Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S. 2328 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in memory of Stuart Prentiss Herman, a prominent California attorney who passed away recently, in Los Angeles, at the young age of 57 after battling cancer. Mr. Herman lived his life fighting injustice and discrimination wherever he found it. He was active in the civil rights movement of the 1960's, and began his legal career in 1968 as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. After his term as a federal attorney, Mr. Herman entered private practice. His legal work was devoted to labor and civil rights law, and he was highly respected throughout the country as a litigator, a mediator, and an arbitrator of complex and significant cases, particularly in the areas of racial discrimination and sexual harassment. In addition to his private practice, Mr. Herman was committed to providing legal services to the less privileged members of our society, and served on the Managing Committee of Bet Tzedek Legal Services, the Southern California Committee of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Board of Directors of the Western Law Center for Disability Rights. He was also committed to preserving the quality of our legal system, having served on the California State Bar Complainants' Grievance Panel and the Los Angeles Police Commission's discipline panels, and our judiciary, having served on the Los Angeles County Bar Association's Judicial Evaluations Committee and on the U.S. Court of Appeals' Ninth Circuit Task Force on Judicial Reporting. Stuart Prentiss Herman was an exemplary attorney, having truly dedicated his life to the pursuit of justice for all Americans. I rise today in recognition of all that he accomplished during his lifetime, and in sadness that he passed away at such an early age.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on May 6-8, 2000, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will be in Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People. . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am very proud to announce that the class from Amador Valley High School in Pleasanton will represent the State of California. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals. Through their experience, they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The We the People. . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The primary goal of the program is to promote civic competence and responsibility among our nation's elementary and secondary students. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People. . . program has provided curricular material for more than 26 million students nationwide. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the U.S. Congress. The students testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges representing several regions of the country and a variety of appropriate professional fields. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by a simulated Congressional committee. The judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. The class from Amador Valley High School is currently conducting research and preparing for the upcoming national competition in Washington. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People. . . national finals and continued success in their future endeavors.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the first in a series of several bills I will be proposing to provide law enforcement with the tools they need to enforce our current gun laws. Let me be clear--I do believe that our current laws need to be enhanced. Too many loopholes allow too many criminals to circumvent the laws already in place. To that end, I will continue to work on legislation to further restrict criminals' access to deadly firearms. But it is also clear that we can do better in enforcing the laws already on the books. As a result, today I am proposing legislation that will tighten up the enforcement of our current laws. The legislation I have sent to the desk, the Firearms Dealer Penalty Flexibility Act of 2000, will provide the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the ability to punish dealers according to the severity of their crimes. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and I hope the National Rifle Association is listening, too. It is time for that organization to stop just talking about enforcing our current gun laws, and to start supporting legislation to help in that process. So today I challenge the NRA to support this bill and others like it. For too long, opponents of gun control have talked about enforcement, while at the same time working to tie the hands of those that enforce the laws. It is time to move forward. Now let me describe just what this legislation would accomplish. Mr. President, under current law there exists only one penalty for firearms dealers who violate the law--revocation of their license. If a dealer violates the law, the ATF is left with only two options-- permanently revoke the dealer's license, or do nothing. The problem, of course, is that not every violation merits the permanent revocation of a dealer's license. The current law is like having the death penalty for every crime--from jaywalking to murder. We have graduated sanctions in the criminal law because different crimes merit different punishment. In most instances, the ATF is understandably reluctant to destroy a dealer's livelihood--and the dealers know this. As a result, thousands of violations every year go unpunished. Last year, ATF conducted 11,234 examinations, and reported 3,863 violations. Yet only 20 licenses were actually revoked. Almost 4,000 violations, just 20 revocations. And this may have actually been the appropriate response. Again, not every violation is deserving of revocation. Many of these dealers are simply businessmen, who may have made one or two simple mistakes. Taking away their livelihood would be inappropriately harsh. But at the same time, ATF has informed me that there are other dealers out there who are taking advantage of the current system. These dealers know that if they commit a violation, they probably won't even get caught--after all, with more than 100,000 dealers and only a few hundred inspectors, the odds of catching a dealer in the act are slim. And even worse than that, these dealers know that even if they are caught, and even if ATF does discover a violation or even a pattern of violations, it is very unlikely that anything will be done. According to ATF, only the most egregious or repeat offenders are punished. Mr. President, it was clearly not the intent of Congress when passing laws to regulate firearms dealers in this country that dealers would be effectively immune from those laws. The current situation leaves law enforcement with little choice--if ATF revokes the license of every dealer that commits a minor violation, the NRA would be up in arms. But if they do the right thing under current law and allow dealers to stay in business, they are criticized for failing to enforce the current law. Well the bill I propose today would put an end to this quandary, and allow the Treasury Department to impose the proper, proportionate penalties for the variety of violations currently on the books. Specifically, this legislation, supported by the Administration, would do the following: For willful violations of the law, this legislation would allow the Treasury Department to suspend or revoke a dealer's license, or to assess a fine of up to $10,000 per violation; Those same penalties would be available for any dealer who willfully transfers armor piercing ammunition; The legislation allows the Treasury Department to negotiate a compromise with a dealer at any time; And the legislation outlines some clear, procedural protections for dealers-- A right to notice and opportunity for a hearing before any action is taken, so that the dealer may be made aware of the charges and seek to avert the action; A right to written notice of any action taken, including the grounds upon which the action was based; A right to a prompt hearing after a penalty is assessed, during which time the dealer can contest the outcome. This hearing must even be held at a location convenient to the dealer; If the second hearing is not fruitful, the dealer has an additional right to appeal the decision of the Department to federal court, during which time any action is stayed. Mr. President, these procedural safeguards prevent an aggressive agent from pursuing unfair penalties. There are at least three clear opportunities for an aggrieved dealer to make his or her case, including the right to appeal any decision to federal court. As a result, I believe that this bill gives law abiding firearms dealers every opportunity necessary to protect themselves against unwarranted claims. At the same time, this bill provides law enforcement with the variety of sanctions necessary to force true compliance with the laws already on the books. No more will rogue dealers flout the law knowing that no viable recourse is available to law enforcement. Once this legislation passes, the punishment will finally fit the crime. Mr. President, again I challenge the NRA and my colleagues to join me in moving this bill forward. We cannot continue to allow miscreant gun dealers to ignore the laws passed by this Congress.