Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Would the Senator yield the floor?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator very much. Seatbelts in the back seat. They would also not be able to require seatbelts in the back seat. Because 90 percent of those killed in automobiles are people in the front seat, rear-seat fatalities are not likely to meet the statistical threshold that would allow the agency to require seatbelts in the back. My source for this information is the Department of Transportation's general counsel's office. Airbags. If airbags were not already required by law, which they are, it is unclear under Dole-Johnston whether airbags could be required. Again, this is because airbags, even though they are much safer, are also more costly than manual seatbelts or lap and shoulder belts. And again, the least cost alternative would have to be chosen. Airline flight data recorders. This is the black box that we all read about when a plane goes down. If the standards of the Dole-Johnston bill were applied to airline flight data recorders, the FAA tells me that it might not be able to require flight data recorders on airlines. This is because flight data recorders do not necessarily reduce immediate risks. Instead, they provide valuable information which can greatly enhance airline safety in the future. The Glenn-Chafee bill, I believe, is far preferable. Unlike the Dole- Johnston bill, the Glenn-Chafee bill requires a rigorous cost-benefit analysis and permits both costs and benefits to be weighed intelligently, with public health and safety given its full and proper weight in the equation. Now let me talk about petitions. The Dole-Johnston bill's petition process would allow special interests to challenge new rules and reopen existing rules, giving them unprecedented power to jam up the process. By some estimates, the Dole-Johnston bill would allow 80 to 100 new reasons for challenging an agency rule. My source is attorneys who deal with these matters. With 80 to 100 new reasons for challenging an agency rule, agencies will be forced to divert their resources--their time, their staff, their dollars--to respond to these petitions. Dole-Johnston would open the door to hundreds of additional lawsuits, increasing the volume and complexity of Federal litigation--some want that--and further clogging the court system. This is one of the main reasons why the Justice Department strongly opposes this bill. Let me give an example of some possible results. Commuter airline safety. In recent months, there have been three crashes of commuter airlines in which a total of 40 people have been killed. Following a fatal commuter airline accident in December 1994, the Secretary of Transportation proposed new commuter airline safety regulations. More and more people are flying commuter airlines. Having completed their own cost-benefit and risk-analysis assessment, the FAA is close to finalizing these new, urgently needed safety standards. Again, the general counsel of the Department of Transportation informs us that they will be faced with a Hobson's choice. Let me give you an example. They are nearly ready to finalize. The language in Dole-Johnston would derail these efforts and force the FAA to either start over in order to comply with the specific least-cost and risk- assessment criteria in S. 343, or proceed [[Page S 10117]] with the new regulations, knowing they will likely be challenged and held up in court for years. So, in other words, the FAA would be challenged that they do not meet the specific new cost-benefit requirements or they could delay and redo the cost-benefit and the risk assessment. But if they move ahead, as under the present legislation, as they are prepared to do, they run this jeopardy. Let me talk for a moment about an automatic sunset. My understanding of the legislation is that once a petition is accepted, the agency has a 3-year review period to review the rule. If an agency is unable to complete this review, a sunset of the rule would result. So the arbitrary deadline of 3 years is a trigger for sunsetting some of these regulations. This could result in an automatic sunset of important health and safety rules. Let me give you some examples. Automobile fuel efficiency standards. Food labeling regulations--which have served to educate consumers. Does every Member in this body remember food labeling regulations were very much contested by the industries affected, but they are now part of every product? People respect them, use them, and I think they are effective. Regulations to ensure the safety of children's toys, cribs, bed clothing. The Glenn-Chafee bill, on the other hand, accomplishes regulatory review of existing rules without creating regulatory gridlock. It requires agencies to review existing rules every 10 years, without allowing special interests to dictate the workload of Federal agencies whose mission is to protect public health and safety. One of the major criticisms of the Dole-Johnston bill is that it is too ambiguous. Let me tell you what I mean by this. Let us take the issue of the supermandate. From the language of Dole-Johnston and a recent amendment, it is still unclear what will happen when the bill's requirements conflict with requirements in existing statutes. Although the new amendment states that Dole-Johnston's requirements should not override existing statutory requirements, which will be given more weight? What legally does the word ``override'' actually mean? Would the least-cost requirement trump the health-based standards of the Clean Air Act? What is the impact on annual farm programs? Because the Department of Agriculture currently uses greatest-net-benefit criteria and not the least-cost alternative required under Dole-Johnston, it throws open the question of who can participate, what the terms of participation are, and what the costs will be. The Dole-Johnston bill leaves these questions up to the courts. Let us take the issue of judicial review. According to the Justice Department, eight different sections of the bill provide separate statutory grounds for judicial review. The Justice Department in its letter to Senator Dole lists the sections. Even the Justice Department is unsure about how these provisions would relate to each other. Moreover, the ambiguous language could mean that the courts will be called upon to evaluate scientific and technical steps in cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments, issues outside of the realm of expertise of judges. Let us take the issue of emergeney exemptions. Another problem with ambiguity in Dole-Johnston is its definition of an emergency. For example, the bill refers to actions to protect public health and safety or natural resources, but the Department of Agriculture has raised with us questions about how Dole-Johnston would affect an emergency such as infestation of the Mediterranean fruit fly. Let me explain why. The Department of Agriculture believes the emergency provisions are sufficiently ambiguous and relate to health and safety, not to economic emergency. Now, the Medfly in California is a major problem. Parts of the State have been quarantined because of the Medfly. But it is really an economic emergency because the farmers lose their entire crop when a Medfly is found. And emergency actions periodically have to be taken, such as tree stripping, aerial spraying, and so on. It is unclear under Dole-Johnston whether the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service could act quickly enough to take the necessary steps to protect the economic interests of agriculture from pest infestations. The inability to act quickly could cost agriculture millions of dollars in destruction of crops and loss of export markets. Let me conclude. I support regulatory reform that solves problems that have been identified in the regulatory system, not one that creates more problems. I support reform that puts public health and safety first. And I support reform that makes the Federal Government more efficient and effective. I do not believe the Dole-Johnston bill meets that test. I do not believe it is really regulatory reform. It does not simplify the process. Instead, I believe it will burden the agencies so that they cannot do their job. And as the Justice Department has warned, it will burden the courts significantly. I simply cannot support it. Many regulations are essential to protect public health, safety, and the environment. I remember when we had the worst air in Los Angeles. I lived in southern California for 5 years, and I remember when I went outside, my eyes burned and teared. The air quality is better now, and that is because of clean air regulations. They have been hard on hundreds of businesses, no question about it. But you have to consider, what is the cost of 15 to 20 percent of youngsters born in the Los Angeles Basin having reduced lung capacity and, therefore, a shortened span of life. How do you measure that cost? The San Francisco Bay area is now the largest metropolitan area of the country that complies with the clean air standards. In the early 1970's, I served on the air board. Even major oil companies have told me that the air regulations have worked. Nobody should think that Glenn-Chafee is a copout, a soft bill, or that it will not do the job. The Glenn-Chafee bill is a very tough bill. It represents real regulatory reform, without unjustifiably burdening the agencies or clogging the court system. The Glenn-Chafee bill requires cost-benefit analysis for all major rules, just where we should be. It requires risk assessments for all major rules related to environment, health, and safety, just where we should be. It requires peer review of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessments, just where we should be. It accounts for the special needs of small businesses, allowing small entities to petition for judicial review of compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It requires public disclosure and openness in the regulatory process. And it limits judicial review to determine: First, whether a rule is major; and, second, whether a final rule is arbitrary or capricious. Most importantly, the Glenn-Chafee bill cuts redtape while retaining the role of Government in protecting public health, safety, and the environment. I believe the Glenn-Chafee substitute is a good bill, and I intend to support it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator is going to have a number of points to respond to. He might want to listen to them all first. If I could finish, I would appreciate it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have not had an opportunity yet to speak on the bills before us, most specifically S. 343. For many days now I have listened as the Senate has been debating what are two [[Page S 10116]] major regulatory reform bills. They are complex and detailed and some have said boring. But one way or another they will touch the life of virtually every American citizen. The fact is that regulations serve an important purpose in our society. But as with all laws, they have to be balanced against other competing needs, and reexamined from time to time in order to remain effective. I happen to be a great fan of the Senator from Louisiana. I believe he is a sound thinker. He is an effective leader, and he has played a major role in the debate on these issues. I respect him. I also respect the majority leader, whose bill this is, as a seasoned, experienced Senator who understands the impact of regulations upon the community regulated. As we address the issue of regulatory reform, I think certain considerations should guide us in the process. First and foremost, public health and safety must be the paramount concern. And we have heard that concern voiced over and over in the debate over breast cancer, over E. coli, and over a myriad of other regulatory programs. Second, Government regulations should not strangle business and commerce but should seek to encourage economic growth as much as possible. That is often easier said than done, particularly in the largest State in the Union where problems are severe and often businesses will seek to choose an easier way and leave the State. But the bottom line is: regulations have to make sense. Finding the right balance will be the determining factor as to whether we are successful in this effort. California has a huge stake in this bill both from a public safety perspective and an economic perspective. We have the biggest air pollution problem in the Nation. Children today, born in the Los Angeles basin, suffer from a 10 to 15 percent decrease in lung function compared with children in other areas as a result of air quality. California has 96 Superfund sites, the second largest number in the country--that is almost two major toxic waste dumps for every county in our State. In 1990, I had occasion to visit one of them. It is a place called Iron Mountain mine, near Redding, that had been owned by a chemical company and had been mined for various minerals. There were holes in this mountain, some the size of 30-story office buildings. When it rained, water interspersed with the chemicals producing sulfuric acid which then drained out onto the banks of the Trinity River actually metallizing some of the banks. This Superfund site is now in the process of being cleaned up. So I am very pleased that the portion of