. I mean, if I am interviewing someone and this application is filled out, and they say this is testimony to the fact that they have gotten an equivalency degree in this country--and, look, there is the official seal and here are my grades on it--who am I to say it is not true? I would have no way of knowing. Here is a forged divorce certificate. If this were handed to me as an employer I would have no way of knowing. Here is a trade school diploma that is forged. If this were handed to me, I would have no way of knowing. Here is an achievement test certificate for high school from the State of Indiana. If this were handed to me as an employer, when I asked the question, ``are you qualified to work in this country?'' how would I know? I would not. Here is another forged divorce certificate. If this were handed to me, I would not know. Why would I not? Because the industry is very sophisticated. Here are some of the preliminary forgeries, the basic paper from which these forgeries are done. How easily it is replicated. Here is the back of a green card before it is finished. How easy it is replicated. Let me show you what the final result is. This is a forged green card. The names are blotted out. This is a real green card. Who can tell the difference? No one. These are the backs. Who can tell the difference? No one. This is a forged green card. Who can tell the difference? This is forged--and look at them, look at the numbers. These are all perfect forgeries, every single one of these. These exist by the millions. They are made in less than 20 minutes. And they cost anywhere from $25 to $150. Anyone can get them. How is an employer supposed to know? You cannot know without some way of verifying the authenticity of the document which is submitted to you. What the Simpson-Kennedy test pilot does is ask INS to see what can be done so that the documents can be verified by an employer. The bill narrows the list of documents down to six. So at least some of the confusion can be avoided there. It is not fair to anybody to have a system that exists in a bogus form more frequently than it exists in a real form. How does a birth certificate mean anything to anybody for any official purpose if it is counterfeited by the tens of millions in this country? How does a green card mean anything? How does a divorce certificate mean anything if it is counterfeited and you cannot verify it? These are the real problems with which this bill attempts to deal. If this amendment is successful, you might as well junk employer sanctions, you might as well say, ``We're going to permit people to continue to submit bogus documents.'' Remember, somebody here illegally has only two choices--one, they earn a living, secondly, they go on public support. Unless they have somebody very well to do in this country who can take care of them--and I would submit to you that that is a remote possibility--those are the only two chances. So the only way they can exist or stay--and right now it is very attractive to come to this country illegally because it is so easy to obtain these counterfeit documents. That is the reality. That is why we have on the Southwest border 5,000 people crossing every single day, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, because they can go to Alvarado Street in Los Angeles, and they can purchase these documents on the street within 20 minutes. Our system of verification is nonexistent, and they know that. Therefore, if they submit a counterfeit document to an employer, the employer has little choice other than to accept it or ask for more documents. Then if the employer asks for more documents, the employer very often is sued. So it is a very, very tenuous, real-life experience out there. This bill makes a very modest attempt--where in committee, it became a test pilot. The language, which I think it was a Kennedy amendment, was already a compromise. Many of us on the committee wanted an absolute verification system, put into affect right away. That did not pass in committee. So the compromise was a pilot. Then the results of the pilot would be brought back to Congress. Now we see an attempt to get rid of the pilot. If you get rid of a pilot, what is left? What is left is that we make ourselves into hypocrites, in my opinion, because we create a system that cannot function. What we are seeing today is an employer verification method that does not function. It does not function because you cannot verify fraudulent documents, and because fraudulent documents abound. I must say that I think it is very possible to verify. We live in an information age. Hundreds of data bases now exist in both public and private sectors, data bases for national credit cards, for health insurance companies, credit rating bureaus. Technology is, in fact, advancing so rapidly that the ability to create these data bases and ensure their accuracy is enhanced dramatically every year. Why, then, does the Senate of the United States not want the U.S. Government to use a computer data base to try to find a better way to help employers verify worker eligibility? I really believe that many of the issues raised by opponents to this provision--that it is bureaucratic, that it is prone to errors, that it is unworkable, that it is too intrusive--are simply unfounded. In fact, the provision was specifically written, as I understand, to alleviate such concerns, by defining clear limits on the use of the system, establishing strict penalties for the misuse of information, and requiring congressional approval before any national system goes into effect. What are the