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the first in a series of several bills I will be proposing to provide law enforcement with the tools they need to enforce our current gun laws. Let me be clear--I do believe that our current laws need to be enhanced. Too many loopholes allow too many criminals to circumvent the laws already in place. To that end, I will continue to work on legislation to further restrict criminals' access to deadly firearms. But it is also clear that we can do better in enforcing the laws already on the books. As a result, today I am proposing legislation that will tighten up the enforcement of our current laws. The legislation I have sent to the desk, the Firearms Dealer Penalty Flexibility Act of 2000, will provide the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the ability to punish dealers according to the severity of their crimes. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort, and I hope the National Rifle Association is listening, too. It is time for that organization to stop just talking about enforcing our current gun laws, and to start supporting legislation to help in that process. So today I challenge the NRA to support this bill and others like it. For too long, opponents of gun control have talked about enforcement, while at the same time working to tie the hands of those that enforce the laws. It is time to move forward. Now let me describe just what this legislation would accomplish. Mr. President, under current law there exists only one penalty for firearms dealers who violate the law--revocation of their license. If a dealer violates the law, the ATF is left with only two options-- permanently revoke the dealer's license, or do nothing. The problem, of course, is that not every violation merits the permanent revocation of a dealer's license. The current law is like having the death penalty for every crime--from jaywalking to murder. We have graduated sanctions in the criminal law because different crimes merit different punishment. In most instances, the ATF is understandably reluctant to destroy a dealer's livelihood--and the dealers know this. As a result, thousands of violations every year go unpunished. Last year, ATF conducted 11,234 examinations, and reported 3,863 violations. Yet only 20 licenses were actually revoked. Almost 4,000 violations, just 20 revocations. And this may have actually been the appropriate response. Again, not every violation is deserving of revocation. Many of these dealers are simply businessmen, who may have made one or two simple mistakes. Taking away their livelihood would be inappropriately harsh. But at the same time, ATF has informed me that there are other dealers out there who are taking advantage of the current system. These dealers know that if they commit a violation, they probably won't even get caught--after all, with more than 100,000 dealers and only a few hundred inspectors, the odds of catching a dealer in the act are slim. And even worse than that, these dealers know that even if they are caught, and even if ATF does discover a violation or even a pattern of violations, it is very unlikely that anything will be done. According to ATF, only the most egregious or repeat offenders are punished. Mr. President, it was clearly not the intent of Congress when passing laws to regulate firearms dealers in this country that dealers would be effectively immune from those laws. The current situation leaves law enforcement with little choice--if ATF revokes the license of every dealer that commits a minor violation, the NRA would be up in arms. But if they do the right thing under current law and allow dealers to stay in business, they are criticized for failing to enforce the current law. Well the bill I propose today would put an end to this quandary, and allow the Treasury Department to impose the proper, proportionate penalties for the variety of violations currently on the books. Specifically, this legislation, supported by the Administration, would do the following: For willful violations of the law, this legislation would allow the Treasury Department to suspend or revoke a dealer's license, or to assess a fine of up to $10,000 per violation; Those same penalties would be available for any dealer who willfully transfers armor piercing ammunition; The legislation allows the Treasury Department to negotiate a compromise with a dealer at any time; And the legislation outlines some clear, procedural protections for dealers-- A right to notice and opportunity for a hearing before any action is taken, so that the dealer may be made aware of the charges and seek to avert the action; A right to written notice of any action taken, including the grounds upon which the action was based; A right to a prompt hearing after a penalty is assessed, during which time the dealer can contest the outcome. This hearing must even be held at a location convenient to the dealer; If the second hearing is not fruitful, the dealer has an additional right to appeal the decision of the Department to federal court, during which time any action is stayed. Mr. President, these procedural safeguards prevent an aggressive agent from pursuing unfair penalties. There are at least three clear opportunities for an aggrieved dealer to make his or her case, including the right to appeal any decision to federal court. As a result, I believe that this bill gives law abiding firearms dealers every opportunity necessary to protect themselves against unwarranted claims. At the same time, this bill provides law enforcement with the variety of sanctions necessary to force true compliance with the laws already on the books. No more will rogue dealers flout the law knowing that no viable recourse is available to law enforcement. Once this legislation passes, the punishment will finally fit the crime. Mr. President, again I challenge the NRA and my colleagues to join me in moving this bill forward. We cannot continue to allow miscreant gun dealers to ignore the laws passed by this Congress.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on March 17, 2000, the Irish and the Irish-at-heart around the world celebrated Saint Patrick's Day, a day to remember the spirit of comradery, friendship, and peace the patron saint of Ireland brought to the Emerald Isle. I rise today to pay tribute to the Irish people and the forty million Irish Americans in this country--who are also celebrating Irish-American Heritage Month--and offer my thoughts on an issue close to their hearts and mine: peace in Northern Ireland. The signing of the Good Friday Peace Accords on April 10, 1998 was an historic achievement in the quest for peace. After 32 years of conflict and bloodshed, the leaders of the principal Unionist and Nationalist parties in Northern Ireland agreed to a new governing structure for the province, one in which Catholics and Protestants would, for the first time, share power in a new assembly and executive. On May 22, 1998, the people of Ireland, in the North and in the South, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Accords. Their message was clear: it was time for a new era of peace based on reconciliation, compassion, and respect. Thanks in no small part to the tireless work of our former colleague, Senator George Mitchell, the power sharing executive finally came into existence on December 1, 1999 and the formal devolution of power from London to the people of Northern Ireland took place. It appeared that the Irish would finally be able to celebrate the true spirit of Saint Patrick's Day. The quest for peace, however, took a step backwards when--on February 11, 2000--the British government suspended the power sharing institutions and resumed direct rule of Northern Ireland from London. The Good Friday Peace Accords is now hanging by a thread. As I stated earlier, the people of Ireland, Protestants and Catholics, in the North and in the South, have made their feelings clear. They support the Good Friday Peace Accords. They support the power sharing institutions. They support peace and cooperation. They believe that the people of Northern Ireland should have the ability to govern their own affairs. Representatives of all parties in Northern Ireland met last week here in Washington with British and Irish leaders in an effort to break this impasse and return home rule to Northern Ireland. I am hopeful that their efforts will prove to be successful. I strongly support the Accords. They represent the best hope for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I urge all parties to stick to the agreement and make it work. They have a responsibility to keep their word to the Irish people and stop Northern Ireland from slipping back to the ways of the ``Hard Men'': intimidation, violence, and death. On this day, let us reflect on the turmoil the Irish have endured for so many years and commend them for their tremendous hope, persistence, and hard work. Let us remember the true spirit of Saint Patrick's Day and renew our support for the Irish people in the North and the South who desperately want, and deserve, a future of peace and prosperity.