the legislation impacting Superfund sites has been removed from the bill. Santa Monica Bay, one of the most beautiful areas in the country and a premier tourist attraction in my State, has been contaminated with heavy metals and DDT to such an extent that the public is often warned not to eat fish caught there. I remember when I first went to live in Los Angeles, I went into a restaurant and ordered sand dabs and the waiter said, ``Don't order sand dabs; they are bottom-feeding fish and they are caught in the Santa Monica Bay, and the bay is polluted.'' Economically, California's unemployment rate, though beginning to improve, is still two percentage points above the national average. We are still struggling to climb out of the recession and cope with continued defense downsizing. So the last thing California businesses need is unnecessary or cumbersome regulations that drive up costs and drive out jobs. So I have listened with great care to this debate, and I have had the privilege of discussing certain of my concerns with the Senator from Louisiana. But the bottom line and the one that I have reached is that the Glenn-Chafee bill contains the best and most balanced approach to regulatory reform. I would like to address what I believe are the primary weaknesses in the Dole-Johnston legislation. In the area of cost-benefit, I believe the Dole-Johnston legislation, in a sense, throws the baby out with the bathwater. Cost-benefit analyses are supposed to weigh cost and benefit and then allow for the best alternative to be chosen. The Dole-Johnston bill does not do that--it simply requires choosing the least-cost alternative. That does not always make sense, and it could have unfortunate results. Let me give you some examples. Seatbelts in the front seat. If the standards in the Dole-Johnston bill were applied to seatbelts, I am told by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that they would probably not be able to require both lap and shoulder belts in cars. That is because, even though having both lap and shoulder belts save lives, the lap belt alone is the least-cost alternative.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, President Clinton announced his decision to fully normalize relations with Vietnam. I rise today to offer my strong support for this initiative. I believe it is time for the United States to close the final chapter on a [[Page S 9821]] sad history with Vietnam, and open a new chapter with the optimism that a mutually beneficial relationship is now warranted, appropriate, and possible. Mr. President, last year in response to Vietnam's heightened efforts to help account for the American servicemen lost in the war in Southeast Asia, President Clinton ended our economic embargo of Vietnam. At that time, many argued that ending the embargo would halt Vietnam's efforts to help us locate these men. In fact, Mr. President, just the opposite has occurred, and Vietnam has actually strengthened its efforts to resolve POW/MIA cases. By normalizing relations with Vietnam, we will continue on this path of mutual participation and strong efforts to account for these men, and increase our access to evidence in Vietnam. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, which represents over 600,000 Vietnam veterans, now supports normalizing relations with Vietnam. They are optimistic that normalizing relations will in fact further progress on accounting for POW/MIAs in Southeast Asia. A senior-level Presidential delegation, including Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord and Deputy Secretary for Veterans Affairs Hershel Gober, visited Vietnam in May to review the four categories the President laid out for examining progress on the POW/MIA issue; their findings were highly reassuring. The Vietnamese government provided them with valuable new information, including analyses, maps, and witness data, that will help in reaching the fullest possible accounting of POWs and MIAs. Mr. President, we made a commitment to the Vietnamese government. The Bush administration laid out specific goals that the Vietnamese would have to meet as conditions for normalization, and the Vietnamese have worked diligently to meet them. We should keep our commitment. A sad truth of war is that many who courageously fought and gave their lives for the sake of freedom will never be located. The distinguished Senators from Arizona and Massachusetts, who have provided outstanding leadership on this issue, have pointed out that efforts to account for MIAs in Vietnam have been far more extensive than similar efforts after any previous war: They emphasize that of the approximately 2,000 Americans who remain technically classified as missing-in-action, only 55 cases still hold serious questions, and all of these cases have been investigated at least once. Mr. President, we must remember that there are over 8,000 remaining MIA cases from the Korean war and 78,000 from World War II, as noted by the Wall Street Journal. And the Vietnamese, who have made great strides in accounting for our MIAs, must live with the knowledge that 300,000 of their own people remain unaccounted for, according to the Vietnam Veterans for Reconciliation, a group of veterans who, although now involved in an array of fields from law to public policy, volunteer their time to try and resolve MIA cases. All United States military personnel who have been involved in efforts with Vietnam to account for MIAs and POWs, including General John Vessey, who has led these efforts, state unequivocally that Vietnam's cooperation has been extensive. Of course, the families and loved ones of the missing deserve our strongest efforts to know what happened to these brave Americans. But I believe that, at this point in time, 22 years after the United States withdrew from Vietnam, to normalize relations will be the best way to reach whatever closure to these cases is realistically possible. Mr. President, normalizing relations with Vietnam will not only further our interests in accounting for our missing servicemen, it will serve other important United States interests in the region as well, particularly by advancing U.S. commercial interests in Asia. The Pacific Rim holds 60 percent of the world's population today. It is the fastest growing trade area of the world, with many strong and dynamic economies. The Vietnamese economy has been growing at a rate of 8 percent a year and foreign investment in this nation has been rapidly increasing, according to the Wall Street Journal. Just last month, the European Union announced an expansive economic agreement with Vietnam, including providing Vietnam with most-favored- nation status. This agreement will give the EU a substantial edge in trading in one of the world's fastest growing markets. And the EU is not alone: a total of 160 countries, including all of our major trading partners, enjoy full diplomatic relations with Vietnam. With a population of over 70 million and enormous economic potential, Vietnam could become a major market for American services and products. Already, dozens of major United States companies are establishing a presence in Vietnam. But until now, they have been unable to reach their full potential. Some of the companies involved in setting up ventures in Vietnam are Caterpillar, Inc., Proctor and Gamble, Boeing, Eastman Kodak, IBM, Lockheed Martin, and McDonnell Douglas. And the list goes on and on: Citibank, Nike, General Electric. In fact, over 100 companies belong to the Coalition for U.S.-Vietnam Trade, which endorses fully normalized relations. These companies are awaiting the opportunity to invest in Vietnam's dynamic economy. Mr. President, for Americans, these opportunities mean more jobs at home. One of the great benefits of this new chapter in United States- Vietnamese relations will be that ordinary Americans will benefit economically from the trade that will result. There is an additional benefit that will flow from fully normalized relations with Vietnam. Greater contacts and expanded trade will put the United States in a better position to encourage respect for human rights and democracy in Vietnam. Increased cooperation and contact will lead to a more active exchange of ideas. As we saw with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, when the barriers began to come down, Western ideas about democracy and freedom soon took hold. So too, with Vietnam: as the American and Vietnamese peoples come into greater contact with each other, the people of Vietnam will benefit by enjoying greater democratization. Mr. President, today is a day of hope and optimism for the United States and Vietnam. Today, we put the tragedies of the past behind us and begin to work together to build a better relationship. Our children, and the children of Vietnam, will have a brighter future because of this decision. I commend President Clinton for taking this bold step.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we all know the budget cannot be balanced by waiving a magic wand. Reducing a $200 billion budget deficit will impose real pain on American families. The painful cuts would be worth it, however, if through shared sacrifice, we brought our fiscal house in order. I am disappointed I cannot endorse the budget resolution. While I support balancing the budget, I cannot support the priorities the majority imposes to try to get us there in 7 years. The Republican plan will impose too much pain on too many families. Those who will suffer the most under this Republican budget resolution will be middle class families across America. From preschool education to nursing home care for the elderly, middle-class families will bear the biggest burden in overcoming our Nation's budget deficit. This budget, though not signed into law, will set the stage for the appropriations and budget reconciliation battles later this year. This resolution sets the Federal Government on course to cut vital services for American families across the country. This is a course I cannot accept. This is how families will be hurt: Medicare: The $270 billion cut over the next 7 years is the largest Medicare cut in history. Yet middle-income families will carry the burden--97 percent of all Medicare spending go to families with annual incomes of $50,000 or less. Education: The resolution will cut $40 billion over the next 7 years, cutting back on Pell grants, student loans, and Head Start. Nearly one half of all Pell grant recipients have annual incomes of less than $10,000. The elimination of the forbearance of in-school interest will force students to carry higher debt just as they enter the work force. This will hurt the young as they struggle to get on their feet. Medicaid: The resolution's $182 billion cut could force 8 million to lose Medicaid coverage by 2002, more than an 18-percent reduction over the next 7 years. Earned Income Tax Credit: The resolution reverses the EITC coverage for childless workers adopted in 1993. This provision only partially compensates these workers for the five payroll tax increases they have been forced to accept during the 1980's. The cut will force low-income workers with incomes below the poverty level to pay a higher tax burden next April. We have heard a great deal that the budget resolution represents a glide path toward a balanced budget. However, I am afraid this budget resolution is more of a crash landing than a glide path. By contrast, the administration has challenged the path of the majority in Congress, offering a slower path to balance in exchange for a reduction in the cuts for important Federal programs. When the President announced his proposal, he was criticized by Republicans for its economic assumptions. However, the Republican plan assumes an unprecedented 11 consecutive years of economic growth to justify its harsh cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. As we start down the path the majority lays out today, we will need to continue to review both the plan and the timeline the resolution adopts to balance the budget. The value of balancing the budget in 7 years will be measured by the economy the cuts will help to create in each of those 7 years and every year afterward. The Federal budget must address our national economic needs and not weaken an already fragile economy. State Economy Cannot Take the Cuts Mr. President, the California economy is beginning the painful process of emerging from its longest recession since the Great Depression. While the rest of the country suffered as well, California's recession was both longer and more severe than the rest of the Nation. California's unemployment rate is nearly 3 percent higher than the national average. More than 1.28 million Californians are out of work. In fact, California has 17 percent of all the unemployed workers in America. To these burdens, the Republican budget resolution will impose more than $50 billion in additional budget cuts for California for Medicare, Medicaid, and the earned income tax credit alone, during the next 7 years. I cannot support these additional burdens for California families on our already strained economy. Medicare and Medicaid Cuts Mr. President, this budget resolution imposes its biggest cuts on health care programs for the elderly and those [[Page S 9397]] most in need of Federal assistance. The $450 billion in cuts from Medicare and Medicaid go too far, too fast, without any assurances