Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to proceed to my censure resolution which is at the desk. The text of the motion reads as follows: I move to suspend the following: Rule VII, paragraph 2 the phrase ``upon the calendar'', and; Rule VIII, paragraph 2 the phrase ``during the first two hours of a new legislative day''. In order to permit a motion to proceed to a censure resolution, to be introduced on the day of the motion to proceed, notwithstanding the fact that it is not on the calendar of business. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. Leader, can I ask a point of clarification? Does this mean that repartee between Members will not be recorded, but just the statement as the Member submits it?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chief Justice, point of clarification.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In accordance with rule V, on behalf of myself and Senator Daschle, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend the following: Rule VII, paragraph 2 the phrase ``upon the calendar''; and Rule VIII, paragraph 2 the phrase ``during the first two hours of a new legislative day.'' In order to permit a motion to proceed to a censure resolution, to be introduced on the day of the motion to proceed, notwithstanding the fact that it is not on the calendar of business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a legislation that previously passed the Senate by unanimous consent but failed to be enacted because it was never considered by the House during last Congress. The bill provides permanent resident status to three children, Sergio (18 years old), Fauricio (16 years old), and Ana Lozano (15 years old) who now face deportation because they lost their mother in 1997 and the immigration law prohibits permanent legal residency to minor children under the age of twenty-one without their parents. The Lozano children face a dire situation without this legislation since despite the fact that they came into the country legally, they could be deported because they were orphaned. The children lived with their mother, Ana Ruth Lozano, until February 1997 when she died of complications developed from typhoid fever. Since their mother's death, the children have been living with their closest relative, their U.S. citizen grandmother, who currently lives in Los Angeles, California. Without their mother, these children can be deported by the INS despite the fact the children have no family who will take care of them in El Salvador except their estranged father who cannot be located by the family. Without this bill, the children will most likely be sent to an orphanage in El Salvador. Here in the U.S., the children have their U.S. citizen grandmother and uncles who will give them a loving home. I have previously sought administrative relief for the Lozano children by asking the INS District Office in Los Angeles and Commissioner Meissner if any humanitarian exemptions could be made in their case. INS has told my staff that there is nothing further they can do administratively and a private relief bill may be the only way to protect the children from deportation. I urge all the members to support this bill so that we can help the Lozano children rebuild their lives in the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am introducing a private relief bill that provides permanent residency to Oleg Rasulyevich Rafikova, Alfia Fanilevna Rafikova, and their children, Evgenia Olegovna Rafikova and Ruslan Khamitovich Yagudin, who without this legislation, would have to return to Russia and face possible threats of blackmail and kidnaping. The Rafikova family came to the United States on August 28, 1997, from Ufa, Russia, on a visitor's visa to receive their inheritance from Alfia's uncle, the famous ballet dancer, Rudolf Nureyev. Rafikova's now fear returning to their home country because they fear that the local Mafia would try to extort their inheritance from them. According to Alfia, everything changed for the family in Ufa, Russia, when the local media announced the death of her uncle, Rudolf Nureyev and exaggerated the amount of her inheritance and falsely made assertions that the family already had the money. Alfia claims that she and her husband started getting harassing phone calls, threats of kidnaping their children for ransom, and death threats. The events escalated to a day when they were robbed of everything except the clothes they were wearing. Alfia's inheritance is substantial enough that she and her family will not be a public charge. In fact, Alfia and her husband Oleg, who is a chef by training, would like to start a restaurant in San Francisco, providing jobs for Americans. Alfia's two children are attending school in San Francisco and look forward to the day they could call the United States their new home. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation so we can give the Rafikova family a chance to restart their life in the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today, a legislation that previously passed the Senate by unanimous consent but failed to be enacted because the bill was not considered by the House during last Congress. This legislation provides permanent residency to Suchada Kwong, a recently widowed young mother of a U.S. citizen child who faces the devastation of being separated from her child and family here in the U.S. Suchada Kwong's U.S. citizen husband, Jimmy Kwong, was tragically killed in an automobile accident in June of 1996, leaving a 3-month-old U.S.-born son and his 29-year-old bride. Because current law does not allow Suchada to adjust her status to permanent residency without her husband, Suchada now faces deportation. Suchada and Jimmy Kwong met in Bangkok, Thailand, through a mutual friend in 1993. He communicated with her frequently by phone and visited her every time he was in Bangkok. They fell in love and were married in September 1995 and Suchada gave birth to Ryan Stephen Kwong in May 1996. Suchada was supposed to have her INS interview on August 15, 1996. However, Jimmy was killed in an accident in June, less than 3 weeks after his son was born and 2 months short of the INS interview. Now, because the petitioner is deceased, Suchada is ineligible to adjust her status. While the immigration law provides for widows of U.S. citizens to self-petition, that provision is only available for people who have been married for over 2 years. Suchada's deportation will not only cause hardship to her and her young child but to Suchada's mother-in-law, Mrs. Kwong, who faces losing her grandson, only a short time after she lost her only son. Mrs. Kwong is elderly, and though she is financially capable, could not care for her grandson herself. Mrs. Kwong is proud to be self- supporting, having owned and worked in a small business until her retirement. The family has never used public assistance, and through Jimmy's job, the family has sufficient resources to support Suchada and Ryan. It would also be difficult for Suchada as a single mother in Thailand. Here in the United States, she has the support of Mrs. Kwong and their church. Suchada was previously granted voluntary departure for one year on October 1996 to explore other options or prepare to leave the United States. During that time period, Suchada and her family have explored all options but failed. Now, the voluntary departure period has expired and Suchada must leave the country immediately, leaving behind her young child and her family here in the U.S. Suchada has done everything she could to become a permanent resident of this country--except for the tragedy of her husband's death 2 months before she could become a permanent resident. I hope you support this bill so that we can help Suchada rebuild her life in the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Olympia Snowe and I are introducing a bill to guarantee that the decision of how long a patient receives care in the hospital is left to the attending physician. Our legislation would require health insurance plans to cover the length of hospital stay for any procedure or illness as determined by the attending physician, in consultation with the patient, to be medically appropriate. The bill is endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American College of Surgeons, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Neurology, and the American Psychological Association. Only a physician taking care of the patient, who understands the patient's history, medical condition and needs, should make the decision as to how much hospital care a person needs. Physicians are trained to evaluate all the unique needs and problems of each individual patient. Every patient's condition varies and the course of their illness also varies. Some patients are fragile or weak. Others do not respond well to general anesthesia. Complications arise. Each patient is a unique individual with varying degrees of health. The American Medical Association, concerned that pre-determined length of stay criteria are ``moving away from scientific, patient- focused principles of care,'' resulting in ``quicker and sicker'' discharges and poor patient outcomes, has developed patient-based discharge criteria. These criteria include considerations such as the patient's physiological, psychological, social and functional needs. The AMA criteria say: ``Patients should not be discharged from the hospital when their disease or symptoms cannot be adequately treated or monitored in the discharge setting.'' Lengths of stay should not be determined by insurance company clerks, actuaries or non-medical personnel. It is the attending physician, not a physician or other representative of an insurance company, that should decide when to admit and discharge someone. A number of physicians and other health care providers have expressed to me their great frustration with the current health care climate, in which they feel they spend too much of their time trying to justify their decisions on medical necessity to insurance companies. For example, Donna Damico, a nurse in a Maryland psychiatric unit of a hospital, told National Public Radio on October 1, 1997: ``I spend my days watching the care on my unit be directed by faceless people from insurance companies on the other end of the phone. My hospital employs a full-time nurse whose entire job is to talk to insurance reviewers * * * The reviewer's background can range anywhere from high school graduate to nurse, social worker or even actual physicians.'' In 1996, we addressed the problem of ``drive-through'' baby deliveries because insurance plans would only pay for one day of hospital car for childbirth. This was fraught with problems like jaundiced babies that had to be rehospitalized and mothers who developed problems which only worsened because they were sent home despite physicians' view that a mother's and baby's stability are not usually reached until the third post-partum day. We have also been told of so-called ``drive-through'' mastectomies. Some HMO's have made mastectomy an outpatient procedure. Women who have had a radical mastectomy at 7:30 a.m. have been out on the street at 4:30 that afternoon, dizzy and weak, unable to cope with drainage tubes and disfigurement. Senator Snowe and I are introducing a separate bill to address this. A California pediatrician told me of a child with very bad asthma. The insurance plan authorized 3 days in the hospital; the doctor wanted 4-5 days. He told us about a baby with infant botulism (poisoning), a baby with a toxin that had spread from the intestine to the nervous system so that the child could not breathe. The doctor thought a 10-14 day hospital stay was medically necessary for the baby; the insurance plan insisted on one week. A California neurologist told us about a seven-year-old girl with an ear infection who went to the doctor feverish. When her illness developed into pneumonia, she was admitted to the hospital. After two days she was sent home, but she then returned to the hospital three times because her insurance plan only covered a certain number of days. The third time she returned she had meningitis, which can be life threatening. The doctor said that if this girl had stayed in the hospital the first time for five to seven days, the antibiotics would have killed the infection, and the meningitis would never have developed. A 27-year-old man from central California had a heart transplant and was forced out of the hospital after 4 days because his HMO would not pay for more days. He died. Nurses in St. Luke's Hospital, San Francisco, say that women are being sent home after only two nights after a hysterectomy and two nights for a Caesarean section delivery, both of which are major abdominal surgeries, even though physicians think the women are not ready to go home. Lisa Breakey, a San Jose speech pathologist, came to my office and told us that she is providing home health for stroke patients she used to see in the hospital. She sees patients in their homes who have tubes in their stomach for feeding and tracheotomy tubes in their throats for breathing. These trach tubes have an inflated balloon or cuff which a family member must deflate and inflate by using a needle. Family members are supposed to suction the patient's mouth and throat before they deflate the cuff. Families, she stressed, are providing intensive care, for which they are unprepared and untrained. Bedrooms have become hospital rooms. Another California physician told us about a patient who needed total hip replacement because her hip had failed. The doctor believed a seven-day stay was warranted; the plan would only authorize five. Rep. Greg Ganske, a physician serving in the House, told the story of a six-year-old child who nearly drowned. The child was put on a ventilator and it appeared that he would not live. The hospital got a call from the insurance company, asking if the doctor had considered sending the boy home because home ventilation is cheaper. These cases can be summarized in the comments of a Chico, California, maternity ward nurse: ``People's treatment depends on the type of insurance they have rather than what's best for them.'' As I have mentioned, premature discharges can increase readmissions and medical complications. On March 23, 1998, American Medical News (according to Dr. David Phillips) reported that the ``shift toward outpatient treatment actually has come at quite a high price * * * an increased loss of lives.'' This University of California study found that medication errors are 3 times higher among outpatients than inpatients and medical personnel in outpatient care provide limited oversight of medications' side effects. Ms. Damico, the nurse interviewed on NPR, said, ``Patients return to us in acute states because their insurance will no longer pay the same amount for their outpatient treatment * * * [They] deteriorate to the point of suicidal thoughts or attempts and need to return to the hospital.'' She cited the example of a suicidal woman whose plan denied a hospital admission requested by her physician. After the doctor told her of the denial, she took twenty 50-milligram tabs of Benadryl, was then admitted, and the plan then had to pay for hospital care, an ambulance and emergency room fees. So not only do premature discharges compromise health, they also ultimately cost the insurer more. Physicians say they have to fight almost daily with insurance companies to give patients the hospital care they need and to justify their decisions about patient care. An American Medical Association review of a managed care contract (Aetna US Healthcare) found that the contract gives ``the company the unilateral authority to change material terms of the contract and to make determinations of medical necessity * * * without regard to physician determinations or scientific or clinical protocols. * * *,'' according to the January 19, 1998 American Medical News. A study by the American Academy of Neurology found that the guidelines (Milliman and Robertson) used by many insurance companies on length of stay are ``extraordinarily short in comparison to a large National Library of Medicine database * * * And that [the guidelines] do not relate to anything resembling the average hospital patient or attending physician * * *.'' The neurologists found that these guidelines were ``statistically developed,'' and not scientifically sound or clinically relevant. A study in the April 1997 Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons found that surgeons stated that the appropriate length of stay for an appendectomy is zero to five days, while insurance industry guidelines set a specific coverage limit of one day. The arbitrary limits set by HMO's and insurance plans are resulting in unintended consequences. Some 7 in 10 physicians said that in dealing with managed care plans, they have exaggerated the severity of a patient's condition to ``prevent him or her from being sent home from a hospital prematurely.'' Dr. David Schriger, at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, said that he routinely has patients such as a frail, elderly woman with the flu, who is not in imminent danger but could encounter serious problems if she is sent home during the night. He told the Washington Post, ``At this point I have to figure out a way to put her in the hospital. . . . And typically, I'll come up with a reason acceptable to the insurer,'' and orders a blood test and chest x-ray to justify admission. The Post article also cited Kaiser Permanente's Texas division, which ``warned doctors in urgent care centers not to tell patients they required hospitalization,'' as one Kaiser administrator recalled. ``We basically said [to] the UCC doctors, `If you value your job, you won't say anything about hospitalization. All you'll say is, I think you need further evaluation. . . .' '' Ms. Damico, the psychiatric nurse interviewed on NPR said, ``Our utilization review nurse gives all of us, including the doctors, good advice on how to chart so that our patients' care will be covered. . . . We all conspire quietly to make certain the charts look and sound bad enough.'' On August 2, 1998, calling it the ``brave new world of managed care,'' the San Jose Mercury News reported, ``to cut costs HMOs are shifting the burden of caring for the sick from their staff and provider networks to patients themselves and their often ill-prepared family members,'' by reducing hospital stays. ``Patients who used to be in the hospital for a week after a hip replacement now stay only three days; patients who had coronary artery bypass graft surgery are pushed out after four or five. Doctors are routinely performing operations in outpatient surgery centers, clinics or their offices, which were once done in the hospital.'' This article cited, as examples, mastectomies, knee surgery, parts of bone marrow transplants, and cancer