Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Boxer in introducing a bill to designate the United States Post Office located at 14071 Peyton Drive in Chino Hills, California, as the ``Joseph Ileto Post Office.'' This post office would be designated in memory and in celebration of the life of Joseph Santos Ileto, the Filipino American postal worker who was brutally gunned down during his postal route in August by Buford Furrow, Jr., a white supremacist. Only hours earlier, this same assailant opened fire on the North Valley Jewish Community Center, wounding three young children, one teenager, and one elderly woman. Joseph Ileto touched many lives. He was a kind-hearted, intelligent man who gave so much to those he loved and even to those he did not know. He was known for his unselfishness and his willingness to give a helping hand to anyone in need. In fact, the day Joseph Ileto was killed, he was filling in for another mail carrier, as he had done so many times before. His life and death exemplify the ultimate sacrifice of public service, which we too often take for granted. As a U.S. Postal Service employee, he served our nation with honor and dignity and died doing his job. My heart goes out to the Ileto family, who is grieving over the death of their son, brother, and friend. Despite the sadness of their loss, they can be proud that the life and spirit of Joseph Ileto lives on. His death only confirms the urgency in which we as a community must take a strong stand against hate crimes and racism. The number of hate crimes in the U.S. has increased during the last five years, and the time is now to have dialogue and pass meaningful legislation to address this issue. As a first step, it is my hope that we can expedite passage this bill, to remember and honor the life of Joseph Ileto. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today is November 18. It has been almost 6 months since the Senate passed the juvenile justice bill and more than 5 months since the House followed suit with its own legislation. Since that time, the students at Columbine High School went home. They spent a summer trying to heal the wounds of one of our Nation's greatest tragedies, and they returned to school more than 2 months ago. Many of those students touched by the tragedy even came to Washington to plead for our help. Yet this body has done nothing to stop future incidents of gun violence and nothing to fix our broken juvenile justice system. The Columbine incident shocked this Nation and, I believe, this Congress. Watching events unfold on television made even the most skeptical observers realize that something should be done about gun violence. We have witnessed a number of other instances of gun violence in the media since then. In Atlanta, we saw a depressed day trader gun down his family and colleagues. In California, a bigot killed a postal worker just because he was Filipino, and then wounded five others in the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills. Again, the pictures of those young children being led away from the scene of the tragedy were heart wrenching. But since Columbine, more than 2,000 more children have died from gunshot wounds, about 12 to 13 a day, in incidents of gun violence that go relatively unreported and with outcomes not so public. These incidents will never stop until we do something to stop them. The death rate will never be diminished unless we stand up and take action. When will the Congress realize that the time has come to move forward? The conference committee, which was appointed at the last minute before the August recess, has met but once, over 3 months ago. No issues have been resolved. The entire juvenile justice bill remains in doubt, in limbo. Democrats in both Houses have been ready and willing to meet for months. Democrats are ready to discuss the merits of our differences and to reconcile them. The time has come to stop running away from the issue of gun violence. The time has come to enact some meaningful provisions to stem this tide of violence sweeping our schools and to institute some much-needed change to the system of juvenile justice in this Nation. The Senate spent more than a week in May debating and voting on dozens of provisions to stem the tide of youth violence in this country and to try to curb the flood of guns reaching children and criminals. But still we have faced delay after delay, and the delays come in many forms--political maneuvering, parliamentary tactics; for example, my clip ban was blue slipped, and other tactics. Enough is enough. It is time to come together to make some tough decisions and move forward with the Nation's business. No longer can we stand by, and I hope the Nation will not let us stand by, to allow the National Rifle Association to dictate the legislative needs of this Congress. The future of this bill rests squarely with the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate. They have said they want to make progress with our gun laws, and they have it within their power to do so. The Senate-passed juvenile justice bill is not an overreaching statement of where we want to go with gun control. I, for example, believe we should have universal registration and licensing of firearms, and in the next session I will introduce my legislation. I believe we should allow the Federal Government to set safety and consumer standards for guns, and I believe we should ban outright possession of military-style assault weapons. But none of these measures were even discussed in the Senate debate. The provisions, rather, are very small in our bill. They are reasonable, and they can make a difference in the lives of our children. None of them are controversial, and every one of them, by virtually every poll, has a dominant majority of the American people supporting them. Let me describe what I am talking about. That bill contains just four commonsense provisions to address gun violence. Does anyone in this Nation truly believe juveniles should be able to buy assault weapons? The answer is going to be no. That is one provision in Senator Ashcroft's bill which would prohibit juveniles from possessing assault weapons. Does anyone in this country truly believe the children from Columbine who went to a gun show and bought two assault weapons as juveniles with no information, no data check, no nothing--does anyone believe that loophole should not be closed? I do not believe so. In Memphis, TN, not too long ago, a 5-year-old took a pistol off his grandfather's bureau and brought it to kindergarten to kill the teacher because the teacher had given that child a timeout the day before. Stories are legion about children mistaking real guns for play guns and shooting their friends. The third provision is simple. It would require a safety lock with every gun sold. Does anyone believe guns should not be sold without safety locks? I do not believe so. Finally, there is my provision which would plug a major loophole in the 1994 assault weapons legislation. That legislation, in fact, says