that our health care system and the economy will not be significantly undercut. Health care spending represents more than one-seventh of the Nation's total economy. We cannot make the sweeping changes proposed without imposing significant burdens on families, medical providers, hospitals, and State and local governments. We all know that Medicare and Medicaid spending cuts are necessary. The real questions are how much to cut, how to make sure the cuts are distributed fairly, and how to make sure the cuts can work? The proposed resolution cuts over $450 billion out of Medicare and Medicaid over the next 7 years--more than 60 percent of the $1.3 trillion in cuts represent Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, or other entitlements. The impact of these cuts would affect California enormously--more than almost every other State. The Health Care Finance Administration suggests the $270 billion in Medicare cuts may cause over $35 billion in total cuts to California hospitals and patients over the next 7 years. Despite having only 9.5 percent of the Nation's Medicare population, California would pay for over 13 percent of the Medicare cuts. The alarming trend is repeated when we turn to Medicaid. The Kaiser Commission on the Future of Medicaid issued a new Urban Institute report that projects that California and just five other States would bear over 40 percent of the total Medicaid budget cuts, and cost-saving measures would cut at least 5 million additional people off of Medicaid nationwide. Total California Medicaid funding are expected to be reduced by nearly $20 billion over 7 years. The Medicaid cuts will force States to spend more, undercut the efforts of our safety net hospitals, increase the numbers of uninsured persons, and shift even more costs to the private employer-based health care system. Education and Investment Mr. President, U.C.L.A.'s Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy reports the principal threat to job and income growth in California is the lack of a strategy to establish priorities and fund critical public investments. The center reconfirmed previous studies, calling for investment in education and infrastructure to strengthen the economy. I agree--only by investing in the next generation through education, we can provide for a stronger future. Yet the Republican budget resolution cuts discretionary and mandatory programs for education by $40 billion, the largest education cut in U.S. history. The resolution will cut support for education at all levels, including elementary, secondary, and higher education. This budget resolution will lead to cuts in student loans for 4 million students, making it more difficult for families to send children to school and adding to the debt students will carry for years. We cannot move forward unless we invest in our most important resource--our children. Only by carefully investing, can we build a stronger, more capable and competitive nation. These cuts will leave us less able to prepare for the future. Conclusion Mr. President, the priorities we spend our scarce dollars on are just as critical as how much we spend. I am very concerned these budget cuts could damage an already strained economy and fail to prepare our next generation for the competitive world of the future, weakening our long- term economic goals. Congress needs to carefully consider cuts in spending because the value of balancing the budget in 7 years will be measured by the economy the cuts will help to create. Regaining our full economic strength in California will take years. We cannot take economic recovery for granted and we must work to maintain economic vitality in an increasingly competitive global economy. I will work to ensure Congress takes the right action to strengthen the economy and create jobs, without igniting another round of economic strains for California businesses and families. I am concerned this budget resolution will not protect families or provide opportunity and could worsen our current fragile economic state. I cannot support deficit reduction which imposes such a heavy cost on those least able afford it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, California has been hit disproportionately hard by base closures once again. While California is willing to do its fair share of base closures and defense downsizing, this base closure round is simply not fair to the State. [[Page S 9342]] It is my contention that if this round of base closures goes through as proposed by the Commission, the cumulative economic impact of base closures on California will have a devastating impact on California and affect the State's recovery from the recession. Just after three base closure rounds, it is apparent in California that when base closures are combined with on-going large-scale defense downsizing, there is a substantial impact on jobs for working people. Therefore, a worker who loses a job in the defense industry or on a base, loses retirement benefits, health insurance and a good salary. Similar replacement jobs are simply not available. I strongly urge the President to reject the 1995 base closure list because of the devastating economic impact--including the cumulative economic impact--of base closures on California. In addition, several of the Base Closure Commission's recommendations are opposed by the Secretary of Defense, as well as our military and civilian leadership at the Pentagon, because of their adverse impact on U.S. national security. Surely our military leaders know what is best for the Nation's defense. Exhibit No. 1 Secretary of the Air Force, Washington, DC, June 21, 1995. Hon. Alan J. Dixon, Chairman, Defense Base Closure, and Realignment Commission, Arlington, VA Dear Mr. Chairman: The Air Force approach to the depots is prudent because it saves money for the taxpayers and protects military readiness. it is also the product of exhaustive analysis by military professionals and senior leadership who have been working the proposal for over a year. Our depot proposal is simple. Building on the personnel reduction that have already been taken from the Air Logistic Centers and depots during the last five years (over 26,000 people), the pending Air Force proposal would reduce and realign the depots by an additional 1,987 jobs (with a net present value of $975 million). While there would be some disruption, the business of the Air Force--flying combat and transport aircraft, and maintaining our command and control and space network--would continue unimpeded. This total Air Force depot reduction of 28,000 jobs is almost two and a half times the total depot reduction achieved by all other DoD components in all four BRAC rounds combined. On the other band, the staff generated BRAC proposal described to us will cost the Air Force hundreds of million of additional dollars (in excess of $1 billion in environmental and military construction costs) during the next five years; disrupt military readiness because of the total restructuring of the Air Force logistics and depot system; preclude the Air Force from carrying through on vital readiness and modernization programs; and have a devastating impact on as many as 25,000 DoD employees in Texas and California who would lose their jobs or have to relocate to other Air Force installations at great personal and public expense. Most importantly, the essential business of the Air Force-- operations, logistics and budget dollars that are critical to future modernization--would be greatly disrupted. Since the end of the cold war, the Air Force has reduced its budget by more than $20 billion and reduced personnel by over 200,000 people. Some further reductions and savings are necessary; however, they must be taken in a way that permits the Air Force to continue to carry out its essential mission. The Department of Defense proposal does that; the Commission staff alternative does not. Sincerely, Ronald R. Fogleman, General USAF, Chief of Staff. Sheila E. Widnall, Secretary of the Air Force. Exhibit No. 2 Department of the Air Force, U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC. Hon Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: This responds to your request for my views on McClellan Air Force Base, California, pertaining to that base's consideration by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Given our limited fiscal resources, the Air Force views the budgetary impact of a closure of any of the depot installations as inconsistent with other budget priorities. The estimated one-time cost of a closure of McClellan AFB, not including environmental restoration costs, is more than $500 million. Incurring these costs would be harmful to our efforts in modernization, readiness, and quality of life initiatives. The Air Force strongly opposes the closure of any of our depot installations, including McClellan AFB. I understand the Commissioners were impressed during their recent visit to McClellan AFB with the quality and scope of the work performed there. As you know, McClellan AFB possesses several Air Force maintenance centers of excellence and was recommended as a Technical Repair Center receiver location for a number of commodities in the Air Force proposal to downsize Air Force depots. These commodity workloads include such vital areas as composites and plastics, hydraulics, injection molding, and electrical/ mechanical support equipment. The approval of our recommendation in the BRAC process will clearly establish the Sacramento Air Logistics Center as Air Force Materiel Command's number one provider of these commodities for the future. The skilled workers and leadership at McClellan AFB are essential to the Air Force proposal. The Commission's recognition of their deserved reputation for quality, efficiency, and pride in their work will commend the approval of the downsizing initiative. I trust this information will prove helpful and please let me know if you would like to discuss. Thomas S. Moorman, Jr., General, USAF, Vice Chief of Staff. Exhibit No. 3 U.S. Army, The Chief of Staff, May 24, 1995. Hon. Diane Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feinstein: As we discussed by phone yesterday, the Army's position regarding the recent decision by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission to consider the closure of Oakland Army Base remains unchanged. The Army studied the feasibility of closing the port at Oakland and concluded its loss represents an unacceptable risk. Oakland is essential for the deployment of our CONUS-based forces to respond to any national security threats which could emerge in the Pacific. Although our initial analysis indicated some financial benefit, the resulting operational risk is unacceptable. The Army needs this critical facility to support the rapid deployment of equipment during peace and war. Its closure would leave the Army without a port facility on the west coast. While it has been difficult for the Army to identify the excess infrastructure necessary for divestiture, we clearly understand the impact of BRAC on our fellow Americans. Our choices for realignment and closure are the right ones and balance requisite infrastructure with the warfighting capability needed to forge the Army into the 21st century. We will make certain the Commission clearly understands the Army's position on Oakland Army Base. I appreciate your personal interest in and support of the Army. Sincerely, Gordon R. Sullivan, General, U.S. Army. Exhibit No. 4 Department of the Air Force, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC, February 10, 1993. 1. During his visit to Onizuka AFB in 1992, Gen McPeak asked about the cost and operations impacts of closing Onizuka. This alternative is being considered by the Space & C31 Resource Allocation Team [RAT] as a possible cut during upcoming budget exercises. Request a joint study be initiated to assess the impacts of such a closure, document the development and support impacts of such a closure, and determine if the mission of the AFSCN could continue while meeting operational and User requirements. 2. I recently received an AFSCN status. It described the current Network, the acquisition methodology, and provided detail on the planned Improvement and Modernization programs essential to maintaining the AFSCN infrastructure, and providing User support. These efforts must continue and may provide the architecture that will allow a closure of Onizuka that minimizes operational impacts and improves operational efficiency in the future. 