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Act of 2000, a bill that would freeze Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments to hospitals at their 2000 level for Fiscal Year 2001 and 2002. I hope the Senate can act promptly on this bill. The number of people in our nation who have no medical insurance has hit some 44 million. This is tragic. More than 100,000 people join the ranks of the uninsured monthly. We cannot continue to reduce payments to hospitals that provide care for the uninsured. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of poor people who show up at emergency rooms with no insurance or on the backs of the hospitals that tend to them. California bears a disproportionate burden of uncompensated care. Twenty-four percent of our population is uninsured. Nationwide, the rate is 17 percent. Currently, over 7 million Californians are uninsured. During the past few months, I have met with many California health care leaders. They fear that the Medicaid cuts contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have undermined the financial stability of California's health care system, which many believe to be on the verge of collapse. As a result of Medicaid reductions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, California's Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital program could lose more than $280 million by 2002. Federal Medicaid DSH payments to California have declined by more than $116 million in the past two years and are slated to be cut by an additional $164 million--17 percent--over the next two years. Without this bill, for example, by Fiscal Year 2002 Los Angeles County- University of Southern California Medical Center will lose $13.5 million. San Francisco General will lose $5.2 million. Fresno Community Hospital will lose $10.5 million. Over 132 California hospitals, representing rural and urban communities, depend on Medicaid DSH payments. Under this bill, millions of dollars will be restored to California public hospitals. Public hospitals carry a disproportionate share of caring for the poor and uninsured. Forty percent of all California uninsured hospital patients were treated at public hospitals in 1998, up from 32 percent in 1993. The uninsured as a share of all discharges from public hospitals grew from 22 percent in 1993 to 29 percent in 1998. While overall public hospital discharges declined from 1993 to 1999 by 15 percent, discharges for uninsured patients increased by 11 percent. Large numbers of uninsured add huge uncompensated costs to our public hospitals. The uninsured often choose public hospitals and frequently wait until their illnesses or injuries require emergency treatment. This makes their care even more costly. California's emergency rooms are strained to the breaking point. Last week at a California State Senate hearing, Dr. Dan Abbott, an emergency room physician at St. Jude Hospital in Fullerton, California said: ``We feel that emergency care in California is overwhelmed, it's underfunded and at times, frankly, it is out-and- out dangerous.'' Statewide, 19 emergency rooms have closed since 1997 despite an increase in the number of uninsured requiring care. The burden to provide care is put on those hospitals who have managed to remain open, and many of those hospitals are currently facing financial problems of their own. California's health care system, in the words of a November 15th Wall Street Journal article, is a ``chaotic and discombobulated environment.'' It is stretched to the limit: Thirty-seven California hospitals have closed since 1996, and up to 15 percent more may close by 2005. Earlier this month, Scripps Memorial Hospital East County closed its doors due in part to reimbursement problems. Eighty-six California hospitals operated in the red in 1999. Academic medical centers, which incur added costs unique to their mission, are facing margins reduced to zero and below. Sixty-two percent of California hospitals are now losing money. Due to the large number of Medicare and Medicaid patients, sixty-nine percent of California's rural hospitals lost money in 1998, according to the California Healthcare Association. Hospitals have laid off staff, limited hours of operation, and discontinued services. California physician groups are failing at the rate of one a week, with 115 bankruptcies or closures since 1996. In short, restoring Medicaid cuts is crucial to stabilizing California's health delivery system. Circumstances have changed since 1997 when we passed the Balanced Budget Act. We have eliminated the federal deficit. Because we have a robust economy, lower inflation, higher GDP growth and lower unemployment, we also have lowered Medicaid spending growth more than anticipated. This climate provides us an opportunity to revisit the reductions contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and to strengthen the stability of health care services, a system that in my State is on the verge of unraveling. We need to pass this bill. Without it, we could have a more severe health care crisis on our hands, especially in California. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 14, a proposed constitutional amendment to protect our national flag from physical desecration. S.J. Res. 14 would give Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to draft a statute to protect the flag. It would give Congress the opportunity to construct, deliberately and carefully, precise statutory language that clearly defines the contours of prohibitive conduct. At the outset, let me say that amending the Constitution is serious business, indeed. I know that, and I know we need to tread carefully. The Constitution is, after all, democracy's sacred text. But the Constitution is also a living text. As originally conceived, it had no Bill of Rights. In all, it has been amended 27 times. If the Constitution is democracy's sacred text, then the flag is our sacred symbol. In the words of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, it is ``a symbol of our freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations.'' [dissenting opinion in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. at 437 (1989)] If the flag had no symbolic value, we would not get chills when we see it lowered to half-mast or draped on a coffin. We wouldn't feel so much pride when we see it flying in front of our homes or at our embassies abroad. I wonder, is there any of us who can forget that wonderful Joe Rosenthal photograph of the six Marines hoisting that flag on the barren crag of Mount Suribachi, after the carnage at Iwo Jima, where over 6,800 American soldiers were killed. There have been many photographs of soldiers. There has been no photograph I know of that so endures in our mind's eye, that has carried so much symbolism, as that one. I remember seeing it because the San Francisco Chronicle ran it on the front page during World War II. I was just a small child, but from that point on, I knew the flag was something special. People speak metaphorically about the fabric of our society and how it has become frayed. I submit that in a very real sense, our flag is the physical fabric of our society, knitting together disparate peoples from distant lands, uniting us in a common bond, not just of individual liberty but also of responsibility to one another. As such, the flag is more precious to us, perhaps, than we may even know. The flag flies over government buildings throughout the country. It flies over our embassies abroad, a silent but strong reminder that when in those buildings, one is on American soil and afforded all the protections and liberties enjoyed back home. Constitutional scholars as diverse as Chief Justices William Rehnquist and Earl Warren and Associate Justices Stevens and Hugo Black have vouched for the unique status of the national flag. In 1974, Byron White said: It is well within the powers of Congress to adopt and prescribe a national flag and to protect the unity of that flag. . . [T]he flag is an important symbol of nationhood and unity, created by the Nation and endowed with certain attributes.'' [Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. at 585-87 (1974)] Justice White continued, ``[T]here would seem to be little question about the power of Congress to forbid the mutilation of the Lincoln Memorial