you cannot today manufacture, transfer, sell, or possess a clip, drum, or strip of more than 10 bullets manufactured in the United States. That is the law today. The loophole is to permit the foreign importation of these clips, and they are coming into this country by the tens of millions with literally tens of thousands of them in drums of 250 rounds. They come in, as a matter of fact, from the United Kingdom, and they come in from 20 different countries throughout the world. My provision would simply close that loophole and prohibit the importation. It actually passed the House by unanimous consent, and both the Speaker and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee have assured me personally that they see no problem with it and would support it. These are the four provisions relating to guns. Other than that, this bill contains countless provisions to stem the tide of youth violence. I sit on the Judiciary Committee. I have worked on this bill. I have worked on it with Senator Hatch. Part of this bill is a gang abatement act. It provides a Federal helping hand to local law enforcement agencies to fight criminal street gangs that are now crossing State lines and moving into so many of the cities of our Nation. You, Mr. President, were mayor of a great city. You know this to be the fact. This is an important part of this legislation. It also contains the James Guelff Body Armor Act which contains reforms to take body armor out of the hands of criminals and put it in the hands of police. It is named after a San Francisco police officer by the name of James Guelff who went to a call at the corner of Pine and California Streets and came across a Kevlar-clad sniper with thousands of rounds of ammunition and a number of guns. He had a .38 revolver. As he speed loaded his revolver, this officer was shot in the head and killed. It took 150 police officers to equal the firepower of one sniper clad in Kevlar with high-powered weapons. The Senate bill also establishes a new $700 million juvenile justice block grant program for States and localities, representing a significant increase in Federal aid to the States for juvenile crime control programs. These programs include additional law enforcement and juvenile court personnel, juvenile detention facilities, and prevention programs to keep juveniles out of trouble before they turn to crime, something both of us know, as past mayors, is vital if we are going to reverse juvenile crime in this country. The bill encourages increased accountability for juveniles, and it implements a series of graduated penalties that ensure that subsequent offenses are treated with increasing severity, so that if you are going to be a continuing offender, the sentences are going to reflect that. The bill also reforms juvenile record systems through improved record keeping and increased access to juvenile records by police, courts, and schools, so that a court or school dealing with a juvenile in my State, California, can know if they have committed violent offenses in Arizona, or a juvenile in your State, Ohio, had committed violent offenses in another surrounding State. It extends Federal sentences for juveniles who commit serious violent crimes. All of these commonsense provisions now remain in legislative purgatory. I am here to urge, once again, the majority to proceed with the conference, come to a compromise, and move this bill. That compromise should preserve intact the Senate-passed gun control legislation--four targeted measures--commonsense, reasonable; I call them no-brainers. Every poll shows a dominant majority of Americans supporting each of these. And they represent together a bare minimum of what we should do this year to stem the gun violence that is increasingly common on our streets and in our schools. School has now been back in session for several months, and this Congress is about to adjourn for the year. So far, it looks as if we are going to be receiving a failing grade from the American people. There is still time to buckle down, to do the work, to pass the test that this Nation gave us so many months ago. What a wonderful Christmas gift it would be for the people of America. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the San Diego Regional Printing Facility of the John H. Harland Company. The John H. Harland Company was founded in 1923, and is the second largest check printer in the United States. The John H. Harland Company opened its doors in California in 1969. Today, the San Diego Regional Printing Facility employs 249 employees and fills 98,900 orders per week. The jobs this facility has brought to our state throughout the years have been of great benefit to California. I offer my congratulations to the John H. Harland Company and its employees on the occasion of its 30th Anniversary and wish it great, continued success in the future.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask to call up amendment No. 2756.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I request the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This is submitted on behalf of Senator Jeffords of Vermont and myself. This is the same amendment that passed the Senate last year by voice vote. It is an important amendment, which is why I wish to do it today and ask for a rollcall vote. Last year it was deleted in conference. I believe it will suffer the same fate today if it were simply accepted. I note that the managers have agreed to accept the amendment. I particularly want the Senator from Iowa to know that I am very grateful for that accommodation. However, I run the risk in allowing it to be accepted that it is again expunged in conference. This amendment requires the Federal Reserve Board to investigate the practice of issuing credit cards indiscriminately and inappropriately and to take necessary action to ensure that consumer credit is not extended recklessly or in a manner that encourages practices which cause consumer bankruptcies. One part of the amendment, a brief paragraph, is a sense of the Senate that finds that certain lenders may offer credit to consumers indiscriminately and don't take steps to ensure that consumers have the capacity to repay the resulting debt, possibly encouraging consumers to even accumulate additional debt. We all know that to be true. The amendment then goes on to say that the resulting consumer debt may increasingly be a major contributing factor to consumer bankruptcies. This amendment would authorize the Federal Reserve Board to conduct a study of industry practices of soliciting and extending credit indiscriminately without taking those steps that are prudent to ensure consumers are capable of repaying that debt. Within 1 year of enactment, the Federal Reserve Board would make a public report on its findings regarding the credit industry's indiscriminate solicitation and extension of credit. The amendment then would allow the Federal Reserve Board to issue regulations that would require additional disclosures to consumers and to take any other actions, consistent with its statutory authority, that the Board finds necessary to ensure responsible industry-wide practices and to prevent resulting consumer debt and insolvency. Why this amendment? Why is this amendment needed? This amendment directly addresses one of the major causes of personal bankruptcies: bad consumer credit card debt. The typical family filing for bankruptcy in 1998 owed more than 1\1/2\ times its annual income in short-term, high-interest debt. This means that the average family in bankruptcy, with a median income of just over $17,500, had $28,955 in credit card and other short-term, high-interest debt--almost double the income of debt. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the FDIC, and independent economists all link the rise in personal bankruptcies directly to the rise in consumer debt. As consumer debt has risen to an all-time high, so have consumer bankruptcies. Any meaningful bankruptcy reform I think must address irresponsible actions of certain segments of the credit card industry because, after all, this is the major problem that is exacerbating bankruptcy and increasing the number of filings. Last year, the credit card industry sent out a record 3.45 billion unsolicited offers. That is 30 solicitations for credit cards to every household in America. The number of solicitations jumped 15 percent from the last time I did this amendment to this time I am doing this amendment. So instead of slowing down irresponsible offers of credit to people who cannot possibly repay that credit, they have sped it up. There are over 1 billion credit cards in circulation, a dozen credit cards for every household in this country. Three-quarters of all households have at least one credit card. Credit card debt has doubled between 1993 and 1997, to $422 billion from just over $200 billion. During this 2-year debate on this bankruptcy bill, which I support, my staff has contacted numerous credit card issuers. The overwhelming majority of these companies do not check the income of the consumers being solicited. In other words, credit card issuers have no idea whether persons to whom they issued credit cards have the means to pay their bill each month. One of my constituents from Lakewood, CA, wrote, and this really describes this aptly: What really bugs me about this is that credit card companies send out these solicitations for their plastic cards, and then when they get burned, they start crying foul. They want all kinds of laws passed to protect them from taking hits when it's their own practices that caused the problem. There is a real element of truth in this. This amendment will not affect any responsible lender. It will not affect the vast majority of the credit card industry who responsibly check consumer credit history before issuing or preapproving credit cards. Representatives of large credit card issuers have assured me and my staff that they do not provide credit cards to consumers without a thorough credit check. However, I note that major credit cards, such as Visa or MasterCard, do not require banks who issue their cards to check credit history. That is a bona fide area at which an investigation and a study should take a look. Is this a good practice, not to check the bank who issues your card under your auspices and see that they also check the creditworthiness of the individual? This amendment would affect lenders who fail to even inquire into the consumer's ability to pay or those who specifically target consumers who cannot repay the balances. It was news to me that there is a whole category of companies out there who actually go after people who are overcome with credit card debt and offer them more credit cards to repay that debt. A growing segment of the credit industry, known as subprime lenders, increasingly searches for risk borrowers who they know will make inappropriately low minimum monthly payments and carry large balances from month to month and have to pay extraordinarily high interest rates. This kind of lending has become the fastest growing, most profitable subset of consumer lending. Although losses are substantial, interest rates of 18 percent to 40 percent on credit card debt make this lending profitable. Many of these often relatively unsophisticated borrowers do not realize that minimum monthly payments just put them deeper in a hole which, in many cases, leads to bankruptcy. I have somebody close to me who is in that situation and has been in that situation from 1991 to the present day with six or eight credit cards, does not have the income to repay them, and all this individual has had is mounting interest payments and can never get to the principal of the debt. No matter how this individual responds within his or her capabilities, he or she cannot possibly pay off the debt. I even stepped in and made an offer to the credit card companies to repay the debt with a modicum of interest attached to it for this individual and was turned down. They said they made an offer to settle and they rejected the offer, they withdrew the offer of settlement. Industry analysts estimate that using a typical minimum monthly payment rate on a credit card in order to pay off a $2,500 balance-- that is a balance of just $2,500--assuming the consumer never uses the card to charge anything else ever again, would take 34 years to pay off the balance. That is the situation in which people find themselves. It is my belief that this is irresponsible. What we are asking is the Federal Reserve do a study, an investigation to see if they agree this is irresponsible. So this is the core concept. Oh, let me make one other point. On the situation I just indicated to you, that somebody who had that balance of $2,500 never used the card to charge anything else again, it would take 34 years to pay off that balance. Total payments would exceed 300 percent of the principal. So what I have found out is, there are people who are needy, who succumb to these credit cards, who engage in not just one credit card with $10,000, but five or six or seven or eight, and maybe have an income of $17,000 or $15,000 a year. They make these purchases, they get into trouble, and they can never pay off their debt. So, yes, bankruptcy looms as the only alternative. To tighten up their obligations to pay back the debt--which I am in agreement of doing--and yet not evaluate whether these policies of lending are as responsible as they should be is absolutely wrong. So for the second time in 2 years, I offer this amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays in the hopes that the amendment will be agreed to and will remain in the bill in conference.