Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to first thank our minority leader for all of his effort in bringing public attention to the plight of pending judicial nominees. Thanks to Senator Daschle's efforts, we have made some progress. Jim Lorenz, a fine California attorney who served seven years on my judicial selection committee, was confirmed on Friday along with Victor Marrero of New York. Jim Lorenz's confirmation will help address a desperate shortage of judges in the Southern District of California. I have spoken several times with Marilyn Huff, Chief Judge of the Southern District of California, about the District's caseload crisis. A recent judicial survey ranked the Southern District as the most overburdened court in the country. The weighted average caseload in the Southern District is 1,006 cases per judge, more than twice the national average. It is also a significant step forward for the Senate that we will have a vote tomorrow on Associate Attorney General, Ray Fisher, to be a Circuit Judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Ray Fisher is an extraordinary nominee who will add some support to the skeleton crew of judges currently presiding on the Ninth Circuit. Currently, the Ninth Circuit has seven vacancies, which is 25 percent of the total judgeship positions on the circuit. Each one of these judicial vacancies qualifies as a judicial emergency. The Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit reports that the Circuit could handle 750 more cases right now if the vacancies were filled. Prior to his appointment as Associate Attorney General, Ray Fisher was considered one of the top trial lawyers in Southern California. His legal skills are so highly regarded that he recently was inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers, an honor bestowed on only the top one percent of the profession. During his 30 year career in private practice, Ray Fisher specialized in the toughest of cases, complex civil litigation, and in alternate dispute resolution. In 1988, he founded the Los Angeles Office of Heller Ehrman, White and McAullife, an office that has grown from 6 attorneys to 48. The Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association has deemed Mr. Fisher ``Well Qualified'' for appointment as Judge of the United States Court of Appeals. Ray Fisher graduated from Stanford Law School in 1966, where he was president of The Stanford Law Review and awarded the Order of the Coif. Following law school, he served as a law clerk for Judge J. Skelley Wright of United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. I am confident Ray Fisher's acute interest in public service, specifically in public safety, and his overarching concern for fairness will serve the Ninth Circuit well. However, I am disappointed that the Senate could not confirm other pending Ninth Circuit nominees. Ray Fisher is a start, but six vacancies remain on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Two of those vacancies should be filled by Marsha Berzon and Judge Richard Paez. It is a disturbing fact that women and minority nominees are having a difficult time getting confirmed by the Senate. A report by the independent, bipartisan group Citizens for Independent Courts released last week found that during the 105th Congress, the average time between nomination and confirmation for male nominees was 184 days, while for women it was 249 days--a full 2 months longer. This disturbing trend continues this year. Women and minorities constitute over 55 percent of the President's nominees in 1999; by contrast, only 41 percent of the nominees confirmed this year by the Senate are women or minorities. All we have ever asked for Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez is that both nominees get an up-or-down vote. If a Senator has a problem with particular nominees, he or she should vote against them. But a nominee should not be held up interminably by a handful of Senators. Let me assure my colleagues, this does not mark the end of a fight. At some point, legislation is not going to move until Marsha Berzon and Judge Richard Paez get an up-or-down vote. Let me take a moment to discuss the nominations process that these two nominees have experienced. Judge Richard Paez, the first Mexican-American District judge in Los Angeles, was nominated on January 25, 1996--almost four years ago. He still hasn't made it to the Senate Floor for a vote. Any problem with his nomination can't be with his legal background. He has 17 years of judicial experience. The American Bar Association found him to be ``well-qualified.'' He is also strongly supported by the legal community in Los Angeles including Gil Garcetti, the District Attorney, the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs' Association and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. Judge Paez has described this interminable nominations process as a ``cloud'' hanging over his head. Litigants in his court constantly query him if the case is going to be continued, if his case is going to be assigned to someone else, or if Judge Paez is going to keep it. No nominee should have to face this uncertainty. His family has been thrust into the public limelight, and for four years every action he has taken has been subject to microscopic scrutiny. Marsha Berzon was nominated almost a year and a half ago. She had her first hearing on July 30, 1998, and a second hearing in June 1999. Only in July 1999 was she reported out of committee and her nomination is pending before the Senate. Nationally renowned appellate attorney with over 20 years of appellate practice, she clerked for Supreme Court Justice Brennan and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge James Browning. She graduated Order of the Coif from Boalt Hall, has the support of law enforcement including the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) and the International Union of Police Organizations, has strong bipartisan support including former Idaho Senator James Mclure and former EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus. The slow pace of this nomination has caused an incredible burden on Marsha Berzon both personally and professionally. Due to uncertainty over her future, she has significantly curtailed her private practice, and no longer is representing clients before the Supreme Court or the Ninth Circuit. Chief Justice Rehnquist recently said that ``[t]he Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.'' Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon do not deserve to have their distinguished careers and personal lives held in limbo. Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote. Until Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez get votes, this nominations process will remain tainted. I assure my colleagues in the Senate that the nominations of Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez will not fade away. We will keep pressing for these nominees until they get the vote they deserve.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. I withdraw the request. How much more time do I have?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, is a no-brainer. I want to say why I believe it is a no-brainer and why I believe it is prudent for the Senate to move ahead with it and approve it today. The Federal share of elementary and secondary education in this country has declined from 14 percent in 1980 to 6 percent of the share going to schools in 1998. Let me say this another way. Back in 1980, we funded 14 percent of elementary and secondary education needs; in 1998, we funded 6 percent of those needs. Essentially what Senator Murray is trying to do is raise the appropriation level by $200 million and say let's go do it. What does she want to do? She says, let's reduce class size. What does that mean? In 1999, we spent $1.2 billion on the first installment of hiring 100,000 new teachers all across this great country. The United States could hire 30,000 teachers under that appropriation; my State, California, could hire 3,322 teachers. President Clinton's request for this year, FY 2000, was $1.4 billion. That meant the United States could hire 8,000 teachers to continue that and California could hire an additional 1,100 teachers. The recommendation of the Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, is $1.2 billion. How the money would be used is not specified. The legislation reads that it is for ``teacher assistance'' and that it can only be appropriated if it receives the authorizing legislation. Senator Murray's amendment adds $200 million and deletes the contingency language. Therefore, with the passage of this amendment, the United States could hire 8,000 new teachers all across this great land. For my State, California, that means 1,100 additional teachers. That is important. Class size reduction is important. I think there are three things that can be done to improve education: One, elimination of the practice of social promotion, under which youngsters are promoted from grade to grade even when they fail, even when they don't show up in class, even when there are major disciplinary problems and youngsters are not learning. But they are still promoted. This has come to denigrate the value of a high school diploma all across this great land. We also have large class sizes. California has some of the largest classes in the Union. I have been in elementary schools, K through 6, with 5,000 students in the school. In California, in some schools, students speak 50 different languages, which adds additional burdens on the teachers. No one can learn adequately in overcrowded classes with overburdened teachers. Because of the challenge of diversity, of the need for additional English training, of the challenge of tightened core curriculum standards, smaller class sizes across this land makes sense. I don't think there is anyone in the Nation who has a youngster in public school who wouldn't say: My youngster can learn better in a class size that is smaller. That is what this money will go to--reducing class size. Class size reduction, school size reduction, elimination of social promotion, and more qualified teachers across this land can make a huge difference in the accountability and excellence of education for our youngsters. My State has 6 million students, more students than 36 States have in total population. We have one of the highest projected enrollments in the United States. California will need 210,000 new teachers by 2008-- 210,000 new teachers. How could I say, let's wait and authorize this some other time? We don't even know whether there will be an elementary and secondary education bill this session. We have an opportunity to address a big problem in education right now. I would hazard a guess that States such as that of the Presiding Officer, Ohio, could also benefit from small class size reduction. The Murray amendment essentially provides $200 million in additional funds and specifically says the funds will go for class size reduction and the hiring of this additional increment of teachers. That is why I say it is a no-brainer. The need is there; the need is clear. Every parent knows their child is better educated in a smaller setting than a larger setting in elementary school. Why not do it? California needs to build six new classrooms a day--$809 