or to prevent overlaying it with words or other objects. The flag is itself a monument, subject to similar protection.'' I could not agree more with the opinion of Justice White: ``The flag is itself a monument, subject to similar protection.'' Since that time, unfortunately, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court has now ruled twice that this great symbol of our national unity is not protected under the Constitution. So that is why we are here today, to begin the process of protecting the flag, which is a symbol of all the protections we are afforded as Americans and all the liberties we enjoy. The flag flying over our Capitol Building today, the flag flying over my home in San Francisco, each of these flags, separated by distance but not in symbolic value, is its own monument to everything America represents. It should be protected as such. Our history books are replete with stories of American soldiers who were charged with the responsibility of leading their units into battle by carrying our Nation's flag. To them, it was more than a task, it was an honor worth dying for, and many did. When one soldier would fall, another would take his place, raise the flag, and press forward. They would not fail. Their mission was too important, the honor too great, flag and country too respected to give anything short of the last full measure of their devotion, their lives, to succeed. The American flag is a revered object as well as a national symbol. Indeed, it is our monument in cloth. I believe it should be viewed as such, and not simply as something that serves as one of many vehicles for free speech. Everything about the flag--its tangible form, its very fabric--has significance. The shape, the colors, the dimensions, and the arrangement of the pattern help make the flag what it is. The colors were chosen at the Second Continental Congress in 1777. We all know them well: Red for heartiness and courage; white for purity and innocence; blue for vigilance, perseverance, and justice. Moreover, our flag is recognized as unique not only in the hearts and minds of Americans but in our laws and customs as well. No other emblem or symbol in our Nation carries with it such a specific code of conduct and protocol in its display and handling. For example, Federal law specifically prescribes that the flag should never be displayed with its union down, except as a signal of dire distress or in instances of extreme danger to life or property. When a flag is flown upside down, it is in fact a signal of distress. The U.S. flag should never touch anything beneath it: neither ground, floor, water, or merchandise. The U.S. flag should never be dipped to any person or thing. And the flag should never be carried horizontally but should always be carried aloft and free. Why, then, should it be permissible conduct to burn, to desecrate, to destroy this symbol, this emblem, this national monument? That is not my definition of free speech. For the first two centuries of this Nation's history, that was not the Supreme Court's definition of free speech either. In fact, until the Court's 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson, 48 of the 50 States had laws preventing burning or otherwise defacing our flag. As I said at the outset, I don't take amending the Constitution lightly. But when the Supreme Court issued the Johnson decision and the subsequent United States v. Eichman decision [496 U.S. 310 (1990)], those of us who want to protect the flag were forced to find an alternative path. In the Johnson case, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, struck down a State law prohibiting the desecration of American flags in a manner that would be offensive to others. The Court held that the prohibition amounted to a content-based regulation. By design, at least according to the Court, the lawfulness of Johnson's conduct could only be determined by the content of his expression. As a result, the Texas statute could not survive the strict scrutiny required by legal precedent, so the Court struck it down. After the Johnson case was decided, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. That Act prohibited all intentional acts of desecrating the American flag and was, therefore, not a content-based prohibition on speech or expression. Nevertheless--and this is the point why a statute won't do--another narrow majority of the Supreme Court acted quickly to strike down the Federal statute as well, ruling that it suffered the same flaw as the Texas statute in the Johnson decision and was consequently inconsistent with the First Amendment. That 5-4 decision makes today's discussion necessary. I support S.J. Res. 14 because it offers a way to return the Nation's flag to the protected status it deserves. The authority for a nation to protect its central symbol of unity was considered constitutional for two centuries. It was only a decade ago that a narrow majority of the Supreme Court told us otherwise. It is important to point out that S.J. Res. 14 is not intended to protect ephemeral images or representations of the flag but only the physical flag itself. In other words, this amendment is not intended to restrict the display of images of the American flag on articles of clothing, patches, or similar items. This amendment would only protect the flag itself. Because we are protecting our national symbol, it makes sense to me that Members of Congress, representing the Nation as a whole, should craft the statute protecting our flag. I also believe the amendment is consistent with free speech. I disagree with those who say we are making a choice between trampling on the flag and trampling on the first amendment. Protecting the flag, circumscribing certain conduct, will not prevent people from expressing their ideas through other means in the strongest possible terms. I support this amendment because I believe flag burning is content, not speech, and can be regulated as such. But to my friends who would argue otherwise, I remind them that even the right to free speech is not unrestricted. For example, the Government can prohibit speech that threatens to cause imminent tangible harm, including face-to-face ``fighting words'', incitement to violate our laws, or shouting ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Obscenity and false advertising are not protected under the first amendment, and indecency over the broadcast media can be limited to certain times of day. Even Justice William Brennan's decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan [376 U.S. 253 (1964)] accepted that some speech (in that case, known false statements criticizing official conduct of a public official) may be sanctioned. There is much that is open to debate about the proper parameters of free speech. In the dissent to the 1990 Eichman case, Justice Stevens wrote that certain methods of expression may be prohibited if three criteria can be met: First, the prohibition must be supported by a legitimate societal interest unrelated to the ideas the speaker desires to express. I believe protecting the flag meets the first test. It does not matter why an individual chooses to desecrate a flag--all desecration is equally prohibited. Second, the speaker must be free to express his or her ideas through other means. Again, a law protecting the flag does nothing to keep an individual from expressing his or her views through speech or countless other activities. Third, societal interest must outweigh the ability of an individual to choose among every possible form of speech. In this case, I believe the significance of the flag--its value as a symbol of freedom and democracy throughout the world, its ability to bring us together as a nation, and the effect its destruction has on many Americans--clearly outweighs the need to protect an individual's ability to express his or her views in every conceivable way. Is anyone here convinced that desecrating a flag might be the only way for someone to express an opinion? I recognize that by supporting a constitutional amendment to protect the flag, I am choosing a different course from many of my fellow Democrats in Congress and, quite frankly, from many of my close friends for whom I have the greatest respect. But my support for this amendment reflects my broader belief that the time has come for the Nation to begin a major debate on its values. We need to ask ourselves what we hold dear--is there anything upon which we will not cast our contempt? How can we foster respect for tradition as well as ideological diversity? How can we foster community as well as individuality? These are all important values, and we must learn to reconcile them. We must not advance one value at the expense of another. The framers of the Constitution recognized two important elements in our constitutional tradition--liberty and responsibility. Without responsibility, without the rule of law, there could be no protection of life, limb, or