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, to sum up my amendment, what this bankruptcy bill is all about is encouraging debtor responsibility--in other words, to the extent that an individual possibly can, they should repay their debt. That is one side of it. I think to the extent the credit industry can be responsible, you need to have a balance between the two. Right now, there is not a balance between the two. I think we all know of people who have a number of credit cards who do not have the income even to pay back the minimum debt or the minimum monthly payment plus interest over a period of time. Let me give an example. If you have a $1,500 debt and your minimum monthly payment is $25 and you have no late fees, no new purchases, at 19.8-percent interest, it takes 282 months to pay that debt off. I know people in this situation who shouldn't have credit cards, who should have been checked out, who have six, who are going into bankruptcy because they didn't understand this simple concept. What the amendment before you would do is ask the Federal Reserve to do a study of lending practices in this area and make public their findings, and also have the ability to set new regulations if they believe those regulations are warranted. This amendment was passed a year ago by a voice vote. It was removed in conference. The amendment would be accepted. My concern is that it would again be deleted in conference. Therefore, I have asked for the yeas and nays. I am hopeful this Senate will go on record as supporting this study by the Federal Reserve. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in June, joined by Senators Reid, Boxer, and Bryan, I introduced the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (S. 1192) which would jump start the process of cleaning up Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe, one of the largest, deepest, clearest lakes in the world is in the midst of an economic crisis. Water clarity is declining at the rate of more than 1 foot each year; more than \1/3\ of the trees in the forest are either dead or dying; and sediment and algae-nourishing phosphorus and nitrogen continue to flow into the lake from a variety of sources. Over the last few months, I worked with the Congressmen from the Tahoe areas, Representative Doolittle and Representative Gibbons to craft a House version of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act that could garner bipartisan support. I am pleased that we've been able to build on S. 1192 and develop a compromise bill which I am introducing today. Like S. 1192, this bill first and foremost authorizes the necessary funding to clean up and restore Lake Tahoe. This bill includes two major changes: First, to address the problem of MTBE in the Lake Tahoe basin, I added a section that provides $1 million to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and local utility districts to clean up contaminated wells and surface water. Second, to help local governments who would otherwise be burdened by relocation costs that may be needed to clean up the basin, this bill promises that the federal government will pay \2/3\ of any needed relocation costs. I believe these provisions improve on the original bill and increase the breadth of support for this bill. The bill requires the Forest Service to develop an annual priority list of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $200 million dollars over 10 years to the forest service to implement these projects on federal lands. The list must include projects that will improve water quality, forest health, soil conservation, air quality, and fish and wildlife habitat around the lake. In developing the environmental restoration priority list, the Forest Service must rely on the best available science, and consider projects that local governments, businesses, and environmental groups have targeted as top priorities. The Forest Service also must consult with local community leaders. The bill requires the Forest Service to give special attention on its priority list to five key activities: acquisition of environmentally sensitive land from willing sellers, erosion and sediment control, fire risk reduction, cleaning up MTBE contamination, and traffic and parking management, including promotion of public transportation. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act also requires that an additional $100 million be authorized over 10 years be as payments to local governments for erosion control activities on non-federal lands. These payments will help local governments conduct soil conservation and erosion mitigation projects, restore wetlands and stream environmental zones, and plant native vegetation to filter out sediment and debris. I spent my childhood at Lake Tahoe, but I had not been back for a number of years until I returned for the 1997 Presidential summit with President Clinton. I saw things I had never seen before at Lake Tahoe. I saw the penetration of MTBE in the water and learned that 30 percent of the South Lake Tahoe water supply has been eliminated by MTBE. I observed gasoline spread over the water surface. I noticed that a third of the magnificent forest that surrounds the lake was dead or dying. I saw major land erosion problems that were bringing all kinds of sediment into the lake and which had effectively cut the lake's clarity by thirty feet since the last time I had visited. And then I learned that the experts believe that in 10 years the clouding of the amazing crystal water clarity would be impossible to reverse and in 30 years it would be lost forever. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency estimates that it will cost $900 million over the next 10 years to restore the Lake. For me, that was a call to action and prompted me to sponsor this bill which will authorize $300 million of Federal moneys on a matching basis over 10 years for environmental restoration projects at Lake Tahoe to preserve the region's water quality and forest health. Put simply, this crown jewel deserves the attention, and the fact that the federal government owns 77 percent of that troubled area makes the responsibility all so clear. Through funding over the past few years we have already begun to make some early strides such as the purchase of important pieces of land like the Sunset Ranch and the planning for a Coordinated Transit System. Already, California and Nevada have begun contributing their portion of the restoration efforts. California is in the second year of a ten year $275 million commitment through the California Tahoe Conservancy, Caltrans, and the Parks Service. Nevada has authorized the issuance of bonds that will constitute an $82 million contribution over an 8-year period. Local governments and private industry have also agreed to commit $300 million. The Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition, a coalition of 18 businesses and environmental groups, including Placer County, El Dorado County, the city of South Lake Tahoe, Douglass County in Nevada, and Washoe County in Nevada have all agreed. This is an extraordinary commitment for a region with only 50,000 year-round residents. President Clinton took an important first step in 1997 when he held an environmental summit at Lake Tahoe and promised $50 million over 2 years for restoration activities around the lake. Unfortunately, the President's commitments lasted for only 2 years, so important