Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I join the distinguished Senator from Nevada in saying a few words about Senator John Chafee. I believe our Nation lost a pillar of the Senate last evening. I found John Chafee to be a deeply principled and highly intelligent Senator. Additionally, he was one of the nicest men I have ever had occasion to know in the Senate or anywhere else. I had the pleasure a couple of years ago of being a dinner guest at the home of John and Virginia Chafee in McLean, a warm, hospitable home, a home that had 8, 10 people gathered around the table informally for dinner, where both John Chafee and Virginia Chafee presided with a warmth and a hospitality that made it the nicest evening I have ever spent in my 7 years in Washington. I really liked John Chafee, and I had the pleasure of working with him on a number of issues. His record on the environment, on health care, and on gun control is second to none. As chairman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee was a leading voice in crafting the Clean Air Act of 1990 which strengthened the Nation's emissions standards. Recently, he led successful efforts to enact oil spill prevention and response legislation and a measure to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act. John Chafee has won virtually every major environmental award in this country due to his tireless efforts to protect our Nation's resources. Recently, we worked together on an effort to rid California's gasoline of MTBE, and just last Thursday, standing right over there in the Senate Chamber, I said: John, when are you going to be able to pass some legislation out of the committee on MTBE? We remarked how moving on this issue has been made more difficult by the ethanol lobby. I said: You know, John, we really have to move because, in particular, of the California situation. He said: I know, I know, and I really want to do something to help. That is the way he was--a very special person who could see beyond his own State's parameters and really reach deep into the hearts of many of us who represent States even on the other side of this great Nation. I will never forget earlier this year when we stood at the White House together to call for meaningful gun legislation. A few years ago, he even angered many conservatives when he pushed for a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns. He was a man who believed in his principles, and he brought them with him to the Senate. Regardless of political party, he responded to those principles when the time came for such a response. The series of events I went through with Senator Chafee which showed me the most about him was an earlier effort in a group called the Centrist Coalition. This had to do with developing a balanced Federal budget. It took place around, I guess, 4 years ago. We worked for a couple of years. There were 11 members on the Republican side, 11 on the Democratic side. Senator Chafee chaired the Republican portion; Senator Breaux chaired the Democratic portion. In meeting after meeting, I saw John Chafee's span of knowledge across a whole host of budget items. The Centrist Coalition did, in fact, prepare a budget. We did, and with no hearings, put it on the floor of the Senate. And believe it or not, it got 46 votes. It came close to passing. Many of the major points in that centrist budget actually became part of the leadership understanding with the White House that effectively produced a balanced budget in this Nation. A lot of that diligence and pursuit, over a 2-year period of time, really is a hallmark of the way in which John Chafee worked. As a member of the Finance Committee, Senator Chafee worked to successfully expand health care coverage for women and children and to improve community services for people with disabilities. In 1990, he spearheaded his conference's Health Care Task Force and became a prominent figure in the national health reform debate. He went on to lead a bipartisan effort, as has been spoken of on the floor earlier, to craft a comprehensive health care reform proposal in 1994. He was also an adamant supporter of a woman's right to choose. He opposed the gag rule, which prohibited doctors at federally funded clinics from discussing family planning and abortion services with their patients. I think Senator Reid, and also the distinguished Senator from Montana, mentioned his service in the Marine Corps in World War II. From talking to John Chafee on the floor of the Senate, it was hard to see him as a robust marine at Guadalcanal. But one of the things I have learned in my life is sometimes people you least suspect are the first ones to jump in the river to save a drowning person. I rather suspect that was John Chafee, that just as he was a Senator's Senator, he could be a hero's hero. So he left behind him a very distinguished military reputation, in which I hope his wife and family will always take great pride. John Chafee, to me, was a giant in this body. His civility, his manners, his intelligence, his ethics, his credibility were never in challenge by any member of either of our two great parties. As such, I believe he leaves an indisputable legacy. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S. 1774 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Senator Boxer and I today are introducing a bill to ban abortions after a fetus is viable. The bill has 3 provisions: (1) It bans post-viability abortions. (2) It provides an exception to the ban if, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman. (3) It includes two civil penalties: For the first offense, a fine not to exceed $10,000. For the second offense, revocation of a physician's medical license. This amendment is similar to S. 481 which we introduced in the previous Congress and the amendment we offered as a substitute to the ``partial-birth abortion bill'' when the Senate considered it. The major difference is that the bill we introduce today adds the penalty of revocation of the medical license for a second offense. S. 481 did not include this penalty. Both S. 481 and this bill have as the penalty for the first offense a $10,000 fine. This bill reflects my deep belief that abortions after a fetus is viable should not take place except in the rarest of circumstances to protect the life and health of the mother. That is the intent of this bill. The medical community has said that there are very occasionally very extraordinary and tragic circumstances when a physician may determine that a postviability abortion is the safest procedure for protecting a woman's health. These are circumstances which most of us can never imagine. Leading medical organizations say that post-viability abortions are rare and should be rare. They say that medical decisions should be made by doctors who must determine the best procedure. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has said: ACOG has never supported post-viability abortions except for the constitutionally protected exception of saving the life or health of a woman. There may be circumstances where the physician and patient would reach the conclusion that this procedure [Intact Dilatation and Extraction after 16 weeks of pregnancy] is the most medically appropriate . . . there is a need for flexibility in handling unexpected situations. . . . The California Medical Association wrote me, ``The determination of the medical need for, and effectiveness of, particular medical procedures must be left to the medical profession, to be reflected in the standard of care . . . The legislative process is ill-suited to evaluate complex medical procedures whose importance may vary with a particular patient's case and with the state of scientific knowledge.'' Congress cannot anticipate every conceivable medical situation. Only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's unique medical history and health can make this decision of how best to protect the woman's health. This substitute is designed to protect the fetus, to protect the woman's life and health and to give the physician the latitude to make the necessary medical decisions in those rarest of circumstances. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, held that the woman's health must be the physician's primary concern and the physician must be given the discretion he or she needs to choose the most appropriate abortion method to protect the woman's life and health. The Supreme Court has defined ``health of the mother.'' In Doe v. Bolton, the Court held that the decision of whether a woman requires an abortion for the health of the mother is a medical judgment to ``be exercised in light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient.'' In so doing, the Court further recognized a doctor's important role in determining whether an abortion is necessary. I believe that the language of this bill--unlike S. 1692, Senator Santorum's bill and the substitute offered yesterday by Senator Durbin-- has a meaningful health exception for the woman and is constitutional. The decision to have an abortion--by the mother, the father, the physician--is never an easy one. It is the most wrenching decision any woman could ever have to make. It is a profoundly, impossibly difficult decision in the late stages of pregnancy. No physician would perform a postviability abortion without extended and serious consideration. Because the physician's action has consequences for human life and the action should not be undertaken except in the gravest of circumstances, the substitute includes two penalties. It creates for the first offense a $10,000 fine; for the second offense, revocation of the physician's license. I oppose post-viability abortions. They are wrong, except to save the mother's life and health. Late-term abortions are rare and they should be rare. I will vote against S. 1692, Senator Santorum's bill, because it is not constitutional. It does not include adequate protections for a woman's health. I believe this bill is a far preferable approach. Its penalties represent grave consequences for violations. It protects the fetus except in extraordinary circumstances that could have serious adverse consequences for the mother's health. It protects a woman's life and health. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, instead of recognized medical language like that of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the language the underlying bill before us is vague. Let me tell you why I say it is vague. It is vague because it not only affects third-trimester abortions, it affects second-trimester abortions; therefore, it is a continuation of the march to limit and constrict a woman's rights under Roe v. Wade. Let me give you some examples of testimony that we had in our Judiciary Committee hearings. Doctors who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee could not identify, with any degree of certainty or consistency, what medical procedure this legislation refers to. The vagueness meant that every doctor who performs even a second-trimester abortion could be vulnerable and face criminal prosecution. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has told us that ``the legislation could be interpreted to include, and thus outlaw, many other widely used, accepted, and safe abortion and operative obstetric techniques.'' Dr. Louis Seidman, Professor of Law from Georgetown University, told us: . . . as I read the language, in a second-trimester previability abortion, where the fetus will in any event die, if any portion of the fetus enters the birth canal prior to the technical death of the fetus, then the physician is guilty of a crime and goes to prison for two years. That is what we are doing here. Dr. Seidman continued his testimony before our committee and said this: If I were a lawyer advising a physician who performed abortions, I would tell him to stop because there is just no way to tell whether the procedure will eventuate in some portion of the fetus entering the birth canal before the fetus is technically dead, much less being able to demonstrate that after the fact. Dr. Courtland Richardson, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, testified in the House that: In any normal second trimester abortion procedure, by any method, you may have a point at which a part, a one-inch piece of [umbilical] cord, for example, of the fetus passes out of the cervical [opening] before fetal demise has occurred. That would violate the so-called partial-birth abortion ban and subject a physician to 2 years in prison. That is the impact of this legislation. People can say what they want, but that is the impact, the medical impact. Now let me give you the legal impact. The legal impact is that courts throughout America have ruled that partial-birth abortion laws are unconstitutional. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously ruled unconstitutional three State laws--in Arkansas, in Iowa, and in Nebraska--that mirror the Santorum bill. The Eighth Circuit is the first Federal appellate court to review the legal merits of partial- birth abortion bans. In ruling on the Iowa and Nebraska laws, which were nearly identical to S. 1692, the district court in both cases held that the language in the State laws was unconstitutional because it was overly vague, imposed an undue burden on pregnant women and did not adequately protect a woman's health and life. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, noting that the State law's vague language would ban more than just partial-birth abortion; it would ban other abortion procedures protected by the landmark Roe v. Wade. Circuit Court Judge Richard Arnold wrote--and I quote this because it is important: The difficulty is that the statute covers a great deal more. It would also prohibit, in many circumstances, the most common method of second trimester abortion, called a dilation and evacuation (D and E). This is the circuit court writing. D and E is a recognized medical procedure, dilation and evacuation. Judge Arnold continued: Under the controlling precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, such a prohibition places an undue burden on the right of women to choose whether to have an abortion. It is therefore our duty to declare the statute invalid. In 20 out of 21 States, partial-birth abortion laws have been blocked or severely limited; 18 State partial-birth abortion laws have been blocked by a Federal or State court; 6 out of 9 States that passed partial-birth abortion laws using the language as found in S. 1692 have had their laws enjoined, including Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, and West Virginia. One court limited the enforcement of Georgia's partial-birth abortion ban to redefine partial-birth abortion in medical terms, to limit its application to postviability abortion. That is the point. If proponents of this bill are really serious, they should use a medical procedure and prohibit that procedure in postviability abortions. And the court stated that Georgia's law was invalid because it created an exception in the law to allow abortions in cases necessary to protect the health of the woman. Six States, where the laws have been blocked, used identical language to H.R. 1122, vetoed by President Clinton in 1997. Mr. President, courts across the country have made it all too clear that legislation like S. 1692 does not do what the proponents of the bill say it does. The bill does not limit State bans on abortion to postviability procedures. It does not protect a woman's health. For these reasons, this bill violates the basic constitutional rights of women provided by Roe v. Wade in 1972, and other Supreme Court decisions. Simply stated, the main bill before us today is unconstitutional on its face and will be struck down. I urge this body to support the Harkin resolution and to defeat the underlying Santorum bill. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I begin by thanking the Senator from California for her leadership on this issue. I have watched her on the floor. She has carried the message of this important issue in a very significant way. I thank her very much. I want to speak today as a mother of a daughter, as a stepmother of three young women and a grandmother of one granddaughter. I speak as a woman who grew up in this country when abortion was illegal, who went to university at that time and saw things I wish I hadn't seen, like young women on the verge of suicide because of the predicament they were in. I want to speak about a time when I sat on the California Women's Parole Board in the 1960's, a board that sentenced doctors who performed abortions and women who had had abortions. Abortion carried a sentence of 6 months to 10 years. I remember their stories. I used to read the case histories of the patients and I saw the terrible morbidity and mortality that took place in California when abortion was illegal. I don't want to go back to those days and those stories of absolute desperation. As I have listened to the debate, what I have heard has been a kind of moral sanctimony of people who think they know better than anyone else. They maintain that their lifestyle, their way of handling problems, is the way everybody should handle problems. In the real world, it doesn't work that way. Nobody knows anyone else's condition, circumstances, health, life or frailties. Roe v. Wade came down in 1973 and established a trimester system for the Nation which took abortion out of the arena of politicians telling my four daughters what they could do or could not do with their reproductive systems. Frankly, I find the discussion deeply humiliating and very distressing--the discussion of women's body parts in the Senate of the United States of America, as if we don't have sense enough to do with our bodies what we know is ethically and morally right. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of women in this great Nation do know and they do what is right. They want to have children and they do deliver children. The beauty of Roe v. Wade was that it took the explosive issue of abortion out of the political arena and set a trimester system that made sense, both for the unborn child as well as for the woman herself. I will quickly summarize what that is. Roe essentially said that for the stage prior to the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, the abortion decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman and the woman's attending physician. For the stage approximately following the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Finally, for the stage following viability--that is, the time when the fetus can live outside of the womb--the State, in promoting its interests in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate and even ban abortion, except where it is necessary, in the appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. That is Roe v. Wade. It took the debate off these legislative floors all across this great Nation. It set up a constitutional right so that women could protect themselves from the views of one person who got elected to public office or another person who got elected to public office, an imposition of their views on all of the women of America. Roe v. Wade has stood the test of time. It should be supported, and we now have an opportunity to do so. Let me make a couple of comments on what we have before us. Since 1992, there have been 120 votes that sought to infringe on Roe and sought to constrain a woman's right to control her own reproductive system; 113 of them have been successful. My colleague from California and I have watched the march to limit a woman's right to choose, to find ways to encroach on it, whether it is not allowing women on Medicaid to have abortions; whether it is not giving money to the District of Columbia if the District of Columbia uses Federal, or even its own dollars for abortion services for women; limiting the rights of women in the military, and on and on and on--a steady march to eliminate Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. And now we have this issue of so-called partial-birth abortion before us. I sit on the Judiciary Committee. I have attended all of the hearings on this subject. What has been interesting to me is, in the many years that we have discussed this, there has been no medical definition presented in the legislation describing what a partial-birth abortion really is. No one has used what I think they aim at, which is something called intact D and X, which is in fact a specific medical procedure and which is known to physicians. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a statement of policy by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Senator Boxer and I today are introducing a bill to ban abortions after a fetus is viable. The bill has 3 provisions: (1) It bans post-viability abortions. (2) It provides an exception to the ban if, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman. (3) It includes two civil penalties: For the first offense, a fine not to exceed $10,000. For the second offense, revocation of a physician's medical license. This amendment is similar to S. 481 which we introduced in the previous Congress and the amendment we offered as a substitute to the ``partial-birth abortion bill'' when the Senate considered it. The major difference is that the bill we introduce today adds the penalty of revocation of the medical license for a second offense. S. 481 did not include this penalty. Both S. 481 and this bill have as the penalty for the first offense a $10,000 fine. This bill reflects my deep belief that abortions after a fetus is viable should not take place except in the rarest of circumstances to protect the life and health of the mother. That is the intent of this bill. The medical community has said that there are very occasionally very extraordinary and tragic circumstances when a physician may determine that a postviability abortion is the safest procedure for protecting a woman's health. These are circumstances which most of us can never imagine. Leading medical organizations say that post-viability abortions are rare and should be rare. They say that medical decisions should be made by doctors who must determine the best procedure. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has said: ACOG has never supported post-viability abortions except for the constitutionally protected exception of saving the life or health of a woman. There may be circumstances where the physician and patient would reach the conclusion that this procedure [Intact Dilatation and Extraction after 16 weeks of pregnancy] is the most medically appropriate . . . there is a need for flexibility in handling unexpected situations. . . . The California Medical Association wrote me, ``The determination of the medical need for, and effectiveness of, particular medical procedures must be left to the medical profession, to be reflected in the standard of care . . . The legislative process is ill-suited to evaluate complex medical procedures whose importance may vary with a particular patient's case and with the state of scientific knowledge.'' Congress cannot anticipate every conceivable medical situation. Only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's unique medical history and health can make this decision of how best to protect the woman's health. This substitute is designed to protect the fetus, to protect the woman's life and health and to give the physician the latitude to make the necessary medical decisions in those rarest of circumstances. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, held that the woman's health must be the physician's primary concern and the physician must be given the discretion he or she needs to choose the most appropriate abortion method to protect the woman's life and health. The Supreme Court has defined ``health of the mother.'' In Doe v. Bolton, the Court held that the decision of whether a woman requires an abortion for the health of the mother is a medical judgment to ``be exercised in light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient.'' In so doing, the Court further recognized a doctor's important role in determining whether an abortion is necessary. I believe that the language of this bill--unlike S. 1692, Senator Santorum's bill and the substitute offered yesterday by Senator Durbin-- has a meaningful health exception for the woman and is constitutional. The decision to have an abortion--by the mother, the father, the physician--is never an easy one. It is the most wrenching decision any woman could ever have to make. It is a profoundly, impossibly difficult decision in the late stages of pregnancy. No physician would perform a postviability abortion without extended and serious consideration. Because the physician's action has consequences for human life and the action should not be undertaken except in the gravest of circumstances, the substitute includes two penalties. It creates for the first offense a $10,000 fine; for the second offense, revocation of the physician's license. I oppose post-viability abortions. They are wrong, except to save the mother's life and health. Late-term abortions are rare and they should be rare. I will vote against S. 1692, Senator Santorum's bill, because it is not constitutional. It does not include adequate protections for a woman's health. I believe this bill is a far preferable approach. Its penalties represent grave consequences for violations. It protects the fetus except in extraordinary circumstances that could have serious adverse consequences for the mother's health. It protects a woman's life and health. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today in recognition of ``National Women's Business Week'' and of the vital role women business-owners play in our economy. I would also like to recognize the appointment of Vivian L. Shimoyama to the National Women's Business Council. Ms. Shimoyama is the Founder and President of Breakthru Unlimited, a California company that designs and manufactures projects with a message: hand-made glass artwork of jewelry, executive gifts, limited editions, and custom awards. A brilliant sample of her work is her ``Breaking the Ceiling'' line of jewelry that has adorned the lapels of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole. Currently, she serves as the Chair of the National Association of Women Business Owners--Los Angeles. In 1999, she was honored as the Small Business Administration's ``Women Business Advocate of the Year''. Ms. Shimoyama runs one of the 1.2 million women-owned businesses headquartered in California. According to a study by the National Foundation for Women Business Owners (NFWBO), these businesses employ 3.8 million workers and generate $548 billion in annual sales, a growth of 164 percent in seven years. Without a doubt, women entrepreneurs have played a crucial part in the growth of our economy. NFWBO reports that between 1987 and 1999, the number of women-owned firms increased by 103 percent nationwide, employment increased by 320 percent, and sales increased by 436 percent. As of 1999, there are 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the U.S., which employ 27.5 million people and generate over $3.6 trillion in sales. To put the sales of these businesses into context, they are twice the size of the Federal budget, and greater than the Gross National Product of every country in the world but the United States and Japan. An increasing number of these businesses have focused on emerging industries such as high technology. These businesses demand a greater access to capital and information resources than ever before. Mr. President, I will do all I can to ensure that the women in my state and all over the country have access to the opportunities and resources they need to start new business ventures. However it is also imperative that we invest in the business development resources that will help women sustain and grow these new businesses. This small investment yields big returns in the form of job creation, revenues, and overall growth of the nation's economy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my extreme disappointment in the Senate's failure to invoke cloture on the campaign finance reform legislation. This is the third consecutive year we have held this debate and I am disturbed that each attempt to move this bill has failed. Our campaigns are awash in money. Over the weekend, both the Washington Post and the New York Times ran stories detailing the rise of soft money contributions and the impact it is having on our electoral process. We do not need newspapers to tell us what we already know. We have run the campaigns, we have raised the money, and we have felt the sting of negative attack ads. I am now entering my fourth statewide campaign in California. In the 1990's, I have raised more than $40 million. In the 1990 race for Governor, I had to raise about $23 million. In the first race for the Senate, $8 million; in the second race, $14 million. This process has got to stop. I want to speak for a few minutes about my last campaign. All of us in the Senate have all faced tough campaigns, but I think this election was a little different because of the record amounts of money that were spent. In 1994, my opponent spent nearly $30 million in his effort to defeat me. It wasn't simply the amount of money spent that made this race unpleasant, however. It was how the Money was spent. This race was not a discussion of issues. Instead, money was spent on negative ads that misrepresented votes I had taken and mislead voters about my positions. This campaign was primarily about bringing a candidate down, not promoting a view or even another candidate. I wish I could say that this was a unique circumstance in which a wealthy individual used unlimited resources to mount this type of campaign. Unfortunately, it has become all too common. Instead of wealthy candidates using their own money, political parties and outside organizations are raising millions of dollars in soft money contributions. They are bankrolling attack ads designed solely to defeat candidates. Studies have clearly shown that as election day gets closer, ads become more candidates oriented and more negative. Instead of promoting a position or an issue, these ads attempt to influence an election by painting a distorted view of a candidate. The impact that this type of campaigning is having on the electorate as whole is of much greater consequence than the effect on any single race. Voter disenchantment with the political process is at an unprecedented level. Negative campaigning may be designed to drive candidates from office, but it is actually driving voters away from the polls. Over the past several days, much has been said about the rise in soft money spending and its influence over our elections. The numbers are clear and unquestionably disturbing. Soft money spending doubled between 1992 and 1996 and it is projected to double again this cycle. I believe the most distressing effect of soft money, however, has been the impact on the voters. Since the early 1990s, when soft money began to explode, voter turnout has significantly declined. Between the presidential election years of 1992 and 1996, the percentage of eligible voters participating in elections fell 6 points from 55 to 49 percent. Voting participation in midterm elections fell from 38.78 percent in 1994 to 36.4 percent in 1998. There may be a number of reasons for this decline, but I believe it is largely due to a growing distaste for the political process. The political dialogue has become dominated by personal attacks and unsubstantiated charges and voters have chosen to not participate. I voted in favor of the Shays-Meehan legislation that the minority leader offered as an amendment. I believe it represents the most comprehensive reform of the current system. This bill has already passed the House by a decisive, bipartisan margin and the Senate should have followed suit. I also supported the streamlined version of the McCain-Feingold bill. As we know, this bill contains only the ban on soft money and permits union members to prevent the use of their dues for political activities. I supported this bill, but I did so with some misgivings. One of the key provisions that was dropped from the original legislation dealt with issue advocacy. This is a loophole in the current campaign finance system that allow unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence elections without being subject to disclosure or expenditure restrictions. I am very concerned that banning soft money without addressing issue advocacy will simply redirect the flow of undisclosed money in campaigns. Instead of giving soft money to political parties, individuals, and organizations that want to influence elections will create their own ``independent'' attack ads. One study now estimates that between $275 million and $340 million will be spent on so-called issue advertisements during the last election cycle. This amount of spending becomes a third campaign where candidates can't respond because they don't know from where the attack is coming. Despite the lack of issue advocacy, I voted in support of the soft money ban. While this may not entirely solve the problems in our campaign finance system, at least it would move the debate forward. Banning soft money is an important and necessary step in a larger effort to reform the system. Unfortunately, the Senate did not invoke cloture on either amendment and it now appears the bill will be removed from the floor and the debate ended for the year. This is the worst possible outcome. As a result of our actions today, the influence of soft money will continue to grow, attack ads will saturate the airwaves during each election, and voters will continue to lose interest in the process. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to take down this bill. Let us go forward with the amendment process and give us an opportunity to pass this legislation. We owe it to the American public.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment offered by the minority leader and the Senator from New Jersey. As you know, this amendment is almost identical to the Shays-Meehan bill that passed the House of Representatives by a decisive, bipartisan vote of 252-177. It is time for the Senate to show the same courage and pass this important legislation. as I enter my eleventh political campaign and my fourth California statewide election, I am one who knows a little about the dynamics of campaigning in expensive races. In the 1990 race for Governor, I had to raise about $23 million. In the first race the Senate, $8 million; in the second race, $14 million. In 1994, my opponent spent nearly $30 million in his attempt to defeat me. My experiences have led me to believe that the current campaign finance system is badly flawed and in need of overhaul. Since 1976, the first election after the last major revision of campaign finance laws, the average cost of a winning Senate race went from $609,000 to $3.8 million in 1998. The average cost for a winning House candidate rose from $87,000 in 1976 to $679,000 in 1998. Campaigns in 2000 are very different than they were in 1976. Clearly, our campaign finance system must be reformed to reflect these differences. I have been a strong supporter of federal campaign finance reform since my first election to the Senate. Campaigns simply cost too much and it is long past time that Congress does something about it. I believe very strongly that this will be the final real opportunity this millennium to make significant structural reforms to our campaign finance system. Two of the fundamental changes that I believe must be made are a complete ban on soft money contributions to political parties and making independent campaign ads subject to contribution limits and disclosure requirements as are a candidate's campaign ads. While I have a great deal of respect for the persistence the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin have demonstrated in pushing the Senate to act on campaign finance reform, I am concerned that the underlying bill, S. 1953, is too narrow to constitute a real reform of the campaign finance system. Banning soft money without addressing issue advocacy will simply redirect the flow of undisclosed money in campaigns. Instead of giving soft money to political parties, the same dollars will be turned into ``independent'' ads. The issues of soft money ban and independent advertisements go hand in hand and one can not be addressed without the other. soft money ban The ability of corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to give unlimited amounts of soft money to political parties is the largest single loophole in the current campaign finance structure. The lack of restrictions on soft money enables anonymous individuals and anonymous organizations to play a major role in campaigns. They can hit hard and no one knows from where the hit is coming. The form that soft money is increasingly taking is negative, attack ads that distort, mislead, and misrepresent a candidates position on issues. These ads have become the scourge of the electoral process. This is the third time in as many years that the Senate has had the opportunity to pass meaningful campaign finance legislation. Last year, a minority of Senators blocked its passage and they appear poised to do so again. The consequence of this action is clear: voters will continue to become disenchanted with the political process and the flow of money into campaigns and the access it buys will continue to grow. The numbers speak for themselves. According to the Federal Election Commission, the Republican party raised $131 million in soft money during the 1998 election cycle. That is a 149 percent increase over the last mid-term election in 1994. The Democratic party is not much better. We raised $91.5 million, a 89 percent increase. Soft money contributions are continuing to rise. In the first 6 months of this year, Republicans raised $30.9 million. 42 percent more than in the first six months of the 1997-98 election cycle. Democrats raised $26.4 million, a 93 percent increase. One organization, Public Citizen, estimates that soft money spending this election cycle will exceed $500 million. That is double the amount spent in the last presidential election cycle and six times as much as in 1992. At some point this escalation of campaign spending has got to stop. We simply cannot continue down this path. A complete ban on soft money contributions to political parties is the first and most basic way to reduce the amount of money in our campaigns. issue advocacy That brings me to the other disturbing trend in the American political system: the rise of issue advocacy. This campaign loophole allows unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence elections without being subject to disclosure or expenditure restrictions. During last year's debate, I mentioned a study released by the Annenberg Public Policy Center that estimated that during the 1995-96 election cycle independent groups spent between $135 and $150 million on issue advocacy. The Center has done a similar study for the 1997-98 cycle and the result is quite disturbing. They estimate that the amount spent on issue advocacy more than doubled to between $275 million and $340 million. These ads do not use the so-called ``magic words'' that the Supreme Court identified as express advocacy and, therefore, are not subject to FEC regulation. The Annenberg study found, however, that 53.4 percent of the issue ads mentioned a candidate up for election. The Center found another unfortunate twist to issue advocacy. Prior to September 1, 1998, that is in the first 22 months of the election cycle, only 35.3 percent of issue ads mentioned a candidate and 81.3 percent of the ads referred to a piece of legislation or a regulatory issue. After September 1, 1998, during the last 2 months of the campaign, a dramatic shift occurred. The proportion of ads naming specific candidates rose to 80.1 percent and those mentioning legislation fell to 21.6 percent. A similar shift can be seen in terms of attack ads. Prior to September 1, 33.7 percent of all ads were attack oriented. After September 1, over half were. These findings clearly demonstrate 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 away from the polls. The amendment offered by the minority leader defines ``express advocacy'' communications as advocating election or defeat of candidate by: First, using explicit phrases, words, or slogans that have no other reasonable meaning than influence elections; second, referring to a candidate in a paid radio or TV broadcast ad that runs within 60 days of election; or third, expressing unmistakable, unambiguous election advocacy. This provision draws a clear line between true issue advertising and electioneering activities. It is an important part of any real reform effort and I applaud the minority leader for seeing that we have an opportunity to vote on it. other issues This amendment also contains a number of important issues that are not contained in the underlying bill. I understand the sponsors of the bill removed them in an attempt to force a straight up or down vote on the soft money ban. I do feel, however, that some of these provisions will significantly improve the campaign finance system and are worth mentioning. The bill mandates electronic filing; allows the FEC to conduct random audits of campaigns within 12 months of an election; makes it easier for the FEC to initiate enforcement action; and increases penalties for knowing and willful violations of election law. This amendment would lower the threshold for disclosure of contributions from $200 to $50. It would prevent candidates from depositing contributions of $200 if the disclosure requirements are not complete. It would also require the FEC to post contribution information on the Internet within 24 hours of receipt. These are commonsense steps to making our elections more open to the public. Voters are increasingly feeling cut out of the political process. By allowing an open window into our campaigns, we can begin the process of reconnecting with voters. In closing, Mr. President, I want to again thank the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin. Without their leadership on this issue we would not have come as far as we have. This body is now faced with a choice. We have been at this same point several times in the last couple of years and each time we have failed to act and each time the American public has grown more cynical and lost more confidence in their government. With the passing of every election, it becomes more and more clear that our campaign system desperately needs reform. I remain hopeful that this is the year that Congress can finally come together in support of legislation that brings about a real improvement in our campaign system. Let's make the first election of the twenty-first century one of which we can be proud. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the Hispanic community. As we commemorate Hispanic Heritage Month, I want to recognize the contributions made by millions of Latinos in our nation. California is truly a multi-cultural state and I am honored to help represent this community in the United States Senate. This month we celebrate a community that shares the common goals of other Americans of freedom, opportunity and a chance to build a better life. In pursuing these aspirations, they have made important contributions to life in the United States in the fields of business, politics, science, culture, sports, and entertainment. Latinos have served in the armed services with bravery and courage and many have made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their lives for the common good of our country. Today, I honor these brave Americans and their families. I also honor Latino heroes and heroines like the late Julia de Burgos, Arturo Alphonso Schomburg, Roberto Clemente, and Cesar Chavez. These teachers, advocates, athletes, and activists have brought pride to their community, enriched our country, and provided role models for all of us to emulate. Indeed, Latinos are changing the way America looks at itself. Today there are 31 million Hispanics in the U.S. By 2050, the population is projected to hit 96 million--an increase of more than 200 percent. Latinos are making their mark, Sammy Sosa leading the great American home-run derby. Ricky Martin, Jennifer Lopez, and Carlos Santana topping the pop music charts. Salma Hayek, Jimmy Smits, Andy Garcia, Edward James Olmos, and Rita Moreno are making great contributions to the entertainment industry. I commend the Latino community for its courage and persistence and want to warmly acknowledge the contributions and vitality this community brings to our nation. I thank the leaders of this community for leading by example and for promoting a national policy agenda which highlights basic human necessities that should be the right of every American. Between 1984 and 1998, Latino voting jumped nationwide in midterm elections by 27 percent, even as overall voter turnout declined by 13 percent. In my own state of California, Latinos are participating and contributing to civic life. For the first time in the California State Legislature's history, two of its three highest offices are occupied by Latinos, Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante and Speaker of the Assembly Antonio Villaraigosa. A democratic and prosperous society should not step back from a national commitment to provide assistance to those who strive to achieve the American dream, despite the odds. In particular, I want to emphasize the importance of a quality education for the success of Latino children. Our Latino young people are a great source of strength and hope for the future of this nation and they should be able to participate fully in the American experience. I am proud to honor California's Hispanic community and to have the opportunity to ensure that Latino contributions and sacrifices do not go unnoticed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today legislation to assist Mrs. Ruth Hairston, of Carson, California. Identical legislation has passed the House without objection under the sponsorship of Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald. I am pleased to support this effort in the Senate. Mrs. Hairston requires this extreme step in order to be able to pursue a federal court appeal of the Merit Systems Protection Board (# CSF 2221413), which denied Mrs. Hairston's eligibility for an annuity following the retirement and untimely death of her former husband. The legislation does not require the annuity, but will only permit the filing of an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals. As a result, Mrs. Hairston will be permitted to challenge the denial on the merits, rather than accept the denial due to the failure to file an appeal within thirty days. I would briefly like to describe the facts that warrant this legislation. Mr. Paul Hairston retired in 1980, electing a survivor annuity for Mrs. Hairston to receive one-half the retirement benefit under the settlement terms. Mr. and Mrs. Hairston began receiving benefits in 1988. The Merit Systems Protection Board, which reviews Civil Service retirement claims, concluded Mr. Hairston had failed to register Mrs. Hairston for survivors benefits following passage of 1985 law, renewing the survivor annuity previously selected in 1985. As a result the spousal survivor benefits for Mrs. Hairston were canceled. Following Mr. Hairston's death in 1995, Mrs. Hairston's benefits, her portion of his retirement benefit under the divorce settlement, ceased. Mrs. Hairston was denied eligibility as a surviving spouse, but did not challenge or appeal the denial of eligibility, due to hospitalization and poor health. I am pleased to introduce this private legislation to assist my constituent Mrs. Ruth Hairston. While this legislation represents an extraordinary measure, the step is necessary in order to permit her to appeal the denial of eligibility by the Merit Systems Protection Board in federal court. As I have previously stated, this legislation does not require any specific outcome. The federal court will review the appeal with all the rigor the case deserves. However, Mrs. Hairston will receive her day in court and the opportunity to challenge the decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to deny her eligibility. I understand Mrs. Hairston is under considerable financial pressure and could face foreclosure on her home. I am pleased to try to assist Mrs. Hairston in her appeal. Mr. President, I hope you and the subcommittee will support this bill so that Mrs. Hairston may begin to rebuild her life.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today legislation to assist Mrs. Ruth Hairston, of Carson, California. Identical legislation has passed the House without objection under the sponsorship of Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald. I am pleased to support this effort in the Senate. Mrs. Hairston requires this extreme step in order to be able to pursue a federal court appeal of the Merit Systems Protection Board (# CSF 2221413), which denied Mrs. Hairston's eligibility for an annuity following the retirement and untimely death of her former husband. The legislation does not require the annuity, but will only permit the filing of an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals. As a result, Mrs. Hairston will be permitted to challenge the denial on the merits, rather than accept the denial due to the failure to file an appeal within thirty days. I would briefly like to describe the facts that warrant this legislation. Mr. Paul Hairston retired in 1980, electing a survivor annuity for Mrs. Hairston to receive one-half the retirement benefit under the settlement terms. Mr. and Mrs. Hairston began receiving benefits in 1988. The Merit Systems Protection Board, which reviews Civil Service retirement claims, concluded Mr. Hairston had failed to register Mrs. Hairston for survivors benefits following passage of 1985 law, renewing the survivor annuity previously selected in 1985. As a result the spousal survivor benefits for Mrs. Hairston were canceled. Following Mr. Hairston's death in 1995, Mrs. Hairston's benefits, her portion of his retirement benefit under the divorce settlement, ceased. Mrs. Hairston was denied eligibility as a surviving spouse, but did not challenge or appeal the denial of eligibility, due to hospitalization and poor health. I am pleased to introduce this private legislation to assist my constituent Mrs. Ruth Hairston. While this legislation represents an extraordinary measure, the step is necessary in order to permit her to appeal the denial of eligibility by the Merit Systems Protection Board in federal court. As I have previously stated, this legislation does not require any specific outcome. The federal court will review the appeal with all the rigor the case deserves. However, Mrs. Hairston will receive her day in court and the opportunity to challenge the decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board to deny her eligibility. I understand Mrs. Hairston is under considerable financial pressure and could face foreclosure on her home. I am pleased to try to assist Mrs. Hairston in her appeal. Mr. President, I hope you and the subcommittee will support this bill so that Mrs. Hairston may begin to rebuild her life.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Unfortunately, the vote outcome today looks to be a tragedy of major proportions. It will leave the world a far less safe place and means the United States relinquishes its imperative as a leader in nuclear nonproliferation. I would like to take a few minutes to explain why I support this treaty, and to address some of the arguments presented by those who are opposed to this Treaty. I support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because I believe it strengthens the U.S. ability to play a leadership role in global nuclear non-proliferation. The treaty is a key element of the global non-proliferation regime, and if the U.S. fails to ratify the CTBT, it sends a clear message around the world that the development and possession of nuclear weapons are acceptable. As former U.S. Ambassador to India Frank Wisner expressed in a letter earlier this year, if the U.S. walks away from the CTBT ``I do not want to contemplate treaty failure here followed by a breakdown with India and Pakistan and the effect these moves will have on rogue states like Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea.'' Second, the CTBT will constrain the development of nuclear capabilities by rogue states, as well as the development of more advanced weapons by declared nuclear states. Any significant nuclear program requires extensive testing, and while a rogue state might develop a primitive first generation weapon without testing, that testing would not be adequate to develop a sophisticated weapon. And, because new types of weapons also require testing, the CTBT will also curb the ability of states which already possess nuclear weapons from developing more advanced designs. As John Holum, Acting Undersecretary of State and the former Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, has noted, the United States does not need tests; proliferators need tests. Third, the CTBT will improve the U.S. ability to detect and deter nuclear tests. The American Geophysical Union and the Seismological Society of America, in a joint statement issued on October 6, found that when the International Monitoring System--with over 300 seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasound, and radionuclide monitoring stations--is in operation, no nation will be able to elude them, even with a small- yield test. And, finally, the CTBT will make the world a safer place and safeguard U.S. national security interests. The treaty constrains the development of nuclear weapons by other states. That is good. It provides the United States with additional means to detect nuclear activities of other countries. It provides the United States with means and leverage to act if we discover that other states are, in violation of the treaty, developing nuclear weapons. And, given the size and sophistication of the U.S. nuclear arsenal--second to none in every respect--it preserves U.S. nuclear superiority and our deterrent capability. It will help make the world a safer place. It is in the national interest. The Joint Chiefs believe that this Treaty safeguards U.S. interests. Former Chiefs, including Generals Colin Powell, John Shalikashvili, David Jones, and Admiral Crowe all endorse the treaty. Presidents of both parties, from