chemotherapies. The American College of Surgeons said it all when this prestigious organization wrote: ``We believe very strongly that any health care system or plan that removes the surgeon and the patient from the medical decision-making process only undermines the quality of that patient's care and his or her health and well-being. . . . specific, single numbers [of days] cannot and should not be used to represent a length of stay for a given procedure.'' (April 24, 1997) ACS on March 5 wrote, ``We believe very strongly that any health care system or plan that removes the surgeon and the patient from the medical decision making process only undermines the quality of that patient's care and his or her health and well being.'' The American Medical Association wrote on May 20, 1998, ``We are gratified that this bill would promote the fundamental concept, which the AMA has always endorsed, that medical decisions should be made by patients and their physicians, rather than by insurers or legislators. . . . We appreciate your initiative and ongoing efforts to protect patients by ensuring that physicians may identify medically appropriate lengths of stay, unfettered by third party payers.'' The American Psychological Association, on March 4, 1998 wrote me, ``We are pleased to support this legislation, which will require all health plans to follow the best judgment of the patient and attending provider when determining length of stay for inpatient treatment.'' New treatments, particularly less invasive treatments, have shortened many hospital stays, but so also has pressure from insurers. Business and Health magazine reported in ``The State of Health Care in America 1998'' that ``HMOs and capitated point-of-service plans'' were associated with the lowest inpatient stays. Other studies reveal that in areas with high HMO competition, health care utilization is lower for the entire population.'' This study shows that for patients with traditional fee-for-service insurance, the average length of stay in 1995 was 4.9 days. For HMOs, it was 4.2 days. California Health Care Association data show that in my state, the average length of stay has declined from 5.70 days in 1986 to 4.45 in 1995. A study in the spring 1996 issue of Health Affairs concluded that the number of inpatient days per thousand residents is lower and has declined faster in California than the national average. The average length of stay in California in 1996 was 5.3 days, while nationally it was 6.4 days. For example, a woman getting a mastectomy in New York will stay in the hospital an average of 5.78 days, but a mastectomy patient in California is likely to stay 2.98 days. (Inquiry, winter 1997-1998). Americans are disenchanted with the health insurance system in this country, as HMO hassles mount and physicians get effectively overruled by insurance companies. Arbitrary insurance company rules cannot address the subtleties of medical care. Three out of every four Americans are worried about their health care coverage and half say they are worried that doctors are basing treatment decisions strictly on what insurance plans will pay for. This bill is one step toward returning medical decision-making to those medical professionals trained to make medical decisions. summary of the hospital length of stay act of 1998 Requires plans to cover hospital lengths of stay for all illnesses and conditions as determined by the physician, in consultation with the patient, to be medically appropriate. Prohibits plans from requiring providers (physicians) to obtain a plan's prior authorization for a hospital length of stay. Prohibits plans from denying eligibility or renewal for the purpose of avoiding these requirements. Prohibits plans from penalizing or otherwise reducing or limiting reimbursement of the attending physician because the physician provided care in accordance with the requirements of the bill. Prohibits plans from providing monetary or other incentives to induce a physician to provide care inconsistent with these requirements. Includes language clarifying that-- Nothing in the bill requires individuals to stay in the hospital for a fixed period of time for any procedure; Plans may require copayments but copayments for a hospital stay determined by the physician cannot exceed copayments for any preceding portion of the stay. Does not pre-empt state laws that provide greater protection. Applies to private insurance plans, Medicare, Medicaid, Medigap, federal employees' plans, Children's Health Insurance Plan, the Indian Health Service Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing three bills to stop the contamination of California's drinking water by the gasoline additive MTBE. First, I am introducing a bill to allow California to apply its own clean or reformulated gasoline rules as long as emissions reductions are equivalent or greater. California's rules are stricter than the federal rules and thus meet the air quality requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. This bill is the companion to H.R. 11 introduced by Representative Bilbray on January 6, 1998. MTBE or methyl tertiary butyl either is added to gasoline by some refiners in response to federal requirements that areas with the most serious air pollution problems use what is called ``reformulated gasoline,'' a type of cleaner-burning gasoline. The federal law requires that this gasoline contain 2 percent by weight oxygenate. MTBE has been the oxygenate of choice by some refiners. The major source of MTBE in groundwater appears to be leaking underground storage tanks. In surface water, it is recreational gasoline-powered boating and personal watercraft, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The second bill requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to make petroleum releases into drinking water the highest priority in the federal underground storage tank cleanup program. This bill is needed because underground storage tanks are the major source of MTBE into drinking water and federal law does not give EPA specific guidance on cleanup priorities. The third bill will move from 2006 to 2001 full implementation of EPA's current watercraft engine exhaust emissions requirements. The California Air Resources Board on December 10, 1998, adopted watercraft engine regulations in effect making the federal EPA rules effective in 2001, so this bill will make the deadline in the federal requirements consistent with California's deadlines. In addition, the bill will require an emissions label on these engines consistent with California's requirements so the consumer can make an informed purchasing choice. This bill is needed because watercraft engines have remained essentially unchanged since the 1930s and up to 30 percent of the gas that goes into the motor goes into water unburned. These three bills represent three steps toward getting MRBE out of California's drinking water. Bill 1: The California Clean Gas Formula The Feinstein-Bilbray bill would provide that if a state's reformulated gasoline rules achieve equal or greater emissions reductions than federal regulations, a state's rules will take precedence. The bill would apply only to states which have received waivers under Section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. California is the only state currently eligible for this waiver, a waiver allowing California to set its own fuel standards. The other 49 states do not set their own fuel specifications. This bill would exempt California from overlapping federal oxygenate requirements and give gasoline manufacturers the flexibility to reduce or even eliminate the use of MTBE, while not reducing our air quality. In 1994, the CARB adopted a ``predictive model,'' which is a performance based program that allows refiners to use innovative fuel formulations to meet clean air requirements. The predictive model provides twice the clean air benefits required by the federal government. With this model, refiners can make cleaner burning gasoline with one percent oxygen or even no oxygen at all. The federal two percent oxygenate requirement limits this kind of innovation. In fact, Tosco and Shell are already making MTBE-free gasoline. In addition, Chevron has said: MTBE is the best oxygenate of choice for blending CBG (clean burning gasoline) in California refineries. . . . However, consistent with our desire to reduce or eliminate MTBE from cleaner burning gas (CBG), we want the flexibility to be able to make prudent use of any oxygenate--MTBE, ethanol, or the use of no oxygenate--while meeting the emissions performance standards of reformulated gasolines. If the government allows this flexibility, Chevron would likely use more ethanol than now to efficiently provide cleaning burning gasoline. The legislation allows that companies who serve California's gasoline needs to continue to adopt innovative formulas for cleaner burning gasoline without contaminating the water. The University of California study, released in November, recommended phasing our MTBE and concluded that oil companies can make cleaner- burning gasoline that meets federal air standards without MTBE. the problem: drinking water contamination Contamination of California's drinking water by MTBE is growing almost daily. A December 14, 1998 San Francisco Chronicle headline calls MTBE a ``Ticking Bomb.'' The University of California study says, ``If MTBE continues to be used at current levels and more sources become contaminated, the potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially groundwater basins, will increase. Severity of water shortages during drought years will be exacerbated.'' In higher concentrations, MTBE smells like turpentine and it tastes like paint thinner. Relatively low levels of MTBE can simply make drinking water simply undrinkable. MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly through soil and gravel. It therefore poses a more rapid threat to water supplies than other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur. MTBE is easily traced, but is very difficult and expensive to cleanup. The Association of California Water Agencies estimates that it would cost as much as $1 million per well to install treatment technology to remove MTBE from drinking water. Without these funds, the only option is to shut down wells. MTBE use has escalated from 12,000 barrels a day in 1980 to about 100,000 barrels today, according to CARB. EPA says that about 30 percent of the nation's gasoline is reformulated gas and MTBE is used in about 84 percent of reformulated gasoline. Two-thirds of California's gasoline is subject to the federal oxygenate requirement. This growth in use of MTBE is directly attributable to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act. contamination widespread A June 12, 1998 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study concluded that MTBE is a ``frequent and widespread contaminant'' in groundwater throughout California and does not degrade significantly once it is there. This study found that groundwater has been contaminated at over 10,000 shallow monitoring sites. The Livermore study says that ``MTBE has the potential to impact regional groundwater resources and may present a cumulative contamination hazard.'' Californians are more dependent on groundwater as a source of drinking water than most Americans. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, 69 percent of California's population relies on groundwater as their source of drinking water, while for the U.S. population at large, 53 percent of the population relies on groundwater. Similarly, the Association of California Water Agencies reports that MTBE has impacted over 10,000 sites. MTBE has been detected in drinking water supplies in a number of cities, including Santa Monica, Riverside, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sebastopol, Manteca, and San Diego. MTBE has also been detected in numerous California reservoirs, including Lake Shasta in Redding, San Pablo and Cherry reservoirs in the Bay Area, and Coyote and Anderson reservoirs in Santa Clara. Santa Monica lost 75 percent of its groundwater supply; the South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District has lost over one-third of drinking water wells. Drinking water wells in Santa Clara Valley (Great Oaks Water Company) and Sacramento (Fruitridge Vista Water Company) have been shut down because of MTBE contamination. In addition, MTBE has been detected in the following surface water reservoirs: Lake Perris (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California), Anderson Reservoir (Santa Clara Valley Water District), Canyon Lake (Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District), Pardee Reservoir and San Pablo Reservoir (East Bay Municipal Utility District), Lake Berryessa (Solano County Water Agency). The largest contamination occurred in the city of Santa Monica, which lost 75% of its groundwater supply as a result of MTBE leaking out of shallow gas tanks beneath the surface; MTBE has been discovered in publicly owned wells approximately 100 feet from City Council Chamber in South Lake Tahoe; In Glennvile, California, near Bakersfield, MTBE levels have been detected in groundwater as high as 190,000 parts per billion--dramatically exceeding the California Department of Health advisory of 35 parts per billion; and dangers of mtbe The United States EPA has indicated that ``MTBE is an animal carcinogen and has a human carcinogenic hazard potential.'' Studies to assess hazards to animals have found that MTBE is carcinogenic in rodents in high doses. MTBE has been linked to leukemia and lymphomas in female rats and an increase in benign testicular tumors in male rats. Studies of inhalation exposure in rats have also shown increased incidence of kidney, testicular, and liver tumors. Inhalation exposure has also resulted in adverse effect on developing mouse fetuses. The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the Centers for Disease Control monitored concentrations of MTBE in the air and in the blood of humans in 1992 and 1993. Blood levels of MTBE were analyzed in gasoline station and car-repair workers and commuters. People with higher blood levels of MTBE were significantly more likely to report more headaches, eye irritation, nausea, dizziness, burning of the nose and throat, coughing, disorientation and vomiting, compared with those who had lower blood levels. From these studies, EPA concluded, ``MTBE can pose a hazard of non-cancer effects to humans at high doses. The data do not support confident quantitative estimations or risk at low exposure.'' california's regulations can achieve what federal law intends The federal gasoline oxygenate requirement went into effect in December 1994, affecting areas where the air quality is the worst. Today, reformulated gasoline is required by federal law in the following areas of California: Year-round: Oxygenates are required to be used in the South Coast Air Basin (the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernadino, Orange, Ventura) and the Sacramento metropolitan area (which includes all of Sacramento County and portions of Yolo, Placer and Eldorado County). Wintertime: Oxygenates are required to be added to gasoline in the Southern California Air Basin (the entire counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Ventura), Imperial County, Fresno and Lake Tahoe. While federal Clean Air Act regulations were being promulgated, the California Air Resources Board developed more stringent air standards, using a ``predictive model.'' The Clean Air Act has no doubt helped reduce emissions throughout the United States, but the federal requirements have imposed limitations on the level of flexibility that U.S. EPA can grant to California. The overlapping applicability of both the federal and state reformulated gasoline rules has actually prohibited gasoline manufacturers from responding as effectively as possible to unforseen problems with their product. This bill addresses exactly this type of situation. This legislation rewards California for its unique and effective approach in solving its own air quality problems by permitting it an exemption from federal oxygenate requirements as long as tough environmental standards are enforced. This bill does not weaken the Clean Air Act, but instead is a step in the right direction, towards sound environmental policy. It is a narrowly-targeted bill designed to make our drinking water clean to drink. With this bill, California is once again taking the initiative to lead the way in ensuring the protection of the air we breath, and the water we drink. By allowing the companies that supply our state's gasoline to use good science and sound environmental policy, we can achieve the goals set forth by the Clean Air Act, without sacrificing California's clean water. california, a leader in air cleanup California's efforts to improve air quality predate similar federal efforts and have achieved marked success in reducing emissions, resulting in the cleanest air Californians have seen in decades. Since the introduction of California Cleaner Burning Gasoline program, there has been a 300 ton per day decrease in ozone forming ingredients found in the air. This is the emission reduction equivalent of taking 3.5 million automobiles off the road. California reformulated gasoline reduces smog forming emissions from vehicles by 15 percent. The state has also seen a marked decrease in first stage smog alerts, during which residents with respiratory ailments are encouraged to stay indoors. John Dunlap, former Chairman of California's Air Board, who supports this legislation, has said: . . . our program has proven (to have) a significant effect on California's air quality. Following the introduction of California's gasoline program in the spring of 1996, monitored levels of ozone . . . were reduced by 10 percent in Northern California, and by 18 percent in the Los Angeles area. Benzene levels (have decreased) by more than 50 percent. this bill should be enacted There are several reasons to enact this bill: 1. Studies confirm need to eliminate MTBE. The June 11, 1998 Lawrence Livermore study found MTBE at 10,000 sites and said it is ``a frequent and widespread contaminant in shallow groundwater throughout California.'' A five-volume University of California November 12, 1998 study concluded that MTBE provides ``no significant air quality benefit'' and that if its use is continued, ``the potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially groundwater, will increase.'' The landmark UC study recommended that MTBE use be phased out and that refiners be given the flexibility of the state's clean gas regulations. 2. MTBE is not needed. California can meet federal clean air standards by using our own state clean gas regulations. The California Air Resources Board has testified that we can have equivalent or greater reductions in emissions and improve air quality using California's regulations. These standards are more stringent than the federal requirements, but offer gasoline refiners more flexibility. 