areas like land acquisition and road decommissioning were not funded at the levels the President tried to accomplish. What is needed is a more sustained, long-term effort, and one that will meet the federal government's $300 million responsibility to save the environment at Lake Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act will build upon the President's commitment to Lake Tahoe and authorize full funding for a new environmental restoration program at the lake. I am also grateful to the Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition, a local consensus group of 18 businesses and environmental groups, who has worked extremely hard on this bill. Thanks in large part to their work, the bill has strong, bipartisan support from nearly every major group in the Tahoe Basin. The bottom line is that time is running out for Lake Tahoe. We have 10 years to do something major or the water quality deterioration is irreversible. I am hopeful that Congress will move quickly to consider the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Reid, Senator Boxer, Senator Bryan, Congressman Doolittle, Congressman Gibbons, Congresswoman Eshoo, and me in preserving this national treasure for generations to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in June, joined by Senators Reid, Boxer, and Bryan, I introduced the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (S. 1192) which would jump start the process of cleaning up Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe, one of the largest, deepest, clearest lakes in the world is in the midst of an economic crisis. Water clarity is declining at the rate of more than 1 foot each year; more than \1/3\ of the trees in the forest are either dead or dying; and sediment and algae-nourishing phosphorus and nitrogen continue to flow into the lake from a variety of sources. Over the last few months, I worked with the Congressmen from the Tahoe areas, Representative Doolittle and Representative Gibbons to craft a House version of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act that could garner bipartisan support. I am pleased that we've been able to build on S. 1192 and develop a compromise bill which I am introducing today. Like S. 1192, this bill first and foremost authorizes the necessary funding to clean up and restore Lake Tahoe. This bill includes two major changes: First, to address the problem of MTBE in the Lake Tahoe basin, I added a section that provides $1 million to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and local utility districts to clean up contaminated wells and surface water. Second, to help local governments who would otherwise be burdened by relocation costs that may be needed to clean up the basin, this bill promises that the federal government will pay \2/3\ of any needed relocation costs. I believe these provisions improve on the original bill and increase the breadth of support for this bill. The bill requires the Forest Service to develop an annual priority list of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $200 million dollars over 10 years to the forest service to implement these projects on federal lands. The list must include projects that will improve water quality, forest health, soil conservation, air quality, and fish and wildlife habitat around the lake. In developing the environmental restoration priority list, the Forest Service must rely on the best available science, and consider projects that local governments, businesses, and environmental groups have targeted as top priorities. The Forest Service also must consult with local community leaders. The bill requires the Forest Service to give special attention on its priority list to five key activities: acquisition of environmentally sensitive land from willing sellers, erosion and sediment control, fire risk reduction, cleaning up MTBE contamination, and traffic and parking management, including promotion of public transportation. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act also requires that an additional $100 million be authorized over 10 years be as payments to local governments for erosion control activities on non-federal lands. These payments will help local governments conduct soil conservation and erosion mitigation projects, restore wetlands and stream environmental zones, and plant native vegetation to filter out sediment and debris. I spent my childhood at Lake Tahoe, but I had not been back for a number of years until I returned for the 1997 Presidential summit with President Clinton. I saw things I had never seen before at Lake Tahoe. I saw the penetration of MTBE in the water and learned that 30 percent of the South Lake Tahoe water supply has been eliminated by MTBE. I observed gasoline spread over the water surface. I noticed that a third of the magnificent forest that surrounds the lake was dead or dying. I saw major land erosion problems that were bringing all kinds of sediment into the lake and which had effectively cut the lake's clarity by thirty feet since the last time I had visited. And then I learned that the experts believe that in 10 years the clouding of the amazing crystal water clarity would be impossible to reverse and in 30 years it would be lost forever. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency estimates that it will cost $900 million over the next 10 years to restore the Lake. For me, that was a call to action and prompted me to sponsor this bill which will authorize $300 million of Federal moneys on a matching basis over 10 years for environmental restoration projects at Lake Tahoe to preserve the region's water quality and forest health. Put simply, this crown jewel deserves the attention, and the fact that the federal government owns 77 percent of that troubled area makes the responsibility all so clear. Through funding over the past few years we have already begun to make some early strides such as the purchase of important pieces of land like the Sunset Ranch and the planning for a Coordinated Transit System. Already, California and Nevada have begun contributing their portion of the restoration efforts. California is in the second year of a ten year $275 million commitment through the California Tahoe Conservancy, Caltrans, and the Parks Service. Nevada has authorized the issuance of bonds that will constitute an $82 million contribution over an 8-year period. Local governments and private industry have also agreed to commit $300 million. The Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition, a coalition of 18 businesses and environmental groups, including Placer County, El Dorado County, the city of South Lake Tahoe, Douglass County in Nevada, and Washoe County in Nevada have all agreed. This is an extraordinary commitment for a region with only 50,000 year-round residents. President Clinton took an important first step in 1997 when he held an environmental summit at Lake Tahoe and promised $50 million over 2 years for restoration activities around the lake. Unfortunately, the President's commitments