million a year just in our State--to be able to meet demand. It is a huge obligation. Our teachers are actually spending $1,000 a year out of their own pockets to pay for books, Magic Markers, scissors, and other school supplies. Our needs are huge. I think reducing class size, increasing the amount of Federal dollars that go to the schools for education, is something we should do, and something we should do forthwith. We should do it because we face an emergency in our schools. I commend Senator Murray for her effort in this. Mr. President, $200 million more dollars can help get the job done. We have an opportunity, and we should use it. I also take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee, as well as the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member. I actually think this is a good bill in terms of dollars. It has at least $2 billion more for health research. This bill probably includes the largest single priority bill of the American people. I compliment the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee. I compliment the ranking member, the Senator from Iowa. We may have some differences over how the money should be spent, we may have some differences over stem cell research or some of the specific wording of the bill, but the bill does provide many of the necessary dollars. I will speak at a later time on the health aspects of the bill. I ask unanimous consent I be afforded 15 minutes after this vote on the amendment to be able to speak on the health aspects of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to clarify that children receiving health insurance under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in states like California are eligible for free vaccines under the 1993 Federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. I want to especially commend the leadership of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi who is introducing a companion bill in the House today. I am introducing this bill because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has interpreted the law so narrowly that as many as 528,000 children in California have lost or will lose their eligibility to receive free vaccines, under California's Healthy Families program. Approximately 169,000 kids have lost eligibility to date. California ranks 37th overall among States having children fully immunized by the age of 18 to 24 months. From 1993 to 1997, Orange County, California, had 85 hospitalizations and four deaths related to chicken pox. Across the State in 1996 there were 15 deaths and 1,172 hospitalizations related to chicken pox. More recently, the Immunization Branch in California reports that in 1998 over 1,000 whooping cough cases, including 5 deaths, were reported--the largest number of cases and deaths since the 1960's. Whooping cough and chicken pox are diseases for which there are vaccinations. We must do more to increase access to vaccinations for our nation's children. The Federal Vaccines for Children program, created by Congress in 1993 (P.L. 105-33), provides vaccines at no cost to poor children. In 1998, as many 743,000 poor children in my state, who were uninsured or on Medicaid, received these vaccines. This number is down by approximately 32,000 children in comparison to the 1997 immunization figures for California's poor children. California received $80.3 million in 1999 from the Federal Government to provide vaccines. Mr. President, what can be so basic to public health than immunization against disease? Do we really want our children to get polio, measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, and whooping cough-- diseases for which we have effective vaccines, diseases which we have practically eradicated by widespread immunization? Every parent knows that vaccines are fundamental to children's good health. Congress recognized the importance of immunizations in creating the program, with many Congressional leaders at the time arguing that childhood immunization is one of the most cost-effective steps we can take to keep our children healthy. It makes no sense to me to withhold them from children who (1) have been getting them when they were uninsured and (2) have no other way to get them once they become insured. According to an Annie E. Casey Foundation report, 28 percent of California's two-year old children are not immunized. Add to that the fact that we have one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. Our uninsured rate for non-elderly adults is 24 percent, the third highest in the U.S., while the national uninsured rate is 17 percent. As for children, 1.85 million or 19 percent of our children are without health insurance, compared to 15 percent nationally, according to UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. Clearly, there is a need. In creating the new children's health insurance program in California, the state chose to set up a program under which the state contracts with private insurers, rather than providing eligible children care through Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California). Unfortunately, HHS has interpreted this form of ``health insurance'' as making them ``insured,'' as defined in the vaccines law, and thus ineligible for the federal vaccines. I disagree. It is my view that in creating the federal vaccines program, Congress made eligible for these vaccines children who are receiving Medicaid, children who are uninsured, and native American children. I believe that in defining the term ``insured'' at that time Congress clearly meant private health insurance plans. Children enrolled in California's new Healthy Families program are participating in a federal-state, subsidized insurance plan. Healthy Families is a state-operated program. Families apply to the state for participation. They are not insured by a private, commercial plan, as traditionally defined or as defined in the Vaccine for Children's law (42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(2)(B). On February 23, the California Medical Association wrote to HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, ``As they are participants in a federal and state-subsidized health program, these individuals are not ``insured'' for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(B).'' The California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, which is administering the new program with the Department of Health Services, wrote to HHS on February 5, ``It is imperative that states like California, who have implemented the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) using private health insurance, be given the same support and eligibility for the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program at no cost as states which have chosen to expand their Medicaid program.'' The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized on March 10, 1998, ``More than half a million California children should not be deprived of vaccinations or health insurance because of a technicality . . .,'' calling the denial of vaccines ``a game of semantics.'' Children's health should not be a ``game of semantics.'' Proper childhood immunizations are fundamental to a lifetime of good health. I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this bill into law, to help me keep our children healthy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to clarify that children receiving health insurance under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in states like California are eligible for free vaccines under the 1993 Federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. I want to especially commend the leadership of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi who is introducing a companion bill in the House today. I am introducing this bill because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has interpreted the law so narrowly that as many as 528,000 children in California have lost or will lose their eligibility to receive free vaccines, under California's Healthy Families program. Approximately 169,000 kids have lost eligibility to date. California ranks 37th overall among States having children fully immunized by the age of 18 to 24 months. From 1993 to 1997, Orange County, California, had 85 hospitalizations and four deaths related to chicken pox. Across the State in 1996 there were 15 deaths and 1,172 hospitalizations related to chicken pox. More recently, the Immunization Branch in California reports that in 1998 over 1,000 whooping cough cases, including 5 deaths, were reported--the largest number of cases and deaths since the 1960's. Whooping cough and chicken pox are diseases for which there are vaccinations. We must do more to increase access to vaccinations for our nation's children. The Federal Vaccines for Children program, created by Congress in 1993 (P.L. 105-33), provides vaccines at no cost to poor children. In 1998, as many 743,000 poor children in my state, who were uninsured or on Medicaid, received these vaccines. This number is down by approximately 32,000 children in comparison to the 1997 immunization figures for California's poor children. California received $80.3 million in 1999 from the Federal Government to provide vaccines. Mr. President, what can be so basic to public health than immunization against disease? Do we really want our children to get polio, measles, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, and whooping cough-- diseases for which we have effective vaccines, diseases which we have practically eradicated by widespread immunization? Every parent knows that vaccines are fundamental to children's good health. Congress recognized the importance of immunizations in creating the program, with many Congressional leaders at the time arguing that childhood immunization is one of the most cost-effective steps we can take to keep our children healthy. It makes no sense to me to withhold them from children who (1) have been getting them when they were uninsured and (2) have no other way to get them once they become insured. According to an Annie E. Casey Foundation report, 28 percent of California's two-year old children are not immunized. Add to that the fact that we have one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. Our uninsured rate for non-elderly adults is 24 percent, the third highest in the U.S., while the national uninsured rate is 17 percent. As for children, 1.85 million or 19 percent of our children are without health insurance, compared to 15 percent nationally, according to UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research. Clearly, there is a need. In creating the new children's health insurance program in California, the state chose to set up a program under which the state contracts with private insurers, rather than providing eligible children care through Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California). Unfortunately, HHS has interpreted this form of ``health insurance'' as making them ``insured,'' as defined in the vaccines law, and thus ineligible for the federal vaccines. I disagree. It is my view that in creating the federal vaccines program, Congress made eligible for these vaccines children who are receiving Medicaid, children who are uninsured, and native American children. I believe that in defining the term ``insured'' at that time Congress clearly meant