Eisenhower and Kennedy to President Clinton have worked for a ban on nuclear test explosions. The NATO alliance has endorsed the Treaty. And other leading U.S. military and diplomatic figures--including Paul Nitze, Admiral Turner, Admiral Zumwalt--all support this treaty and believe that it makes the U.S. more secure in the world, not less. Let me now address several of the arguments that have been raised by opponents of this treaty: That it is not verifiable; that it will compromise the reliability and integrity of the U.S. nuclear arsenal; that the U.S. needs to maintain the ability to improve our nuclear arsenal and that we can only do so with additional tests; and that others, such as North Korea and Iran, will develop nuclear weapons under the CTBT while our hands are tied. First, several opponents of this treaty have commented that it is impossible for the CTBT to offer a 100% fool-proof means of detecting low-yield tests. It is true that the CTBT will not provide the means for 100% verification of low-yield tests--those tests less than one kiloton in size. But it is undeniable that the additional seismic monitors, including a system that will be well-calibrated to pick up tests smaller than one kiloton (in areas of interest) and the treaty's on- site verification provisions, will increase our current verification capabilities. As the statement of the American Geophysical Union and the Seismological Society of America asserts, the CTBT will add significant capabilities to what we can now detect, and the increased likelihood of detection will serve as a real deterrent to any state contemplating a test. In addition, as physicist and arms control expert Sidney Drell has noted, ``very low yield tests are of questionable value in designing new nuclear weapons or confirming that a new design will work as intended.'' In other words, even if the CTBT is not 100% verifiable for small-yield tests, tests of this size are only of a limited utility to a state seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Second, questions have been raised about the adequacy of the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the reliability and integrity of U.S. weapons systems. Simply put, according to General Shalikashvili in testimony before Congress, ``our warheads, having been adequately tested in the past, continue to be safe and reliable.'' With the Stockpile Stewardship Program, further nuclear testing is not necessary to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. arsenal. The U.S. has conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests. We have a high level of knowledge and sophistication and sufficient data to maintain the safety and reliability of our weapons. The U.S. does not need to conduct further nuclear tests--it is other states that need to test if they seek to develop nuclear programs, and it is precisely tests by other states that the CTBT will constrain or prevent. In fact, because the U.S. does not need to continue to test, in 1992 President Bush signed into law legislation that established a moratorium on U.S. testing, and we have not tested a weapon in six years. Each year the heads of Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore have certified that the U.S. stockpile is safe and reliable. There is every indication that, aided by sophisticated computer modeling and other stockpile stewardship initiatives, they will be able to continue to make these certifications. In fact, in a February 2, 1998 statement, the three lab heads stated that ``We are confident that the Stockpile Stewardship program will enable us to maintain America's nuclear deterrent without nuclear testing.'' Critically--and this point should not be overlooked or ignored by opponents of the treaty--if at any point the United States finds that it can not continue to certify the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons, under the President's safeguards package incorporated in the Democratic Amendment, the U.S. will maintain the prerogative to pull out of the CTBT and conduct tests or take whatever measures are necessary to maintain stockpile integrity. In other words, our very ability to maintain stockpile safety is a condition of U.S. participation in the CTBT. Third, questions have been raised as to whether the U.S. needs to continue to test to maintain the ability to improve our nuclear arsenal to face the security challenges that lie ahead. While the CTBT might constrain our ability to develop whole new classes of weapons, the CTBT does allow us to make modifications to our weapons, including casings, detonators, batteries, and arming systems. In a letter to President Clinton, Dr. Hans A. Bethe, head of the Manhattan Project's theoretical division and professor of physics emeritus at Cornell University, states that ``If any component shows signs of deterioration it will be refabricated. If the fuel itself is degrading, it will be refreshed.'' Parts that wear out can be replaced, and modifications can be made that will improve the capabilities of our nuclear arsenal. Thus, for example, in 1996 a B-61-7 nuclear bomb was modified to a B-61-Mod V earth penetrating weapon by hardening the outer casing. Unlike the B- 61-7, the B-61-Mod V has additional capability to penetrate hardened targets. In other words, the CTBT, while effectively preventing other states from developing nuclear weapons, will still allow the United States to modify its arsenal to meet the challenges that we may face in the years ahead. Finally, there is the argument that under the CTBT other states-- especially such states as North Korea or Iran--will do what they want while our hands will be tied. In the final analysis some states will do what they want in violation of the norm established by the international community anyway. In other words, they will seek to develop nuclear weapons whether or not the CTBT is in force. The real question, then, is if the CTBT will make it easier or more difficult for these states to develop nuclear weapons. For example, with or without the CTBT the U.S. will face problems verifying small-yield tests. And the fact of the matter is that without the CTBT, relying only on national intelligence means, we will have greater difficulty in detecting any tests and less leverage to do anything about it if we do. Again, to quote General Shalikashvili, On the issue of verification we have concluded that a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will actually put us in a better position to obtain effective verification than we would have without the Treaty. The Treaty does not provide ``perfect verification,'' but that level of verification that would allow us to detect, to identify and to attribute that level of testing that could undercut our nuclear deterrent. The CTBT may thus deter some from going forward with nuclear developments entirely--India and Pakistan have indicated that they would adhere to a test ban, for example--and for those it will not deter, it will make the development of nuclear weapons that much more difficult, and perhaps impossible. I do not believe the CTBT, or any treaty for that matter, can prevent a determined state from doing what the treaty forbids. But that is neither the right nor the fair standard to measure the treaty against. One cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The bottom line is that by any measure the CTBT will make the development of nuclear weapons by other states more difficult, will add to the U.S. ability to detect tests, and will enhance U.S. national security by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons while assuring that the U.S. maintains a strong and capable nuclear deterrent second to none. And we also know that failure of the U.S. to ratify the CTBT will have disastrous repercussion. The United States has led the international effort to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle for the past five decades. As we prepare to enter a new century we should not now uncork that bottle, and make our legacy to the twenty-first century the unleashing of a global nuclear weapons race. Although I do not believe that this is the appropriate time for this Senate to vote on this treaty, I urge my colleagues to support ratification of the CTBT.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague that the USDA, which has the expertise to make an informed decision about the value of fruit and other foods in children's diets should be left alone to design the composition of the WIC food packages. Over the past several years, the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies appropriations bill has become a vehicle for the debate surrounding the content of sugar in certain foods eligible for inclusion in the WIC program. More recently, the fiscal year 1999 Statement of Managers instructed the Department to provide $300,000 for a study by the National academy of Sciences on this issue, which was not conducted. Now, the fiscal year 2000 Statement of Managers includes language directing that no exception to the sugar cap be made. I assume that this pattern of direction is as frustrating to all of us as it is to WIC program administrators, participants, and suppliers. Our goal, quite simply, should be to promote a healthy diet for all Americans. USDA nutrition policy should consider the totality of U.S. eating habits and aim for consumer education and program implementation that deals with a person's overall diet rather than one burdened by requirements attached in a piecemeal fashion. It is unfortunate that the grip of political consideration has taken hold of a matter best left to nutritionists and those trained in the science of public health. It is also unfortunate that the result has been inconsistent policy development where certain nutritional limitations have been imposed on some components of USDA nutrition programs, but not on others. This issue should be resolved by experts who can best determine dietary guidelines properly suited for all Americans. My intent also does not suggest that USDA nutrition programs should be made more complicated than they are, but that a simple injection of common sense should prove refreshing and, hopefully, a basis for sound public policy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Most biotech research and development efforts are long term projects spanning five to ten years, sometimes more. The uncertainty created by the temporary and sporadic extensions is incompatible with the basic needs of biotech innovation--providing companies with a stable time frame to plan, launch, and conduct research activities. In the case of a promising but financially intensive research project, such unpredictability can make the difference as to whether the project is completed or abandoned. Anyone who has watched the growth of America's high tech sector in the past two decades--much of it in California--has seen first hand how research and development investment leads to new jobs, new businesses, and even entire new industries. And anyone who has benefitted from breakthrough products--from new treatments for genetic disorders to cleansing contaminated groundwater--has felt the effect of this tax credit. Over the past two decades the research and experimentation tax credit has proven its worth in creating new technologies and jobs and in growing tax revenues for this country. It should not be imperilled by remaining a temporary credit, subject to termination because of the uncertainty of a given political moment. I urge my colleagues to work to make sure that any Senate tax bill contains a permanent extension for the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to note that since June 30 of this year, the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit has, once again, been allowed to lapse. As this body considers whether to enact a so- called ``extenders'' package, I want to urge my colleagues to include and pass a permanent extension of the Research and Experimentation tax credit. The research and experimentation tax credit provides business an incentive to fund development of the technologies of tomorrow by providing a tax credit for investments in research. The research and experimentation tax credit is an important element in the creation of strong economic growth and rising productivity. Industry leaders have credited it with spawning private enterprise investments. It is especially important to the high-tech and emerging growth industries that are driving the California economy. And, because it creates jobs and spurs economic activity, the research and experimentation tax credit helps to increase the tax base, paying back the benefit of the credit. Yet, despite its many benefits, for 18 years the research and experimentation tax credit remains, inexplicably, a temporary tax provision requiring regular renewal. In fact, since 1981, when it was first enacted, the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit has been extended nine times. In four instances the research credit had expired before being renewed retroactively and, in one instance, it was renewed for a mere six months. This is not a process which is conducive to encouraging business investment in the innovative industries--high technology, electronics, computers, software, and biotechnology, among others--which will provide future strength and growth for the U.S. economy. Earlier in this decade California was faced with its severest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Today, the California economy is healthy and vibrant, and it is so in no small part because of the critical role played by innovative research and development efforts in nurturing new ``high tech'' industries. Today the 150 largest Silicon Valley companies