property--there could be no lasting liberty. I believe there is a danger in moving too far in either direction--toward too restrictive order, or toward unfettered individual liberty. The key is the balance. In this instance, I believe we cannot tilt the scales entirely in favor of individual rights when there exists a vast community of people in this country who have gone to war for our flag. There are mothers and fathers, wives, husbands, and children who have received that knock on their front door and have been told their son or daughter, husband or wife, father or mother has been killed in the line of duty. They have been given a flag on this occasion, a flag which helps preserve the memory of their loved one and which speaks to his or her courage. That is the symbol, that is the emblem, that is the national monument. Requiring certain individuals to stop defacing or burning the flag, I think, is a very small price to pay on behalf of millions of Americans for whom the flag has deep personal significance. Less than a decade ago, when 48 States had laws against flag burning, there was no less free speech. And if this amendment is adopted, the First Amendment will continue to thrive. I believe S.J. Res. 14 will protect the integrity of the flag and keep our First Amendment jurisprudence intact. While expressing my support for S.J. Res. 14, I briefly want to explain why I oppose the amendment my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, offered. His amendment, derived from the text of S. 982, would have had the effect of replacing the constitutional language with statutory language. However well-intentioned and earnest the Senator was in offering the amendment, I believe it was flawed. The Supreme Court, following its rulings in Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman, would certainly strike it down as violative of the First Amendment. We have been down this road before. The Johnson and Eichman decisions stipulate that neither Congress nor the States may provide any special protection for the flag. In both decisions, the Court made it clear that special legal protections for the American flag offend the Court's concept of free speech. Because the Court views the flag itself as an object of symbolic speech and not as a monument, any conduct taken with regard to the flag constitutes protected expression, as well. So we cannot overrule such a notion with a statute. That is why, clearly and simply, we need a constitutional amendment. And that is why I stand today to support that amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this bill today to establish the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historic Park. This park will be constructed on the former site of Richmond Kaiser Shipyard #2 which produced WWII ships at the site of the present-day Marina Park in Richmond California. The Home Front industrial buildup in Richmond, California and across America to strengthen U.S. military capability and eventually win World War II started in early 1941 with the Lend Lease Program. Employment at the Richmond Shipyards peaked at 90,000 and forced an unprecedented integration of workers into the nation's work force. ``Rosie the Riveter'' was a term coined to help recruit female civilian workers and came to symbolize a workforce mobilized to fill the gap created by working men who left their jobs for active military duty. Nationwide, six million women entered the WWII Home Front workforce, which also provided unprecedented opportunities for minorities. I am proud to offer this legislation to commemorate these invaluable contributions to the U.S. victory in World War II, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this bill today to establish the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historic Park. This park will be constructed on the former site of Richmond Kaiser Shipyard #2 which produced WWII ships at the site of the present-day Marina Park in Richmond California. The Home Front industrial buildup in Richmond, California and across America to strengthen U.S. military capability and eventually win World War II started in early 1941 with the Lend Lease Program. Employment at the Richmond Shipyards peaked at 90,000 and forced an unprecedented integration of workers into the nation's work force. ``Rosie the Riveter'' was a term coined to help recruit female civilian workers and came to symbolize a workforce mobilized to fill the gap created by working men who left their jobs for active military duty. Nationwide, six million women entered the WWII Home Front workforce, which also provided unprecedented opportunities for minorities. I am proud to offer this legislation to commemorate these invaluable contributions to the U.S. victory in World War II, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which I hope might move the Senate closer to the passage of meaningful campaign finance reform. I have voted for versions of the McCain- Feingold reform legislation at least six times in the past 4 years. I continue to support passage of that bill, and I will vote for it in the future. I am concerned, however, that this legislation might not come up for a vote again in this Congress. Earlier this morning, the Rules Committee, of which I am a member and which Senator McConnell chairs, began a series of hearings on the constitutionality of campaign finance reform. At that time, I indicated that what I wished to do was submit a bill which might have an opportunity to break the gridlock surrounding campaign finance reform, and develop some kind of consensus. So if I may, on behalf of Senator Torricelli and myself, I send a bill to the desk and ask for its submission to committee.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this bill has three simple provisions. First of all, it bans soft money. Second, it raises hard money contributions to candidates from $1,000 to $3,000. Third, it requires the disclosure of those parties who pay for the so-called issue ads, who contribute to the soft money which at present is undisclosed. So it would require disclosure of any expenditure of $10,000 or more of an independent campaign within 48 hours, and it would require disclosure of any individual who contributes more than $3,000 to an independent campaign. That is all this bill would do. I think, any way you look at it, looking at campaign spending reform, one has to look at the unregulated nature of soft money and the appearance--and I use the word ``appearance''--of corruption that it brings to campaigns. Clearly, when in the same session of Congress you have tobacco legislation in front of this body and you have a tobacco company that contributes $1 million in soft money at the same time, you can draw a conclusion--perhaps falsely, but nonetheless draw it--that that money is contributed in large amounts with hopes of gaining votes in support of the company. I think the numbers, the size of soft money contributions, really, are what ought to concern this body. The Republican Party raised $131 million in soft money during the 1998 election cycle. That is a 150- percent increase over the last midterm election, in 1994. So from 1994 to 1998, 4 years, there has been a 150-percent increase in the amount of soft money. The Democratic Party raised $91.5 million during this same period. That is an 86-percent increase over 4 years. At this rate, you can see the amount of soft money is going to, by far, dominate anything individual candidates can raise or do during an election. A recent analysis found that national political party committees together raised $107 million just during 1999 alone. That is 81 percent more than the $59 million they raised during the last comparable Presidential election period in 1995. Congressional campaign committees of the national parties raised more than three times as much soft money during 1999 as they raised during 1995--$62 million compared to $19 million. We clearly have a trendline going. I think the decision one has to make is, is this trendline going to be healthy for the American political process? Those who think it is will be for soft money. But I think most of us believe, truly, that it is not. The problem comes because the contribution limit is so low for an individual candidate. My bill says eliminate soft money, and the tradeoff is to increase the hard money contribution for every individual candidate from $1,000 to $3,000. We heard that the 1971 contribution limit of $1,000 today in real dollars is worth about $328. The limit was set 29 years ago and clearly needs to be raised because the costs of campaign materials, consultant services, television, radio, all of the necessary tools of any viable campaign have clearly increased. So what was worth $1,000 in 1971 is now worth $328. This would clearly be equalized to have a meaningful parity with 1971 if the sum were raised to $3,000. What my bill will do is move campaign contributions from under the table to