private health insurance plans. Children enrolled in California's new Healthy Families program are participating in a federal-state, subsidized insurance plan. Healthy Families is a state-operated program. Families apply to the state for participation. They are not insured by a private, commercial plan, as traditionally defined or as defined in the Vaccine for Children's law (42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(2)(B). On February 23, the California Medical Association wrote to HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, ``As they are participants in a federal and state-subsidized health program, these individuals are not ``insured'' for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1396s(b)(B).'' The California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, which is administering the new program with the Department of Health Services, wrote to HHS on February 5, ``It is imperative that states like California, who have implemented the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) using private health insurance, be given the same support and eligibility for the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program at no cost as states which have chosen to expand their Medicaid program.'' The San Francisco Chronicle editorialized on March 10, 1998, ``More than half a million California children should not be deprived of vaccinations or health insurance because of a technicality . . .,'' calling the denial of vaccines ``a game of semantics.'' Children's health should not be a ``game of semantics.'' Proper childhood immunizations are fundamental to a lifetime of good health. I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this bill into law, to help me keep our children healthy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to require health insurance plans to cover screening tests for cancer. The bill requires plans to cover screening tests that are currently available and for which there is broad consensus on their value. To address future changes in scientific knowledge and medical practice, the bill allows the Secretary to change the requirements upon the Secretary's initiative or upon petition by a private individual or group. This bill is a companion to H.R. 1285, introduced by Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney and Sue Kelly. A major way to reduce the number of cancer-related deaths and increase survival is to increase screening rates. The American Cancer Society predicts that the annual cancer death rate this year--563,100 Americans--will equal five Boeing 747 jumbo jets crashing every day for a year. Because early detection can save lives, requiring plans to cover detection tests can decrease the number of people who die each year from cancer. To put cancer deaths in perspective, the number of Americans that die each year from cancer exceeds the total number of Americans lost to all wars that we have fought in this century. The American Cancer Society estimates that over 1 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year, including 132,500 in California. Despite our increasing understanding of cancer, unless we act with urgency, the cost to the United States is likely to become unmanageable in the next 10-20 years. The incidence rate of cancer in 2010 is estimated to increase by 29 percent for new cases, and cancer deaths are estimated to increase by 25 percent. Cancer will surpass heart disease as the leading fatal disease in the U.S. by 2010. With our aging U.S. population, unless we act now to change current cancer incidence and death rates, according to the September 1998 report from the Cancer March Research Task Force, we can expect over 2.0 million new cancer cases and 1.0 million deaths per year by 2025. Listen to these startling statistics: One out of every four deaths in the U.S. is caused by cancer. This year approximately 563,100 Americans are expected to die of cancer--more than 1,500 people a day. There have been approximately five million cancer deaths since 1990. Approximately 12 million new cancer cases have been diagnosed since 1990. The National Cancer Institute estimates that approximately 8.2 million Americans alive today have a history of cancer. One out of every two men, one out of every three women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetime. Too many Americans die each year from cancer. The tragedy is that we have tools available which can prevent much unnecessary suffering and death. Early detection--finding cancer early before it has spread-- gives a person the best chance of being treated successfully. Early screening for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer can increase survival rates. Having insurance coverage for cancer screenings is a major way of encouraging people to get examinations and tests. Screening examinations, if given on an appropriate schedule by a health care professional, have proven their value. Screening-accessible cancers, such as cancers of the breast, tongue, mouth, colon, rectum, cervix, prostate, testis, and skin, account for approximately half of all new cancer cases. The five-year relative survival rate for these cancers is about 81 percent. According to the American Cancer Society, if all Americans participated in regular cancer screening, this rate could increase to more than 95 percent. For example, people can have colon cancer long before they know it. They may not have any symptoms. Patients diagnosed by a colon cancer screening have a 90 percent chance of survival while patients not diagnosed until symptoms are apparent only have a 8 percent chance of survival. Finding cancers in their early stages can mean that treatment is less expensive. Treatment of breast, lung, and prostate cancers account for over half of annual medical costs, which by National Institutes of Health estimates is $37 billion annually. A colon cancer screening costs approximately $125-$300.00. If a patient is not diagnosed with colon cancer until symptoms are apparent, care during the remaining 4-5 years of life can cost up to $100,000. Similarly, the initial average cost of treating rectal cancer that is detected early is about $5,700. This is approximately 75 percent less than the estimated $30,000-$40,000 it costs to treat rectal cancer that is further along in its development. The cost of lost productivity due to cancer is $11 billion annually, while the cost of lost productivity due to premature death is $59 billion annually. We can't afford not to screen. Insurance coverage is a major determinant in whether people obtain preventive screenings. In short, when screenings are covered by plans, people are more likely to get them. In California, screening rates for cervical and breast cancer are lower for uninsured women, who are less likely to have had a recent screening and more likely to have gone longer without being screened than women with coverage. According to a University of California-Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research study from February 1998, in California women ages 18- 64, 63 percent of uninsured women had not had a Pap test during 1997 versus 40 percent of insured women. Additionally, approximately 67 percent of uninsured Californian women ages 30-64 had not had a clinical breast examination during 1997, compared to 40 percent for insured women in the same age group. In 1997, Congress added cancer screening coverage under Medicare for certain cancers, such as breast and cervical. Medicare beneficiaries now receive cancer screenings without having to pay out-of-pocket for such tests. Americans under the age of 65 who are privately insured deserve the same health care. Under Medicaid, preventive services are optional benefit. States can choose to cover them or not so coverage varies state to state. All Americans deserve access to cancer screening, regardless of whether one has health insurance because they are an employee of the Department of Defense, a Medicare beneficiary, or a veteran. Certainly individuals who have private health insurance through their employers-- 56 percent of Californians have private health insurance--should be guaranteed access to life-saving and life-prolonging cancer screenings. Offering coverage for cancer screening simply makes good sense. The bill requires plans to cover screenings according to current guidelines: Annual mammograms for women ages 40 and over and for women under 40 who are at high risk of developing breast cancer. Annual clinical breast exams for women ages 40 and over and for women between the ages of 20 and 40 who are at high risk of developing breast cancer. Clinical breast exams every three years for women who are between the ages of 20 and 40 and are not at high risk for developing breast cancer. Annual pap tests and pelvic examinations for women ages 18 and over or women who are under the age of 18 and are or have been sexually active. Screening procedures for men and women ages 50 and over or under age 50 and at high risk for developing colorectal cancer, including annual screening fecal-occult blood test and screening flexible sigmoidoscopy every 4 years. Men and women at high risk for colorectal cancer (in any age group) may receive a screening colonoscopy every 2 years. Annual digital rectal examination and/or annual prostate-specific blood test for men ages 50 and over or males who are at high risk. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to modify coverage requirements to reflect changes in medical practice or new scientific knowledge, based both on the Secretary's own initiative or upon petition of an individual or organization. Cancer touches virtually every American in some way. The Comprehensive Cancer Screening Act can be one way to alleviate the fear and reality of cancer felt by millions of Americans. We all want to believe that when a family member is diagnosed with cancer, he or she will get care of the highest quality and that their medical team will conquer this disease. Early detection, while it does not prevent cancer from occurring, can stop cancer before it spreads, extend life, reduce treatment costs, and improve the quality of life for cancer patients. By requiring private health plans to cover cancer screening as a preventive measure, my bill is cost effective and could ease the cancer burden felt by America due to lost productivity related to cancer deaths and illness. It is long past due for this Congress to send a strong message to insurance companies. Cancer screening is an important prevention measure and should be covered under all insurance plans. America cannot afford not to screen.