authors of this amendment so afraid of? Any national pilot system would come back to this body for approval prior to its being put in place. The legislation also imposes some limits. It limits the use of documents. Documents must be resistant to counterfeiting and tampering. The system will not require a national identification card for any reason other than the verification of eligibility for employment or receipt of public benefits. There is no one card. Those who use, I think, as a ruse to defeat this pilot project, I hear out there, ``Well, Senator Feinstein, you are calling for a national ID. That violates all our civil rights.'' To that I have to say, ``There is no national ID anywhere in the legislation before this body''. None. It is a red herring. It is a guise. It is a dupe. It is a ruse, simply to strike a mortal blow at the system. I have a very hard time because California is so impacted by illegal immigration. For 3 years we have said we must enforce our border, we must improve customs, we must be able to really put a lid on the numbers because the numbers are so large. I have come to the conclusion that within the scope of possible immigration legislation, we are stuck with an existing system. That existing system is employer sanctions. Therefore, why not try to make them work? The already compromised verification system--just a pilot, which allows the INS to work it out, and bring it back to this body and let us say yea or nay to it--is simply a modest attempt to get some meaning into this legislation. Let me say what I honest to God believe is the truth. If we cannot effect sound, just and moderate controls, the people of America will rise to stop all immigration. I am as sure of that as I am that I am standing here now, because where the grievances exist, they exist in large number. Where the fraud exists, it exists in large numbers. Where it exists, wholesale industries develop around it. It is extraordinarily important, in my opinion, that this amendment be defeated. Let me talk for a moment about discrimination because I just met with a group of California legislators who wanted to know how this works. One of the big areas they raised was discrimination. As I understand the system, it must have safeguards to prevent discrimination in employment or public assistance. The way it would do that is through a selective use of the system or a refusal of employment opportunities or assistance because of a perceived likelihood that additional verification will be needed. The legislation contains civil and criminal remedies for unlawful disclosure of information. Disclosure of information for any reasons not authorized in the bill will be a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $5,000. Unauthorized disclosure of information is grounds for civil action. The legislation also contains employer safeguards, that employers shall not be guilty of employing an unauthorized alien if the employer followed the procedures required by the system and the alien was verified by the system as eligible for employment. In my view, the Simpson-Kennedy test pilot makes sense. I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would oppose it because it is the only way we can make employer sanctions work. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment essentially corrects what I believe is a mistake in the bill. Present law allows for the use of both English and Spanish in deportation orders. The bill, as it came out of committee, struck that section. Therefore, only English could be used in deportation orders. Frankly, it does not make sense to give somebody a deportation order that they cannot read. And the dominant majority of illegal immigrants in the State of California speak Spanish only. Therefore, it would make sense that a deportation order be in Spanish and in English. My amendment would simply strike the English-only requirement. I am joined by Senator Simon in this amendment that would restore the language to its prior situation. If I might, I neglected to mention something, and I would like to remedy that, Mr. President. Senator Boxer is a cosponsor on the alternative language on the triple fence. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the second amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the present law states that deportation notices will be sent out in Spanish and English. The bill coming out of committee deletes this. So deportation notices would be sent out in English, essentially. There is no requirement in the law. What we would do in this amendment is strike what is recommended and go back to present law, so that deportation notices are required to be sent out in Spanish and English. The reason is because the great majority of illegal immigrants penetrating across the Southwest border speak Spanish, and the overwhelming bulk of them do not speak English. Therefore, when they receive a deportation notice, they should be able to read it. So we would retain the language of present law.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. My concern is that if this is removed from the bill, deportation notices, particularly in California, will go out in English only, and the great bulk of them go to Spanish. So we are taking out the requirement that it be--just as the Senator said, and as I believe I read--in English and Spanish, but we are replacing that with silence. My concern is that the silence will be interpreted and in English only. Therefore, we will have people who will not be able to read their notice.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?