are valued at well- over $500 billion, $500 billion which did not exist two decades ago. Much of this growth is a result of ability of companies to undertake long-range and sustained research in cutting-edge technologies. Scores of California companies--and companies across the country--owe much of their success and growth to the incentive provided by the research and experimentation tax credit. Research and experimentation is the lifeblood of high technology development, and if we want to continue to replicate the successful growth that has characterized the U.S. economy during this past decade it is crucial that we create a permanent research and experimentation tax credit. For example, Pericom Semiconductor, located in San Jose, has expanded from a start-up company in 1990 to a company with over $50 million in revenue and 175 employees by the end of last year and is ranked by Deloitte Touche as one of the fastest growing companies in Silicon Valley. According to a letter I received from Pericom, utilization of the research and experimentation tax credit has been key to their success, enabling them to add engineers, conduct research, and expand their technology base. Indeed, according to a 1998 study conducted by the national accounting firm Coopers & Lybrand, a permanent credit will increase GDP by nearly $58 billion (in 1998 dollars) over the next decade. The productivity gains from a permanent extension will allow workers throughout the Nation to earn higher wages, and the additional tax revenue created by these new jobs will help pay back the benefit of the credit. Whether it is advances in health care, information technology, or environmental design, research and development are critical ingredients for fueling the process of economic growth. Moreover, aggressive research and experimentation is essential for U.S. industries fighting to be competitive in the world marketplace. For example, American biotechnology is the world leader in developing effective treatments and biotech is considered one of the critical technologies for the 21st century. With other countries heavily- subsidizing research and development, it is critical that U.S. companies also receive incentive to invest the necessary resources to stay on top of breakthrough developments. I recently received a letter from the CEO of Genentech, for example, in which he wrote: The R&D tax credit is especially important to Genentech and our patients. Our newest therapy, Herceptin, which is used to treat metastatic breast cancer, is a prime example. The early clinical trials for Herceptin showed that it was a somewhat effective treatment for metastatic breast cancer, but the results were not particularly robust. It was a classic case of a research project being ``on the bubble'' in terms of deciding whether to go forward into the most expensive phase of human clinical trials. However, because the value of the tax credit to Genentech directly means that we are able to move one additional drug candidate each year into clinical trials, we were able to move forward with the Phase III Herceptin clinical trial in late 1994. I dare say that without the R&D credit, Herceptin might well not have become a reality. Today, thousands of patients are receiving this important treatment. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the September 30, 1999 letter from Genentech Chairman Arthur Levinson be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Kyl in introducing the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program II and Local Medical Emergency Reimbursement Act.'' The control of illegal immigration is a Federal responsibility. However, more and more, this burden is shifting to the states. The ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program II and Local Medical Emergency Reimbursement Act'' (SCAAP II), properly shifts the fiscal burden of illegal immigration into the hands of the Federal Government. This bill builds upon the existing Federal obligations under the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program'' (SCAAP I) by providing $200 million for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2005 to help border communities defray the indirect costs of illegal immigration, and an additional $200 million to help state and local governments cope with the cost of providing emergency medical care to illegal immigrants. The issue of illegal immigration, is one of national consequence that requires a Federal response. Unfortunately, Federal reimbursements have consistently failed to cover the actual costs borne by States and local communities confronting the effects of illegal immigration. For those communities that continue to shoulder this burden, the control of illegal immigration has become an unfunded mandate. Mr. President, while I consider illegal immigration an issue that pervades communities across the nation, I would like to share with my colleagues how this issue has affected my home State of California. As you might imagine, the border counties in California are among the hardest hit in terms of dollars spent on incarceration, court costs, and emergency medical care for those who have entered the U.S. illegally. San Diego County, for example, spent an estimated $10.1 million in 1998 to cover the costs of illegal alien incarceration and spends an estimated $50 million annually to provide emergency medical care for illegal immigrants. Imperial County estimates that it spent more than $4 million last year in detention costs and another $1.36 million in emergency medical expenses. I am greatly concerned about the disproportionate burden these costs impose on the criminal justice system, hospitals and residents of San Diego and Imperial Counties, especially given the counties' limited tax base and fiscal resources. Given what I have witnessed in my own state, it is not hard for me to understand the frustration and concern of communities in a growing number of other states. Similar burdens have fallen on border communities in states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Each year, the costs borne by states to respond to illegal immigration continue to soar, while Federal involvement remains minimal at best. Unfortunately, we can only expect these costs for border states to swell over the next few years as border enforcement initiatives force illegal migration to shift further eastward from San Diego County to neighboring southern States and counties as well as to the more porous northern state borders. In launching Operation Gatekeeper, for example, the INS has achieved considerable success in deterring illegal border crossings along the San Diego border. At the same time, Gatekeeper has had the effect of shifting a large volume of migrant crossings to the more rugged East San Diego County mountain area and the desert region of Imperial County where there have been numerous instances of illegal immigrants in need of emergency care. One county hospital in El Centro, for example, reports that the Border Patrol has dropped off countless numbers of undocumented aliens found in the desert suffering from hypothermia or dehydration, or from broken limbs and fractured skulls as result of failed attempts at scaling the fence along the San Diego border. The more ``fortunate'' border crossers are being detained at state and county jails. Although states receive Federal reimbursement for some of the direct costs of incarcerating adult illegal immigrants, the Federal Government does not reimburse states and localities for the indirect costs relating to the incarceration or the control of illegal aliens, including: court costs, county attorney costs, indigent defense, criminal juvenile detention, and unsupervised probation costs. Nor does it compensate state and local hospitals for the emergency medical care provided to illegal immigrants who are not in Federal custody. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in introducing the SCAAP II bill in hopes that it will alleviate some of the fiscal strains illegal immigration has imposed on border states and communities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move it through the Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri. This amendment would needlessly delay OSHA from implementing regulations to prevent one of the leading causes of work place injuries, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Each year, more than 600,000 American workers suffer work related MSDs and it is costing businesses $15 to $20 billion in workers' compensation costs alone. It is estimated that one out of every three dollars spent on worker's compensation is related to repetitive motion injuries. Many of the jobs that are disproportionately subject to ergonomic injuries are held by women. In fact, while women experience 33 percent of all serious workplace injuries, they suffer 61 percent of repetitive motion injuries. This includes: 91 percent of all injuries related to repetitive typing; 61 percent of repetitive placing injuries; 62 percent of work related cases of tendinitis; and 70 percent of carpal tunnel syndrome cases. The supporters of this amendment argue that OSHA should delay ergonomic protection until the National Academy of Sciences completes a second review of existing studies. This comes despite the fact that there is already substantial scientific evidence linking MSDs to the workplace. The first study completed by the National Academy of Sciences found that ``research clearly demonstrates that specific interventions can reduce the reported rates of musculoskeletal disorders for workers who perform high-risk tasks.'' That peer reviewed study was conducted just last year. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reviewed more than 2,000 studies of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. They concluded that ``compelling scientific evidence shows a consistent relationship between musculoskeletal disorders and certain work related factors.'' In a letter to the Department of Labor, William Grieves, president of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, notes that ``there is an adequate scientific foundation for OSHA to proceed with a proposal and, therefore, no reason for OSHA to delay the rulemaking process while the National Academy of Science panel conducts its review.'' I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. All of these studies have found links between repetitive motion injuries and workplace factors and suggest that OSHA must be permitted to go forward with sensible regulations to insure a safe workplace. Ergonomic programs have proven to be effective in reducing repetitive motion injuries in the workplace. Many businesses which have voluntarily instituted an ergonomic program have found the long term benefits to far outweigh the short term costs. Red Wing Shoes in Minnesota found that their workers' compensation costs dropped 75 percent in the 4 years after they began an ergonomic program. Fieldcrest-Cannon in Columbus, Georgia, saw the number of workers' suffering from repetitive motion injuries drop from 121 in 1993 to 21 in 1996. By redesigning its workstations, OshKosh B'Gosh reduced workers' compensation costs by one-third. Mr. President, I certainly agree that decisions on government regulations should be based on sound science. In this case, there is already a substantial body of scientific evidence which concludes that there is a relationship between MSDs and the workplace and that ergonomic programs can significantly reduce these injuries. During this decade, more than 6.1 million workers have suffered from serious workplace injuries as a result of ergonomic hazards. As we move into the next century, American workers must be given adequate protection from these preventable injuries. Congress must allow OSHA to move forward with sensible ergonomic regulations. I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Kyl in introducing the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program II and Local Medical Emergency Reimbursement Act.'' The control of illegal immigration is a Federal responsibility. However, more and more, this burden is shifting to the states. The ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program II and Local Medical Emergency Reimbursement Act'' (SCAAP II), properly shifts the fiscal burden of illegal immigration into the hands of the Federal Government. This bill builds upon the existing Federal obligations under the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program'' (SCAAP I) by providing $200 million for each of the fiscal years 2002 through 2005 to help border communities defray the indirect costs of illegal immigration, and an additional $200 million to help state and local governments cope with the cost of providing emergency medical care to illegal immigrants. The issue of illegal immigration, is one of national consequence that requires a Federal response. Unfortunately, Federal reimbursements have consistently failed to cover the actual costs borne by States and local communities confronting the effects of illegal immigration. For those communities that continue to shoulder this burden, the control of illegal immigration has become an unfunded mandate. Mr. President, while I consider illegal immigration an issue that pervades communities across the nation, I would like to share with my colleagues how this issue has affected my home State of California. As you might imagine, the border counties in California are among the hardest hit in terms of dollars spent on incarceration, court costs, and emergency medical care for those who have entered the U.S. illegally. San Diego County, for example, spent an estimated $10.1 million in 1998 to cover the costs of