3. MTBE in drinking water poses health risks. MTBE is an animal carcinogen and a potential human carcinogen. It tastes bad. It smells bad. It may have other harmful human health effects. 4. The dangers of MTBE were not considered when Congress last amended the Clear Air Act in 1990. According to the Congressional Research Service, during Congress's consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments, which became law in 1990, there was no discussion of the possible adverse impacts of MTBE as a gasoline additive. Likewise, CARB has said that when they were considering our state's reformulated gasoline regulations, ``the concern over the use of oxygenates was not raised as an issue.'' 5. California needs water. California cannot afford to lose any more of its drinking water. According to the Association of California Water Agencies, by the year 2020, California will be 4 million to 6 million acre-feet short of water each year without additional facilities and water management strategies. 5. Congress has long recognized that California is a unique case. California's efforts to improve air quality predate similar federal efforts. We have our own clean gas program and U.S. EPA has given the state a waiver under section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act to develop our own program. widespread support I am appending at the end of my statement a list of California local governments, water districts, air districts, statewide and other organizations that support my MTBE bill. bill 2: stopping underground tank leaks My second bill will make threats to drinking water the highest priority in the federal underground tank cleanup program at EPA. In 1986, Congress created a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund, funded by a one-tenth of one cent tax on all petroleum products. These funds are available to enforce cleanup requirements; to conduct cleanups where there is no financially viable responsible party or where a responsible party fails to correct; to take corrective action in emergencies; and to bring actions against parties who fail to comply. There is approximately $1.5 billion currently in the fund. Under current law, section 9003(h)(3) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, EPA is required to give priority in corrective actions to petroleum releases from tanks which pose ``the greatest threat to human health and the environment,'' a provision that I support. My bill would add simple clarifying language that in essence says that threats to drinking water are the most serious threats and should receive priority attention. Leaking underground gasoline storage tank systems are the major source of MTBE into drinking water. The June 11, 1998 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory study that examined 236 tanks in 24 California counties found MTBE at 78 percent of these sites. These scientists said that a minimum estimate of the number of MTBE-impacted tank sites in my state is over 10,000. Federal law requires tanks to have protections against spills, overfills, and tank corrosion by December 22, 1998. Tank owners have had ten years to do this. EPA has estimated that half the nation's 600,000 tanks and 52 percent of California's 61,000 complied by the December 22 deadline. Clearly, stopping these leaks is a big part of the solution of stopping the release of MTBE. Making threats to drinking water a top cleanup priority makes sense since clean drinking water is fundamental to human health. bill 3: motorcraft engines My third bill addresses a third source of MTBE into drinking water-- watercraft engines. The Association of California Water Agencies says that MTBE in surface water reservoirs comes largely from recreational watercraft. In October 1996, U.S. EPA published regulations, starting in model year 1998, requiring stricter emissions controls on personal watercraft engines to be fully implemented by 2006. On December 10, 1998, the California Air Resources Board adopted regulations very similar to EPA's in substance, but accelerating their effective date to 2001, five years earlier. In addition, California added two more ``tiers'' of emissions reductions that go beyond U.S. EPA's, reducing emissions by 20 percent more in 2004 and 65 percent more in 2008. Under the federal requirements, there would be a complete fleet turnover by 2050; in California, there would be a complete fleet turnover in 2024, 26 years earlier. The federal and the California rules apply to (1) spark-ignition outboard marine and (2) personal watercraft engines, such as motorboats, jet skis and wave runners, beginning in model year 2001. Outboard engines: In 1990, there were 373,200 gasoline-powered outboard engines in California. California sales of outboard engines represented ten percent of the U.S. market in 1997. Personal watercraft: California sales of these engines were 12 percent of the 176,000 sales in the U.S. in 1995, numbers which have no doubt grown significantly. Personal watercraft like jet skis have increased by 240 percent since 1990 and these numbers are expected to double by 2020. We need to curb emissions from these marine engines because (1) unlike automobiles which exhaust into the air, all marine engines exhaust directly into the water, and (2) 20 to 30 percent of the gas that goes in, comes out unburned. According to CARB, these engines ``discharge an unburned fuel/oil mixture at levels approaching 20 to 30 percent of the fuel/oil mixture consumed. This unregulated discharge of fuel and oil threatens degradation of high quality waters . . .'' CARB says that two hours of exhaust emissions from a jet ski is equivalent to the emission created by driving a 1998 automobile 130,000 miles. Some areas are considering banning jet skis and gas-powered boats. My bill does two things: (1) It would make the EPA's existing regulations effective in 2001, instead of 2006, consistent with California's regulations. (2) It would direct EPA to make one addition to their current regulation, an engine labeling requirement, consistent with California's labeling requirement, designed to inform consumers of the relative emissions level of new engines. Because these engines put MTBE and other constituents of gasoline into surface waters, I believe we need to accelerate the national rules to discourage people from ``engine shopping'' from state to state and bringing ``dirty'' engines into California. Because my state's relatively mild weather encourages boating, our air board concluded that we need more stringent standards than the national standards. Up to 30 percent of gasoline in these engines comes out unburned. In other words, of 10 gallons per hour used, about two and one half gallons of fuel goes into the water unburned in one hour. This has to stop. The November 1998 University of California study recognizes the emissions of MTBE into surface waters from watercraft and says that technologies are available that will ``significantly reduce MTBE loading,'' that the older carbureted two-stroke engines release much larger amounts of MTBE and other gasoline constituents than the fuel- injected engines or the four-stroke engines. Millions of Californians should not have to drink water contaminated with MTBE. I believe we must take strong steps to end this contamination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing three bills to stop the contamination of California's drinking water by the gasoline additive MTBE. First, I am introducing a bill to allow California to apply its own clean or reformulated gasoline rules as long as emissions reductions are equivalent or greater. California's rules are stricter than the federal rules and thus meet the air quality requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. This bill is the companion to H.R. 11 introduced by Representative Bilbray on January 6, 1998. MTBE or methyl tertiary butyl either is added to gasoline by some refiners in response to federal requirements that areas with the most serious air pollution problems use what is called ``reformulated gasoline,'' a type of cleaner-burning gasoline. The federal law requires that this gasoline contain 2 percent by weight oxygenate. MTBE has been the oxygenate of choice by some refiners. The major source of MTBE in groundwater appears to be leaking underground storage tanks. In surface water, it is recreational gasoline-powered boating and personal watercraft, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency. The second bill requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to make petroleum releases into drinking water the highest priority in the federal underground storage tank cleanup program. This bill is needed because underground storage tanks are the major source of MTBE into drinking water and federal law does not give EPA specific guidance on cleanup priorities. The third bill will move from 2006 to 2001 full implementation of EPA's current watercraft engine exhaust emissions requirements. The California Air Resources Board on December 10, 1998, adopted watercraft engine regulations in effect making the federal EPA rules effective in 2001, so this bill will make the deadline in the federal requirements consistent with California's deadlines. In addition, the bill will require an emissions label on these engines consistent with California's requirements so the consumer can make an informed purchasing choice. This bill is needed because watercraft engines have remained essentially unchanged since the 1930s and up to 30 percent of the gas that goes into the motor goes into water unburned. These three bills represent three steps toward getting MRBE out of California's drinking water. Bill 1: The California Clean Gas Formula The Feinstein-Bilbray bill would provide that if a state's reformulated gasoline rules achieve equal or greater emissions reductions than federal regulations, a state's rules will take precedence. The bill would apply only to states which have received waivers under Section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. California is the only state currently eligible for this waiver, a waiver allowing California to set its own fuel standards. The other 49 states do not set their own fuel specifications. This bill would exempt California from overlapping federal oxygenate requirements and give gasoline manufacturers the flexibility to reduce or even eliminate the use of MTBE, while not reducing our air quality. In 1994, the CARB adopted a ``predictive model,'' which is a performance based program that allows refiners to use innovative fuel formulations to meet clean air requirements. The predictive model provides twice the clean air benefits required by the federal government. With this model, refiners can make cleaner burning gasoline with one percent oxygen or even no oxygen at all. The federal two percent oxygenate requirement limits this kind of innovation. In fact, Tosco and Shell are already making MTBE-free gasoline. In addition, Chevron has said: MTBE is the best oxygenate of choice for blending CBG (clean burning gasoline) in California refineries. . . . However, consistent with our desire to reduce or eliminate MTBE from cleaner burning gas (CBG), we want the flexibility to be able to make prudent use of any oxygenate--MTBE, ethanol, or the use of no oxygenate--while meeting the emissions performance standards of reformulated gasolines. If the government allows this flexibility, Chevron would likely use more ethanol than now to efficiently provide cleaning burning gasoline. The legislation allows that companies who serve California's gasoline needs to continue to adopt innovative formulas for cleaner burning gasoline without contaminating the water. The University of California study, released in November, recommended phasing our MTBE and concluded that oil companies can make cleaner- burning gasoline that meets federal air standards without MTBE. the problem: drinking water contamination Contamination of California's drinking water by MTBE is growing almost daily. A December 14, 1998 San Francisco Chronicle headline calls MTBE a ``Ticking Bomb.'' The University of California study says, ``If MTBE continues to be used at current levels and more sources become contaminated, the potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially groundwater basins, will increase. Severity of water shortages during drought years will be exacerbated.'' In higher concentrations, MTBE smells like turpentine and it tastes like paint thinner. Relatively low levels of MTBE can simply make drinking water simply undrinkable. MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly through soil and gravel. It therefore poses a more rapid threat to water supplies than other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur. MTBE is easily traced, but is very difficult and expensive to cleanup. The Association of California Water Agencies estimates that it would cost as much as $1 million per well to install treatment technology to remove MTBE from drinking water. Without these funds, the only option is to shut down wells. MTBE use has escalated from 12,000 barrels a day in 1980 to about 100,000 barrels today, according to CARB. EPA says that about 30 percent of the nation's gasoline is reformulated gas and MTBE is used in about 84 percent of reformulated gasoline. Two-thirds of California's gasoline is subject to the federal oxygenate requirement. This growth in use of MTBE is directly attributable to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act. contamination widespread A June 12, 1998 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study concluded that MTBE is a ``frequent and widespread contaminant'' in groundwater throughout California and does not degrade significantly once it is there. This study found that groundwater has been contaminated at over 10,000 shallow monitoring sites. The Livermore study says that ``MTBE has the potential to impact regional groundwater resources and may present a cumulative contamination hazard.'' Californians are more dependent on groundwater as a source of drinking water than most Americans. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, 69 percent of California's population relies on groundwater as their source of drinking water, while for the U.S. population at large, 53 percent of the population relies on groundwater. Similarly, the Association of California Water Agencies reports that MTBE has impacted over 10,000 sites. MTBE has been detected in drinking water supplies in a number of cities, including Santa Monica, Riverside, Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sebastopol, Manteca, and San Diego. MTBE has also been detected in numerous California reservoirs, including Lake Shasta in Redding, San Pablo and Cherry reservoirs in the Bay Area, and Coyote and Anderson reservoirs in Santa Clara. Santa Monica lost 75 percent of its groundwater supply; the South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District has lost over one-third of drinking water wells. Drinking water wells in Santa Clara Valley (Great Oaks Water Company) and Sacramento (Fruitridge Vista Water Company) have been shut down because of MTBE contamination. In addition, MTBE has been detected in the following surface water reservoirs: Lake Perris (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California), Anderson Reservoir (Santa Clara Valley Water District), Canyon Lake (Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District), Pardee Reservoir and San Pablo Reservoir (East Bay Municipal Utility District), Lake Berryessa (Solano County Water Agency). The largest contamination occurred in the city of Santa Monica, which lost 75% of its groundwater supply as a result of MTBE leaking out of shallow gas tanks beneath the surface; MTBE has been discovered in publicly owned wells approximately 100 feet from City Council Chamber in South Lake Tahoe; In Glennvile, California, near Bakersfield, MTBE levels have been detected in groundwater as high as 190,000 parts per billion--dramatically exceeding the California Department of Health advisory of 35 parts per billion; and dangers of mtbe The United States EPA has indicated that ``MTBE is an animal carcinogen and has a human carcinogenic hazard potential.'' Studies to assess hazards to animals have found that MTBE is carcinogenic in rodents in high doses. MTBE has been linked to leukemia and lymphomas in female rats and an increase in benign testicular tumors in male rats. Studies of inhalation exposure in rats have also shown increased incidence of kidney, testicular, and liver tumors. Inhalation exposure has also resulted in adverse effect on developing mouse fetuses. The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the Centers for Disease Control monitored concentrations of MTBE in the air and in the blood of humans in 1992 and 1993. Blood levels of MTBE were analyzed in gasoline station and car-repair workers and commuters. People with higher blood levels of MTBE were significantly more likely to report more headaches, eye irritation, nausea, dizziness, burning of the nose and throat, coughing, disorientation and vomiting, compared with those who had lower blood levels. From these studies, EPA concluded, ``MTBE can pose a hazard of non-cancer effects to humans at high doses. The data do not support confident quantitative estimations or risk at low exposure.'' california's regulations can achieve what federal law intends The federal gasoline oxygenate requirement went into effect in December 1994, affecting areas where the air quality is the worst. Today, reformulated gasoline is required by federal law in the following areas of California: Year-round: Oxygenates are required to be used in the South Coast Air Basin (the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernadino, Orange, Ventura) and the Sacramento metropolitan area (which includes all of Sacramento County and portions of Yolo, Placer and Eldorado County). Wintertime: Oxygenates are required to be added to gasoline in the Southern California Air Basin (the entire counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Ventura), Imperial County, Fresno and Lake Tahoe. While federal Clean Air Act regulations were being promulgated, the California Air Resources Board developed more stringent air standards, using a ``predictive model.'' The Clean Air Act has no doubt helped reduce emissions throughout the United States, but the federal requirements have imposed limitations on the level of flexibility that U.S. EPA can grant to California. The overlapping applicability of both the federal and state reformulated gasoline rules has actually prohibited gasoline manufacturers from responding as effectively as possible to unforseen problems with their product. This bill addresses exactly this type of situation. This legislation rewards California for its unique and effective approach in solving its own air quality problems by permitting it an exemption from federal oxygenate requirements as long as tough environmental standards are enforced. This bill does not weaken the Clean Air Act, but instead is a step in the right direction, towards sound environmental policy. It is a narrowly-targeted bill designed to make our drinking water clean to drink. With this bill, California is once again taking the initiative to lead the way in ensuring the protection of the air we breath, and the water we drink. By allowing the companies that supply our state's gasoline to use good science and sound environmental policy, we can achieve the goals set forth by the Clean Air Act, without sacrificing California's clean water. california, a leader in air cleanup California's efforts to improve air quality predate similar federal efforts and have achieved marked success in reducing emissions, resulting in the cleanest air Californians have seen in decades. Since the introduction of California Cleaner Burning Gasoline program, there has been a 300 ton per day decrease in ozone forming ingredients found in the air. This is the emission reduction equivalent of taking 3.5 million automobiles off the road. California reformulated gasoline reduces smog forming emissions from vehicles by 15 percent. The state has also seen a marked decrease in first stage smog alerts, during which residents with respiratory ailments are encouraged to stay indoors. John Dunlap, former Chairman of California's Air Board, who supports this legislation, has said: . . . our program has proven (to have) a significant effect on California's air quality. Following the introduction of California's gasoline program in the spring of 1996, monitored levels of ozone . . . were reduced by 10 percent in Northern California, and by 18 percent in the Los Angeles area. Benzene levels (have decreased) by more than 50 percent. this bill should be enacted There are several reasons to enact this bill: 1. Studies confirm need to eliminate MTBE. The June 11, 1998 Lawrence Livermore study found MTBE at 10,000 sites and said it is ``a frequent and widespread contaminant in shallow groundwater throughout California.'' A five-volume University of California November 12, 1998 study concluded that MTBE provides ``no significant air quality benefit'' and that if its use is continued, ``the potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially groundwater, will increase.'' The landmark UC study recommended that MTBE use be phased out and that refiners be given the flexibility of the state's clean gas regulations. 