lasted for only 2 years, so important areas like land acquisition and road decommissioning were not funded at the levels the President tried to accomplish. What is needed is a more sustained, long-term effort, and one that will meet the federal government's $300 million responsibility to save the environment at Lake Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act will build upon the President's commitment to Lake Tahoe and authorize full funding for a new environmental restoration program at the lake. I am also grateful to the Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition, a local consensus group of 18 businesses and environmental groups, who has worked extremely hard on this bill. Thanks in large part to their work, the bill has strong, bipartisan support from nearly every major group in the Tahoe Basin. The bottom line is that time is running out for Lake Tahoe. We have 10 years to do something major or the water quality deterioration is irreversible. I am hopeful that Congress will move quickly to consider the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Reid, Senator Boxer, Senator Bryan, Congressman Doolittle, Congressman Gibbons, Congresswoman Eshoo, and me in preserving this national treasure for generations to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Japanese Imperial Army Disclosure Act of 1999. This legislation will require the disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act classified records and documents in the possession of the U.S. Government regarding chemical and biological experiments carried out by Japan during the course of the Second World War. Let me preface my statement by making clear that none of the remarks that I will make in discussing this legislation should be considered anti-Japanese. I was proud to serve as the President of the Japan Society of Northern California, and I have done everything I can to foster, promote, and develop positive relations between Japan, the United States, China, and other states of the region. The legislation I introduce today is eagerly sought by a large number of Californians who believe that there is an effort to keep information about possible atrocities and experiments with poisonous gas and germ warfare from the pubic record. One of my most important goals in the Senate is to see the development of a Pacific Rim community that is peaceful and stable. I have worked towards this end for over twenty years. I introduce this legislation to try to heal wounds that still remain, particularly in California's Chinese-American community. This legislation is needed because although the Second World War ended over fifty years ago--and with it Japan's chemical and biological weapons experimentation programs--many of the records and documents regarding Japan's wartime activities remain classified and hidden in U.S. Government archives and repositories. Even worse, according to some scholars, some of these records are now being inadvertently destroyed. For the many U.S. Army veteran's who were subject to these experiments in POW camps, as well as the many Chinese and other Asian civilians who were subjected to these experiments, the time has long since passed for the full truth to come out. According to information which was revealed at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, starting in 1931, when the so- called ``Mukden incident'' provided Japan the pretext for the occupation of Manchuria, the Japanese Imperial Army conducted numerous biological and chemical warfare tests on Chinese civilians, Allied POWs, and possibly Japanese civilians as well. Perhaps the most notorious of these experiments were carried out under General Ishii Shiro, a Japanese Army surgeon, who, by the late 1930's had built a large installation in China with germ breeding facilities, testing grounds, prisons to hold the human test subjects, facilities to make germ weapons, and a crematorium for the final disposal of the human test victims. General Ishii's main factory operated under the code name Unit 731. Based on the evidence revealed at the War Crimes trials, as well as subsequent work by numerous scholars, there is little doubt that Japan conducted these chemical and biological warfare experiments, and that the Japanese Imperial Army attempted to use chemical and biological weapons during the course of the war, included reports of use of plague on the cities of Ningbo and Changde. And, as a 1980 article by John Powell in the Bulletin of Concerned Asia Scholars found, Once the fact had been established that Ishii had used Chinese and others as laboratory tests subjects, it seemed a fair assumption that he also might have used American prisoners, possibly British, and perhaps even Japanese. Some of the records of these activities were revealed during the Tokyo War Crimes trials, and others have since come to light under Freedom of Information Act requests, but many other documents, which were transferred to the U.S. military during the occupation of Japan, have remained hidden for the past fifty years. And it is precisely for this reason that this legislation is needed: The world is entitled to a full and compel record of what did transpire. Sheldon Harris, Professor of History Emeritus at California State university Northridge wrote to me on October 7 of this year that: In my capacity as an academic Historian, I can testify to the difficulty researchers have in unearthing documents and personal testimony concerning these war crimes * * *. Here in the United States, despite the Freedom of Information Act, some archives remain closed to investigators * * *. Moreover, ``sensitive documents--as defined by archivists and FOIA officers--are at the moment being destroyed. Professor Sheldon's letter goes on to discuss three examples of the destruction of documents relating to chemical and biological warfare experiments that he is aware of: At Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah, at Fort Detrick in Maryland, and at the Pentagon. This legislation establishes, within 60 days after the enactment of the act, the Japanese Imperial Army Records Interagency Working Group, including representation by the Department of State and the Archivist of the United States, to locate, identify, and recommend for declassification all Japanese Imperial Army records of the United States. This Interagency Work Group, which will remain in existence for three years, is to locate, identify, inventory, recommend for classification, and make available to the public all classified Imperial Army records of the United States. It is to do so in coordination with other agencies, and to submit a report to Congress describing its activities. It is my belief that the establishment of such an Interagency Working Group is the best way to make sure that the documents which need to be declassified will be declassified, and that this process will occur in an orderly and expeditious manner. This legislation also includes exceptions which would allow the Interagency Working Group to deny release of