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to require health insurance plans to cover screening tests for cancer. The bill requires plans to cover screening tests that are currently available and for which there is broad consensus on their value. To address future changes in scientific knowledge and medical practice, the bill allows the Secretary to change the requirements upon the Secretary's initiative or upon petition by a private individual or group. This bill is a companion to H.R. 1285, introduced by Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney and Sue Kelly. A major way to reduce the number of cancer-related deaths and increase survival is to increase screening rates. The American Cancer Society predicts that the annual cancer death rate this year--563,100 Americans--will equal five Boeing 747 jumbo jets crashing every day for a year. Because early detection can save lives, requiring plans to cover detection tests can decrease the number of people who die each year from cancer. To put cancer deaths in perspective, the number of Americans that die each year from cancer exceeds the total number of Americans lost to all wars that we have fought in this century. The American Cancer Society estimates that over 1 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year, including 132,500 in California. Despite our increasing understanding of cancer, unless we act with urgency, the cost to the United States is likely to become unmanageable in the next 10-20 years. The incidence rate of cancer in 2010 is estimated to increase by 29 percent for new cases, and cancer deaths are estimated to increase by 25 percent. Cancer will surpass heart disease as the leading fatal disease in the U.S. by 2010. With our aging U.S. population, unless we act now to change current cancer incidence and death rates, according to the September 1998 report from the Cancer March Research Task Force, we can expect over 2.0 million new cancer cases and 1.0 million deaths per year by 2025. Listen to these startling statistics: One out of every four deaths in the U.S. is caused by cancer. This year approximately 563,100 Americans are expected to die of cancer--more than 1,500 people a day. There have been approximately five million cancer deaths since 1990. Approximately 12 million new cancer cases have been diagnosed since 1990. The National Cancer Institute estimates that approximately 8.2 million Americans alive today have a history of cancer. One out of every two men, one out of every three women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetime. Too many Americans die each year from cancer. The tragedy is that we have tools available which can prevent much unnecessary suffering and death. Early detection--finding cancer early before it has spread-- gives a person the best chance of being treated successfully. Early screening for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer can increase survival rates. Having insurance coverage for cancer screenings is a major way of encouraging people to get examinations and tests. Screening examinations, if given on an appropriate schedule by a health care professional, have proven their value. Screening-accessible cancers, such as cancers of the breast, tongue, mouth, colon, rectum, cervix, prostate, testis, and skin, account for approximately half of all new cancer cases. The five-year relative survival rate for these cancers is about 81 percent. According to the American Cancer Society, if all Americans participated in regular cancer screening, this rate could increase to more than 95 percent. For example, people can have colon cancer long before they know it. They may not have any symptoms. Patients diagnosed by a colon cancer screening have a 90 percent chance of survival while patients not diagnosed until symptoms are apparent only have a 8 percent chance of survival. Finding cancers in their early stages can mean that treatment is less expensive. Treatment of breast, lung, and prostate cancers account for over half of annual medical costs, which by National Institutes of Health estimates is $37 billion annually. A colon cancer screening costs approximately $125-$300.00. If a patient is not diagnosed with colon cancer until symptoms are apparent, care during the remaining 4-5 years of life can cost up to $100,000. Similarly, the initial average cost of treating rectal cancer that is detected early is about $5,700. This is approximately 75 percent less than the estimated $30,000-$40,000 it costs to treat rectal cancer that is further along in its development. The cost of lost productivity due to cancer is $11 billion annually, while the cost of lost productivity due to premature death is $59 billion annually. We can't afford not to screen. Insurance coverage is a major determinant in whether people obtain preventive screenings. In short, when screenings are covered by plans, people are more likely to get them. In California, screening rates for cervical and breast cancer are lower for uninsured women, who are less likely to have had a recent screening and more likely to have gone longer without being screened than women with coverage. According to a University of California-Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research study from February 1998, in California women ages 18- 64, 63 percent of uninsured women had not had a Pap test during 1997 versus 40 percent of insured women. Additionally, approximately 67 percent of uninsured Californian women ages 30-64 had not had a clinical breast examination during 1997, compared to 40 percent for insured women in the same age group. In 1997, Congress added cancer screening coverage under Medicare for certain cancers, such as breast and cervical. Medicare beneficiaries now receive cancer screenings without having to pay out-of-pocket for such tests. Americans under the age of 65 who are privately insured deserve the same health care. Under Medicaid, preventive services are optional benefit. States can choose to cover them or not so coverage varies state to state. All Americans deserve access to cancer screening, regardless of whether one has health insurance because they are an employee of the Department of Defense, a Medicare beneficiary, or a veteran. Certainly individuals who have private health insurance through their employers-- 56 percent of Californians have private health insurance--should be guaranteed access to life-saving and life-prolonging cancer screenings. Offering coverage for cancer screening simply makes good sense. The bill requires plans to cover screenings according to current guidelines: Annual mammograms for women ages 40 and over and for women under 40 who are at high risk of developing breast cancer. Annual clinical breast exams for women ages 40 and over and for women between the ages of 20 and 40 who are at high risk of developing breast cancer. Clinical breast exams every three years for women who are between the ages of 20 and 40 and are not at high risk for developing breast cancer. Annual pap tests and pelvic examinations for women ages 18 and over or women who are under the age of 18 and are or have been sexually active. Screening procedures for men and women ages 50 and over or under age 50 and at high risk for developing colorectal cancer, including annual screening fecal-occult blood test and screening flexible sigmoidoscopy every 4 years. Men and women at high risk for colorectal cancer (in any age group) may receive a screening colonoscopy every 2 years. Annual digital rectal examination and/or annual prostate-specific blood test for men ages 50 and over or males who are at high risk. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to modify coverage requirements to reflect changes in medical practice or new scientific knowledge, based both on the Secretary's own initiative or upon petition of an individual or organization. Cancer touches virtually every American in some way. The Comprehensive Cancer Screening Act can be one way to alleviate the fear and reality of cancer felt by millions of Americans. We all want to believe that when a family member is diagnosed with cancer, he or she will get care of the highest quality and that their medical team will conquer this disease. Early detection, while it does not prevent cancer from occurring, can stop cancer before it spreads, extend life, reduce treatment costs, and improve the quality of life for cancer patients. By requiring private health plans to cover cancer screening as a preventive measure, my bill is cost effective and could ease the cancer burden felt by America due to lost productivity related to cancer deaths and illness. It is long past due for this Congress to send a strong message to insurance companies. Cancer screening is an important prevention measure and should be covered under all insurance plans. America cannot afford not to screen.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to require the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a plan by May 1, 2000 for bringing all underground storage tanks into compliance with federal safety requirements. Why do we need this amendment? Leaking underground storage tanks are the leading source of groundwater contamination and petroleum is the most common substance leaking out. Most of the 825,000 regulated underground tanks in this country store petroleum products, from the local gas station on your neighborhood corner to the industrial complex using a large motor fleet. I am offering this amendment to make underground storage tanks safe as a way to stop the contamination of drinking water by the gasoline additive MTBE. What is MTBE? MTBE is methyl tertiary butyl ether, a gasoline additive. It is used by most refiners to make oxygenated or reformulated gasoline. It is the oxygenate of choice by refiners who sell gasoline in areas that need clean-burning gasoline to meet or maintain clean air standards. The major way MTBE gets into groundwater is from defective underground tanks storing petroleum products. What's Wrong with MTBE? Unlike other components of gasoline, MTBE does not biodegrade; it has a taste like terpentine and smells like paint thinner; it gravels quickly; it is expensive to cleanup ($1 million per well in California). MTBE is carcinogenic in animals and according to U.S. EPA, ``has a human carcinogenic hazard potential.'' Dr. John Froines, a distinguished UCLA scientist, testified at a California EPA hearing on February 23, 1999 as follows: We in our (University of California) report have concluded the cancer evidence in animals is relevant to humans. There are `acute effects in occupationally exposed workers including headaches, dizziness, nausea, eye and respiratory irritation, vomiting, sensation of spaciness or disorientation and burning of the nose and throat. MTBE exposure was associated with excess cancers in rats and mice, therefore, multi-species,'' and he cited ``multiple endpoints, lymphoma, leukemia testicular cancer, liver and kidney. All four of the tumor sites observed in animals may be predictive of human cancer risk.'' Where is MTBE? The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory studied underground tank sites in California and concluded that ``a minimum estimate of the number of MTBE-impacted sites in California is greater than 10,000.'' The Association of California Water Agencies has also found MTBE at over 10,000 sites and in many of the state's surface water reservoirs. Because of widespread contamination, California Governor Gray Davis ordered a phaseout of MTBE by December 31, 2002. A major University of California study has called for a phaseout. A top-level, EPA ``Blue Ribbon'' panel of experts in July recommended reducing the use of MTBE. Nationally, while there is no comprehensive study, we do know that MTBE has been found in drinking water in many states, including Maine, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Kansas, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Alabama, Colorado, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Arizona. A U.S. EPA-funded study by the University of Massachusetts found MTBE in 251 of 422 