2. MTBE is not needed. California can meet federal clean air standards by using our own state clean gas regulations. The California Air Resources Board has testified that we can have equivalent or greater reductions in emissions and improve air quality using California's regulations. These standards are more stringent than the federal requirements, but offer gasoline refiners more flexibility. 3. MTBE in drinking water poses health risks. MTBE is an animal carcinogen and a potential human carcinogen. It tastes bad. It smells bad. It may have other harmful human health effects. 4. The dangers of MTBE were not considered when Congress last amended the Clear Air Act in 1990. According to the Congressional Research Service, during Congress's consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments, which became law in 1990, there was no discussion of the possible adverse impacts of MTBE as a gasoline additive. Likewise, CARB has said that when they were considering our state's reformulated gasoline regulations, ``the concern over the use of oxygenates was not raised as an issue.'' 5. California needs water. California cannot afford to lose any more of its drinking water. According to the Association of California Water Agencies, by the year 2020, California will be 4 million to 6 million acre-feet short of water each year without additional facilities and water management strategies. 5. Congress has long recognized that California is a unique case. California's efforts to improve air quality predate similar federal efforts. We have our own clean gas program and U.S. EPA has given the state a waiver under section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act to develop our own program. widespread support I am appending at the end of my statement a list of California local governments, water districts, air districts, statewide and other organizations that support my MTBE bill. bill 2: stopping underground tank leaks My second bill will make threats to drinking water the highest priority in the federal underground tank cleanup program at EPA. In 1986, Congress created a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund, funded by a one-tenth of one cent tax on all petroleum products. These funds are available to enforce cleanup requirements; to conduct cleanups where there is no financially viable responsible party or where a responsible party fails to correct; to take corrective action in emergencies; and to bring actions against parties who fail to comply. There is approximately $1.5 billion currently in the fund. Under current law, section 9003(h)(3) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, EPA is required to give priority in corrective actions to petroleum releases from tanks which pose ``the greatest threat to human health and the environment,'' a provision that I support. My bill would add simple clarifying language that in essence says that threats to drinking water are the most serious threats and should receive priority attention. Leaking underground gasoline storage tank systems are the major source of MTBE into drinking water. The June 11, 1998 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory study that examined 236 tanks in 24 California counties found MTBE at 78 percent of these sites. These scientists said that a minimum estimate of the number of MTBE-impacted tank sites in my state is over 10,000. Federal law requires tanks to have protections against spills, overfills, and tank corrosion by December 22, 1998. Tank owners have had ten years to do this. EPA has estimated that half the nation's 600,000 tanks and 52 percent of California's 61,000 complied by the December 22 deadline. Clearly, stopping these leaks is a big part of the solution of stopping the release of MTBE. Making threats to drinking water a top cleanup priority makes sense since clean drinking water is fundamental to human health. bill 3: motorcraft engines My third bill addresses a third source of MTBE into drinking water-- watercraft engines. The Association of California Water Agencies says that MTBE in surface water reservoirs comes largely from recreational watercraft. In October 1996, U.S. EPA published regulations, starting in model year 1998, requiring stricter emissions controls on personal watercraft engines to be fully implemented by 2006. On December 10, 1998, the California Air Resources Board adopted regulations very similar to EPA's in substance, but accelerating their effective date to 2001, five years earlier. In addition, California added two more ``tiers'' of emissions reductions that go beyond U.S. EPA's, reducing emissions by 20 percent more in 2004 and 65 percent more in 2008. Under the federal requirements, there would be a complete fleet turnover by 2050; in California, there would be a complete fleet turnover in 2024, 26 years earlier. The federal and the California rules apply to (1) spark-ignition outboard marine and (2) personal watercraft engines, such as motorboats, jet skis and wave runners, beginning in model year 2001. Outboard engines: In 1990, there were 373,200 gasoline-powered outboard engines in California. California sales of outboard engines represented ten percent of the U.S. market in 1997. Personal watercraft: California sales of these engines were 12 percent of the 176,000 sales in the U.S. in 1995, numbers which have no doubt grown significantly. Personal watercraft like jet skis have increased by 240 percent since 1990 and these numbers are expected to double by 2020. We need to curb emissions from these marine engines because (1) unlike automobiles which exhaust into the air, all marine engines exhaust directly into the water, and (2) 20 to 30 percent of the gas that goes in, comes out unburned. According to CARB, these engines ``discharge an unburned fuel/oil mixture at levels approaching 20 to 30 percent of the fuel/oil mixture consumed. This unregulated discharge of fuel and oil threatens degradation of high quality waters . . .'' CARB says that two hours of exhaust emissions from a jet ski is equivalent to the emission created by driving a 1998 automobile 130,000 miles. Some areas are considering banning jet skis and gas-powered boats. My bill does two things: (1) It would make the EPA's existing regulations effective in 2001, instead of 2006, consistent with California's regulations. (2) It would direct EPA to make one addition to their current regulation, an engine labeling requirement, consistent with California's labeling requirement, designed to inform consumers of the relative emissions level of new engines. Because these engines put MTBE and other constituents of gasoline into surface waters, I believe we need to accelerate the national rules to discourage people from ``engine shopping'' from state to state and bringing ``dirty'' engines into California. Because my state's relatively mild weather encourages boating, our air board concluded that we need more stringent standards than the national standards. Up to 30 percent of gasoline in these engines comes out unburned. In other words, of 10 gallons per hour used, about two and one half gallons of fuel goes into the water unburned in one hour. This has to stop. The November 1998 University of California study recognizes the emissions of MTBE into surface waters from watercraft and says that technologies are available that will ``significantly reduce MTBE loading,'' that the older carbureted two-stroke engines release much larger amounts of MTBE and other gasoline constituents than the fuel- injected engines or the four-stroke engines. Millions of Californians should not have to drink water contaminated with MTBE. I believe we must take strong steps to end this contamination.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Olympia Snowe and I are introducing a bill to guarantee that the decision of how long a patient receives care in the hospital is left to the attending physician. Our legislation would require health insurance plans to cover the length of hospital stay for any procedure or illness as determined by the attending physician, in consultation with the patient, to be medically appropriate. The bill is endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American College of Surgeons, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Neurology, and the American Psychological Association. Only a physician taking care of the patient, who understands the patient's history, medical condition and needs, should make the decision as to how much hospital care a person needs. Physicians are trained to evaluate all the unique needs and problems of each individual patient. Every patient's condition varies and the course of their illness also varies. Some patients are fragile or weak. Others do not respond well to general anesthesia. Complications arise. Each patient is a unique individual with varying degrees of health. The American Medical Association, concerned that pre-determined length of stay criteria are ``moving away from scientific, patient- focused principles of care,'' resulting in ``quicker and sicker'' discharges and poor patient outcomes, has developed patient-based discharge criteria. These criteria include considerations such as the patient's physiological, psychological, social and functional needs. The AMA criteria say: ``Patients should not be discharged from the hospital when their disease or symptoms cannot be adequately treated or monitored in the discharge setting.'' Lengths of stay should not be determined by insurance company clerks, actuaries or non-medical personnel. It is the attending physician, not a physician or other representative of an insurance company, that should decide when to admit and discharge someone. A number of physicians and other health care providers have expressed to me their great frustration with the current health care climate, in which they feel they spend too much of their time trying to justify their decisions on medical necessity to insurance companies. For example, Donna Damico, a nurse in a Maryland psychiatric unit of a hospital, told National Public Radio on October 1, 1997: ``I spend my days watching the care on my unit be directed by faceless people from insurance companies on the other end of the phone. My hospital employs a full-time nurse whose entire job is to talk to insurance reviewers * * * The reviewer's background can range anywhere from high school graduate to nurse, social worker or even actual physicians.'' In 1996, we addressed the problem of ``drive-through'' baby deliveries because insurance plans would only pay for one day of hospital car for childbirth. This was fraught with problems like jaundiced babies that had to be rehospitalized and mothers who developed problems which only worsened because they were sent home despite physicians' view that a mother's and baby's stability are not usually reached until the third post-partum day. We have also been told of so-called ``drive-through'' mastectomies. Some HMO's have made mastectomy an outpatient procedure. Women who have had a radical mastectomy at 7:30 a.m. have been out on the street at 4:30 that afternoon, dizzy and weak, unable to cope with drainage tubes and disfigurement. Senator Snowe and I are introducing a separate bill to address this. A California pediatrician told me of a child with very bad asthma. The insurance plan authorized 3 days in the hospital; the doctor wanted 4-5 days. He told us about a baby with infant botulism (poisoning), a baby with a toxin that had spread from the intestine to the nervous system so that the child could not breathe. The doctor thought a 10-14 day hospital stay was medically necessary for the baby; the insurance plan insisted on one week. A California neurologist told us about a seven-year-old girl with an ear infection who went to the doctor feverish. When her illness developed into pneumonia, she was admitted to the hospital. After two days she was sent home, but she then returned to the hospital three times because her insurance plan only covered a certain number of days. The third time she returned she had meningitis, which can be life threatening. The doctor said that if this girl had stayed in the hospital the first time for five to seven days, the antibiotics would have killed the infection, and the meningitis would never have developed. A 27-year-old man from central California had a heart transplant and was forced out of the hospital after 4 days because his HMO would not pay for more days. He died. Nurses in St. Luke's Hospital, San Francisco, say that women are being sent home after only two nights after a hysterectomy and two nights for a Caesarean section delivery, both of which are major abdominal surgeries, even though physicians think the women are not ready to go home. Lisa Breakey, a San Jose speech pathologist, came to my office and told us that she is providing home health for stroke patients she used to see in the hospital. She sees patients in their homes who have tubes in their stomach for feeding and tracheotomy tubes in their throats for breathing. These trach tubes have an inflated balloon or cuff which a family member must deflate and inflate by using a needle. Family members are supposed to suction the patient's mouth and throat before they deflate the cuff. Families, she stressed, are providing intensive care, for which they are unprepared and untrained. Bedrooms have become hospital rooms. Another California physician told us about a patient who needed total hip replacement because her hip had failed. The doctor believed a seven-day stay was warranted; the plan would only authorize five. Rep. Greg Ganske, a physician serving in the House, told the story of a six-year-old child who nearly drowned. The child was put on a ventilator and it appeared that he would not live. The hospital got a call from the insurance company, asking if the doctor had considered sending the boy home because home ventilation is cheaper. These cases can be summarized in the comments of a Chico, California, maternity ward nurse: ``People's treatment depends on the type of insurance they have rather than what's best for them.'' As I have mentioned, premature discharges can increase readmissions and medical complications. On March 23, 1998, American Medical News (according to Dr. David Phillips) reported that the ``shift toward outpatient treatment actually has come at quite a high price * * * an increased loss of lives.'' This University of California study found that medication errors are 3 times higher among outpatients than inpatients and medical personnel in outpatient care provide limited oversight of medications' side effects. Ms. Damico, the nurse interviewed on NPR, said, ``Patients return to us in acute states because their insurance will no longer pay the same amount for their outpatient treatment * * * [They] deteriorate to the point of suicidal thoughts or attempts and need to return to the hospital.'' She cited the example of a suicidal woman whose plan denied a hospital admission requested by her physician. After the doctor told her of the denial, she took twenty 50-milligram tabs of Benadryl, was then admitted, and the plan then had to pay for hospital care, an ambulance and emergency room fees. So not only do premature discharges compromise health, they also ultimately cost the insurer more. Physicians say they have to fight almost daily with insurance companies to give patients the hospital care they need and to justify their decisions about patient care. An American Medical Association review of a managed care contract (Aetna US Healthcare) found that the contract gives ``the company the unilateral authority to change material terms of the contract and to make determinations of medical necessity * * * without regard to physician determinations or scientific or clinical protocols. * * *,'' according to the January 19, 1998 American Medical News. A study by the American Academy of Neurology found that the guidelines (Milliman and Robertson) used by many insurance companies on length of stay are ``extraordinarily short in comparison to a large National Library of Medicine database * * * And that [the guidelines] do not relate to anything resembling the average hospital patient or