records on the basis of: 1. Records which may unfairly invade an individual's privacy; 2. Records which adversely affect the national security or intelligence capabilities of the United States; 3. Records which might ``seriously or demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a foreign government''; and, 4. Records which might contribute to the development of chemical or biological capabilities. My purpose in introducing this legislation is to help those who were victimized by these experiments and, with the adage ``the truth shall set you free'' in mind, help build a more peaceful Asian-Pacific community for the twenty-first century. First, the declassification and release of this material will help the victims of chemical and biological warfare experimentation carried out by the Japanese Army during the Second World War, as well as their families and descendants, gain information about what occurred to them fifty years ago. If old wounds are to heal, there must be a full accounting of what happened. Second, and perhaps just as importantly, this legislation is intended to create an environment of honest dialogue and discussion in the Asia- Pacific region, so that the countries and people of the region can move beyond the problems that have plagued us for the past century, and work together to build a peaceful and prosperous Asian-Pacific community in the next century. If the countries of Asia are to build a peaceful community it is necessary that we deal fully, fairly, and honestly with the past. It is only by doing so that we can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and build a more just world for the future. Indeed, as Rabbi Abraham Cooper has remarked, ``Since the end of World War II, professed neutral nations like Sweden and Switzerland have had the courage to take a painful look back at their World War II record; can Japan be allowed to do anything less?'' I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the October 7 letter by Professor Harris and an article outlining some of the scholarly research on this issue: ``Japan's Biological Weapons: 1930-1945,'' by Robert Gromer, John Powell, and Burt Roling be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of my friend and former colleague, Carol Moseley-Braun, to be Ambassador to New Zealand. I had the pleasure of serving with Senator Moseley-Braun for six years and I know her to be a dedicated, caring, intelligent, and hard- working public servant. I am confident she will carry these qualities to her new post in New Zealand. Prior to her service in the United States Senate, Senator Moseley- Braun distinguished herself as a member of the Illinois Legislature and as the Recorder of Deeds for Cook County, Illinois. From 1973 to 1977 she also served as Assistant District Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois. In 1992, Carol Moseley-Braun made history by becoming the first African American female elected to the United States Senate. As a United States Senator, she dedicated herself to issues that would make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans: increased funding for education, HMO reform and family and medical leave. Following her service in the Senate, Senator Moseley-Braun continued to stay involved in the issues that mean most to her and become a consultant to the United States Department of Education. On October 8, 1999, President Clinton presented her with a new challenge and nominated her to be United States Ambassador to New Zealand. I am sure her tenure as Ambassador will only add to this long and distinguished career. The overwhelming and bi-bipartisan vote in favor of her nomination by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should answer any critic that questions her qualifications to be the next ambassador to New Zealand. New Zealand is an important ally and a vital part of our relations in the Asia-Pacific region. We need an ambassador who will be able to handle all aspects of United States-New Zealand relations and best represent our interests. Carol Moseley-Braun is the right person for that job. Mr. President, I was proud to serve with Senator Moseley-Braun, I am proud to call her a friend and I am proud to support her nomination to be Ambassador to New Zealand.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have two amendments that have been moved and laid aside. I would like to have a time when I might take those amendments off the desk and have a brief period of debate and a vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What I am concerned about is, I have made this known for a number of days now. I have been patient and I have tried to get in the queue. I have waited. I have no objection if this is Wednesday or Wednesday afternoon, but I would appreciate having some time. I am prepared to object if I can't get that time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. But my experience is that if they come to the floor, they are often accommodated. I don't see why that same accommodation should not be made for me, most respectfully.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. My amendment is germane.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have no objection to proceeding with the amendment. What I suspect is going to happen come Wednesday is it will be closed down, and we will not have an opportunity to offer an amendment. One of these amendments I have made to the bankruptcy bill. The Senator from Iowa knows I have been a supporter of this bill. He is supportive of this amendment. If there is an opportunity, I believe it will pass. Senator Jeffords and I are cosponsors of the amendment. I, again, would like an opportunity to offer it before there is a cloture motion or something and there will be no more amendments on the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. My understanding is that at some point I will have an opportunity to offer this amendment, whether that is on Wednesday, another day, or next year. Is that the correct understanding?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I understand that. I will not object.