public wells in 19 states. Are Tanks Safe? On December 22, 1998, all underground storage tanks had to meet federal safety requirements. EPA has said that tanks that do not meet standards can be placed into temporary closure until December 22, 1999 at which point they must be upgraded or permanently closed. Under the law, noncomplying tanks can be fined $11,000 per day per violation. The safety requirements address tank integrity, design, installation; leak detection, spill and overfill control. Tank owners had ten years to meet the deadline. Here are the facts: 1. Many tanks are still unsafe: Many underground tanks containing gasoline still out of compliance with federal safety regulations. In the country, around 165,000 tanks (20 percent of the total) are out of compliance, according to EPA. In my state, approximately 1,900 (3 percent) are not safe. 2. Many tanks are sitting empty, in temporary closure--74,250 in the country (9 percent) and 10,430 (10 percent) in California. These tanks are just sitting there in limbo. EPA considers the tanks that are in temporary closure to be ``in compliance'' for now and this is one way tank owners ``met the deadline'' for compliance. These tanks' ultimate use needs to be determined. Someone needs to decide whether to close them permanently or upgrade them. 3. EPA has funds to act. The Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund has $1.6 billion in it. This bill appropriates $71.6 million, the President's request. The fund is financed by a 0.1 cent per gallon motor fuels tax which began in 1987, that generates about $150 million a year. The American motorist is paying this tax and in doing so, expects it to be used for the purposes authorized. 4. Even new tanks are not safe. A July 1999 study by the Santa Clara Valley Water district of its groundwater supplies found that even with the new upgrades, required by federal law by December 22, 1998, the new systems are not preventing MTBE contamination. The study, entitled ``Investigation of MTBE Occurrence Associated with Operating UST Systems,'' concluded, of 28 sites in Santa Clara county that have new or upgraded tank systems, the majority of which have not had previous gasoline contamination, 13 have evidence of MTBE in groundwater because of improper installation, operation or maintenance. The study says, ``These data indicate that MTBE may be present in ground water at approximately 50 percent of the UST facilities that meet 1998 upgrade requirements within Santa Clara County.'' Officials were clear: ``Immediate improvements are warranted.'' To me this says, enforce the law. Similarly, in testimony in the House of Representatives on May 6, 1999 officials of the Natural Resources Defense Council made this important point: ``. . . if gasoline contains oxygenates, future gasoline tank leaks involving MTBE appear inevitable. Even new tanks will eventually fail through material aging, operator error and accident.'' 5. Contamination growing, unknown? As I mentioned, California has had 10,000 groundwater sites impacted, as documented by the Lawrence Livermore study. Many of the state's reservoirs and surface waters have been impacted. At South Lake Tahoe, 20 percent of the water supply has been eliminated; $2 million has been spent to address it. MTBE is less than 1,000 feet from the lake. Santa Monica lost 75 percent of its groundwater supply because of MTBE. Their water system has been decimated and they will spend up to $150 million to clean up. In a disturbing August 16 story, the New York Times reported last year, the state of New York compiled a ``public list'' of 1,500 MTBE contaminated sites, but the actual number on an ``internal list'' is closer to 7,000 sites, more than three times that reported. So this suggests that we really do not know the extent of MTBE contamination. time to fix tanks EPA and the states should take steps to make tanks safe. This amendment merely says, come up with a plan: identify the tanks, their owners, their status and bring the tank into compliance or close it. Enforce the law. EPA reported last week they ``have no information from their regions'' on enforcement actions, that there is no formal schedule or official framework for finding out what enforcement actions are being taken in (1) EPA regional offices or (2) in the states. We could obtain no national list, for example, of enforcement cases, citations, administrative orders or fines. Today I did receive some information for region 9, the EPA region in which California is located. In this region, since the December 22, 1998 deadline, of 71,686 underground storage tanks, 80 have been inspected. Twenty-three citations have been issued. These actions, according to EPA, are ``informal enforcement,'' not ``formal enforcement.'' The citations are like a traffic ticket and usually give owners 30 days to comply. It appears that the ``formal'' enforcement mechanism, levying the $11,000 per violation fine, is not being used. I also received an EPA memo signed by Sammy Ng, of the Office of Underground Storage Tanks, dated April 13, 1999, which says: At the end of the first half of FY 99, states and regions have reported over 385,000 confirmed releases. States, regions and responsible parties initiated cleanups at 84 percent of these sites and completed cleanups at about 54 percent of the sites. . . . the data do not necessarily reflect the full extent of current compliance with the 1998 requirements. . . . While this is helpful--and disturbing information--it still does not tell us what is happening to make these tanks safe for storing petroleum products. This amendment is quite modest, in my view. It merely says to EPA, do your job. We have a strong law. Tank owners had a deadline. Leaking tanks are contaminating drinking water. Take steps to make tanks safe. The public needs assurance that EPA and the states are enforcing the law, stopping leaks, and protecting our drinking water. I am pleased that this important amendment has been accepted. amendment no. 1793 (Purpose: To extend the comment period for proposed rules related to the Clean Water Act) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert: ``The comment period on the proposed rules related to section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act published at 64 Federal Register 46012 and 46058 (August 23, 1999) shall be extended from October 22, 1999, for a period of no less than 90 additional calendar days.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to draw attention to FEMA's proposed Public Assistance Insurance Rule that is currently pending at the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is referenced in the report language of both the House and Senate VA/HUD Appropriations bills. I support FEMA's efforts to reduce the costs of federal disasters. However, the proposed rule, in its current form, would require public institutions to purchase ``all hazard'' insurance for public buildings. This includes local school districts, cities, non-profit hospitals, universities and other non-profits. California risk managers and insurance brokers have told me there currently is no insurance available to public institutions. They would be unable to obtain, at any price, the coverage required by the FEMA rule. Even if insurance were to be available, it is highly unlikely that the individual insurers would be able to pay out in the event of a catastrophic earthquake. The financial implications for California are enormous and should be considered before implementing the proposed FEMA rule. During Committee markup, I was told by Senator Bond that cities and counties that could not obtain hazard insurance would be exempt from the FEMA rule. FEMA says this is not the case. I believe the FEMA proposal is ambiguous in many areas and it needs to be more thoroughly examined. I am concerned that FEMA may be rushing to implement this regulation without a thorough understanding of its true impact. The House VA-HUD bill requests a GAO study of this issue before moving forward with the proposed rule. The Senate bill makes no mention of a GAO study, and supports the proposed rule change. It is my sincere hope that we can work together to develop an approach similar to that of the House. I believe that we must have an independent analysis of this important and potentially costly issue before it is finalized.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd for all their hard work on the Appropriations Interior Subcommittee for bringing this bill to the floor. In 1994, I authored the Desert Protection Act, which created two new national parks, Joshua Tree and Death Valley along with the Mojave National Preserve and 100 wilderness areas; thereby promising to protect more than 6 million acres of desert property. However, these parks and wilderness areas still contain hundreds of thousands of acres of private inholdings. Earlier this year, the Wildlands Conservancy, a California non- profit, negotiated a one-time deal whereby nearly 500,000 acres of these inholdings, many of which are owned by the Catellus Corporation would be purchased by matching $36 million in funds from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund with $26 million in private donations. Catellus, the Wildlands Conservancy, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management subsequently signed a letter of intent to sell to the Federal Government up to 437,000 acres of California desert owned by Catellus. An additional 20,000 acres of property owned by others within Joshua Tree National Park would be bought and preserved. All told, up to 483,000 acres of private inholdings in the California Desert will be acquired, ensuring public access to over 4 million acres of Federal national parks and wilderness areas in the California Desert. The location of these particular inholdings are significant because this area serves as the gateway for both private landowners and for people who wish to use the public portions of the preserve. Acquiring this checkerboard of inholdings is the only to assure public access for the lands provided for in the California Desert Protection Act. If the government does not purchase these lands the Historic Mojave Road and the East Mojave Heritage Trail are likely to be closed and it is also possible that there will be no more public access to large portions of the Mojave! Government acquisition of these lands will protect endangered species habitat, keep the fragile Desert ecosystem intact, and improve recreation opportunities and access for millions of Americans. This proposal enjoys overwhelming support from community activists, conservationists, private industry, elected officials, Democrats, Republicans, and everyone who recognizes what a great deal this is for the U.S. Government. In fact, even most opponents of the California Desert Protection Act support this appropriation because of the issue of public access. If these lands are not purchased by the government, 1,500 miles of roads will be closed off to hunters, recreationists and the general public. This Interior Appropriations bill contains a line item of $15.1 million for the phase 1 purchase of these lands. Presently, there is no allocation in the House Interior Appropriations bill to fulfill the Federal Government's end of the bargain. These purchases have been held hostage in the House as a result of an unrelated U.S. Army expansion. Although this military issue does not directly affect any of the Catellus land holdings, it is preventing the appropriation of the necessary funding to execute these land purchases. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Conference committee to ensure that the government follow through on its commitment to purchase these lands.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I was dismayed to learn that the Senate Interior Appropriations budget has zeroed out funding to the State of California for its share of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve Settlement. By right, the State should receive $36 million this year. This is the money that California gives to retired teachers whose pensions have been most seriously eroded by inflation. Here is the brief history of the issue: In 1996, Congress authorized the sale of Elk Hills Naval Reserve. However, a portion of the property consisted of more than 1300 acres of school lands owned by the state of California. Until the California's land claims were resolved, the sale could not go forward. Ultimately the Federal Government reached an agreement with California in which the state released its claim in exchange for installment payments over a seven-year period. The settlement allowed the federal government to sell the reserve for $3.65 billion. California kept its part of the bargain. Now the Federal government must meet its obligations. Last year the first installment of the $36 million was paid. But six years of installments remain. Actually, the money needed to compensate the state had been waiting in escrow. The House has properly allocated $36 million in the House Interior Appropriations Bill. I am hopeful that the Senate will also recognize the importance of keeping the Federal government's end of the bargain. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the House appropriation of $36 million be upheld in Conference.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as a Senator representing California, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, I have to say a word or two on this subject. First, I believe the chairman of our committee, Senator Hatch, has been very fair with respect to these judges. I believe he has tried his level best to move the calendar along. I think what we on this side are encountering is the holding up of judges, particularly on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for years on end. That must stop. A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down. To keep them hanging on--the court has 750 cases waiting for a judge. These judges are necessary. If someone has opposition to a judge, which I believe to be the case in at least one, they should come to the floor and say that. It is also my understanding and my desire to ask that there be some commitment from the other side as to when specifically the nominations of Judge Paez, Marsha Berzon, and Ray Fisher, pending on this calendar-- Judge Paez pending for 4 years; Marsha Berzon through two sessions now--can at least be brought to the floor for a vote. I am prepared to vote on the judges that the majority leader mentioned. I am prepared to vote affirmatively, but I can't do that unless I have some knowledge that judges who have stood on this calendar for years can be brought up before this body for a vote. I don't think that is too much to ask the other side to do. What this does to a judge's life is, it leaves them in limbo--I should say, a nominee's life--whether they have a place to live, whether they are going to make a move. It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like them, we can vote against them. That is the honest thing to do. If there are things in their background, in their abilities that don't pass muster, vote no. I think every one of us on this side is prepared for that. The problem is, we have a few people who prevent them from having a vote, and this goes on month after month, year after year. The ranking member of the committee said something that I believe is concurred in on this side; that is, women and minorities have an inordinately difficult time having their nominations processed in an orderly and expeditious way. I don't think that befits this body. What I am asking for, as a Senator from California, on these three judges, is to just tell us when we might see their nominations before the Senate for a vote up or down. I think there is also an understanding by the White House that will be the case as well. I ask the majority party to please take this into consideration, allow us a vote up or down, and give us a time when this might happen. Once again, I thank the ranking member and the chairman of the committee. I know the Senator from Utah has done everything he possibly can to move these nominations. I, for one, very much appreciate it. I am hopeful the leadership of his side will be able to give us some accommodation on this. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have not seen that particular ad. I am most interested. Would the Senator read it?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. One of the things that I think is particularly disingenuous about the opposition is that if SUVs and light trucks had the same fuel efficiency or even an increased fuel efficiency, it would impair the functioning of the car and the vehicle would not be able to function at optimal standards. Would the Senator reflect on this for the Senate?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I commend and thank the Senator for answering my questions. I appreciate it very much. If he would allow me one brief comment. I think one of the reasons that for awhile the American automobile had lost the cutting edge was the reluctance to do research and development to develop those kinds of automobile products that became very popular, that were produced by the Japanese marketplace. Since then, the American automotive companies have changed dramatically. The very kind of innovation that was absent for so long has now been restored. So it would seem to me any innovation in weight or size or engine capacity could very easily overcome these problems and that these vehicles could function as efficiently. I will point out it is the largest single thing we could do to alleviate global warming. So I thank the Senator from Nevada.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I first began to believe that global warming was a major threat in 1998 when a 92-mile long and 30-mile wide iceberg broke loose from the Antarctic Ice Shelf. It was 1\1/2\ times the size of Delaware. NOAA said it was a possible indicator of global warming. I began to take a look at some of the other things that have happened in the last few years. I find that we have the first species extinction in Costa Rica because of it. I find that it now has an impact on the El Nino cycle in the Pacific Ocean. I find that there is a serious degradation of coral reefs in the Indian Ocean, and 70 percent of the existing coral reefs are affected. I am a SUV owner. I own three jeeps. I love my jeeps. I have no doubt, though, that my jeeps can have the same kind of fuel efficiency standards as my automobile. Then you have to look and say, well, if my three jeeps have the same kind of fuel efficiency, what would that do for global warming? Carbon dioxide is the main culprit in global warming. Our country is the largest emitter and producer of carbon dioxide in the world. The United States saves 3 million barrels of oil because of fuel efficiency standards. If SUVs, similar to my jeeps, had fuel efficiency standards equal to those of automobiles, we would save another 1 million barrels of oil a day. If the 8 million or so of the other SUVs around the United States and the light trucks had these same standards, it would eliminate 187 million tons of CO2 from the air. The experts have said it is the largest single thing, bar none, that we can do to influence global warming in a positive way. It seems so easy to do it. We know it can be done. We know it need not influence the efficiency of the engines. And we know there is technology that can make it so. So raising these so-called CAFE standards or fuel efficiency standards so the SUVs are equal to other passenger automobiles at about 27 miles per gallon instead of 20 miles per gallon does not seem to me to be an unrealistic thing to ask Detroit to do. But instead, since 1995, there has been a rider in this bill which says to the Government that we can't even look, we can't even study, and we can't even make any findings to see whether, in fact, it is possible to bring SUVs up to automobile standards with respect to fuel efficiency. I believe very strongly that this is the largest single positive environmental step this Congress can take to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. To have a rider in a bill which says you can't even study it, you can't even see if what I am saying is true, I think makes no sense whatsoever. As I say, I love my three jeeps. But I will tell you, I am going to look for a sports utility vehicle that has equal fuel efficiency standards in the future. Additionally, what would this do for the consumer? It is estimated that by simply requiring SUVs to meet the same average CAFE requirements as automobiles would save the consumer more than $2,000 in fuel costs over the life of each vehicle. It seems to me that is a pretty easy way to give people almost a kind of tax rebate. You save money buying fuel for your car because you buy less of it over the life of the car. And it is estimated those savings are $2,000 per vehicle. More importantly, 117 million Americans live where smog sometimes makes the air unsafe to breathe where asthma is on the increase and where respiratory problems are developing. Almost one-half of this pollution is caused by so-called nonpoint sources. That means the automobile. Attempting to improve the efficiency of vehicles we drive helps address this problem as well. There is no substantive evidence to support the fact that this would provide technological problems that Detroit cannot meet. I hasten to point out, we do not include in this amendment, and the intent of this amendment is not to include, agricultural equipment that works on agricultural products in fields. However, with this amendment we would learn a couple of things. One, the air would be cleaner. Consumers would save significant money in fuel costs--$2,000 over the life of each vehicle--and we would go a long way to address the problem of global warming. I am hopeful that this measure will pass today. I view with some surprise the degree to which this measure is being lobbied by automobile interests in this country. As an SUV car owner, as a jeep lover, as someone who would like to buy additional cars, this is an important point to me. It seems to me some automobile company ought to be willing to address it, to bring these SUVs up to automobile standards. I stand strongly in support of the amendment. I thank my colleagues, Senator Bryan, Senator Gorton, and others, who also support the amendment. I am hopeful there will be enough Senators to say: Let's not go about this with blinders; let's take one good look and see if this is really possible; let's do the necessary studies; let's work together to do the largest single thing we can do, relatively painlessly, to reduce global warming. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. One of the things I have found is the use of ``CAFE'' which we bandy around so much--most people don't know exactly what that means. We are really talking about the efficiency of a gallon of gas to go farther. Therefore, the efficiency of a gallon of gas is what we are talking about and applying those standards to SUVs as you would to passenger sedans.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I was pleased yesterday when President B.J. Habibie of Indonesia agreed to work with the United Nations to allow international peacekeepers to restore peace and stability to East Timor. The reprehensible wave of violence that engulfed East Timor in the week following the announcement of the August 30 referendum was inexcusable, and demands the harshest condemnation by the international community. But, more importantly, the international community must now work to bring an immediate end to the violence in East Timor, protect refugees, safeguard humanitarian aid for displaced persons, and work with Indonesian troops already in East Timor to see to it that they fulfill their mission of protecting the East Timorese. On August 30, close to 98 percent of the eligible voters of East Timor went to the polls for the United Nations sponsored vote on East Timor's autonomy. This vote was in keeping with the May 5 agreements between Indonesia, Portugal, and the United Nations regarding the future of East Timor. On September 4, the Secretary General of the United Nations announced the outcome of the August 30 vote, and the results show that the people of East Timor have spoken with a clear voice: 78.5 percent rejected autonomy in favor of complete independence from Indonesia. Under the May 5 agreements, if East Timor opted for independence, the Government of Indonesia committed itself to a process of peaceful and constitutional change, in which the United Nations would oversee the transition to independence for East Timor. Unfortunately, following the Secretary General's announcement of the clear, overwhelming, and freely-expressed choice of the East Timor people, anti-independence militias, backed by the Indonesian military and police, began a systematic and organized campaign of terror, violence and intimidation in an effort to overturn the will of the people of East Timor. The criminal action undertaken by the militias and their backers in the Indonesian military are reprehensible: mass looting, arson, systematic destruction of infrastructure, and most disturbing of all, murder. According to the United Nations, hundreds, and possibly thousands, have been killed and more than 200,000 people have been forced to flee their homes. There are also reports of mass killings and a systematic campaign of political assassination. The May 5 Agreements between the Governments of Indonesia and Portugal and the United Nations mandated the popular vote on the offer of autonomy and clearly delegated responsibility for peace and security before, during and after the ballot process to the Government of Indonesia. And the Government of Indonesia freely agreed to take on that responsibility. Yet, in the face of widespread violence, the Indonesian army and police forces have stood aside and, worse, assisted the anti- independence militias. I, like many of my colleagues, was startled by the Government of Indonesia's unwillingness or inability to control its own military forces and police in East Timor. Now that the Government of Indonesia has agreed to work with the United Nations to restore peace to East Timor, there is much work to be done. First, I am heartened by the willingness of the Australian government to lead peacekeeping efforts to restore peace in security to East Timor, by the willingness of the states of ASEAN to participate in this peacekeeping mission, and by the efforts of the United Nations Security Council to engage the Government of Indonesia to address these issues. The United States, along with our partners in the United Nations and the international community, must be responsive to these efforts and provide appropriate assistance. Second, I believe that it is essential that the international community condemns the acts of violence that have occurred in East Timor in the past week--as it has in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and elsewhere--and urge a complete investigation into any criminal acts with those responsible being brought to justice. Third, now that the Government of Indonesia has agreed to allow international peacekeepers into East Timor, I am hopeful that it will continue to work with the United Nations to implement the August 30th vote and safeguard East Timor's transition to independence. The United States and the international community must remain engaged and involved with this transition, and strongly encourage the Government of Indonesia to make those changes that the people of East Timor in the August 30 referendum overwhelmingly supported. Lastly, I believe that President Clinton's decision to review U.S. international financial and military assistance to Indonesia in the context of the violence in East Timor was wholly appropriate, and that Jakarta must understand that as much as we value our relations with the people of Indonesia, future U.S. assistance will depend on their continued cooperation with the international community in resolving this deplorable situation. Mr. President, the people of East Timor have made their feelings clear. They want a peaceful transition to independence. The Government of Indonesia has made a commitment that they would grant the people of East Timor independence and oversee a peaceful transition. As the Government of Indonesia has belatedly recognized, it must live up to its commitments. The international community can play a crucial role in providing support and helping guarantee the security of the people of East Timor in this transition to independence. We must not let them down.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to address Senate Joint Resolution 33, regarding the President's granting of conditional clemency to certain Puerto Rican prisoners. Before addressing the merits of this resolution, I must note that I am troubled by the procedure which has been employed for its consideration. Almost two weeks ago, Senator Coverdell announced that he would hold a hearing on President Clinton's decision in the Terrorism Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this coming Wednesday, September 15. Last Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee also gave notice of a hearing on this subject for September 15. However, notwithstanding these planned hearings, the Republican leadership filed this resolution condemning the clemency and scheduled a vote related to it for today. Holding a vote before the hearings is akin to having the verdict first, and then the trial. Nevertheless, since we must vote, I will address the merits of the President's decision, based upon the information which is available to me before the hearings. At the outset, let me say that serious, thoughtful people urged the President to offer this clemency. These people include former President Carter; eleven Nobel Peace Prize winners, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Coretta Scott King; and dozens of religious leaders and organizations. President Clinton's decision was not a frivolous one, nor did it appear from out of thin air. However, that having been said, I believe strongly that the decision the President made was the wrong one. In the post-Cold War era, terrorism presents perhaps the greatest threat to our national security. As Ranking Member of the Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I have done what I can to assist law enforcement in combating terrorism. These prisoners were terrorists, and granting them leniency is exactly the wrong thing to do. We have tried in recent years to send a clear, unequivocal message to terrorists: if you plan or commit acts of terrorism against the United States, we will find you, hunt you down, and punish you severely. Until this point, President Clinton's administration carried this message forward forcefully, including, for example, apprehending and punishing the Oklahoma City bombers and taking retaliatory strikes against Osama bin laden. However, the President's decision last month undermines this message. Some have described these prisoners as political prisoners. They were not. They were terrorists. Let me describe for a minute some of what they did. These prisoners were members of the FALN, the Armed Forces for National Liberation, which seeks to make Puerto Rico and independent nation, through violent means. While some of them will not admit it, this was alleged and proven in the trials against them. According to the FBI, and I quote, ``In the past, Puerto Rican terrorist groups struggling for Puerto Rico's independence from the United States have been responsible for the majority of terrorist incidents perpetrated by domestic terrorist groups within the United States.'' The FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center reported in 1996 that the ``FALN has been linked to over 130 bombings which have resulted in over $3.5 million in damages, 5 deaths, and 84 injuries.'' The prisoners who received clemency were active participants in this campaign of terror. For instance, Alejandrina Torres, Edwin Cortes and Alberto Rodriguez were convicted of conspiring to, and I read now from the indictment against them, ``oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States by means of force, terror and violence, including the construction and planting of explosive and incendiary devices at banks, stores, office buildings and government buildings . . . It was a further part of the said conspiracy that the conspirators would claim credit in the name of the FALN for certain . . . bombings through either telephone calls or typed communiques.'' This is classic terrorist activity. As part of this plot, Torres and Cortes stockpiled dynamite, weapons, blasting caps and bulletproof vests. Together with Rodriguez, they planned to bomb U.S. military facilities in the Chicago, cased the facilities, and reviewed a communique to be published in conjunction with the planned bombings. They built bombs containing 21 pounds of dynamite. They also planned to use explosives to free FALN leader Oscar Lopez (who also was offered clemency by the President) from prison, to rob a Chicago Transit Authority facility to fund FALN operations, and to harbor another FALN leader who had escaped from prison. Four others who were offered clemency were convicted in connection with the armed robbery of seven million dollars from a Wells Fargo depot, to fund a similar Puerto Rican revolutionary independence group, Los Macheteros. This is an organization that ambushed a Navy bus and killed two U.S. servicemen and launched a rocket attack at the federal courthouse in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico. Madam President, building bombs and committing armed robberies on U.S. soil are not political acts. They are crimes, plain and simple, and these people were appropriately locked up for their offenses. It should make no difference that the prisoners had political motivations which some may share. Virtually all terrorists are politically motivated, and many justify their acts in the cause of ``national liberation.'' But terrorism is a cowardly and evil means to achieve such ends, which can never be justified, and which must be punished harshly. It has been reported that the clemency petition was opposed by the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons. The Fraternal Order of Police has vehemently condemned this offer, calling it a ``horrendously bad idea.'' Clemency proponents have asserted that these prisoners harmed no one. A former Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted some of these FALN members counters this assertion, noting: ``A few dedicated federal agents are the only people who stood in their way. The conspirators made every effort to murder and to maim. It is no small irony that they should be freed under the guise of humanitarianism.'' History has shown us that making concessions to terrorists spurs increased terrorism. The President made the wrong decision. I hope and pray that his decision will not have this effect, but I fear it will. Despite the flawed procedure, I will vote to proceed to Senate Joint Resolution 33, and I will subsequently vote for its passage. Terrorism does not deserve leniency.