3. All these considerations should be taken into account in this study. The primary output of this study should be a briefing and report fully defining the AFSCN mission in light of the current world environment, updating the operational and acquisition impacts of a closure, and fully describing what must be done to accomplish the AFSCN mission in the future. As you are aware, the AF will have to respond to budget actions resulting from the new administration as well as prepare for the FY 96 POM (the effect on the space community will exceed $1.5B in FY 96). We need to be certain all current and planned missions of the AFSCN are well understood, and the operational impacts of a closure of Onizuka include all AFSCN Users. Initial output of this study should be a plan, to include a schedule, with interim milestones, and a final briefing and report. We would like the AFSCN PEMs in SAF/AQSL and AF/XORS to participate in this study and would like to have access to the interim data to support any on-going exercises. Please provide your plan and schedule by 5 Mar 93. Sanford D. Mangold, Colonel, USAF. Exhibit No. 5 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC, February 10, 1995. Memorandum for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security (Economic Reinvestment and BRAC) Subject: Functional Assessment of Proposed Military Department Base Realignment and Closure Actions. [[Page S 9343]] Proposed BRAC actions by the MILDEPs as available on 9 February 1995, have been reviewed, and except as identified in the attachments, determined to be acceptable from the perspective of the DoD test and evaluation mission. Of those in the attachments, two are considered to be major showstoppers (regarding Dugway Proving Grounds and Fort Hunter-Liggett), and another a minor showstopper (Tunnel 9 inclusion in the White Oak closure). The remainder are considered incomplete requiring additional alternatives to be analyzed before we can agree to them. Philip E. Coyle, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. John A. Burt, Director, Test, Systems Engineering, and Evaluation. issue The Army's proposal to move its Test Battalion from Fort Hunter-Liggett (FHL) to Ft. Bliss would de facto ``close'' FHL and remove its capabilities from operational test use. rationale 1. The TEXCOM Experimentation Center (TEC), located at Fort Hunter-Liggett, California, has the unique capability to provide a total test/experimentation package. TEC's isolated location provides unequaled access to extremely versatile training areas with a wide variety of weather and terrain conditions, controlled airspace to 24,000 feet, a 360 degree high energy laser play area, isolation from ambient light, and minimal radio frequency (RF) interference. 2. The terrain at FHL resembles Korea and is unlike that in any of the desert test ranges. Its diverse terrain features-- mountains, hills, rivers, creeks and lakes--were the reason FHL was selected as a field laboratory site in 1957 and FHL remains a unique asset today. For example, operational testing prior to the final IOT&E of the SGT YORK was at Ft. Bliss where only flat terrain was encountered. In the IOT&E at FHL the valley walls caused ground clutter breakthrough which rendered the radar useless. Also, FHL has a unique capability--a natural 360 degree ``bowl''--and the necessary state permits--to test high power military lasers. Recent Longbow Apache tests at FHL required this capability, revealing important limitations in modeling and simulation. 3. By moving to Ft. Bliss a further test restriction would be created. Radio frequency jamming essential to creating a realistic test environment in a location that is close to large metropolitan areas, international airports, and an international border will be difficult to recreate and will increase risks of not having an adequate test environment. 4. Operating temporarily at FHL with mobil assets will be more expensive. Just four years ago in March 1991, all of TEC's command staff and operational functions were consolidated at FHL because operating in temporary duty status was too expensive. The projected savings reflected in the Army's submission, the reduction of 17 military and 5 federal civilians, would be trivial when considering giving up this valuable and important operational test capability. recommendation Army withdraw proposal to move its test Battalion from Fort Hunter-Liggett to Ft. Bliss.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In addition to the strong military and fiscal arguments for keeping the TEXCOM Experimentation Center at Fort Hunter Liggett, the realignment of the base will have an adverse economic impact on an area already suffering the consequences from one of the biggest BRAC actions in the county: the closure of Fort Ord. Monterey County's already fragile economy cannot afford the realignment of another major base. Fort Hunter Liggett provides a total test and experimentation package to the Department of Defense. TEXCOM's isolated location provides unequaled access to extremely versatile training areas with a wide variety of weather and terrain conditions, controlled airspace to 24,000 feet, a 360-degree high energy laser testing area, isolation from ambient light and minimal radio frequency interference. While Fort Hunter Liggett was evaluated in the BRAC process only as a training area, the base performs vital test and evaluation functions. Thus, the recommendation to realign Fort Hunter Liggett and move TEXCOM--a test and evaluation asset--is based on a flawed analysis that did not take into account TEXCOM's unique capabilities. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation at the Defense Department has stated that moving TEXCOM would be a ``show stopper.'' Finally with regard to Fort Hunter Liggett, I do not believe that the proposed realignment is cost-effective. Information presented to the Commission staff by Monterey County officials regarding one-time costs, return on investment, and accumulated savings showed that the realignment of Fort Hunter Liggett is not cost-effective. However, I understand that this new information was not utilized by or presented to the Commission. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a letter from Mr. Phil Coyle, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the 1995 base closure list and to urge the President to reject the Base Closure Commission's recommended hit list. In this base closure round, the Commission voted to close or realign 9 out of the 12 military bases in California that were reviewed, many against the recommendation and advice of the Secretary of Defense. In addition to the adverse national security impact of the Commission's action, the economic impact on California--particularly the cumulative economic impact--will be enormous. Economic Impact of Base Closures California is being hit disproportionately hard by base closures. In three previous rounds, 22 major bases in California have been slated for closure or realignment--more than double any other State. California is home to only 15 percent of all Defense Department personnel. Yet, California has lost more than 82,000 of the nearly 120,000 net direct jobs--military and civilian--lost nationwide since 1988 as a result of base closures alone. All total, these actions have resulted in the loss of more than 200,000 direct and indirect jobs and $7 billion in annual economic activity in California. I do not believe it is appropriate to proceed with another base closure round when the full impact of previous base closures has not yet been felt. In California, bases slated for closure in 1988 are just now starting to close their gates, and few are having success in reuse and redevelopment efforts. If the current base closure round goes forward, 58,000 additional direct and indirect California jobs will be impacted--7,900 direct military and 19,000 direct civilian personnel. Major bases in California which the Commission has targeted include: McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento; Long Beach Naval Shipyard in Los Angeles County; Onizuka Air Station in Sunnyvale; Oakland Army Base in Alameda County; Sierra Army Depot in Lassen County; and Fort Hunter Liggett in Monterey County. With the addition of defense industry layoffs in California--which have claimed 250,000 jobs in just the past few years--California stands to lose more than half-a-million jobs as a result of base closures and defense downsizing. And, defense industry downsizing is expected to continue through the end of the decade with the loss of another 250,000 jobs. Enough is enough. By law, economic impact must be considered by the Commission when determining what bases to recommend [[Page S 9340]] for closure or realignment. The inclusion of economic impact as a criteria is for good reason: to prevent the piling on of base closures on one single community or State. Yet, it is clear to me that the Commission disregarded the economic impact of currently proposed and previously announced base closures on California when it made its final recommendation to close or realign nine California bases. California's Fragile Economy The California economy cannot take additional base closures at this time. California was once the land of golden opportunity, where good paying jobs were available and investments in real estate resulted in high-paying dividends. Today, that dream of golden opportunities has disappeared. California's unemployment rate is nearly 3 percent higher than the national average. More than 1.28 million Californians are out of work. In fact, California has 17 percent of all the unemployed workers in America. As cuts in jobs, both military and civilian, loom on the horizon, consumer confidence has dwindled. Consumers are unwilling to move into homes and purchase durable goods as long as the State's economic prospects remain dim. ``Disappointing, disturbing, and traumatic''--those are the words used by the president of the California Association of Realtors to describe the current challenge of being a real estate agent in California. The facts about the current real estate market in California are startling. Home sales dropped 21 percent in California during the first quarter of 1995. In Los Angeles County alone, home prices dropped 23 percent from January 1991 to January 1995. Prices fell another 3 percent in March of this year. The crisis of confidence in California's economy extends well beyond the real estate market and the sheer number of unemployed residents. People are simply unsettled about the State's economic future. Orange County filed bankruptcy, and just this week, while hoping to earn $30 million in a real estate auction, had to settle for $15 million. Bill Lange, who conducted the auction, remarked, ``On a scale of one to 10, it's about a five. It'd be an eight or nine if the real estate market wasn't in the tank.'' In any case, it is still a small fraction of the county's $1.7 billion in investment loses. Los Angeles County, the largest in the Nation, is faced with the prospect of eliminating a $1.2 billion deficit. Laying off more than 18,000 employees--one out of five county workers--seems inevitable. Closing the County-U.S.C. Medical Center is another likely budget- cutting measure that will be implemented. Twelve months ago, California's leading indicators were running slightly above the national trend. Six months ago, California dropped to next to last among all States. In a 3-month moving average of leading indicators--as compiled by the WEFA Group of Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania--California comes in dead last. If California continues to suffer blow after blow, not only will this slow our economic recovery, but could set it back. I cannot predict the total consequences of further devastating cuts. This is the Nation's largest State, and a weakened and uncertain economy here can lash like a chain reaction through our national economy and our balance of trade. Closing California's military bases can only make matters worse. Our economy, simply put, will continue its steep downward spiral with no end in sight. Base Closures Cost More Than Anticipated Base closures have turned out to be a lot more expensive than originally estimated, primarily because environmental costs are not included in closure estimates. As history indicates, costs for closing military bases in California have sky-rocketed: BRAC 88 clean-up costs were originally estimated at $126 million in 1990. By 1994, the costs had quadrupled to $598 million; The costs to clean up bases from BRAC 91 were originally estimated at $389 million. Now, these costs have risen to $1.3 billion. Clean-up costs for BRAC 93 bases were originally estimated at $230 million in 1990. By 1994, these costs had risen more than five-fold, to $1.4 billion. The costs to clean up and close California's bases for the first three rounds alone is nearly $3.5 billion, up from the $745 million that was originally estimated and budgeted. California bases alone could absorb all of the funds appropriated for clean-up in all the BRAC accounts from fiscal year 1990 through 1995. And the total costs to clean up BRAC 95 bases that were originally recommended for closure or realignment is estimated at more than $1 billion--and these are just initial estimates. If history is any indication, then these costs will increase two-, three-, four-, or even five-fold. McClellan Air Force Base's environmental costs alone will more than double the original estimated clean-up costs for BRAC 95. Mr. President, I would like to discuss some specific details on the two largest bases in California that were targeted by the Commission: McClellan Air Force Base and Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Mc Clellan Air Force Base McClellan Air Force Base was targeted for closure by the Commission, against the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense and despite protests by the Air Force's military and civilian leadership. McClellan is northern California's largest industrial employer, with nearly 15,000 mostly civilian workers. I believe that the Commission's action to target McClellan for closure will adversely impact U.S. national security and drain needed fiscal resources from higher priority programs and initiatives in the Pentagon budget. The Air Force has stated that the cost to close one Air Logistics Center is estimated at $500 million, excluding environmental clean-up costs. These prohibitively high closure costs would be greater than the total cost the Air Force has budgeted over the next 6 year for all of its base closures and realignments nationwide. According to a recent letter from Air Force Chief of Staff General Fogelman and Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall, the Commission's action will: Cost the Air Force hundreds of millions of additional dollars (in excess of $1 billion in environmental and military construction costs) during the next five years; disrupt military readiness because of the total restructuring of the Air Force logistics and depot system; preclude the Air Force from carrying through on vital readiness and modernization programs; and have a devastating impact on as many as 25,000 DoD employees in Texas and California who would lose their jobs or have to relocate to other Air Force installations at great personal and public expense. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter, as well as a letter from General Moorman, the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have visited McClellan several times over the last few years. McClellan is an excellent base with superb, state-of-the-art facilities and is one of the most advanced installations in the entire military. McClellan has its own one-of-a-kind industrial nuclear reactor, a nondestructive aircraft inspection facility, logistics retrofit engineering capabilities, and a technical laboratory with specialized logistics facilities. McClellan is truly a unique asset to our Nation's defense. Finally with regard to McClellan, if economic impact--particularly cumulative economic impact--is going to be considered, then the impact on the northern California region must be considered when looking at McClellan. Already in the Sacramento area, Mather Air Force Base and the Sacramento Army Depot have been slated for closure, resulting in the loss of nearly 7,000 direct jobs. And, in nearby Vallejo, the closure of Mare Island Naval shipyard will result in the loss of an additional 9,000 direct jobs. Long Beach Naval Shipyard I do not believe that the Pentagon's recommendation to close Long Beach Naval Shipyard makes sense. In 1993, the Base Closure Commission addressed the issue of whether to close the Shipyard, and the Commission recognized the vital role that Long Beach plays in support of the Pacific Fleet and kept it open. Long Beach Naval Shipyard is strategically located in southern California-- [[Page S 9341]] near 70 percent of the Pacific Fleet in San Diego--and has a large dry- dock capable of docking every class of ship in the U.S. Navy's inventory, including large aircraft carriers. Other Naval shipyards are long distances from the west coast mega-port: Puget Sound is located 1,135 nautical miles from San Diego and Pearl Harbor is located 2,600 nautical miles away. Long Beach is also the most cost-effective shipyard in the Navy. It is the only one of the eight Navy shipyards that operates in the black with annual retained earnings. In just the last 6 fiscal years, Long Beach has been consistently under budget and $102.7 million has been returned to the Navy budget. The closure of Long Beach Naval Shipyard will also have a devastating economic impact. 13,000 jobs and $539 million in annual economic activity will be lost if Long Beach closes. Los Angeles County has taken the brunt of the State's defense downsizing and Long Beach previously suffered from a large base closure: Long Beach Naval Station. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell may have provided the best defense of Long Beach when he said in 1991 that the: closure of Long Beach Naval Shipyard would seriously degrade the dry dock capability for all large ships in the Southern California area. Alternatives in Hawaii and Washington simply could not provide the services found at Long Beach. General Powell was right. Long Beach Naval Shipyard should not be closed. Onizuka Air Station Onizuka Air Station has existed in Sunnyvale since the mid-1950's and was created to provide a place where the Air Force satellite control mission and other classified Defense Department tenants could function in collocation. While the Air Force has proposed realigning Onizuka and shifting many of its functions to other bases outside California, the Air Force's proposal actually amounts to a stealth closure of this state-of-the-art base. In the short-term, nearly 3,000 jobs will be lost as a result of Onizuka's realignment. In the long term, Onizuka's closure will cost several thousand additional jobs. In addition to the economic impact on the northern California region, I believe that Onizuka's realignment could have an adverse impact on U.S. national security, particularly with regard to the Nation's satellite control and communication network. I also question the cost- effectiveness of Onizuka's proposed realignment in light of the long pay-back period--7 years--and the fact that the base will continue to operate well into the next century. I am also concerned that the recommendation to realign Onizuka could have been tainted by a 1993 internal Air Force study on the closure of Onizuka. This study was conducted outside of the official BRAC process and estimated the true cost to close Onizuka at hundreds of millions of dollars more than originally estimated by the Air Force. Unfortunately, the existence of this study--which was originally denied by the Air Force--was uncovered late in the BRAC process, thus impeding its full utilization. I ask unanimous consent that the copy of a 1993 Air Force letter, which initiated a study of Onizuka Air Station's closure outside of the official BRAC process, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Once again the Commission rejected the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense, as well as the pleas of the Army's military and civilian leadership, and targeted Oakland Army Base for closure. In addition to being vital to U.S. national security, Oakland Army Base's closure will have an adverse impact on a region still feeling the brunt of previous base closures. The Oakland Army Base's mission is to support the rapid deployment of military equipment and other large cargo in times of peace and war. As the only exclusive use, Army-owned secure access facility on the west coast, the Oakland Army Base is crucial to the Pentagon's strategy of being able to fight and win two nearly simultaneous regional conflicts. The senior Army leadership closely reviewed Oakland Army Base when preparing their 1995 base closure recommendations. The closure of the Oakland Army Base was flatly rejected by Secretary of the Army Togo West on operational grounds because there simply are insufficient commercial port facilities on the west coast to support the Army's military requirements. I personally spoke with General Sullivan, the Army Chief of Staff, who said he strongly opposes the closure of the Oakland Army Base. In a recent letter to me, General Sullivan wrote that: its loss represents an unacceptable risk. Oakland is essential for the deployment of our CONUS-based forces to respond to any national security threats which would emerge in the Pacific. . . . The Army needs this critical facility to support the rapid deployment of equipment during peace and war. In addition to its adverse impact on U.S. national security, the closure of Oakland Army Base will result in the loss of at least 700 jobs in the San Francisco Bay Area, an area hard hit by previous base closures. As you may recall, the 1993 base closure process claimed more than 30,000 jobs with the closure of Alameda Naval Air Station, Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, and other facilities. The bay area's economy simply cannot take another major blow. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of General Sullivan's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I was recently privileged to address the convention of the United Nations Association during its conference in San Francisco, coinciding with the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. I took the opportunity to make some observations about the past, present, and future of U.N. peacekeeping, and I offer them here for the record. The U.N. Mission: A Trend Toward Peacekeeping When we look at the 50-year history of the United Nations, certain facts and trends become evident. One of these is the increasing trend toward peacekeeping. In the first 43 years of its existence, from 1945 to 1988, the United Nations launched 13 peacekeeping missions in places such as Lebanon, the Dominican Republic, the then-Congo, Cyprus, between India and Pakistan, and along Arab-Israeli borders. While the results of these missions were not uniformly successful, the United Nations proved it was able to play an important role in resolving, or at least containing, a number of dangerous conflicts. And yet, during this period, the United Nations faced certain realities, the largest of which was the superpower rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. As conflicts developed, the countries involved were forced, either through external or internal forces, to align themselves with one superpower or the other. In this environment, the United Nations was often left on the sidelines. When United States and Soviet interests collided, each could cancel out the other's initiatives with their Security Council vetoes. When conflicts involved vital United States and Soviet interests, the two powers did not hesitate to take it upon themselves to try to resolve the conflict in their favor rather than seeking a negotiated resolution through the United Nations. There is no question that the cold war was a time of serious international insecurity. The specter of two superpowers, with weapons of immense destructive capability aimed at each other, competing for influence across the globe, lasted for nearly 45 years, ending startlingly in 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even today, many people share the misconception that the demise of the Soviet Union has created a more secure world. I do not believe that this is necessarily the case. The cold war, for all its dangers, had the unintended effect of discouraging many smaller countries, nationalities, and ethnic minorities from fighting one another. The danger that any uprising could, and would with certainty, be put down brutally by the Soviet Union, clearly contained insurrections and civil wars in areas like the former Yugoslavia. If Tito were in power today, under Soviet control, the civil war would most probably not have happened. A dying vestige of this cold war control is seen today in Chechnya, where a weakened Russia is brutally struggling to contain and vanquish Chechen rebels. However, the potential for nuclear war also had a deterrent and stabilizing effect on both major superpowers in their dealing with each other. Today, with these cold war constraints gone, an equally, if not more dangerous scenario has developed whereby smaller conflicts that had been festering just beneath the surface have now emerged, many erupting with unprecedented force and brutality. Though the numbers vary almost weekly, through most of 1994 and 1995, there have been over 30 wars raging simultaneously across the world. Trouble spots seem to crop up everywhere. Some fizzle quickly, while others spread into larger regional conflicts. Once again, genocide, starvation, ethnic cleansing, mass rape, torture, and millions of homeless people confront all of us. From Bosnia and Croatia to Rwanda and Burundi, from Afghanistan to Algeria, and from Sudan to Tajikistan, ethnic, religious and national grievances are taking a tremendous toll in human life. And whether these conflicts are internal or across borders, they all contribute to the deepening sense of international insecurity. In this increasingly complex and dangerous environment, there has never been a greater need for the United Nations to provide leadership. No other body, and certainly no single nation, is equipped to deal with the problems of ancient territorial disputes, ethnic and religious rivalries, inherent in the host of newly emergent independent nations, many with ruthless dictators. For this reason, peacekeeping is fast becoming the most important and significant function of the United Nations. As the world community grapples for ways to deal with these burgeoning conflicts, multilateral peacekeeping is increasingly seen as the best or the only viable recourse. As such, the United Nations alone is also seen--and rightfully so--as the only body with the structure, the experience and the international mandate to make a nonpartisan peacekeeping effort succeed. The numbers bear out this trend: After 13 peacekeeping missions in its first 43 years, the United Nations has performed 25 such missions in the last 7 years alone. Today there are 16 concurrent peacekeeping missions underway. In 1988 there were 9,000 soldiers from different countries participating in peacekeeping missions. Today there are more than 61,000 from over 80 countries. I believe that on this anniversary, we should pause, take stock, and reevaluate where events mandate change in both the role and mission of the United Nations. Clearly, peacekeeping has become