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Japanese Imperial Army Disclosure Act of 1999. This legislation will require the disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act classified records and documents in the possession of the U.S. Government regarding chemical and biological experiments carried out by Japan during the course of the Second World War. Let me preface my statement by making clear that none of the remarks that I will make in discussing this legislation should be considered anti-Japanese. I was proud to serve as the President of the Japan Society of Northern California, and I have done everything I can to foster, promote, and develop positive relations between Japan, the United States, China, and other states of the region. The legislation I introduce today is eagerly sought by a large number of Californians who believe that there is an effort to keep information about possible atrocities and experiments with poisonous gas and germ warfare from the pubic record. One of my most important goals in the Senate is to see the development of a Pacific Rim community that is peaceful and stable. I have worked towards this end for over twenty years. I introduce this legislation to try to heal wounds that still remain, particularly in California's Chinese-American community. This legislation is needed because although the Second World War ended over fifty years ago--and with it Japan's chemical and biological weapons experimentation programs--many of the records and documents regarding Japan's wartime activities remain classified and hidden in U.S. Government archives and repositories. Even worse, according to some scholars, some of these records are now being inadvertently destroyed. For the many U.S. Army veteran's who were subject to these experiments in POW camps, as well as the many Chinese and other Asian civilians who were subjected to these experiments, the time has long since passed for the full truth to come out. According to information which was revealed at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, starting in 1931, when the so- called ``Mukden incident'' provided Japan the pretext for the occupation of Manchuria, the Japanese Imperial Army conducted numerous biological and chemical warfare tests on Chinese civilians, Allied POWs, and possibly Japanese civilians as well. Perhaps the most notorious of these experiments were carried out under General Ishii Shiro, a Japanese Army surgeon, who, by the late 1930's had built a large installation in China with germ breeding facilities, testing grounds, prisons to hold the human test subjects, facilities to make germ weapons, and a crematorium for the final disposal of the human test victims. General Ishii's main factory operated under the code name Unit 731. Based on the evidence revealed at the War Crimes trials, as well as subsequent work by numerous scholars, there is little doubt that Japan conducted these chemical and biological warfare experiments, and that the Japanese Imperial Army attempted to use chemical and biological weapons during the course of the war, included reports of use of plague on the cities of Ningbo and Changde. And, as a 1980 article by John Powell in the Bulletin of Concerned Asia Scholars found, Once the fact had been established that Ishii had used Chinese and others as laboratory tests subjects, it seemed a fair assumption that he also might have used American prisoners, possibly British, and perhaps even Japanese. Some of the records of these activities were revealed during the Tokyo War Crimes trials, and others have since come to light under Freedom of Information Act requests, but many other documents, which were transferred to the U.S. military during the occupation of Japan, have remained hidden for the past fifty years. And it is precisely for this reason that this legislation is needed: The world is entitled to a full and compel record of what did transpire. Sheldon Harris, Professor of History Emeritus at California State university Northridge wrote to me on October 7 of this year that: In my capacity as an academic Historian, I can testify to the difficulty researchers have in unearthing documents and personal testimony concerning these war crimes * * *. Here in the United States, despite the Freedom of Information Act, some archives remain closed to investigators * * *. Moreover, ``sensitive documents--as defined by archivists and FOIA officers--are at the moment being destroyed. Professor Sheldon's letter goes on to discuss three examples of the destruction of documents relating to chemical and biological warfare experiments that he is aware of: At Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah, at Fort Detrick in Maryland, and at the Pentagon. This legislation establishes, within 60 days after the enactment of the act, the Japanese Imperial Army Records Interagency Working Group, including representation by the Department of State and the Archivist of the United States, to locate, identify, and recommend for declassification all Japanese Imperial Army records of the United States. This Interagency Work Group, which will remain in existence for three years, is to locate, identify, inventory, recommend for classification, and make available to the public all classified Imperial Army records of the United States. It is to do so in coordination with other agencies, and to submit a report to Congress describing its activities. It is my belief that the establishment of such an Interagency Working Group is the best way to make sure that the documents which need to be declassified will be declassified, and that this process will occur in an orderly and expeditious manner. This legislation also includes exceptions which would allow the Interagency Working Group to deny release of records on the basis of: 1. Records which may unfairly invade an individual's privacy; 2. Records which adversely affect the national security or intelligence capabilities of the United States; 3. Records which might ``seriously or demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a foreign government''; and, 4. Records which might contribute to the development of chemical or biological capabilities. My purpose in introducing this legislation is to help those who were victimized by these experiments and, with the adage ``the truth shall set you free'' in mind, help build a more peaceful Asian-Pacific community for the twenty-first century. First, the declassification and release of this material will help the victims of chemical and biological warfare experimentation carried out by the Japanese Army during the Second World War, as well as their families and descendants, gain information about what occurred to them fifty years ago. If old wounds are to heal, there must be a full accounting of what happened. Second, and perhaps just as importantly, this legislation is intended to create an environment of honest dialogue and discussion in the Asia- Pacific region, so that the countries and people of the region can move beyond the problems that have plagued us for the past century, and work together to build a peaceful and prosperous Asian-Pacific community in the next century. If the countries of Asia are to build a peaceful community it is necessary that we deal fully, fairly, and honestly with the past. It is only by doing so that we can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and build a more just world for the future. Indeed, as Rabbi Abraham Cooper has remarked, ``Since the end of World War II, professed neutral nations like Sweden and Switzerland have had the courage to take a painful look back at their World War II record; can Japan be allowed to do anything less?'' I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the October 7 letter by Professor Harris and an article outlining some of the scholarly research on this issue: ``Japan's Biological Weapons: 1930-1945,'' by Robert Gromer, John Powell, and Burt Roling be printed in the Record.