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will be pleased to join the Chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Bennett, in presenting to the Senate what I believe is a very good conference agreement on the Fiscal Year 2000 budget. Under the strong leadership of Chairman Bennett, as well as Mr. Taylor, the House Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, and Mr. Pastor, the Ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee, we were able to work our differences in a way that ensures that the essential functions for which appropriations are contained in this bill are able to continue their operations and to carry out their responsibilities efficiently and without any diminution of service. In all, the recommendations that we are presenting today total just over $2.45 billion, almost $21 million below the Subcommittee's allocation. In reaching compromises on the various issues in the conference, Chairman Bennett was very careful to ensure that the cuts did not unnecessarily impair the programs where those cut were taken. I shared the concerns of the Chairman that these reductions be carefully considered as to their effects, before they were agreed to. In his statement, Chairman Bennett has already laid out to the Senate the details of the conference agreement, which I will not repeat at this time. I wish to congratulate the Chairman, Senator Bennett, for his hard work throughout the year on this bill. This was my first year to serve as the Ranking Member of this important Subcommittee, and Senator Bennett could not have been more helpful to me and my staff. It has been a real pleasure to work at his side on this bill and I look forward to continuing to work with him on all matters that are in the jurisdiction of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. Finally, Mr. President, I thank the staff who have worked so diligently throughout the year in assisting Chairman Bennett and myself--Mary Dewald, who recently left the Committee staff, Edie Stanley, her successor, and Jim English, as well as Chris Kierig of my staff. They, together with Christine Ciccone, the Majority Clerk of the Subcommittee, and Chip Yost of Senator Bennett's staff, have carried out their responsibilities in their usual, highly professional manner. Our staffs work together, as do Chairman Bennett and I, in a non- partisan way so that the decisions that we have made throughout the year have been reached based on objective considerations, rather than partisanship. Mr. President, I urge adoption of this conference report.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Akaka, Bingaman, and Sarbanes in submitting a resolution to condemn all prejudice against individuals of Asian and Pacific Island ancestry in the United States, and to support the full participation by such individuals in the political and civic affairs of the United States. Given some of the recent reactions and media coverage of the Cox committee report and campaign finance allegations, this resolution expresses the sense of Congress that no individual or institution of the United States should stereotype an entire group of people and that all individuals in the United States, including people of Asian and Pacific Island ancestry, are entitled to the same rights and privileges. Indeed, over the past several months I have grown increasingly disturbed by some of the reactions and media coverage of the allegations of espionage at our national labs and illegal campaign financing that have called into question the loyalty of Americans of Asian and Pacific Island descent. Clearly, any individuals who are suspected of engaging in illegal or unethical conduct, regardless of their ancestry or heritage, should be investigated. However, the entire Asian and Pacific Island community should not be stereotyped or impugned as a result of the alleged actions of a few. Throughout the history of the United States, Americans of Asian and Pacific Island ancestry have suffered from unfounded and demagogic accusations of disloyalty. Americans of Asian and Pacific Island descent have been subjected to discriminatory laws, such as the 1882 Chinese Exclusionary Act and a 1913 California law relating to alien- owned land. They have also been subjected to discriminatory actions, including the interment of patriotic and loyal Japanese Americans during World War II, the repatriation of Filipino immigrants, and the prohibition of individuals from owning property, voting, testifying in court or attending school with other people in the United States. In light of this history, I am appalled that in recent months some have resorted to negative stereotypes to question the integrity of an entire community. In an impassioned letter, one of my constituents expressed, ``As a Chinese American . . . I ask no more than what is due to every citizen of this country, namely, to be treated with respect and dignity. I resent those who would question the loyalty of Chinese Americans any time a particular Chinese American is suspected of an egregious act. In their haste to decry the alleged espionage by an individual, not only are these public officials and said media guilty of a rush to judgment but of tarring with a broad brush other American citizens who are guilty of nothing else other than having the same ethnicity of the suspect.'' Another one of my constituents wrote, ``It appears that China has become Washington D.C.'s latest scapegoat. The accusations coming out of Washington severely damage what could be an excellent relationship and are dangerously close to spilling over in this country to an anti- Chinese and anti-Asian bias against solid U.S. citizens.'' These comments should not be taken lightly. All Americans should be highly offended by the negative stereotypes and media coverage of members of our community who have made profound contributions to our nation. Americans of Asian and Pacific Island descent have made great contributions to the arts, the economy, the sciences, politics, sports, and technology, among other areas. They have honorably defended the United States in times of armed conflict, from the Civil War to the present. By virtue of their membership in American society, they have just as much stake in this country as an American from any other ethnic background, and should not be held to a different standard. I hope my colleagues will support this resolution and join us in taking a firm stand against discrimination and prejudice against individuals of Asian and Pacific Island ancestry in the United States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. I rise in support of the McCain amendment. I first got involved in the sugar program when the last remaining West Coast sugar refinery came into my office to essentially say they were in the process of being put out of business by this program because they could not buy enough sugar on the world market to refine it. That refinery is C&H Sugar. I found that the sugar program is little more than a system of import restrictions, subsidized loans, and price supports that benefit a limited number of sugar growers. Recently, Congressman George Miller and I asked the GAO to take a look at the sugar program. A week ago, they put out this report entitled ``Sugar Program: Changing the Method For Setting Import Quotas Could Reduce Costs to Users.'' In short, the GAO found that the USDA's policy has allowed too little sugar to be imported into the country. This has increased costs to consumers and restricted our domestic refineries' access to sufficient quantities of sugar. The GAO found: USDA has continued to target the same stocks-to-use ratios for determining annual tariff-rate quotas, despite the fact that the resulting quotas have maintained domestic market prices that are 2 or more cents higher than necessary for avoiding loan forfeitures. This imposes unnecessary costs on U.S. sugar users--about $400 million annually. They also found that: USTR's current process for allocating the sugar tariff-rate quota does not ensure that all sugar allowed under the quota reaches the United States market. This finding is particularly troubling to me. By limiting the amount of raw cane sugar available for production, 40 percent of the jobs in the sugarcane refining industry have been lost in this country. Since 1982, 9 out of 21 cane sugar refineries in the United States have been forced out of business by this program. Those that have remained open are struggling to survive under onerous import restrictions. I first became involved in this issue in 1994 when David Koncelik, the president and CEO of the California and Hawaiian Sugar Company, informed me his refinery was forced to temporarily close because it had no sugar. This 93-year-old refinery is the Nation's largest, and the only such facility on the West Coast. C&H refines about 15 percent of the total cane sugar consumed in the United States. C&H requires in excess of 700,000 tons of raw cane sugar to meet its sales demand. Hawaii is C&H's sole source for its domestic raw cane sugar needs. But Hawaii's cane sugar industry has been in decline for over 10 years. This has meant that C&H is forced to cover over half of its annual consumption through imports from other countries. The highly restrictive sugar import system forces C&H to pay an inflated price for raw sugar from both domestic and foreign suppliers. This is just plain wrong. Even more devastating, however, the quota system limits the amount of sugar available to the refinery. Simply put, C&H has been unable to get enough sugar to refine, and it has been forced to close its doors on several occasions. This is as a result of the sugar program. In a letter to me, Mr. Koncelik notes: The C&H Sugar refinery in Crockett, California, was forced to close from November 8 to November 15 because it ran out of raw sugar. This closing is extremely costly. Other competitor refineries, Savannah and Domino, have had similar experiences. The Government-imposed shortage is forcing up the market price for raw sugar to levels that are bankrupting refiners. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.