a major and expanding role. The question is: Can the blue-helmeted observer of the past and present effectively be the peacekeeper of the future? For a moment, let us look at some peacekeeping successes. In Cyprus, U.N. peacekeepers have helped since 1964 to prevent a resumption of hostilities that could lead to war between two of our NATO allies, Greece and Turkey. On the Golan Heights, U.N. peacekeepers have helped make the Israeli- Syrian border one of the quietest in the Middle East for the last 21 years. In El Salvador and Cambodia, U.N. peacekeepers helped to safeguard the reconciliation process at the end of those countries' civil wars, and helped provide the order necessary to conduct free and democratic elections. Clearly, these were, and are, successful missions. When peacekeeping works, it can stabilize, reduce tension and hostility, and provide the backdrop needed before which peacemaking can succeed. It is worth noting here that, today, even with the dramatic increase in peacekeeping missions, U.S. troops constitute only about 5 percent of total U.N. peacekeeping efforts around the world--about 3,300 out of over 61,000. Now let's look at some of the problems. As peacekeeping missions increase in numbers, more funding is required to keep it going. In 1988, the [U.N.] peacekeeping budget was $230 million. In 1994, the budget grew to $3.5 billion. Here, the United States makes its primary contribution to U.N. peacekeeping in financial terms, paying 31 percent of all assessed costs, although Congress has mandated that the U.S. share be reduced to 25 percent this October. In 1988, the U.S. contribution for assessed peacekeeping cost was $36.7 million. In 1994, the U.S. share rose to $991 million -- a huge increase. Clearly not all peacekeeping operations have been successful. We can and should learn from the tragedies of Bosnia and Somalia--perhaps the two most difficult examples of U.N. peacekeeping in the last 50 years. Why have they been so difficult? I would submit that not all peacekeeping missions are the same, and they often become confused. Different peacekeeping missions require different types of peacekeeping efforts. You cannot lump them all together. For example, in Somalia, the United Nations started out engaged in a successful humanitarian mission to prevent hundreds of thousand from starving to death, but the mission soon changed into one of nation- building and political involvement, finally resulting in confrontations with the warring factions. The U.N. forces in Somalia proved unable to respond to a shifting set of dynamics. The dynamics in one country are not going to be the same as the dynamics in another, and the dynamics within a country can change overnight. The blue-helmeted observer that cannot fire back to protect himself or civilians, without a convoluted approval process, cannot maintain peace when warring factions want to have at each other. Somalia was a classic lesson in that regard. We saw a renegade warlord who was prepared to circumvent the peacekeeping mission one way or another. The U.N. forces, when challenged, could not fight back effectively. The result was more than 100 U.N. peacekeepers and 18 U.S. Army Rangers killed during that 24 month mission, and the United Nations and the United States pulled out with mixed results. But the ultimate challenge in this century to peacekeeping has been the war in the former Yugoslavia. There the United Nations faces insurmountable problems and dilemmas. Literally, more than 800 year of animus, hatred, and territorial disputes have combined to provide UNPROFOR Its most difficult and challenging mission in U.N. history. Perhaps in 1878, Benjamin Disraeli said it best when he offered these words, in the British House of Lords: No language can describe adequately the condition of that large portion of the Balkan peninsula--Serbia, Bosnia, Hercegovina and other provices--[the] political intrigues, constant rivalries, a total absence of all public spirit . . . hatred of all races, animosities of rival religions and absence of any controlling power . . . nothing short of any army of 50,000 of the best troops would produce anything like order in these parts. And that was 117 years ago. On one hand, there has been a dramatic decrease in civilian casualties in that terrible conflict--from 130,000 in 1992 down to 3,000 in 1994. On the other hand, it is in Bosnia that we begin to see the major shortcomings of United Nations forces as peacekeepers. We saw it on May 25 in Tuzla, a ``U.N. Safe Area'' when 71 young people, all under age 28, were killed by a single Serb shell--one of many instances when Serb forces have eroded safe areas with attacks-- without any retaliation, despite a Security Council resolution authorizing such responses. We saw it when 377 U.N. troops were recently taken hostage after a NATO airstrike on a Serbian ammunition dump. We saw it when Captain O'Grady's F-16 was shot down, the second plane lost in Deny Flight operations, without response [as] scores of hostages were still held captive. We see it every day, as U.N. peacekeepers attempt to protect innocent civilians, sometimes successfully, but often not. And we saw it, most poignantly, on June 10, when the United Nations mission in Sarajevo announced it would not respond to protect Muslim enclaves from attack without the consent of the Bosnian Serbs. I believe it is fair to say that U.N. forces have neither the training, the equipment, nor the rules of engagement, to allow them to sufficiently respond to attacks against them or against civilian populations. They are meant to be observers--not fighters. These problems have taken their toll on U.S. congressional support. And they have taken their toll, I think unfairly, on support for the UNPROFOR troops. In the Congress, there has been continuing debate over whether a unilateral or a multilateral lifting of the arms embargo against Bosnia, or the withdrawal of UNPROFOR troops altogether is the humane or the inhumane action to take. And, because the United States has no troops on the ground in Bosnia, we have less leverage in influencing nations that do have troops on the ground. It is my belief that the United Nations must address peacekeeping efforts more realistically in view of the variety of situations they find themselves in, and provide a speedy and effective response dependent on the individual situation. The rapid reaction force recently created for Bosnia should help. We all hope they can be moved into the scene speedily, and that they will be properly empowered and commanded, in order to have an effective and immediate impact. The idea of rapid response units has been discussed repeatedly over the past 50 years. At the international seminar hosted by the Netherlands Government in the spring of 1995, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, Mr. Hans van Mierlo, presented a proposal of how such a force might work. Mr. van Mierlo's plan proposes a permanent rapid response nucleus, which would be able to be sent to a critical area of the world on very short notice. Such a force, if headed by a well-trained commanding officer with field experience, could provide a robust response to any aggressive action. So my first point here today is that the entire United Nations peacekeeping structure must be reexamined, and perhaps redefined and restructured. Those of us who consider ourselves friends of the United Nations, and who believe that the world needs the United Nations, and vice versa, are prepared to make a case for continued U.S. participation, even for payment of our dues, but our success depends upon the willingness of the U.N. leadership to meet and discuss these issues with the Congress, and on their willingness to make improvements in the way peacekeeping is conceived and carried out. peacekeeping versus peacemaking The second point I would like to make here involves peacekeeping versus peacemaking. Clearly the record on peacekeeping over 50 years has been, by and large, successful. The record on peacemaking is less clear. I believe that the United Nations has an important and viable role in peacekeeping. And at times, the U.N. leadership has proven to be able mediators, and have helped parties in conflict reach a negotiated settlement. At other times it has been unsuccessful. But I do not believe that the United Nations is set up for peacemaking, because sometimes peacemaking requires force, or at least the ability to bring force to bear. The United Nations generally lacks the ability to bring such force to bear--whereas states, and alliances of states, have a greater capacity to do so. So, I would suggest that peacemaking efforts also be reevaluated. This reevaluation should begin with an assessment of regional and political imperatives that lend themselves toward specific peacemaking alliances. Regional political forces, in the form of strong geographically based alliances, can more effectively spearhead diplomatic and military efforts to promote peacemaking than can the United Nations alone. For example, peace has reigned in Europe for five decades since World War II, primarily because of the strong NATO alliance. NATO has been an important framework for making and maintaining peace between longtime adversaries--like Greece and Turkey, or Germany and France, and it has deterred aggression and conflict between East and West. When peacemaking, rather than peacekeeping is called for, the United Nations needs to work with alliances like these to bring about the desired result. The United Nations can even foster the creation of such alliances, as indeed it did through a series of resolutions during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf crisis. When the situation calls for peacemaking, the United Nations must understand whether diplomacy is sufficient, and where it is not, the United Nations must cooperate with individual states and alliances of states that can bring the necessary force to bear. I am one that believes that the solution in Bosnia must be a negotiated one. In other words, a diplomatic solution rather than a military solution. Why? I can think of no military solution that would solve these 800-year old animosities without enormous bloodshed and loss of life. Nor can I think of a diplomatic solution that will work without the force of military action to compel it and, perhaps, to maintain it. Warren Zimmerman, former Ambassador to Yugoslavia, in a recent article in the Washington Post, laid out what I believe is the only realistic goal: Give the Bosnian Serbs a limited time and certain deadline to agree to the plan advanced by the so-called contact group of five nations--a plan to which Mr. Milosevic has already agreed-- which divides Bosnia virtually in half between the Serbs and their adversaries. But, as Ambassador Zimmerman correctly concludes, this outcome is only realistic if the Bosnian Serbs believe the West means business. If this solution remains unacceptable to the Bosnian Serbs, there appears to be no other choice but a multilateral lifting of the arms embargo and an expedited removal of UNPROFOR forces. Based on briefings I have had, I can find no acceptable rationale for a unilateral lifting of the embargo that would not involve the massive loss of life, or one without America being forced to arm and train Muslim forces, with the probability of a major spread of conflict in Croatia, Kosovo, and Macedonia. In Bosnia, the single biggest problem for UNPROFOR has been that it is trying to carry out its mission with its hands tied. I truly believe that if a U.N. peacekeeping operation is unable to respond to hostile action taken against it, then it is unlikely to succeed. UNPROFOR troops, through no fault of their own, have had to stand by and watch civilians get picked off by sniper fire, have their own equipment stolen and used against them, and finally, have 377 of them become hostages themselves. The primary lesson of Bosnia for U.N. peacekeeping is that U.N. military commanders on the ground must have the authority, the weapons, and the trained fighting personnel to respond to hostile action with sufficient force to protect civilians and peacekeepers, and deter attack. This may require the establishment of permanent rapid response teams within U.N. peacekeeping missions, which will protect the mission and enable it to carry out its mandate. In addition, peacekeepers need to be able to adapt to changing conditions. No matter how well a mission is planned, warring parties can force the United Nations to change its mission, and U.N. troops need to be able to respond. In this case, NATO's military response in the form of airstrikes is based on a ``dual key'' decisionmaking process, whereas both the United Nations and NATO commanders decide upon and coordinate the response. Targeting and execution are joint decisions by United Nations authorities and NATO military commanders. The final point I'd like to make is that there is a need to develop alternative structures and alliances that can be employed both for peacekeeping and peacemaking. Neither the United States, nor any other member state, can participate in every U.N.