above the table. Instead of hundreds of thousands of unregulated dollars flowing into the coffers of national political parties, this legislation will increase the amount an individual might contribute to a candidate under the existing rules of the Federal Election Campaign Act. So what we would be doing is exchanging soft money for increased limits, soft money being undisclosed and unregulated and hard money being both disclosed and regulated. It is not the small contributions to an individual's campaign, I think, that Americans view as corrupting. It is the large checks of $100,000, $250,000, and $1 million, or more, to parties that creates this appearance. My bill would eliminate this soft money while still allowing candidates to compete without the influence of the national parties and these huge amounts of money. The final component of the bill is the greater regulation of so- called issues advocacy. A current campaign law loophole allows unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence elections without being subject to disclosure or expenditure restrictions. Issue advocacy does not use the so-called ``magic words'', such as ``vote for,'' ``elect,'' ``defeat'' or ``reelect'' that the Supreme Court has identified as express advocacy and, therefore, are not subject to FEC regulation. This bill would define ``electioneering communications'' as an advertisement broadcast from television or radio that refers to a candidate for Federal office and is made 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary. Any individual or organization that spends more than $10,000 on such an ad must disclose the expenditure to the FEC within 48 hours. In addition, all contributions greater than $3,000 to groups that engage in electioneering communications must be disclosed to the FEC within 48 hours. This takes that anonymous area of independent campaigns and clarifies express advocacy and regulates and discloses all of the money. The Annenberg Public Policy Center has studied the amount that independent groups have spent on issue advocacy in each of the last two election cycles: 1995-96 and 1997-98. The study estimates that the amount spent on issue ads more than doubled, to some $340 million. The Center's report indicates that as election day gets closer, issue ads become more candidate-oriented and more negative. This kind of unregulated attack advertisements are poisoning the process and driving voters, I believe, away from the polls. With the passing of every election, it becomes increasingly clear that our campaign system desperately needs reform. I think this reform measure has a very real chance of being passed. Once again, let me say, it bans soft money; it increases hard money contribution limits to candidates from $1,000 to $3,000; it ties them to inflation after 2001; it says simply that anyone engaging in independent campaigns must, in effect, disclose, within 48 hours, contributions greater than $3,000 or expenditures of more than $10,000. I strongly believe that congressional action on meaningful campaign finance reform is a very necessary first step in restoring the public's confidence in our government. I hope that my colleagues will see this as an attempt to reach across the partisan gap, and join me in supporting this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which I hope might move the Senate closer to the passage of meaningful campaign finance reform. I have voted for versions of the McCain- Feingold reform legislation at least six times in the past 4 years. I continue to support passage of that bill, and I will vote for it in the future. I am concerned, however, that this legislation might not come up for a vote again in this Congress. Earlier this morning, the Rules Committee, of which I am a member and which Senator McConnell chairs, began a series of hearings on the constitutionality of campaign finance reform. At that time, I indicated that what I wished to do was submit a bill which might have an opportunity to break the gridlock surrounding campaign finance reform, and develop some kind of consensus. So if I may, on behalf of Senator Torricelli and myself, I send a bill to the desk and ask for its submission to committee.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this bill has three simple provisions. First of all, it bans soft money. Second, it raises hard money contributions to candidates from $1,000 to $3,000. Third, it requires the disclosure of those parties who pay for the so-called issue ads, who contribute to the soft money which at present is undisclosed. So it would require disclosure of any expenditure of $10,000 or more of an independent campaign within 48 hours, and it would require disclosure of any individual who contributes more than $3,000 to an independent campaign. That is all this bill would do. I think, any way you look at it, looking at campaign spending reform, one has to look at the unregulated nature of soft money and the appearance--and I use the word ``appearance''--of corruption that it brings to campaigns. Clearly, when in the same session of Congress you have tobacco legislation in front of this body and you have a tobacco company that contributes $1 million in soft money at the same time, you can draw a conclusion--perhaps falsely, but nonetheless draw it--that that money is contributed in large amounts with hopes of gaining votes in support of the company. I think the numbers, the size of soft money contributions, really, are what ought to concern this body. The Republican Party raised $131 million in soft money during the 1998 election cycle. That is a 150- percent increase over the last midterm election, in 1994. So from 1994 to 1998, 4 years, there has been a 150-percent increase in the amount of soft money. The Democratic Party raised $91.5 million during this same period. That is an 86-percent increase over 4 years. At this rate, you can see the amount of soft money is going to, by far, dominate anything individual candidates can raise or do during an election. A recent analysis found that national political party committees together raised $107 million just during 1999 alone. That is 81 percent more than the $59 million they raised during the last comparable Presidential election period in 1995. Congressional campaign committees of the national parties raised more than three times as much soft money during 1999 as they raised during 1995--$62 million compared to $19 million. We clearly have a trendline going. I think the decision one has to make is, is this trendline going to be healthy for the American political process? Those who think it is will be for soft money. But I think most of us believe, truly, that it is not. The problem comes because the contribution limit is so low for an individual candidate. My bill says eliminate soft money, and the tradeoff is to increase the hard money contribution for every individual candidate from $1,000 to $3,000. We heard that the 1971 contribution limit of $1,000 today in real dollars is worth about $328. The limit was set 29 years ago and clearly needs to be raised because the costs of campaign materials, consultant services, television, radio, all of the necessary tools of any viable campaign have clearly increased. So what was worth $1,000 in 1971 is now worth $328. This would clearly be equalized to have a meaningful parity with 1971 if the sum were raised to $3,000. What my bill will do is move campaign contributions from under the table to above the table. Instead of hundreds of thousands of unregulated dollars flowing into the coffers of national political parties, this legislation will increase the amount an individual might contribute to a candidate under the existing rules of the Federal Election Campaign Act. So what we would be doing is exchanging soft money for increased limits, soft money being undisclosed and unregulated and hard money being both disclosed and regulated. It is not the small contributions to an individual's campaign, I think, that Americans view as corrupting. It is the large checks of $100,000, $250,000, and $1 million, or more, to parties that creates this appearance. My bill would eliminate this soft money while still allowing candidates to compete without the influence of the national parties and these huge amounts of money. The final component of the bill is the greater regulation of so- called issues advocacy. A current campaign law loophole allows unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence elections without being subject to disclosure or expenditure restrictions. Issue advocacy does not use the so-called ``magic words'', such as ``vote for,'' ``elect,'' ``defeat'' or ``reelect'' that the Supreme Court has identified as express advocacy and, therefore, are not subject to FEC regulation. This bill would define ``electioneering communications'' as an advertisement broadcast from television or radio that refers to a candidate for Federal office and is made 