illegal alien incarceration and spends an estimated $50 million annually to provide emergency medical care for illegal immigrants. Imperial County estimates that it spent more than $4 million last year in detention costs and another $1.36 million in emergency medical expenses. I am greatly concerned about the disproportionate burden these costs impose on the criminal justice system, hospitals and residents of San Diego and Imperial Counties, especially given the counties' limited tax base and fiscal resources. Given what I have witnessed in my own state, it is not hard for me to understand the frustration and concern of communities in a growing number of other states. Similar burdens have fallen on border communities in states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Each year, the costs borne by states to respond to illegal immigration continue to soar, while Federal involvement remains minimal at best. Unfortunately, we can only expect these costs for border states to swell over the next few years as border enforcement initiatives force illegal migration to shift further eastward from San Diego County to neighboring southern States and counties as well as to the more porous northern state borders. In launching Operation Gatekeeper, for example, the INS has achieved considerable success in deterring illegal border crossings along the San Diego border. At the same time, Gatekeeper has had the effect of shifting a large volume of migrant crossings to the more rugged East San Diego County mountain area and the desert region of Imperial County where there have been numerous instances of illegal immigrants in need of emergency care. One county hospital in El Centro, for example, reports that the Border Patrol has dropped off countless numbers of undocumented aliens found in the desert suffering from hypothermia or dehydration, or from broken limbs and fractured skulls as result of failed attempts at scaling the fence along the San Diego border. The more ``fortunate'' border crossers are being detained at state and county jails. Although states receive Federal reimbursement for some of the direct costs of incarcerating adult illegal immigrants, the Federal Government does not reimburse states and localities for the indirect costs relating to the incarceration or the control of illegal aliens, including: court costs, county attorney costs, indigent defense, criminal juvenile detention, and unsupervised probation costs. Nor does it compensate state and local hospitals for the emergency medical care provided to illegal immigrants who are not in Federal custody. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in introducing the SCAAP II bill in hopes that it will alleviate some of the fiscal strains illegal immigration has imposed on border states and communities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move it through the Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to support the FY 2000 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill, H. R. 1650, because it addresses important priorities of the American people. Among other increases, this bill increases funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by $2 billion, including a $384 million increase for the National Cancer Institute. This will continue us on the path of doubling the funding of NIH over five years. The President requested only a 2.1 percent increase over FY 1999, which does not keep pace with medical research inflation, projected to be 3.5 percent next year. The National Institutes of Health--often called the ``crown jewel'' of the federal government--offers hope to millions of Americans who suffer from diseases like diabetes, arthritis, Alzheimers, Tourette's Syndrome, Parkinson's and on and on. Sadly, NIH can now only fund 31 percent of applications. Under the Presidents's FY 2000 proposal, it could have fallen to 28 percent, a 10 percent drop. This is the wrong direction, especially at a time when research is opening many new scientific doors. Federal support for curing diseases and finding new treatments is not a partisan issue. Federal spending on health research is only 1 percent of the federal budget. Sixty eight percent of Americans support doubling medical research over five years; 61 percent of Americans support spending part of the surplus on medical research. Fifty five percent of Californians said they would pay more in taxes for more medical research, in a Research America poll. NIH is especially important to my state where some of the nation's leading research is conducted. The University of California received $1.7 billion in NIH funds in 1998. The federal government supports over 55 percent of UC's research. I am pleased that the bill includes $ 3.28 billion for the National Cancer Institute. This is an increase of $384 million or 13 percent over last year. With this, NCI will be able to fund at least 10 percent more grants. If we had gone along with the President proposed 2 percent increase for cancer research, NCI would have been able to fund 10 percent fewer grants. That is the wrong direction, at a time when cancer incidence and deaths are about to explode. Today, one in every four deaths is due to cancer. Cancer costs over $100 billion a year. Because of the aging of the population, the incidence of cancer will explode by 2010, with a 29 percent increase in incidence and a 25 percent increase in deaths, at a cost of over $200 billion per year. The cancer burden will hit America the hardest in the next 10 to 25 years as the country's demographics change. (These are the findings of the September 1999 Cancer March Research Task Force.) Cancer deaths can be reduced from 25 to 40 percent over the next 20 year period, saving 150,000 to 225,000 lives each year if we do the right thing. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for including in the committee report language indicating that we need to increase cancer research funding consistent with the recommendations of the Research Task Force of the Cancer March. The Cancer March called for increasing the National Cancer Institute budget by 20 percent each year for four years, to get to $10 billion by 2005. This bill with its 12 to 13% increase in funds is a step on the way. The National Cancer Dialogue, a national group representing leaders of the entire cancer community and over 120 cancer organizations, recommended that NCI be funded at $5 billion in FY 2000 and CDC cancer activities at $516 million. What can be accomplished with $5 billion for research? More drugs: NCI could bring 40 new cancer drugs from the laboratory to clinical trials. In NIH's entire history, only 70 drugs have been approved for treating cancer. Cancer Genetics: Continuing to identify genes involved in cancer. Improving our understanding of the interaction between genes and environmental exposures. Imaging: Finding new ways to detect cancers earlier when they are small, not invasive and more easily treated. Clinical Trials: Increase participation from 2 percent currently. Medicare beneficiaries account for more than 50 percent of all cancer diagnoses and 60 percent of all cancer death. Prevention: 70 percent of all cancers are preventable says the American Cancer Society. By expanding the CDC's efforts to provide cancer screening, cancer registries and other measures to help people prevent cancer screening, cancer registries and other measures to help people prevent cancer. For example, tobacco-related deaths are the single most preventable cause of death and disability and account for 30 percent of all US cancer death. I am also pleased to see an increase of $200 million over last year and $100 million over the President's request for Ryan White AIDS, as well as a 12 percent increase for AIDS research at NIH. California has the second highest incidence of HIV/AIDS in the US. While the AIDS death rate has declined it is still too high. Over 40,000 new infections develop each year. In California, 100,000 people are living with HIV/AIDS. Half of all HIV-infected people do not receive regular medical care according to the Rand study, December 1998. We face serious challenges. We must find a cure. We must find new treatments. HIV lingers in cells so long that the ``virus cannot be eradicated at all with current treatments * * * it remains tucked away longer than though,'' according to the New England Journal of Medicine, May 1999. This funding bill also includes important funding for education at all levels. There is hardly a more important function of government than providing a solid education for our youngsters. The bill raises education by $2 billion over last year. This is important in light of the decline in the federal share of total education funding from 14 percent in 1980 to six percent in 1998, according to the Office of Management and Budget. No doubt we need to do more. Our nation's schools face unprecedented challenges. My state is fraught with problems: California has 6 million students, more students than 36 states have in total population and one of the highest projected enrollments in the country, California will need 210,000 new teachers by 2008. We have about 30,000 teachers on emergency credentials. We have the most diverse student body in the county. In some schools, over 50 languages are spoken. While this diversity is one of my state's great strengths, in the classroom, it places huge responsibilities on teachers. Buildings: We need to build 6 new classrooms per day, $809 million per year. Some elementary schools have over 5,000 students. Our schools are too big. In higher education, California is preparing for ``Tidal Wave II,'' the demographic bulge created by children of the baby boomers which will inundate our colleges and universities between 2000 and 2010. And so our needs are huge. Our challenges are great. I am disappointed that the Senate did not adopt the Murray amendment that would have ensured that $1.4 billion be used to hire teachers and reduce class size. By adding $200 million and raising the allocation from $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion and specifying that it be used to hire teachers and reduce class sizes, California could have hired 1,100 new teachers, on top of the 3,322 that will provide funding for last year. I hope the conference will see the importance of this. One area of this bill that I have given my attention to is ESEA Title I, the program that provides over $8 billion for educating poor children. Unfortunately, despite my efforts in the Appropriations Committee, I was unable to delete what is known as the ``hold harmless'' provisions. Also, the committee would not accept my amendment to clarify and insure that any new or additional funds, over last year, go to states that are hurt by the hold harmless provision. The Title I hold harmless provisions (there are two in the bill, for basic grants and for concentration grants) hold states and districts ``harmless.'' They say in essence that no state or district will receive less than it did the previous year despite changes in the number of poor children. In the bill, these apply to the Title I basic grants and the concentration grants. These provisions freeze funding in place despite the number of poor children, despite their eligibility. I tried to delete these provisions in the committee, but because, frankly, there are more low-growth states than high-growth states like mine, in the Senate, did not have the votes to completely eliminate them. Here is why the hold harmless provisions are wrong: One, they violate the purpose of the program since 1965, to target funds on poor children, two, they contravene the census update requirement. The authorizing law requires the Department to update child poverty data every year so that each state will receive funds according to the number of poor children. The hold harmless renders that requirement virtually meaningless. Secretary Riley wrote, April 29, 1999: ``I do share your concern that the 100 percent hold-harmless provision undermines the apparent statutory intent that allocations for Title I and other programs be based on the most recent census data.'' Three, a poor child is a poor child. Congress recognized that poor children need extra help, wherever that child may be. A poor child in California is as worthy as a poor child in Mississippi and should not be deprived of funding. A July 1999 study found that students in poor school districts (West Fresno, Mendota, Farmersville) ranked at or near the bottom of California's achievement tests. ``Most of the lowest-scoring school districts * * * are in rural areas with high unemployment and poverty and have many children from migrant farm worker families who speak little English and have little education.'' (Fresno Bee, 7/25/99) Four, hold harmless provisions disproportionately hurt states with high growth rates in poor children, states like California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Hawaii, South Carolina, Maryland, Nevada, Virginia, Georgia, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma. Here are some examples of losses of Title I Funds under FY 1999 hold harmless: California $36 million; Florida $32 million; New Mexico $4.5 million; New York $48 million; North Carolina $8 million; Texas $32 million. Last year, under the bill's Title I hold harmless, California lost $32 million. California has 14 percent of all Title I children and gets 11 percent of Title I funds. (US Dept of Education). California has a 22 percent poverty rate for children; The US rate is 18.7 percent. (9 states exceed California's). California's number of poor students grew 53 percent from 1990 to 1995; nationally, it grew 22 percent. In total federal dollars, California pays 12.5 percent of