-sponsored effort to resolve every conflict. But I do believe that the United Nations can proceed most effectively if it is able to develop solid back-up among regional groupings and alliances. Secretary General Boutros-Ghali has suggested that regional groupings like NATO, the Organization of the American States [OAS], and the Organization of African Unity [OAU] could appropriately take on peacekeeping responsibilities for certain types of missions in their regions. Other organizations that might contribute include the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN] and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union. There is a healthy logic to putting together specific alliances in specific areas of the world, so that peacekeeping is carried out with some geographical relationship. Such missions would be strengthened by the political determination of neighbors--who could be affected should a war spread--to see that peace is the only result. There are successful models that should be considered. One such case involved the United States, Israel, and Egypt, who, in the 1979 Camp David Accords, jointly established a private, United States-led peacekeeping operation in the Sinai peninsula--the Multinational Force and Observers [MFO]. This successful mission, undertaken without U.N. involvement, goes on to this day. It might serve as a model for other missions. I have little doubt that the value of the United Nations to the international community and the United States will continue to grow. The United States simply does not have the support of its people, nor the resources, to assume the role of world-caretaker for the settlement of all disputes. The recognition of this fact will always bring people back to the conclusion that the United Nations is the best institution we have for dealing in a collective way with problems that affect the security of the United States and others. Therefore, the United States has an obligation to work with the United Nations--not against it--to improve it, strengthen it, and make it more successful. With U.S. leadership, U.N. peacekeeping can indeed become more effective, better defined, and more realistically employed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the safe harbor provisions of the bill have been criticized by some of my colleagues. I would like to address those criticisms by pointing out that S. 240 puts more responsibilities on companies seeking to use the safe harbor and puts more conditions on their use of the safe harbor than the SEC does in its current rules. It also goes further than a number of courts of appeals that have examined the issue of liability for forward-looking statements. I wonder if the bill's manager would engage in a colloquy with me on this point?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The committee's bill also has a tough requirement that, in order to use the safe harbor, a company has to accompany any projection with a warning is that not correct?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Now, the Banking Committee excluded a number of companies and a number of transactions from using the safe harbor. Can you explain why that was done?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. First, S. 240 has a definition of forward-looking statement. It includes projections of revenues, statements about management's plans for the future, and statements about future economic performance of a company, among other things. Can you tell me where that definition came from? [[Page S 9128]]

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Then, I want to compliment the committee for its work here. Clearly this is a difficult area. We want to provide certainty for companies and encourage them to make disclosure. At the same time, we want to make sure that no one takes advantage of the safe harbor to mislead investors. You have tried to strike a balance here.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I thank the Senator from Washington for all the work she has done on this matter. I really address my remarks, Mr. President, to 43 Members of this body, and I want to share with them some of my thoughts and see where they register with them. Let me start by saying that my basic belief regarding this nominee is that--in the absence of any compelling evidence of misconduct, insufficiency of professional qualifications, or flaws in character-- the Senate owes it to the President and the nominee to conclude its advise-and-consent role and grant its approval. I say that particularly in view of what has happened to his predecessor. In my belief, it is not appropriate for a minority of the Senate to prevent a vote on a Presidential selection based on unsubstantiated arguments about what Dr. Foster might have known or should have said. That is not the Senate's role. In addition, it is unprecedented to deny the President even an up or down vote on a well-qualified nominee for a public health position such as Surgeon General. Therefore, I believe that Dr. Foster is entitled to an up or down vote by the Senate. Not a procedural vote, but a real majority vote that will show the Nation that a majority of Senators favor Dr. Foster. Let me also say that I believe that many of the concerns raised by Dr. Foster's opponents over the last 5 months have been a smokescreen of false issues, innuendo, and other distractions designed to obscure the central issue here, which is a woman's right to choose an abortion. However, I am grateful that Dr. Foster's nomination has been investigated approved by the Labor Committee by a 9-7 vote and finally been brought to the Senate floor. It is my hope that in the remaining time for debate, Dr. Foster's real qualifications can be made clear and any remaining issues can be raised and answered, once and for all, and that a few more Senators can be persuaded. The concerns of Dr. Foster's critics boil down to a few basic elements, which we have continued to hear over and over. These arguments are: Dr. Foster has insufficient professional qualifications and credentials to serve as Surgeon General; Dr. Foster provided contradictory information on the number of abortions he has performed; Dr. Foster knew about the Tuskegee experiment, in which 400 black men with syphilis were left untreated, before it was revealed in 1972; Dr. Foster performed sterilizations of mentally retarded women during the 1970's; and Dr. Foster's I Have a Future teenage pregnancy prevention program focuses on contraception rather than abstinence. While most of these issues have already been thoroughly addressed and dismissed, I would like to briefly summarize the factual responses to each of them, based on what I have learned: On the issue of Dr. Foster's qualifications and credentials, I believe that they are impressive. Dr. Foster, is in rough chronological order: A graduate of Morehouse College and the University of Arkansas medical school; A former U.S. Air Force captain; An examiner for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; An advisor to the National Institutes on Health and the FDA on maternal and child health; A member of the National Board of Medical Examiners, the accreditation council for graduate medical education, and the board of the March of Dimes; A Distinguished Practitioner recognized in 1987 by the National Academies of Practice; Acting president of Meharry Medical College, where he has served for the last 21 years as dean of Medicine and Chairman of Obstetrics. On the issue of the contradictory estimates of abortions Dr. Foster performed and his overall credibility: A review of 38 years of medical records determined that the actual number of abortions Dr. Foster has performed or been the doctor of record are small in number [39]--particularly in view of his estimated delivery of 10,000 live babies. The initial confusion surrounding this number resulted from Dr. Foster having been listed as the attending physician for additional procedures that he himself did not perform, as well as disputes over whether hysterectomies Dr. Foster performed to protect the health of women should be counted as abortions if pregnancies were discovered during the procedure. During his hearing, Dr. Foster provided the following explanation of the early contradictions: ``In my desire to provide instant answers to the barrage of questions coming at me, I spoke without having all the facts at my disposal.'' The majority of the committee found this explanation reasonable enough to approve the nominee. On the claim that Dr. Foster consented to the infamous experiments at the Tuskegee Institute: While Dr. Foster was at Tuskegee during the time of the study, his expertise was maternal and child health rather than sexually transmitted diseases; A full committee investigation showed that the possibility Dr. Foster knew about the study is tenuous at best, resting on assumptions about what he should have known or might have been told, rather than direct evidence; the doctor whose statements have been used to suggest Dr. Foster failed to act promptly has stated repeatedly that Dr. Foster did not know of the study before it was revealed in 1972. Without any direct or concrete evidence that Dr. Foster actually knew about the experiments and failed to take action, it is not reasonable to judge him a participant or to burden him with the responsibility of having to shut down an experiment he did not control nor was he a party of this ill-conceived study. [[Page S 8859]] On the assertion that Dr. Foster performed sterilizations of mentally retarded women: Dr. Foster sterilized retarded girls at the request of their parents under the established practice guidelines and ethics of the times, and wrote sensitively about these cases and the danger and tragedy of forced sterilization in 1974; If there were any real questions about Dr. Foster's ethics, he would not have been endorsed by every major medical association in the United States. On the claim that I Have a Future Program does not promote abstinence: This after-school program focuses on delaying teenage pregnancy, including providing education about abstinence and increasing self- esteem as a way of preventing early sexual activity. Only if necessary are participants referred to medical personnel for information about contraception; Every press article and description I have seen talks about how the program emphasizes abstinence and does not just throw condoms at the kids. Whether or not all program brochures include the word ``abstinence'' or not is not the central issue. In fact, the central motivation for the I Have a Future Program was Dr. Foster's observation that simply providing contraceptives to at- risk teens was not an effective form of pregnancy prevention for at- risk teens, and self-esteem and personal goal-setting must be included. Should he be denied because abstinence was not on a piece of paper? In all, here is a man who has impressive qualifications, an upstanding character, and reputation for integrity in his home community and among his professional peers. He has no glaring flaw that justifies denying him confirmation. Instead--and this is increasingly clear--there is just one real reason that he is being opposed: he performed 39--the number is disputed--medically necessary legal abortions as part of a career that includes 10,000 deliveries of live babies. What I would like to point out is that 39 is an amazingly small number, considering the human situations that Dr. Foster has encountered--women who have been raped; women whose mental or physical condition is such that they could not give birth; questions of major fetal deficiencies. The fact is that out of 10,000 live babies delivered, there were few cases where Dr. Foster performed a medically necessary and appropriate abortion. To me, this is a very small number. Were the procedures legal? Were they in accord with medical standards and performed as part of his established responsibilities? The answer to these questions, of course, is yes. Nothing has been raised to contradict this statement. What is clear to me from the last 5 months of debate over Dr. Foster's nomination is that there is now a question whether any obstetrician could ever hold the office of Surgeon General if they have performed even one legal, medically appropriate abortion. That clearly is the question in my mind. I really believe the issue is that simple. And I strongly believe that the answer to that question should be yes. I believe this body has but one choice and I am hopeful that, of the 43 there are 3 who will come forward and simply say, in fairness, Dr. Henry Foster deserves a vote in this body. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Nevada to keep the current speed limit in place as it relates to trucks. According to the California Highway Patrol, the State of California has seen a steady reduction in the number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities relating to accidents involving trucks since 1989. In 1989, 647 people lost their lives and 17,703 people were injured in California as a result of 12,159 truck-related accidents. By 1994, 451 people were killed and 13,512 injured in California as a result of 9,225 truck-related accidents. While these figures are nowhere near where we want to be, they do demonstrate that a commitment to truck safety: increased oversight on driver training and hours of operation; regulations on the size and weight of the vehicles; and federally mandatory speed limits. All have significant impacts on the increased safety on America's highways. In one day this last April, the CHP pulled over 64 big rigs and issued almost 200 violations for everything from bad brakes to violating air pollution rules. That day, police ordered 34 vehicles off the road as a part of a crackdown on the most heavily used truck routes in Los Angeles County. Now is not the time to begin to turn away from our commitment to make America's roadways safe and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to salute Kathy Jordan, who today is being inducted in the Stanford University Athletic Hall of Fame. My northern California field representative for over 2 years, Kathy joined my staff after an incredibly successful career in women's tennis. While at Stanford, she won four AIAW Collegiate titles, including both the singles and doubles championships in 1979. She still is considered the best women's tennis player who ever went to Stanford. [[Page S8304]] She then turned professional and in her first year reached the final 16 at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. During her professional tennis career that spanned a decade, Kathy won seven Grand Slam titles. Kathy earned a reputation as a tough and tenacious competitor. And, as she defeated one challenger after another, Kathy proved she was one of the best players in the world and climbed to a ranking of No. 5. In just 1 year, she went from being No. 23 in the world to being No. 5. During that time, Kathy beat Chris Evert in straight sets at Wimbledon in 1983, reached the finals of the 1983 Australian Open, and then went on to knock off Pam Shriver in the quarterfinal of the 1984 Wimbledon singles championship to reach the semifinals. Kathy would later be described as Chris Evert's top nemesis, beating her three times. Martina Navratilova, too, felt the sting of Kathy Jordan's passing shots. Not only did Kathy beat her in singles, but it was the team of Kathy Jordan and Liz Smylie that pulled a huge doubles upset and ended the 109-match winning streak of Navratilova and partner Pam Shriver in the Wimbledon final of 1985. Jordan and Smylie won by a score of 5-7, 6-3, 6-4. It was sweet victory for Kathy, who had lost 3 of the last 4 years to Navratilova and Shriver after winning the Wimbledon championship in 1980 with partner Anne Smith. Looking back on the match, Kathy recounted how she and her partner, Smylie, were serving for the match at 5-4 in the third set. Kathy gambled, lunged across to Smylie's side of the court for a volley. They won the point, with Navratilova and Shriver looking stunned as the shot whipped by. ``Pam and Martina were standing there looking at each other. I'm kinda like a roving linebacker and Liz is like a defensive back who sometimes has to cover behind me in case a ball gets over my head,'' Kathy said in 1991. That roving linebacker attitude is exactly what made Kathy Jordan a legend on the tennis courts. But, in the 1987 Virginia Slims of New England, Kathy's career was jeopardized with one of the most serious injuries an athlete can suffer--a tear of the right anterior cruciate ligament. ``That's the Bernard King injury. The Danny Manning injury. You get scared. You never really know. A lot of people don't make it back,'' Kathy told the San Francisco Chronicle in 1990. But, once again Kathy's determination paved the way and she once again became a potent threat in women's tennis. She reunited with her partner, Liz Smylie, and once again knocked off the expected winners to climb their way into the Wimbledon doubles final in 1990. I've had the pleasure of getting to know Kathy over the course of the last 2 years. After retiring from women's tennis, Kathy finished her undergraduate work at Stanford University and chose to direct her talents to public service. She worked on Lynn Yeakel's campaign for the U.S. Senate in her native Pennsylvania and then returned to California, where Palo Alto had become home. Kathy joined my staff in 1993 as field representative for the northern California region of the State. She has been one of the most outstanding staff persons I've worked with over the last 2 years. Kathy assumed her field responsibilities with an incomparable level of compassion, intelligence, and diligence. And just as she did on the tennis court, Kathy has shown a fierce determination to fight for what is right. She redefined the title ``field representative'' and was quickly promoted to the role of field director, overseeing projects for me statewide. As a representative of over 20 counties, she was my eyes and ears for northern California. She identifies a problem and--more importantly-- helps figure out how to solve a problem. She has been a tireless advocate for the issues and concerns of the residents and elected officials in her jurisdiction. I frequently have county supervisors and others approach and thank me for the work she has done and the results accomplished. At a time when many feel alienated and are looking to the government's representatives to help them and respond to their needs and problems, I feel proud that I have a staff person who heeds the call and gets things done. Kathy is a remarkable person whose compassion, respect, and talent for her work serves as a model for others. I am grateful to have worked with her and benefited from her service to the U.S. Senate. Madam President, I stand here to congratulate Kathy on all her accomplishments, and for the honor being bestowed her by Stanford University. For all she has accomplished in both the world of tennis and in government service, it is an honor well deserved.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, the amendment that is the subject of discussion is one presented by Senator Kempthorne and me. There is a section in this bill entitled ``Removal of Entry to Barriers.'' It is a section about which the cities, the counties and the States are very concerned because it is a section that giveth and a section that taketh away. Why do I say that? I say it because in section 254, the States and local governments are given certain authority to maintain their jurisdiction and their control over what are called rights-of-way. Rights-of-way are streets and roads under which cable television companies put lines. How they do it, where they do it and with what they do it is all a matter for local jurisdiction. Both subsections (b) and (c) maintain this regulatory authority of local jurisdictions, but subsection (d) preempts that authority, and this is what is of vital concern to the cities, the counties and the States. Senator Kempthorne and I have a simple amendment. That amendment, quite simply stated, strikes the preemption and takes away the part of this bill that takes away local government and State governments' jurisdiction and authority over the rights-of-way. We are very grateful to Senator Gorton who has presented a substitute, which will be voted on following our amendment. However, we must, quite frankly, say this substitute is inadequate. Why is it inadequate? It is inadequate because cities and counties will continue to face preemption if they take actions which a cable operator asserts constitutes a barrier to entry and is prohibited under section (a) of the bill. As city attorneys state, is a city insurance or bonding requirement a barrier to entry? Is a city requirement that a company pay fees prior to installing any facilities to cover the costs of reviewing plans and inspecting excavation work a barrier to entry? Is the city requirement that a company use a particular type of excavation equipment or a different and specific technique suited to certain local circumstances to minimize the risk of major public health and safety hazards a barrier to entry? Is a city requirement that a cable operator move a cable trunk line away from a public park or place cables underground rather than overhead in order to protect public health a barrier to entry? These are, we contend, intensely local decisions which could be brought before the FCC in Washington. The Gorton substitute continues to permit cable operators to challenge local government decisions before the FCC. Why is this objectionable to local jurisdictions? It is objectionable to local jurisdictions because they believe if they are a small city, for example, they would be faced with bringing a team back to Washington, going before a highly specialized telecommunications- oriented Federal Communications Commission and plighting their troth. Then they would be forced to go to court in Washington, DC, rather than Federal district court back where they live. This constitutes a major financial impediment for small cities. For big cities also, they would much prefer to have the issue settled in their district court rather than having to come back to Washington. The cable operators are big time in this country. They maintain Washington offices, they maintain special staff, they maintain a bevy of skilled telecommunications attorneys. Cities do not. Cities have a city attorney, period. It is a very different subject. Suppose a city makes a determination in the case that they wish to have [[Page S8306]] wiring done evenly throughout their city--I know, and I said this on the floor before, when I was mayor, the local cable operator wanted only to wire the affluent areas of our city. We wanted some of the less affluent areas wired; we demanded it, and we were able to achieve it. Is this a barrier to entry? Could the cable company then appeal this and bring it back to Washington, meaning that a bevy of attorneys would have to come back, appear before the FCC, go to Federal court here or with the local jurisdiction, and maintain its authority, as it would under the Kempthorne-Feinstein amendment. And then the cable operators, if they did not like it, could take the item to Federal court. We believe to leave in the preemption is, in effect, to create a Federal mandate without funding. So we ask that subsection (d) be struck and have put forward this amendment to do so. I yield now to the Senator from Idaho.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, my colleague from Idaho took the words right out of my mouth. I think he is exactly right in his interpretation of this section. The barrier for entry is clearly done away with by this section. Nothing Senator Kempthorne or I would do would change that. What we do change, however, is simply delete the ability of a remote technical commission to overturn a city decision and create an enormous hassle for cities all across this Nation. I would like to just give you the exact wording of what the city attorney of Los Angeles said this section does. He says: It proposes sweeping review powers for the FCC and, in effect, converts a Federal administrative agency into a Federal administrative court. The FCC literally would have the power to review any local government action it wishes, either on its own or at the request of the industry. A Federal agency, with personnel who do not directly respond to the public, will be dictating in fine detail what rules local government and their citizens across the country shall have to follow. The FCC would be [[Page S8175]] given plenary power to decide what actions of local government are ``inconsistent with'' the very broad provisions in the bill and, without further review, hold the authority to nullify or preempt state and local governmental actions. That is an unprecedented and far-reaching authority for a Federal agency to have over local government. I could not agree more. Senator Kempthorne and I were both mayors at one time and we both understand that every city has different needs when it comes to cable television. I remember as the mayor of San Francisco when Viacom came into the city. It wired just the affluent sections of the city. It refused to wire the poorer areas of the city. Unless local government had the right to require that kind of wiring, it was not going to be done at all. That is just one small area with which I think everyone can identify. But when it comes to the rights-of-way and what is under city streets, the city must be in the position to set rules and regulations by which its street can be cut. This preemption gives the FCC the right to simply waive any local rulemaking and say that is not going to be the case. It gives the FCC the right to waive any local fee and say, ``That's not the way it is going to be.'' That is why countless cities and counties across the country, not just one or two, but virtually all of the big organizations, including the League of Cities, the national Governors, local officials and others, say, ``Don't do this.'' If a cable company has a problem with anything we in local government do, let them go to court. Let a court in our jurisdiction settle the issue. I think that is the right way to go. For the life of me, I have a hard time understanding why people would want to preempt these local decisions with the technical, far- removed FCC agency. So I think Senator Kempthorne has well outlined the situation. I think we have made our case. I thank the Chair. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Idaho for those excellent remarks. I think he hit the nail on the head with respect to the rights of local government, and the way in which this Congress is moving. This preemption sets all of our progress regarding the relationship between Federal and local government back, and hurts cities, counties, and States in the process. So I want the Senator to know how much I enjoy working with him on this. I thank him very much. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.