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary. Any individual or organization that spends more than $10,000 on such an ad must disclose the expenditure to the FEC within 48 hours. In addition, all contributions greater than $3,000 to groups that engage in electioneering communications must be disclosed to the FEC within 48 hours. This takes that anonymous area of independent campaigns and clarifies express advocacy and regulates and discloses all of the money. The Annenberg Public Policy Center has studied the amount that independent groups have spent on issue advocacy in each of the last two election cycles: 1995-96 and 1997-98. The study estimates that the amount spent on issue ads more than doubled, to some $340 million. The Center's report indicates that as election day gets closer, issue ads become more candidate-oriented and more negative. This kind of unregulated attack advertisements are poisoning the process and driving voters, I believe, away from the polls. With the passing of every election, it becomes increasingly clear that our campaign system desperately needs reform. I think this reform measure has a very real chance of being passed. Once again, let me say, it bans soft money; it increases hard money contribution limits to candidates from $1,000 to $3,000; it ties them to inflation after 2001; it says simply that anyone engaging in independent campaigns must, in effect, disclose, within 48 hours, contributions greater than $3,000 or expenditures of more than $10,000. I strongly believe that congressional action on meaningful campaign finance reform is a very necessary first step in restoring the public's confidence in our government. I hope that my colleagues will see this as an attempt to reach across the partisan gap, and join me in supporting this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S. 2269 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Social Security Earnings Test Elimination Act of 2000, which I have cosponsored. The earnings limit is the amount of money a Social Security recipient can earn without having a portion of his or her benefits deferred. Currently, that limit is $17,000 per year for retirees between the ages of 65 and 69. For every $3 in earnings above that limit, these seniors have $1 in benefits deferred. I believe that this is grossly unfair. Last year, my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, and I proposed lifting the Social Security earnings test on retirees between the ages of 65 and 69. We did not propose outright elimination because we did not think, at that time, that the surplus would be large enough to sustain elimination. Now, a year later--and thanks to our continued economic boom--I believe it is possible to eliminate the earnings test outright, and still adhere to a responsible and fiscally sound budget. Over 1 million seniors nationwide face this earnings test. My own state, California, has more seniors affected by the earnings test than any other state: 161,000, according to the Bureau of the Census. For these 161,000 Californians--and hundreds of thousands of others all across this country--this legislation represents an important step in removing the unfair burden that the earnings test places on them simply because they wish to continue working. As President Clinton said in his February 29 letter to House leaders: We should reward every American who wants to and can stay active and productive. For example, a letter I received from the American Health Care Association holds: The nursing facilities we represent make a concerted effort to employ senior citizens to care for their peers. They're reliable and honest workers, who have compassion for those in their care. We have had difficulty hiring or retaining these employees because of the threat of losing Social Security benefits after their annual earnings have passed $17,000. Elimination of the earnings test is important not just to those retirees who want to continue to work, but to those who need to continue to work and who are currently faced with an Hobson's choice: Continue to work and have Social Security benefits reduced, or stop working and rely only on Social Security for retirement security. For all too many of these retirees--over half of those helped by this legislation have incomes under $45,000 per year, including Social Security--both of these choices leave them financially squeezed. For women, who are twice as likely as men to retire in poverty, this is an especially important issue. This legislation offers a third choice: Continue to work and continue to receive those Social Security benefits. Moreover, I believe that elimination of the Social Security earnings test is warranted because the original logic of the earnings test no longer holds. Congress imposed the earnings test to provide a ``disincentive'' to older workers to continue to work, so as to make room for younger workers during the Great Depression. In our new, twenty-first century economy, unemployment is at historic lows and firms are nearly desperate for workers. I do not believe that passage of this legislation will address many long-term problems regarding the solvency of the Social Security system. We have much work remaining on that score. But for the hundreds of thousands of seniors who either need or want to continue to work past age 65, this legislation represents an important step in creating a fairer and more secure retirement. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the Social Security Earnings Test Elimination Act of 2000.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my long-time friend and Chief of Staff, Michael S. McGill. I have known Mike for nearly two decades and have had the privilege of working with him when I was Mayor of San Francisco and during my tenure in the U.S. Senate. I have a great respect and appreciation for Mike, who has devoted his life to public service and served the state of California with excellence and honor. Mike earned a B.S. in business administration at the University of Kansas, and is still an avid Jayhawks fan. He earned his Master's in political science at the University of Texas, which prepared him for a long and distinguished career in public service. In 1967, Mike joined the U.S. Department of State as a Foreign Service Officer and was assigned to the Model Cities Program in Fort Worth, Texas. There he committed his time and energy to issues affecting urban communities. After moving to San Francisco in 1972, Mike developed a passion for water policy, the issue area in which he has provided me with indispensable knowledge and advice. He served for three years as executive director of the Bay Area Economic Forum, and for seven years as executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR). As head of SPUR, he faced competing agricultural, urban, and environmental interests, but he was able to mediate these differences to the benefit of California. Since 1993, Mike has served as my Chief of Staff. He has done an outstanding job. He has managed my five Senate offices, which serve more than 32 million constituents. This in itself is a tremendous undertaking, and I am proud to say that Mike has succeeded in ensuring that the people of California are served with care, compassion, and efficiency. As the cornerstone of my staff for the past seven years, Mike's dedication and integrity have earned him the respect of everyone he has worked with and advised. His door is always open, because no issue is too big or too small for Mike's attention and guidance. In particular, Mike's advice in approaching and solving the water issues that impact California has been invaluable. In my state, water is our lifeblood, and this has made it a contentious issue. I have been thankful to have Mike's experience and insight on an issue that is by no means an easy one. In my office, we can count on Mike and his wealth of knowledge that ranges from politics to baseball to American history. He and his wife Mary enjoy traveling throughout the country, visiting presidential homes and Civil War battlefields. He is also a dedicated father to two wonderful daughters, Deidre and Erin, who are proud of his accomplishments. Mike will be leaving my office to return to one of his passions, urban planning, this time at the General Services Administration. There he will work in the Public Buildings Service, managing and preserving historic buildings and landmarks. I have no doubt that Mike will be an asset to the GSA, just as he has been to my office. It is with sadness, but also great pride, that we bid farewell to Mike McGill. He has been a true friend and a valued advisor throughout the years. Mike is one of California's treasures, and he will be sorely missed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill which provides a comprehensive watershed plan to protect against flooding in the Colusa Basin. Last year such flooding caused approximately $4.9 million in damage. In 1995 a major flood caused an estimated $100 million in damages to public and private property and crops. This bill would provide the necessary authorization for the Secretary of Interior to participate in the Colusa Basin project on a cost-shared basis. The Colusa Basin project would build the necessary infrastructure (small impoundments) to catch flood water, control the rate of release, restore wetlands and vegetation and ultimately protect the area against flooding. This authorization is needed for the project to continue. I introduced an identical bill in the 105th Congress which passed both Houses of Congress but fell victim to the politics surrounding the omnibus budget bill. This bill once again enjoys bipartisan support. I urge Congress to consider this bill before the end of the 106th Congress.