federal taxes but gets back only 11.2 percent. California receives $656 in Title I funds per poor child. The national average is $745. Some states receive as much as $1,289, according to the US Department of Education. California has almost 40 percent of the nation's immigrants. The poverty rate for immigrants grew by 123 percent from 1979 to 1997. (Center for Immigration Studies, 9/2/99). Income inequality is growing in California faster than the rest of the country (Public Policy Institute of California, 2/9/99) Five, the hold harmlesses freeze in the status quo, even for those not eligible. The hold harmless provision gives funds to states and districts that may not even be eligible for funds, merely because they got funds in the past. What good are eligibility rules if we ignore them, override them willy-nilly. We either have eligibility rules or we don't. If Congress believes the formula is not properly structured or targeted, Congress should change it in the authorizing statute. Congress will have that opportunity next year when ESEA is reauthorized. I am grateful that the committee agreed, at my request, to modify the bill so that the Title I hold harmless will not apply in FY 2000 to the eight federal programs have funding formulas based in whole or in part on the Title I formula. Those programs are: Safe and Drug-free Schools; Even Start Family Literacy; Comprehensive School Reform; Eisenhower Professional Development (Teacher training); Technology Literacy; Class Size Reduction; Goals 2000, Title III; and McKinney Homeless Education. This amendment was needed because, in FY 1998 and 1999, the Department of Education applied the 100 percent hold harmless to 8 other education programs, thus compounding the harm of the Title I hold harmless provision and the cuts that result from it. I believe in the current bill, Congress is giving the Department clear guidance that the Title I hold harmless provision should not be applied to other programs. Because last year the Department applied the hold harmless to other programs, my state lost funds under the following programs: Teacher Training $40,000; School Reform $700,000; Technology Literacy $5.4 million; Goals 2000 $3 million; EvenStart/Literacy $1 million. I thank the committee for remedying this inequity. I am disappointed that the Committee did not provide funding for the President's English Language and Civics Education Initiative, under the Adult Education program. This is an effort to help states and local communities provide instruction to adults who want to learn English as a Second Language (ESL) programs, as well as instruction in civics and life skills. If adequately funded, this initiative would help ensure that those who seek to become American citizens learn not only the words of the citizenship oath, but also the broader language of our civic life. Simply put, this initiative would help our nation's newcomers become full participants in American life. In 1990, there were about 25.5 million U.S. adults age 18 and older who spoke a language other than English at home. Many of these non- English speakers were new immigrants. Some immigrants have lived here for many years. Still, other non-English speakers were born in the United States but grew up without mastering the English language. Many of these adults reported that they have difficulty speaking English, but were highly motivated to learn the language, especially to obtain jobs and gain access to educational opportunities. As the number of non-English speaking residents has increased, so has the demand for placement in English-as-a Second-Language (ESL) classes. In the last five years, enrollment for ESL classes has jumped from 1.2 million in 1994 to nearly 2 million in 1998. In the state of California, more than 1.2 million adult students enrolled in these classes in 1998, accounting for 38.2 percent of the adult education students in the state. The increased demand for ESL classes have resulted in long waiting lists for ESL classes in many parts of the country. For example, Los Angeles has a waiting list of 50,000 people for ESL classes. Chicago's ESL programs are filled to capacity as soon as they open their doors. And, New York State has resorted to a lottery system to select individuals who wish to learn English. I have visited several immigrant communities throughout California and have been impressed by the high work force participation rates, the strong sense of family, and a tireless commitment to their community. However, during these visits and in letters from my constituents, I have been often told about the lack of opportunities to participate in adult English education courses. This is particularly troublesome, given the large number of people in my state seeking to become American citizens, and to otherwise more fully participate in our civic life. More support for programs like English Language and Civics Education Initiative would help states and communities throughout California and the rest of the nation that are struggling to keep up with this demand. Providing $70 million requested by the Administration would not merely be an expenditure, but an investment in our nation's future. While this bill cannot address all the health and education needs of our nation or even those that are a federal responsibility, allocations are good--$2 billion more for education and $3 billion more for health (for the discretionary programs). It does not do all I wish it would do. For example, it does not adequately fund afterschool programs, health professions training, or educational technology as much as I would like, but it does address many important needs and I will vote for it. I urge my colleagues to give it their strong support.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Foreign Operations Conference Report and to express my disappointment that in passing this report the Committee has not provided funding for the U.S. commitment to the Wye River agreement. This conference agreement, which provides $12.6 billion in funding, is nearly $2 billion below the President's request and $1 billion less than last year's bill. This low level of funding makes it all but impossible for the U.S. to maintain its leadership role in the international community. Indeed, nearly every major account in the conference report is underfunded, including funding for voluntary international peacekeeping, the Peace Corps, Multilateral Development Banks, the Enhanced Threat Reduction Initiative, African development loan initiatives, the Global Environment Facility, and debt relief for the world's poorest countries. Most troubling, one specific initiative, the Wye assistance for the Middle East peace process, is nonexistent. As Israel and the Palestinian Authority move ahead with implementation of the Wye agreement and final status negotiations, it is vital that the United States also do its part in meeting its commitments and obligations. On Monday I, and twenty-one of my colleagues, sent letters to the President and to the Majority and Minority leaders about the critical importance of meeting our Wye commitments. Let me tell you why I consider this to be such an important issue. On September 4, 1999 Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority President Arafat signed the Sharm el-Shiekh Memorandum, expediting the fulfillment of Israeli and Palestinian obligations under prior treaties, particularly the Wye agreement, and establishing a time line for the completion of final status negotiations by September 13, 2000. Under this agreement: Israel has now relinquished an additional 7 percent of the West Bank, with 5 percent more slated for turnover to the Palestinian Authority later this year; Israel has released 199 Palestinian prisoners with another 150 scheduled for release later this year; Israel has started to open the Shuhada Road in Hebron; the Palestinian Authority has submitted its list of police; and, Israel and the Palestinian Authority have formally initiated final status negotiations. Israel and the Palestinian Authority are meeting their obligations, and as Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority continue to make progress in these negotiations, it is all the more critical for the United States to provide the financial assistance and support that has been promised. Whereas the first land transfer from Israel to the Palestinian Authority did not involve the movement of Israeli troops or bases, the next two planned transfers will involve the redeployment of troops, bases, and other infrastructure at considerable cost to Israel. In fact, there is some concern in Israel that if the U.S. is unable or unwilling to meet its commitments under Wye, the budget of the government of Israel will be thrown into chaos. The United States has pledged to provide $1.2 billion to Israel, $400 million to the Palestinians, and $300 million to Jordan to assist them in meeting their obligations under the Wye accord, as well as for economic assistance for Jordan and areas under the Palestinian Authority. The United States has a deep commitment to Israel and its Arab partners in the peace process to help advance negotiations and to help meet the financial burden placed on the parties in the peace process in meeting their obligations. We have undertaken this commitment both because it is the right thing to do and because it serves well vital U.S. national security interests. The Wye agreement represents an important step on the road to peace in the Middle East. We must meet our obligations under Wye, and I do not believe that Congress should pass a Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that does not include such funding. I do not believe that the United States can adequately pursue our national interests and foreign affairs priorities with this Conference Report. It will not allow the U.S. to continue to operate important international programs at current levels, will undoubtedly detract from the stature of the U.S. in the international community, and lets down our partners in the Middle East peace process. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this conference report.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to draw attention to a problem my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have no doubt encountered-- poor air quality on commercial airline flights. Cabin environmental issues have been a part of air travel since the inception of commercial aircraft almost 70 years ago. However, with the exception of the ban on smoking on domestic flights in 1990, no major changes have occurred to improve the quality of air on commercial flights. Commercial airplanes operate in an environment hostile to human life. According to Boeing, the conditions existing outside an airplane cabin at modern cruise altitudes off 35,000 feet, are no more survivable by humans than those conditions that would be encountered outside a submarine at extreme ocean depths. To make air travel more conducive to passengers and flight crews, airplanes are equipped with advanced Environmental Control Systems. While these systems are designed to control cabin pressurization, ventilation and temperature control, they have not diminished the number of health complaints reported by travelers. It should come as no surprise to my colleagues that the most common complaints from passengers and flight crew are headaches, dizziness, irritable eyes and noses, and exposure to cold and flu. With the amount we travel, I would not be surprised to learn some of my friends in the Senate have suffered some of these symptoms themselves. But complaints of illness do not stop there. Some passengers complaints are as serious as chest pains or nervous system disorders. This is a serious consideration and should be addressed. Airlines say the most common complaints are a result of the reduction in humidity at high altitudes, or of individuals sitting in close proximity to one another. Airlines even say the air on a plane is better than the air in the terminal. But the airplane cabin is a unique, highly stressful environment. It's low in humidity, pressurized up to a cabin altitude of 8,000 feet above sea level and subject to continuous noise, vibration and accelerations in multiple directions. Air in the airplane cabin is not comparable with air in the airport terminal. It's apples and oranges. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers--or ASHRAE--recently released standards it found suitable for human comfort in a residential or office building. ASHRAE determined that environmental parameters such as air temperature and relative humidity--and nonenvironmental parameters such as clothing insulation and metabolism--all factored in to create a comfortable environment. Airlines immediately chimed in, saying average cabin temperatures and air factors fell within the ASHRAE guidelines for comfort. But once again, the air in an airplane cabin is not comparable to air in an office building. The volume, air distribution system, air density, relative humidity, occupant density, and unique installations such as lavatories, galleys all make for a unique condition. The ASHRAE guidelines simply do not translate to the airplane cabin. It is high time we make a concerted effort to study the air quality on our commercial flights and make some changes. Studies done by the airlines are simply not thorough enough. My amendment directs the Secretary of Transportation--in conjunction with the National Academy of Sciences--to conduct a study of the air on our flights. After completion of the 1-year study, the results will be reported to Congress. It is my sincere hope this will be a step toward more comfortable travel conditions for everyone. I thank the Chair.