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill which provides a comprehensive watershed plan to protect against flooding in the Colusa Basin. Last year such flooding caused approximately $4.9 million in damage. In 1995 a major flood caused an estimated $100 million in damages to public and private property and crops. This bill would provide the necessary authorization for the Secretary of Interior to participate in the Colusa Basin project on a cost-shared basis. The Colusa Basin project would build the necessary infrastructure (small impoundments) to catch flood water, control the rate of release, restore wetlands and vegetation and ultimately protect the area against flooding. This authorization is needed for the project to continue. I introduced an identical bill in the 105th Congress which passed both Houses of Congress but fell victim to the politics surrounding the omnibus budget bill. This bill once again enjoys bipartisan support. I urge Congress to consider this bill before the end of the 106th Congress.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Alaska. I will yield myself 10 minutes from our manager's time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes as a 7- year member of the Judiciary Committee, to set the record straight on some of the comments that have been made with respect to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have heard that circuit called a rogue circuit, out of control, out of sync with the rest of the Nation. All of this is based on statistics for 1 year, 1996-1997, when the Supreme Court reversed that circuit 27 out of 28 times. The question is, Even in that year, did that place it as the most reversed circuit? The answer is no because even in that year they fell in the middle of the pack. When the Ninth Circuit's reversal rate was 95 percent, it was still less than five other circuits: The Fifth, the Second, the Seventh, D.C., and Federal Circuits all had a 100-percent reversal rate. You can seek out the Ninth Circuit because it has 9,000 cases on appeal as opposed to a circuit with 1,000 or 1,500 cases. But the record is the record, even in that year, that much maligned year that is the basis of all of these comments. Let's look at some of the other years. In the 1998-1999 Supreme Court session, the Supreme Court reviewed 18 cases of the Ninth Circuit; 4 were affirmed, 11 were reversed, and 3 had mixed rulings. So only 11 out of 18 cases were outrightly reversed. That is a 61-percent reversal rate. Is that the worst? No. This is less than the reversal rates for the Third Circuit, 67 percent; the Fifth Circuit, which was reversed 80 percent of the time; and the Seventh Circuit, 80 percent of the time; the Eleventh Circuit, 88 percent; and the Federal Circuit, 75 percent. In terms of reversals, the Ninth Circuit is not at the bottom of the pack, it is in the middle of the pack. I think I know why there were newspaper articles. The Ninth Circuit has been made a target by many conservatives who either want to see it split or, in some way, destroyed. That has become very clear to me as a member of the Judiciary Committee as I have watched proposal after proposal surface. Am I always pleased with the Ninth Circuit? Absolutely not. Do I like all the decisions? Of course not. But the point is, the Ninth Circuit is well within the parameters, and in virtually every year that one can look at reversals, one will see the Ninth Circuit is approximately in the middle of the pack. The argument is also made that Clinton appointees are making decisions that are being reversed. I have looked at the Ninth Circuit judges who were reversed over the last 3 years by the Supreme Court. Once again I correct the record. On only eight occasions in the last three full Supreme Court terms have Clinton appointees on the Ninth Circuit joined in decisions later reversed by the Supreme Court. At the end of the 1998-1999 term, Clinton appointees were 20 percent of the judges on the Ninth Circuit. If one wants to compare, compare Clinton appointees with Reagan appointees. Reagan appointees on the Ninth Circuit have been overturned in 30 instances from the 1996-1997 Supreme Court term through the 1998- 1999 term. Currently, there are the same number of Reagan appointees on the Ninth Circuit as Clinton appointees. I have wondered, as I have watched this debate emerge for the last 7 years, why there is this persistent effort to demean, to break up, in some way to destroy this court. I have a hard time fathoming why. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will quickly read the paragraph to which the ranking member alluded. I believe it is worthwhile for everybody to hear this. Judge Hug said: I might make one other observation--I have noted that the reversal rate of the Supreme Court in one unusual year, 1996- 97, has assumed some importance in the hearings. These are the hearings on confirmation. Even in that year, when the Ninth Circuit's reversal rate was 95 percent, it was less than five other circuits--the Fifth, Second, Seventh and Federal Circuits--all with a 100 percent reversal rate. In the 1997-98 term, the Ninth Circuit's reversal rate was 76 percent, equivalent to that of the First Circuit's 75 percent and less than the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits' 100 percent reversal rate. In the 1998-99 term, the Ninth Circuit's reversal rate was 78 percent, equivalent to the Second and Federal Circuits' 75 percent and less than the Fifth Circuit's 80 percent, the Seventh Circuit's 80 percent, and the Eleventh Circuit's 88 percent reversal rates. Once again, the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit attests that the Ninth Circuit's reversal rate is substantially in the middle of the pack of all the circuits. I hope the record stands corrected. I want to speak about the two judges before us and indicate my strong support for the appointment of both Judge Paez and Mrs. Berzon. Judge Paez has been before this body for 4 years. He has had two hearings and has been reported out of committee twice. Marsha Berzon has been before this body for 2 years, and she has had two hearings and been reported out of committee once. I have sat as ranking member on one of her hearings. It was equal in the quality and numbers of questions to any Supreme Court hearing on which I have sat, and I have sat on two of them. She was asked detailed questions on the law, questions about her performance, questions about her background, and, I say to this body, she measured up every step of the way. She is a brilliant appellate lawyer, and she has represented both business clients as well as trade union clients. Judge Paez has 19 years of experience as a judge and 6 years as a Federal court judge. I will speak about his record on criminal appeals. According to the Westlaw database, 32 of his criminal judgments have been appealed; 28 of these were affirmed. The Circuit Court dismissed two appeals for lack of jurisdiction, remanded one for further proceedings, and one judgment was affirmed in part or reversed in part. That is an 87-percent affirmance rate. That is pretty good. Judge Paez has not been reversed on a criminal sentence. Of his 28 criminal affirmances, they include 6 cases where a sentence he imposed was upheld by the appellate court; 4 involved his decision to enhance the defendant's defense level within the guidelines, actually giving the offender a tougher sentence, and 2 involved Judge Paez's refusal to grant a downward departure. Judge Paez was also named Federal criminal judge of the year by the Century City Bar Association. As I have looked at this case and listened to members in the Judiciary Committee, a lot of the objection seems to come down to one speech he made at the University of California Boalt Hall where he criticized a proposition on the ballot which was a very incendiary ballot measure in California. It was Proposition 209, and that may have been somewhat intemperate. My point is, one comment does not outweigh 19 years of good judicial service, 6 of them on the Federal court. I believe strongly that both these nominees deserve confirmation today. I thank the Chair.