attending physician * * *.'' The neurologists found that these guidelines were ``statistically developed,'' and not scientifically sound or clinically relevant. A study in the April 1997 Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons found that surgeons stated that the appropriate length of stay for an appendectomy is zero to five days, while insurance industry guidelines set a specific coverage limit of one day. The arbitrary limits set by HMO's and insurance plans are resulting in unintended consequences. Some 7 in 10 physicians said that in dealing with managed care plans, they have exaggerated the severity of a patient's condition to ``prevent him or her from being sent home from a hospital prematurely.'' Dr. David Schriger, at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, said that he routinely has patients such as a frail, elderly woman with the flu, who is not in imminent danger but could encounter serious problems if she is sent home during the night. He told the Washington Post, ``At this point I have to figure out a way to put her in the hospital. . . . And typically, I'll come up with a reason acceptable to the insurer,'' and orders a blood test and chest x-ray to justify admission. The Post article also cited Kaiser Permanente's Texas division, which ``warned doctors in urgent care centers not to tell patients they required hospitalization,'' as one Kaiser administrator recalled. ``We basically said [to] the UCC doctors, `If you value your job, you won't say anything about hospitalization. All you'll say is, I think you need further evaluation. . . .' '' Ms. Damico, the psychiatric nurse interviewed on NPR said, ``Our utilization review nurse gives all of us, including the doctors, good advice on how to chart so that our patients' care will be covered. . . . We all conspire quietly to make certain the charts look and sound bad enough.'' On August 2, 1998, calling it the ``brave new world of managed care,'' the San Jose Mercury News reported, ``to cut costs HMOs are shifting the burden of caring for the sick from their staff and provider networks to patients themselves and their often ill-prepared family members,'' by reducing hospital stays. ``Patients who used to be in the hospital for a week after a hip replacement now stay only three days; patients who had coronary artery bypass graft surgery are pushed out after four or five. Doctors are routinely performing operations in outpatient surgery centers, clinics or their offices, which were once done in the hospital.'' This article cited, as examples, mastectomies, knee surgery, parts of bone marrow transplants, and cancer chemotherapies. The American College of Surgeons said it all when this prestigious organization wrote: ``We believe very strongly that any health care system or plan that removes the surgeon and the patient from the medical decision-making process only undermines the quality of that patient's care and his or her health and well-being. . . . specific, single numbers [of days] cannot and should not be used to represent a length of stay for a given procedure.'' (April 24, 1997) ACS on March 5 wrote, ``We believe very strongly that any health care system or plan that removes the surgeon and the patient from the medical decision making process only undermines the quality of that patient's care and his or her health and well being.'' The American Medical Association wrote on May 20, 1998, ``We are gratified that this bill would promote the fundamental concept, which the AMA has always endorsed, that medical decisions should be made by patients and their physicians, rather than by insurers or legislators. . . . We appreciate your initiative and ongoing efforts to protect patients by ensuring that physicians may identify medically appropriate lengths of stay, unfettered by third party payers.'' The American Psychological Association, on March 4, 1998 wrote me, ``We are pleased to support this legislation, which will require all health plans to follow the best judgment of the patient and attending provider when determining length of stay for inpatient treatment.'' New treatments, particularly less invasive treatments, have shortened many hospital stays, but so also has pressure from insurers. Business and Health magazine reported in ``The State of Health Care in America 1998'' that ``HMOs and capitated point-of-service plans'' were associated with the lowest inpatient stays. Other studies reveal that in areas with high HMO competition, health care utilization is lower for the entire population.'' This study shows that for patients with traditional fee-for-service insurance, the average length of stay in 1995 was 4.9 days. For HMOs, it was 4.2 days. California Health Care Association data show that in my state, the average length of stay has declined from 5.70 days in 1986 to 4.45 in 1995. A study in the spring 1996 issue of Health Affairs concluded that the number of inpatient days per thousand residents is lower and has declined faster in California than the national average. The average length of stay in California in 1996 was 5.3 days, while nationally it was 6.4 days. For example, a woman getting a mastectomy in New York will stay in the hospital an average of 5.78 days, but a mastectomy patient in California is likely to stay 2.98 days. (Inquiry, winter 1997-1998). Americans are disenchanted with the health insurance system in this country, as HMO hassles mount and physicians get effectively overruled by insurance companies. Arbitrary insurance company rules cannot address the subtleties of medical care. Three out of every four Americans are worried about their health care coverage and half say they are worried that doctors are basing treatment decisions strictly on what insurance plans will pay for. This bill is one step toward returning medical decision-making to those medical professionals trained to make medical decisions. summary of the hospital length of stay act of 1998 Requires plans to cover hospital lengths of stay for all illnesses and conditions as determined by the physician, in consultation with the patient, to be medically appropriate. Prohibits plans from requiring providers (physicians) to obtain a plan's prior authorization for a hospital length of stay. Prohibits plans from denying eligibility or renewal for the purpose of avoiding these requirements. Prohibits plans from penalizing or otherwise reducing or limiting reimbursement of the attending physician because the physician provided care in accordance with the requirements of the bill. Prohibits plans from providing monetary or other incentives to induce a physician to provide care inconsistent with these requirements. Includes language clarifying that-- Nothing in the bill requires individuals to stay in the hospital for a fixed period of time for any procedure; Plans may require copayments but copayments for a hospital stay determined by the physician cannot exceed copayments for any preceding portion of the stay. Does not pre-empt state laws that provide greater protection. Applies to private insurance plans, Medicare, Medicaid, Medigap, federal employees' plans, Children's Health Insurance Plan, the Indian Health Service Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1999 with Senator Olympia Snowe. This bill has four provisions: For breast cancer-- 1. It requires insurance plans to cover hospital stays as determined by the attending physician, in consultation with the patient, to be medically appropriate. Our bill does not prescribe a fixed number of days or set a minimum. It leaves the length of hospital stay up to the treating physician. 2. It requires insurance plans to provide notice to plan subscribers of these requirements. For all cancers-- 3. It prohibits insurance plans from linking financial or other incentives to a physician's provisions of care. 4. It requires plans to cover second opinions by specialists to confirm or refute a diagnosis. If the attending physician certifies that there is no appropriate specialist practicing under the insurance plan, the plan must ensure that coverage is provided outside the plan for a second opinion by a qualified specialist selected by the attending physician at no additional cost to the patient beyond that which the patient would have paid if the specialist were participating in the plan. Need for Legislation The movement from inpatient to outpatient mastectomies and reduced hospital stays for mastectomies in recent years has been documented. A June 3, 1998 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that from 1986 to 1995 ``the proportion of mastectomies performed on an outpatient basis increased from virtually 0% to 10.8%,'' said these researchers. This report also says that the data ``clearly suggested a shorter average length of stay and a higher likelihood of a short stay for women covered by HMOs'' and that ``while short stays appear to be more prevalent among HMO enrollees, they are not limited exclusively to women with HMO coverage.'' Another study, by the medical research firm HCIA of Baltimore, Maryland, found that in 1995, 7.6 percent of the 110,000 breast removals in the country were done on an outpatient basis, up from 1.6 percent in 1991. Another study found that the average length of stay for women who have had a mastectomy is 4.34 days nationally, but in California, it is 2.98 days, the shortest in the country. (New York has the longest mastectomy length of stay at 5.78 days.) This study, published in the winter 1997-1998 issue of Inquiry, says: California had the highest proportion of mastectomy patients discharged after only one day or within two days . . . Nearly 12% of mastectomy patients in California were discharged with a length of stay equal to one day; the next highest proportion was 4.8% in Massachusetts; the percentages in the other three states ranged from 1.1% to 2.2%. A July 7, 1997 study by the Connecticut Office of Health Care Access found the average hospital length of stay for breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomies decreased from three days in 1991 and 1993 to two days in 1994 and 1995. This study said, ``The percentage of mastectomy patients discharged after one-day stays grew about 700 percent from 1991 to 1996.'' The Wall Street Journal on November 6, 1996, reported that ``some health maintenance organizations are creating an uproar by ordering that mastectomies be performed on an outpatient basis. At a growing number of HMOs, surgeons must document `medical necessity' to justify even a one-night hospital admission.'' And so the studies confirm that (1) hospital lengths of stay for mastectomies are decreasing and (2) more mastectomies are being done on an outpatient basis. Incidence of Breast Cancer In 1998, over 180,000 people (one in every 8 American women) were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 44,000 women died from breast cancer. Only lung cancer causes more cancer deaths in American women. There are 2.6 million American women living with breast cancer today. In my state, in 1998, approximately 17,600 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 4,300 died, according to the American Cancer Society. Officials at the Northern California Cancer Center say that breast cancer incidence rates in Los Angeles and San Francisco are significantly higher than national rates. the stress of mastectomy; the need for care After a mastectomy, patients must cope with pain from the surgery, with drainage tubes and with psychological loss--the trauma of an amputation. These patients need medical care from trained professionals, medical care that they cannot provide themselves at home. A woman fighting for her life and her dignity should not also be saddled with a battle with her health insurance plan. Dr. Christine Miaskowski at the University of California, San Francisco, estimates that about 20 percent of women who have breast cancer surgery have chronic pain of long duration. A University of California, San Diego, study suggests that the rate may be double that, reports the May 20, 1998 Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Patients who have mastectomies in outpatient settings have higher rates of rehospitalization than women with a one-day hospital stay, according to the study reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. As the National Breast Cancer Coalition wrote me on March 12, 1998: ``The NBCC applauds this effort and believes this compromise will put an end to the dangerous health insurance practices that allow cost and not medical evidence to determine when a woman leaves a hospital after cancer surgery.'' some accomplishments last year In the last Congress, Senators D'Amato, Snowe and I introduced a similar bill, S. 249, which also included a requirement that plans cover breast reconstruction following a mastectomy. Fortunately, Congress passed and the President signed that part of our bill, into law, the omnibus appropriations bill for FY 1999, now P.L. 105-277. The mastectomy hospital length-of-stay and the other provisions did not become law, despite many efforts: At our request, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on S. 249 on November 5, 1997. We attempted to get this considered by the Senate, three times in 1998: On March 16, we filed it as an amendment to H.R. 2646, the Parent and Student Savings Account PLUS Act. On May 6, we filed it as an amendment to H.R. 2676, the IRS restructuring bill. On May 12, we tried to bring the bill to a vote in the Senate, but were blocked. In addition, Senator D'Amato offered it as an amendment in the Finance Committee twice. two california cases Two California women have shared their real-life experiences with me: Nancy Couchot, age 60, of Newark, California, wrote me that she had a modified radical mastectomy on November 4, 1996, at 11:30 a.m. and was released by 4:30 p.m. She could not walk and the hospital staff did not help her ``even walk to the bathroom.'' She says, ``Any woman, under these circumstances, should be able to opt for an overnight stay to receive professional help and strong pain relief.'' Victoria Berck, of Los Angeles, wrote that she had a mastectomy and lymph node removal at 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1996, and was released from the hospital 7 hours later, at 2:30 p.m. Ms. Berck was given instructions on how to empty two drains attached to her body and sent home. She concludes, ``No civilized country in the world has mastectomy as an outpatient procedure.'' These are but two examples of what I believe is happening around the county--insurance plans interfering with professional medical judgment and arbitrarily reducing care without a medical basis. Premature discharges for mastectomy, with insurance plans strong- arming physicians to send women home, are one glaring example of the rising tide abuses faced by patients and physicians who have to ``battle'' with their HMOs to get coverage of the care that physicians believe is medically necessary. No Financial Incentives For all cancers, our bill also prohibits insurance plans from including financial or other incentives to influence the care a doctor's provides, similar to a law passed by the California legislature last year. Many physicians have complained that insurance plans include financial bonuses or other incentives for cutting patient visits or for not referring patients to specialists. Our bill bans financial incentives linked to how a doctor provides care. Our intent is to restore medical decision-making to health care. For example, a California physician wrote me, ``Financial incentives under managed care plans often remove access to pediatric specialty care.'' A June 1995 report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute cited the suit filed by the husband of a 34-year old California woman who died from colon cancer, claiming that HMO incentives encouraged her physicians not to order additional tests that could have saved her life. Second Opinions Finally, our bill requires plans to cover second opinions by specialists for all cancers when a patient requests them. And if the attending physician certifies that there is no appropriate specialist practicing under the plan, the plan must cover a second opinion outside the plan by a qualified specialist selected by the attending physician, at no additional cost to the patient beyond that which the patient would have paid if the specialists were participating in the plan. The alarm of learning one has cancer is profound. It affects the individual and the whole family deeply. People need the best medical judgment they can get, to make some of the most important decisions of their lives. I believe plans should cover a second opinion, so that patients can get the best care possible and can try to find some peace of mind that they are getting competent, complete medical advice. Conclusion This bill would restore professional medical decision making to medical doctors, those whom we trust to take care of us. It should not take an act of Congress to guarantee good health care, but unfortunately that is where we are today. As the National Breast Cancer Coalition wrote, ``. . . until guaranteed access to quality health care coverage and service is available for all women and their families, there are some very serious patient concerns that must be met. Without meaningful health care reform, market forces propel the changes in the health care system and women are at risk of being forced to pay the price by having inappropriate limits placed on their access to quality health care.'' This is an important protection for millions of Americans who face the fear, the reality and the costs of cancer every day. Seven states have a law allowing a physician to determine the length of stay following a mastectomy. Seven states have a required 48-hour minimum stay requirement. It is long past time for this Congress to send a strong message to insurance companies. Medical decisions must be made by medical professionals, not anonymous insurance clerks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Kyl, to once again introduce a constitutional amendment to provide rights for victims of violent crime. We have achieved significant progress in our effort to pass the amendment. After working extensively--indeed, exhaustively--with prosecutors, law professors, the Justice Department, the White House Counsel's Office, and leaders of victims groups from around the country to carefully craft and hone the amendment's language, we succeeded in bringing the amendment to markup in the Judiciary Committee. After numerous committee business meetings, and one of the most high- minded debates in which I have been privileged to participate, the Judiciary Committee passed the amendment by a strong, bipartisan vote. Unfortunately, with the press of final business at the end of the Congress, there was not sufficient time to consider the amendment on the Senate floor and work it through the House. So here we are now, carrying the fight forward into this new, 106th Congress. We are fighting to ensure that the 8.6 million victims of violent crime in the country receive the fair treatment by the judicial system which they deserve. Too often in America victims of violent crime are victimized a second time, by the government. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. What really focused my attention on the need for greater protection of victims' rights was a particularly horrifying case in 1974, in San Francisco, when a man named Angelo Pavageau broke into the house of the Carlson family in Portero Hill. Pavageau tied Mr. Carlson to a chair, bludgeoning him to death with a hammer, a chopping block, and a ceramic vase. He then repeatedly raped Carlson's 24-year-old wife, breaking several of her bones. He slit her wrist, tried to strangle her with a telephone cord, and then, before fleeing, set the Carlson's home on fire--cowardly reteating into the night, leaving this family to burn up in flames. But Mrs. Carlson survived the fire. She courageously lived to testify against her attacker. But she has been forced to change her name and continues to live in fear that her attacker may, one day, be released. When I was Mayor of San Francisco, she called me several times to notify me that Pavageau was up for parole. Amazingly, it was up to Mrs. Carlson to find out when his parole hearings were. Mr. President, I believe this case represents a travesty of justice-- It just shouldn't have to be that way. I believe it should be the responsibility of the state to send a letter through the mail or make a phone call to let the victim know that her attacker is up for parole, and she should have the opportunity to testify at this hearing. But today, in many states in this great nation, victims still are not made aware of the accused's trial, many times are not allowed in the courtroom during the trial, and are not notified when a convicted offender is released from prison. I have vowed to do everything in my power to add a bit of balance to our nation's justice system. This is why Senator Kyl and I have crafted the Crime Victim's Rights Amendment before us today. The people of California were the first in the nation to pass a crime victims' amendment to the state constitution in 1982--the imitative Proposition 8--and I supported its passage. This measure gave victims the right to restitution, the right to testify at sentencing, probation and parole hearings, established a right to safe and secure public school campuses, and made various changes in criminal law. California's Proposition 8 represented a good start to ensure victims' rights. Since the passage of Proposition Eight, 31 more states have passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of crime victims. Just this past November, Mississippi, Montana and Tennessee added victims' rights amendments to their state constitutions. These amendments were overwhelmingly supported by the voters, winning with 93%, 71% and 89% of the vote, respectively. But citizens in other states lack these basic rights. The 32 different state constitutional amendments differ from each other, representing a patchwork quilt of rights that vary from state to state. And even in those states which have state amendments, criminals can assert rights grounded in the federal constitution to try to trump those rights. The United States Constitution guarantees numerous rights to the accused in our society, all of which were established by amendment to the Constitution. I steadfastly believe that this nation must attempt to guarantee, at the very least, some basic rights to the millions victimized by crime each year. For those accused of crimes in this country, the Constitution specifically protects: The right to a grand jury indictment for capital or infamous crimes; The prohibition against double jeopardy; The right to due process; The right to a speedy trial and the right to an impartial jury of one's peers; The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the criminal accusation; The right to confront witnesses; The right to counsel; The right to subpoena witnesses--and so on. However, nowhere in the text of the U.S. Constitution does there appear any guarantee of rights for crime victims. To rectify this disparity, Senator Kyl and I are putting forth this Crime Victims' Rights Amendment. This provides for certain rights for victims of crime: The right to be notified of public proceedings in their case; The right not be excluded from these proceedings; The right to be heard at proceedings to determine a release from custody, sentencing, or acceptance of a negotiated plea; The right to notice of the offender's release or escape; The right to consideration for the interest of the victim in a trial free from unreasonable delay; The right to an order of restitution from the convicted offender; The right to consideration for the safety of the victim in determining any release from custody; and The right to notice of your rights as a victim. Conditions in our nation today are significantly different from those in 1789, when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution without providing explicitly for the rights of crime victims. In 1789, there weren't 9 million victims of violent crime every year. In fact, there are more victims of violent crime each year in this country now than there were people in the country when the Constitution was written. Moreover, there is good reason why defendants' rights were embedded in the Constitution in 1789 and victims' rights were not--the way the criminal justice system worked then, victims did not need any guarantee of these rights. In America in the late 18th century and well into the 19th century, public prosecutors did not exist. Victims could, and did, commence criminal cases themselves, by hiring a sheriff to arrest the defendant, and initiating a private prosecution. The core rights in our amendment--to notice, to attend, and to be heard--were inherently made available to the victim. As Juan Cardenas, writing in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, observed, ``At trial, generally, there were no lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense. Victims of crime simply acted as their own counsel, although wealthier crime victims often hired a prosecutor.'' Gradually, public prosecution replaced the system of private prosecution. With the explosive growth of crime in this country in recent years (the rate of violent crime has more than quadrupled over the last 35 years), it became easier and easier for the victim to be left aside in the process. As other scholars have noted: With the establishment of the prosecutor the conditions for the general alienation of the victim from the legal process further increase. The victim is deprived of his ability to determine the course of a case and is deprived of the ability to gain restitution from the proceedings. Under such conditions the incentives to report crime and to cooperate with the prosecution diminish. As the importance of the prosecution increases, the role of the victim is transformed from principal actor to a resource that may be used at the prosecutor's discretion. Thus, we see why the Constitution must be amended to guarantee these rights: There was no need to guarantee these rights in the Constitution in 1789; The criminal justice system has changed dramatically since then; and The prevalence of crime in America has changed dramatically creating the need and circumstances to respond to these developments and restore balance in the criminal justice system by guaranteeing the rights of violent crime victims in the Constitution. Among the amendment's supporters are Professor Laurence Tribe of the Harvard Law School. Let me just briefly quote portions of his testimony from the House hearing on the amendment last Congress: The rights in question--rights of crime victims not to be victimized yet again through the process by which government bodies and officials prosecute, punish, and release the accused or convicted offender--are indisputably basic human rights against government, rights that any civilized system of justice would aspire to protect and strive never to violate. [O]ur Constitution's central concerns involve protecting the rights of individuals to participate in all those government processes that directly and immediately involve those individuals and affect their lives in some focused and particular way . . . The parallel rights of victims to participate in these proceedings are no less basic, even though they find no parallel recognition in the explicit text of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that the States and Congress, within their respective jurisdictions, already have ample affirmative authority to enact rules protecting these rights is . . . not a reason for opposing an amendment altogether . . . The problem, rather, is that such rules are likely, as experience to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional indifference, sheer inertia, or any mention of an accused's rights regardless of whether those rights are genuinely threatened. Some people argue that state victims' rights amendments are sufficient. However, crime victims throughout the country, including those in the other 18 states, deserve to have rights, just as we applied civil rights to people throughout our great nation 30 years ago. Moreover, state amendments lack the force that a federal constitutional amendment would have, and too often are given short shrift: Maryland has a state amendment. But when Cheryl Rae Enochs Resch was beaten to death with a ceramic beer mug by her husband, her mother was not notified of this killer's early release only two and a half years into his ten year sentence, and was not given the opportunity to be heard about this release, in violation of the state amendment. Arizona has a state amendment. But an independent audit of victim- witness programs in four Arizona counties, including Maricopa County where Phoenix is located, found that: Victims were not consistently notified of hearing during which conditions of a defendant's release were discussed . . . Victims were not consistently . . . conferred with by prosecutors regarding plea bargains . . .; and Victims were not consistently . . . provided with an opportunity to request post-conviction notification. Ohio has a state amendment. But when the murderer of Maxine Johnson's husband change his plea, Maxine was not notified of the public hearing, and then was not given the opportunity to testify at his sentencing, as provided for in Ohio law. A Justice Department-supported study of the implementation of state victims' rights amendments, released last year, made similar findings: Even in states with strong legal protections for victims' rights, the Victims' Rights study revealed that many victims are denied their rights. Statutes themselves appear to be insufficient to guarantee the provision of victims' rights. Nearly two-thirds of crime victims, even in states with strong victims' rights protection, were not notified that the accused offender was out on bond. Nearly half of all victims, even in the strong protection states, did not receive notice of the sentencing hearing-- notice that is essential if they are to exercise their right to make a statement at sentencing. A substantial number of victims reported that they were not given an opportunity to make a victim impact statement at sentencing or parole. State amendments simply are not enough--they provide different rights in different states, they do not exist at all in others, and they are too often ignored when they do exist. We implore members of this body to examine this amendment, and to help to secure passage of this monumental piece of legislation. The text of the amendment which we are introducing today is the very same text which the Judiciary Committee passed on a strong bipartisan basis last summer. Sen Kyl and I urge the leaders of the Senate and of the committee to move this amendment expeditiously, so that the clock does not run out on us yet again. This amendment has been the subject of three Senate hearings, two hearings in the House, and an extensive examination and debate in the Judiciary Committee. We urge Senators Hatch, the distinguished Chairman of the committee, to schedule a hearing on the amendment in January or February, with a markup to follow shortly thereafter. It is our hope that the committee can complete its action with all deliberate speed, and we call upon our distinguished Leaders, Senators Lott and Daschle, to commit to a floor vote on the amendment during National Victims' Rights Week in late April. After two hundred years, doesn't this Nation owe something to the millions of victims of violent crime? I believe that is our obligation and should be our biggest priority--not only for the crime victims, but, for all Americans--to ensure passage of a Crime Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment. I want to personally thank Senator Kyl for his tireless efforts to accomplish this amendment, and to say that I look forward to continuing to work with him in the months to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Quincy Library Group bill has been included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. This legislation embodies the consensus proposal of the Quincy Library Group, a coalition of environmentalists, timber industry representatives, and local elected officials in Northern California, who came together to resolve their long-standing conflicts over timber management on the national forest lands in their area. The Quincy Library Group legislation is a real victory for local consensus decision making. It proves that even some of the most intractable environmental issues can be resolved if people work together toward a common goal. I first met the Quincy Library Group back in 1992 when I was running for the Senate, and was then very impressed with what they were trying to do. The members of the Quincy Library Group had seen first hand the conflict between timber harvesting and jobs, environmental laws and protection of their communities and forests, and the devastation of massive forest fires. Their overriding concern was that a catastrophic fire could destroy both the natural environment and the potential for jobs and economic stability in their community. They were also concerned the ongoing stalemate over forest management was ultimately harming both the environment and their local economy. The group got together and talked things out. They decided to meet in a quiet, non-confrontational environment--the main room of the Quincy Public Library. They began their dialogue in the recognition that they shared the common goal of fostering forest health, keeping ecological integrity, assuring an adequate timber supply for area mills, and providing economic stability for their community. One of the best articles I have read about the Quincy Library Group process recently appeared in the Washington Post. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered. (See Exhibit 1.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, after dozens of meetings and a year and a half of negotiation, the Quincy Library Group developed an alternative management plan for the Lassen National Forest, Plumas National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. In the last five years, the group has tried to persuade the U.S. Forest Service to administratively implement the plan they developed. While the Forest Service was interested in the plan developed, they were unwilling to fully implement it. Negotiations and discussions began in Congress. This legislation is the result. The Quincy Library Group Legislation Specifically, the legislation directs the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Quincy Library Group's forest management proposal on designated lands in the Plumas, Lassen and Tahoe National Forests for five years as a demonstration of community-based consensus forest management. I would like to thank Senators Murkowski, Bumpers, and Craig, Representatives Herger and Miller, as well as the Clinton Administration, for the thoughts they contributed to the development of the final bill. The legislation establishes significant new environmental protections in the Quincy Library Group project area. It protects hundreds of thousands of acres of environmentally sensitive lands, including all California spotted owl habitat, as well as roadless areas. Placing these areas off limits to logging and road construction protects many areas that currently are not protected, including areas identified as old-growth and sensitive watersheds in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report. However, in the event that any sensitive old growth is not already included in the legislation's off base areas, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee provided report language when the legislation was reported last year, as I requested, directing the Forest Service to avoid conducting timber harvest activities or road construction in these late successional old-growth areas. The legislation also requires a program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and streamside restoration projects. The Quincy Library Group legislation directs the Forest Service to amend the land and resource management plans for the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests to consider adoption of the Quincy Library Group plan in the forest management plans. The legislation does not require the Forest Service to continue implementing the Quincy Library Group pilot project once the forest plans are revised. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee adopted an amendment, which I supported, to ensure that there is no conflict between the pilot project and the most current and best science reflected in any new forest plans. Misinformation About The Legislation There have been a number of inaccurate statements made the Quincy Library Group legislation. I want to clear up three important points: First, every single environmental law, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act, will be followed as this proposal is implemented. The legislation explicitly states, ``Nothing in this section exempts the pilot project from any Federal environmental law.'' The legislation requires an environmental impact statement to be completed before any resource management activities occur. It also provides for full public participation and input throughout the pilot project's implementation. Second, the Quincy Library Group legislation does not double the volume of logging on the affected national forests. The intent of this proposal has always been to replace, not supplement, current logging activity, and the legislation will provide for timber harvests similar to current levels. In a letter to me dated October 22, 1997, Ronald Stewart, Deputy Chief of Programs and Legislation for the Forest Service, states, ``based on the agency's current estimates, the potential timber outputs that would be generated by this bill, if fully funded with additional appropriations, would not double but would remain consistent with the outputs provided from these forests over the last five years.'' Third, the legislation explicitly prohibits the funding of Quincy Library Group projects through reallocation of funds from other national forests. The legislation explicitly states, ``The Secretary may not conduct the pilot project using funds appropriated for any other unit of the National Forest System.'' The bottom line is that the Quincy Library Group legislation will provide strong protections for the environment while preserving the job base in the Northern Sierra--not just in one single company, but across 35 area businesses, many of them small and family-owned. This Quincy Library Group legislation is strongly supported by local environmentalists, labor unions, elected officials, the timber industry, and 27 California counties. The House approved the Quincy Library Group legislation by a vote of 429 to one last year. The Senate Energy Committee reported the legislation last October. The legislation has been the subject of Congressional hearings and the focus of nationwide public discussion. I thank my colleagues for ensuring that this worthy pilot project has a chance. Exhibit No. 1 [From the Washington Post, Oct. 11, 1998] Grass-Roots Seeds of Compromise (By Charles C. Mann and Mark L. Plummer) Every month since 1993, about 30 environmentalists, loggers, biologists, union representatives and local government officials have met at the library of Quincy--a timber town in northern California that has been the site of a nasty 15-year battle over logging. Out of these monthly meetings has emerged a plan to manage 2.4 million acres of the surrounding national forests. Instead of leaving the forests' ecological fate solely to Washington-based agencies and national interest groups, the once-bitter adversaries have tried to forge a compromise solution on the ground--a green version of Jeffersonian democracy. When the House of Representatives, notorious for its discord on environmental legislation, approved the plan 429-1 in July 1997, the Quincy Library Group became the symbol for a promising new means of resolving America's intractable environmental disputes. The Quincy Library Group is one of scores of citizens' associations that in the past decade have brought together people who previously met only in court. Sometimes called ``community-based conservation'' groups, they include the Friends of the Cheat River, a West Virginia coalition working to restore a waterway damaged by mining runoff; the Applegate Partnership, which hopes to restore a watershed in southwestern Oregon while keeping timber jobs alive, and Envision Utah, which tries to foster consensus about how to manage growth in and around Salt Lake City. Like many similar organizations, the Quincy Library Group was born of frustration. In the 1980s, Quincy-based environmental advocates, led by local attorney Michael B. Jackson, attempted with varying success to block more than a dozen U.S. Forest Service timber sales in the surrounding Plumas, Lassen and Tahoe national forests. The constant battles tied the federal agency in knots and almost shut down Sierra Pacific Industries, the biggest timber company there, imperiling many jobs. The atmosphere was ``openly hostile, with agitators on both sides,'' says Linda Blum, a local activist who joined forces with Jackson in 1990 and aroused so much opprobrium that Quincy radio hosts denounced her on the air for taking food from the mouths of the town's children. Worn down and dismayed by the hostility in his community, Jackson was ready to try something different. He got a chance to do so late in 1992, when Bill Coates, a Plumas County supervisor, invited the factions to talk to each other, face to face. Coates suggested that the group work from forest- management plans proposed by several local environmental organizations in the mid-1980s. By early 1993, they were meeting at the library and soon put together a new proposal. (The Forest Service eventually had to drop out because the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which places cumbersome requirements on groups who meet with federal agencies.) Under this proposal, timber companies could continue thinning and selectively logging in up to 70,000 acres per year, about the same area being logged in 1993 but drastically lower than the 1990 level. Riverbanks and roadless areas, almost half the area covered by the plan, would be off-limits. The Quincy group asked the Forest Service to incorporate its proposal into the official plans for the three national forests, but never got a definite answer. Convinced that the agency was too dysfunctional to respond, in 1996 the group took its plan to their congressman, Wally Herger, a conservative Republican. Herger introduced the Quincy proposal in the House, hoping to instruct the agency to heed the wishes of local communities. It passed overwhelmingly-- perhaps the only time that Reps. Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho), a vehement property-rights advocate, and George Miller (D- Calif.) one of the greenest legislators on Capitol Hill, have agreed on an environmental law. Then the bill went to the Senate--and slammed into resistance from big environmental lobbies. From the start, the Quincy group had kept in touch with the Wilderness Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club. The three organizations offered comments, and the Quincy group incorporated some. Still, the national groups continued to balk, instead submitting detailed criteria necessary to ``merit'' their support. When the Quincy plan became proposed legislation, the national groups stepped up their attacks. The Quincy approach, said Sierra Club legal director Debbie Sease, had a ``basic underlying flaw'' using a cooperative, local decision-making process to manage national assets. Jay Watson, regional director of the Wilderness Society, said: ``Just because a group of local people can come to agreement doesn't mean that it is good public policy.'' And because such parochial efforts are inevitably ill-informed and always risk domination by rich, sophisticated industry representatives, the Audubon Society warned, they are ``not necessarily equipped to view the bigger picture.'' Considering this bigger picture, it continued, ``is the job of Congress, and of watchdog groups like the National Audubon Society.'' Many local groups regard national organizations as more interested in protecting their turf than in achieving solutions that advance conservation. ``It's interesting to me that it has to be top-down,'' said Jack Shipley, a member of the Applegate Partnership. ``It's a power issue, a control issue.'' The big groups' insistence on veto power over local decision-making ``sounds like the old rhetoric--either their way or no way,'' Shipley says. ``No way'' may be the fate of the Quincy bill. Pressured by environmental lobbies, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) placed a hold on it in the Senate. Despite the group's setback, community-based conservation efforts like Quincy provide a glimpse of the future. Under the traditional approach to environmental management, decisions have been delegated to impartial bureaucracies--the Forest Service, for example, for national forests. Based on the scientific evaluations of ecologists and economists, the agencies then formulate the ``right'' policies, preventing what James Madison called ``the mischief of faction.'' But today, according to Mark Sagoff of the University of Maryland Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, it is the bureaucrats who are beset by factions; big business and environmental lobbies. For these special-interest groups, he argues, ``deliberating with others to resolve problems undermines the group's mission, which is to press its purpose or concern as far as it can in a zero-sum game with its political adversaries.'' The system ``benefits the lawyers, lobbyists and expert witnesses who serve in various causes as mercenaries,'' he says, ``but it produces no policy worth a damn.'' In contrast, community-based conservation depends on all sides acknowledging the legitimacy of each other's values. Participants are not guaranteed to get exactly what they want; no one has the power to stand by and judge the ``merit'' of the results. Although ecology and economics play central roles, ecologists and economists have no special place. Like everyone else, they must sit at the table as citizens, striving to make their community and its environment a better place to live. In short, Quincy's efforts and those like it represent a new type of environmentalism: republican environmentalism, with a small ``r.'' This new approach cannot address global problems like climate change. Nor should it be routinely accepted if a local group decides on irrevocable changes in areas of paramount national interest--filling in the Grand Canyon, say. But even if some small town would be foolish enough to decide to do something destructive, there's a whole framework of national environment laws that would prevent it from happening. And, despite the resistance of the national organizations, the environmental movement should not reject this new approach out of hand. Efforts to protect the environment over the past 25 years have produced substantial gains, but have lately degenerated into a morass of litigation and lobbying. Community-based conservation has the potential to change things on the ground, where it matters most.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The only location where these guidelines would apply to grazing is where cattle are actually in the work area and at the same time a QLG activity is taking place. The QLG resource management activities include building defensible profile zones, single or group tree selection thinning, and riparian management projects.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Under the terms of this bill the SAT guidelines affecting grazing will apply only to the specific work area location and only at the specific time that projects are conducted within the pilot project area. The applicability of these guidelines outside of the pilot project area is not addressed by this legislation. Children's Online Privacy

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No, neither the authors of the bill, nor the Quincy Library Group ever intended to negatively impact grazing generally.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, after dozens of meetings and a year and a half of negotiation, the Quincy Library Group developed an alternative management plan for the Lassen National Forest, Plumas National Forest, and the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. In the last 5 years, the group has tried to persuade the U.S. Forest Service to administratively implement the plan they developed. While the Forest Service was interested in the plan developed, they were unwilling to fully implement it. Negotiations and discussions began in Congress. This legislation is the result. the quincy library group legislation Specifically, the legislation directs the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Quincy Library Group's forest management proposal on designated lands in the Plumas, Lassen and Tahoe National Forests for five years as a demonstration of community-based consensus forest management. I would like to thank Senators Murkowski, Bumpers, and Craig, Representatives Herger and Miller, as well as the Clinton Administration, for the thoughts they contributed to the development of the final bill. The legislation establishes significant new environmental protections in the Quincy Library Group project area. It protects hundreds of thousands of acres of environmentally sensitive lands, including all California spotted owl habitat, as well as roadless areas. Placing these areas off limits to logging and road construction protects many areas that currently are not protected, including areas identified as old-growth and sensitive watersheds in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report. However, in the event that any sensitive old growth is not already included in the legislation's off base areas, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee provided report language when the legislation was reported last year, as I requested, directing the Forest Service to avoid conducting timber harvest activities or road construction in these late successful old-growth areas. The legislation also requires a program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and streamside restoration projects. The bottom line is that the Quincy Library Group legislation will provide strong protections for the environment while preserving the job base in the Northern Sierra--not just in one single company, but across 35 area businesses, many of them small and family-owned. The Quincy Library Group legislation is strongly supported by local environmentalists, labor unions, elected officials, the timber industry, and 27 California counties. The House approved the Quincy Library Group legislation by a vote of 429 to one last year. The Senate Energy Committee reported the legislation last October. The legislation has been the subject of Congressional hearings and the focus of nationwide public discussion. I thank my colleagues for ensuring that this worthy pilot project has a chance. Exhibit No. 1 [From the Washington Post, Oct. 11, 1998] Grass-Roots Seeds of Compromise (By Charles C. Mann and Mark L. Plummer) Every month since 1993, about 30 environmentalists, loggers, biologists, union representatives and local government officials have met the library of Quincy--a timber town in northern California that has been the site of a nasty 15-year battle over logging. Out of these monthly meetings has emerged a plan to manage 2.4 million acres of the surrounding national forests. Instead of leaving the forests' ecological fate solely to Washington-based agencies and national interest groups, the once-bitter adversaries have tried to forge a compromise solution on the ground--a green version of Jeffersonian democracy. When the House of Representatives, notorious for its discord on environmental legislation, approved the plan 429-1 in July 1997, the Quincy Library Group became the symbol for a promising new means of resolving America's intractable environmental disputes. The Quincy Library Group is one of scores of citizens' associations that in the past decade have brought together people who previously met only in court. Sometimes called ``community-based conservation'' groups, they include the Friends of the Cheat River, a West Virginia coalition working to restore a waterway damaged by mining runoff; the Applegate Partnership, which hopes to restore a watershed in southwestern Oregon while keeping timber jobs alive, and Envision Utah, which tries to foster consensus about how to manage growth in and around Salt Lake City. Like many similar organizations, the Quincy Library Group was born of frustration. In the 1980s, Quincy-based environmental advocates, led by local attorney Michael B. Jackson, attempted with varying success to block more than a dozen U.S. Forest Service timber sales in the surrounding Plumas, Lassen and Tahoe national forests. The constant battles tied the federal agency in knots and almost shut down Sierra Pacific Industries, the biggest timber company there, imperiling many jobs. The atmosphere was ``openly hostile, with agitators on both sides,'' says Linda Blum, a local activist who joined forces with Jackson in 1990 and aroused so much opprobrium that Quincy radio hosts denounced her on the air for taking food from the mouths of the town's children. Worn down and dismayed by the hostility in his community, Jackson was ready to try something different. He got a chance to do so late in 1992, when Bill Coates, a Plumas County supervisor, invited the factions to talk to each other, face to face. Coates suggested that the group work from forest- management plans proposed by several local environmental organizations in the mid-1980s. By early 1993, they were meeting at the library and soon put together a new proposal. (The Forest Service eventually had to drop out because the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which places cumbersome requirements on groups who meet with federal agencies.) Under this proposal, timber companies could continue thinning and selectively logging in up to 70,000 acres per year, about the same area being logged in 1993 but drastically lower than the 1990 level. Riverbanks and roadless areas, almost half the area covered by the plan, would be off-limits. The Quincy group asked the Forest Service to incorporate its proposal into the official plans for the three national forests, but never got a definite answer. Convinced that the agency was too dysfunctional to respond, in 1996 the group took its plan to their congressman, Wally Herger, a conservative Republican. Herger introduced the Quincy proposal in the House, hoping to instruct the agency to heed the wishes of local communities. It passed overwhelmingly-- perhaps the only time that Reps. Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho), a vehement property-rights advocate, and George Miller (D- Calif.) one of the greenest legislators on Capitol Hill, have agreed on an environmental law. Then the bill went to the Senate--and slammed into resistance from big environmental lobbies. From the start, the Quincy group had kept in touch with the Wilderness Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club. The three organizations offered comments, and the Quincy group incorporated some. Still, the national groups continued to balk, instead submitting detailed criteria necessary to ``merit'' their support. When the Quincy plan became proposed legislation, the national groups stepped up their attacks. The Quincy approach, said Sierra Club legal director Debbie Sease, had a ``basic underlying flaw'' using a cooperative, local decision-making process to manage national assets. Jay Watson, regional director of the Wilderness Society, said: ``Just because a group of local people can come to agreement doesn't mean that it is good public policy.'' And because such parochial efforts are inevitably ill-informed and always risk domination by rich, sophisticated industry representatives, the Audubon Society warned, they are ``not necessarily equipped to view the bigger picture.'' Considering this bigger picture, it continued, ``is the job of Congress, and of watchdog groups like the National Audubon Society.'' Many local groups regard national organizations as more interested in protecting their turf than in achieving solutions that advance conservation. ``It's interesting to me that it has to be top-down,'' said Jack Shipley, a member of the Applegate Partnership. ``It's a power issue, a control issue.'' The big groups' insistence on veto power over local decision-making ``sounds like the old rhetoric--either their way or no way,'' Shipley says. ``No way'' may be the fate of the Quincy bill. Pressured by environmental lobbies, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) placed a hold on it in the Senate. Despite the group's setback, community-based conservation efforts like Quincy provide a glimpse of the future. Under the traditional approach to environmental management, decisions have been delegated to impartial bureaucracies--the Forest Service, for example, for national forests. Based on the scientific evaluations of ecologists and economists, the agencies then formulate the ``right'' policies, preventing what James Madison called ``the mischief of faction.'' But today, according to Mark Sagoff of the University of Maryland Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, it is the bureaucrats who are beset by factions; big business and environmental lobbies. For these special-interest groups, he argues, ``deliberating with others to resolve problems undermines the group's mission, which is to press its purpose or concern as far as it can in a zero-sum game with its political adversaries.'' The system ``benefits the lawyers, lobbyists and expert witnesses who serve in various causes as mercenaries,'' he says, ``but it produces no policy worth a damn.'' In contrast, community-based conservation depends on all sides acknowledging the legitimacy of each other's values. Participants are not guaranteed to get exactly what they want; no one has the power to stand by and judge the ``merit'' of the results. Although ecology and economics play central roles, ecologists and economists have no special place. Like everyone else, they must sit at the table as citizens, striving to make their community and its environment a better place to live. In short, Quincy's efforts and those like it represent a new type of environmentalism: republican environmentalism, with a small ``r.'' This new approach cannot address global problems like climate change. Nor should it be routinely accepted if a local group decides on irrevocable changes in areas of paramount national interest--filling in the Grand Canyon, say. But even if some small town would be foolish enough to decide to do something destructive, there's a whole framework of national environment laws that would prevent it from happening. And, despite the resistance of the national organizations, the environmental movement should not reject this new approach out of hand. Efforts to protect the environment over the past 25 years have produced substantial gains, but have lately degenerated into a morass of litigation and lobbying. Community-based conservation has the potential to change things on the ground, where it matters most.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Quincy Library Group bill has been included in the omnibus appropriations bill. This legislation embodies the consensus proposal of the Quincy Library Group, a coalition of environmentalists, timber industry representatives, and local elected officials in Northern California, who came together to resolve their long-standing conflicts over timber management on the national forest lands in their area. The Quincy Library Group legislation is a real victory for local consensus decision making. It proves that even some of the most intractable environmental issues can be resolved if people work together toward a common goal. I first met the Quincy Library Group back in 1992 when I was running for the Senate, and was then very impressed with what they were trying to do. The members of the Quincy Library Group had seen first hand the conflict between timber harvesting and jobs, environmental laws and protection of their communities and forests, and the devastation of massive forest fires. Their overriding concern was that a catastrophic fire could destroy both the natural environment and the potential for jobs and economic stability in their community. They were also concerned the ongoing stalemate over forest management was ultimately harming both the environment and their local economy. The group got together and talked things out. They decided to meet in a quiet, non-confrontational environment--the main room of the Quincy Public Library. They began their dialogue in the recognition that they shared the common goal of fostering forest health, keeping ecological integrity, assuring an adequate timber supply for area mills, and providing economic stability for their community. One of the best articles I have read about the Quincy Library Group process recently appeared in the Washington Post. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I voted for H.R. 4328, the omnibus appropriations bill. I believe that on balance, this legislation will benefit California. This bill is 4,000 pages, 38 pounds, and stands a foot tall. It appropriates $500 billion, funds a third of the federal government for fiscal year 1999, and includes many pieces of authorizing legislation. My staff reviewed the entire bill yesterday. It includes properly written legislative bill language as well as many hand written changes and amendments. Congressional negotiators, the administration, and many staff members have worked for weeks to finalize this legislation today, but that work was often done behind closed doors without the full review of the Senate. I do not believe that this is the way the Congress should do its work. Our choice today was to shut down the government or pass this bill. I want, however, to note that the omnibus bill provides many benefits for Californians. education This bill funds several education initiatives. It includes $1.2 billion to hire teachers and reduce elementary class sizes, an effort already underway in California. This will mean 3,500 new teachers in California. This bill also includes increased funding for Head Start, for Education Reform, for bilingual education, for charter schools, for educational technology and for student financial assistance. California school enrollment is growing at 3 times the national rate. We need to build 7 new classrooms a day at 25 students per class just to keep up with the growth in student population. We have students in closets, in cafeterias, in portables. We have some of the largest class sizes in the nation. We have 22,000 teachers on emergency credentials. California ranks last in the nation in the percentage of young adults with a high school diploma. Our students rank 37th in the country in SAT scores. The California public school system has gone from one of the best, to one of the worse. Mr. President, quite simply, we welcome this assistance for the California education system. I am disappointed that the bill includes a ``hold harmless'' provision for ESEA Title I. Title I is the largest federal elementary and secondary education program, providing funds to virtually every school district in the country to educate disadvantaged children. Title I has often been called the ``anchor'' of all elementary and secondary education programs since its enactment in 1965. The bill includes $7.8 billion for Title I grants to school districts. California received $830 million last year. Unfortunately, the bill includes a 100 percent ``hold harmless'' provision under which no school district would receive an allocation that is less than its allocation of the previous year. But the effect of the hold harmless provision for California, that has had an increase in the number of poor children, is not to receive all of the increase in funding to which we are entitled, entitled by law. Thankfully, the bill does include an ``extra'' $301 million that would provide some funds for high-growth states like mine. California could receive as much as $60 million out of the $301 million. I believe the dollars should go equally to all children in the country based on need. I call on my colleagues to join me in working to join in an effort to make sure the dollars follow the children. This Senator pledges to devote every ounce of energy I can muster to help our schools deliver on the promise of opportunity and achievement that America's public schools have always represented and I call on my colleagues to join me today in this campaign. california environment I am pleased that the Omnibus Appropriations bill includes funding for a number of important land acquisition projects in California, including $2 million for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, $1 million for the Santa Rosa Mountains, and $1.5 million for the continued acquisition of Bair Island for the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. While I am pleased that the bill includes $1 million for land acquisition in the Lake Tahoe Basin, I would have preferred to see the $3 million provided by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Lake Tahoe is an important national resource, and we need to make it a higher priority if we are to stem the environmental decline that is already affecting the area. I intend to work with my colleagues to further address the problems of Lake Tahoe in the 106th Congress. The Salton Sea bill as approved calls for completion of a plan to save the Salton Sea by January 1, 2000. It provides a total of $5 million in additional funds for biological studies and to conduct demonstration projects to clean up the New and Alamo Rivers. These funds, along with an additional appropriation for the Bureau of Reclamation in a separate section of the bill, provide all the money that will be required to prepare a plan and conduct all environmental documentation. As a result, Congress and the President will be able early in the year 2000 to authorize and appropriate funding for a project to save this incredibly valuable resource. transportation infrastructure One of the most important sections of the omnibus appropriations bill provides funding for our nation's roads, airports, and transit systems. This bill will ensure that California's transit systems are more efficient and our roads and airports are safer. The bill will improve the quality of life of California residents by increasing mobility, reducing congestion, and improving the environment. The bill provides a total of $73 million for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA). This includes $62 million for the North Hollywood Red Line extension, $8 million for the Regional Transit Alternative Analysis study for the Mid city and Eastside, and $3 million for the purchase of new clean fuel buses. This funding level will allow the MTA to proceed with its restructuring plan as well as improve bus service and move towards the competition of two important rail links. The bill also provides $27 million for the Tasman West Rail Extension project. The Tasman West Extension will link the heavily congested residential areas of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View with the Silicon Valley. The funding in this bill will allow the project to continue without interruption and hopefully will permit it to be completed ahead of schedule and under budget as is now projected. Other important California rail projects funded in this bill are: $23.48 million for the Sacramento south corridor extension, $3.5 million for the San Diego Mission Valley and midcoast corridor, $3 million for the Oceanside-Escondido light rail project, $1 million for the San Bernardino Metrolink project, and $500,000 to upgrade the rail line connecting the cities of Riverside and Perris. The bill also provides almost $420 million in formula grants to California. These grants will fund capital projects and finance improvements in equipment and facilities associated with mass transportation. This is an increase of more than $40 million from Fiscal Year 1998. Included in the formula grants are $171 million for Los Angeles, $98.8 million for San Francisco and Oakland, $35 million for San Diego, and $26 million for San Jose. The bill also provides $6.2 million in grants for the special needs of elderly and disabled people in California and $8.2 million for non-urbanized areas of the state. Another major component of the transportation appropriations bill is funding for buses and bus facilities. Again, this is very important for California where bus systems play a vital role in the transportation infrastructure of our cities. This bill provides more than $30 million to 30 cities and transportation authorities throughout the state. While I would have preferred to see a higher level of funding for many of these projects, the appropriations in this bill will allow local communities to begin purchasing badly needed fuel efficient buses and improving deteriorating bus facilities. I am disappointed that the conference committee reduced funding for the Bay Area Rapid Transit extension to the San Francisco Airport to $40 million. This is a dramatic cut from the $100.6 requested by the Administration and will seriously impair BART's ability to complete the project on schedule. Project construction for the BART/SFO extension is already underway. Contracts for over 90 percent of the construction activity have been awarded totaling $607 million. The State of California has recently agreed to provide an additional $57 million for the project. It is unfortunate that the federal government has failed to demonstrate the same level of commitment to this project that has been shown at the state and local level. I believe that bringing rapid rail transit to the San Francisco Airport is of critical importance to continued economic viability of the region. I am hopeful that this setback in federal funding will not endanger the project and I will work in the 106th Congress to insure that additional funds are made available. Securing the Border The bill provides $97 million next year for 1,000 additional border patrol agents and 140 support personnel at the border, increasing our ability to interdict illegal aliens at the heaviest alien traffic areas such as the Southwest border. It also provides $21.8 million for interior enforcement, providing the badly needed resources for INS to work with state and local law enforcement against illegal immigration. I am very pleased by the inclusion in the omnibus package of a number of measures that will have a direct impact on our efforts to prevent illegal narcotics from being transported across the Southwest border. These provisions are good news for California. I want to thank Senator DeWine and Senator Bob Graham for their many months of leadership in this effort, and for their willingness to work with me to include provisions that will mean fewer drugs on the streets of California. The supplemental appropriation portion of this bill will increase spending on drug interdiction by a total of $690 million for the current fiscal year. Of that total, $90 million is designated specifically for enhancements at the Southwest border, which is still, without question, ground zero for U.S. drug interdiction efforts. This amount includes $80 million for the U.S. Customs Service to purchase and deploy non-intrusive inspection technology, such as truck X-rays and gamma-imaging for drug interdiction at high-threat seaports and land border ports of entry; and $10 million for INS to purchase and deploy border barrier and surveillance technology, such as effective fences and night-vision scopes. These funds will make a real difference on the ground. DEA Administrator Tom Constantine recently told me that he estimates that one ton of cocaine is smuggled across the Southwest border each and every day. The smugglers are growing more sophisticated every year, and our agents badly need state-of-the-art technology to counter them, which this bill provides. In addition, the omnibus package includes the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, of which I was an original cosponsor. This act, which authorizes $2.6 billion over the next three years for enhanced drug interdiction programs, and requires annual regular reports by ONDCP and other drug-fighting agencies on their progress, contains two key provisions which will directly impact Southwest border, and which were included at my request: authorization of funding for the U.S. Customs Service to purchase truck X-rays as part of its 5-year technology plan; and authorization of $50 million for developing and purchasing computer software and hardware to facilitate direct communication between all the agencies that work on drug interdiction at the border. Technology offers an important way to fight drug smuggling. Improved communication and coordination among our various border enforcement and drug interdiction agencies is another. Without effective interagency communications systems between Customs, INS, the FBI, DEA, and the Border Patrol, our ability to detect drug smugglers and interdict drugs at the border is seriously jeopardized. The funds authorized by this bill will enhance the effectiveness of all these agencies' interdiction efforts. That translates into fewer drugs on our streets. Naturalizing Citizens The Omnibus Appropriation provides $171 million for additional naturalization services of which $11.6 million will be provided specifically for reducing the naturalization backlogs for those localities with backlogs of 15 months or longer. For California, San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco along with other counties who currently have a backlog of 2 years may receive the funds to help expedite naturalization applications. Methamphetamine I am very pleased that the Methamphetamine Trafficking Penalty Enhancement Act of 1998 was included in this bill. This provision increases penalties for methamphetamine trafficking, making them roughly equivalent to those for trafficking in crack cocaine. Specifically, it lowers the quantity of meth which qualifies for the highest level of federal drug penalties from 100 grams to 50 grams, the same as for crack. Dealers at this level get a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence for a first offense, a 20 year mandatory minimum for a second offense, and life for a third offense. Similarly, it also lowers the quantity of meth which qualifies the next-most serious level of federal drug penalties from 10 grams to 5 grams. Again, this is the same quantity as is provided for crack. Dealers of this amount receive a 5 year mandatory minimum for a first offense, and a 10 year mandatory minimum for subsequent offenses. This provision originally was part of the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, which I wrote with Senators Hatch and Biden. We were forced to drop this provision to pass the bill by unanimous consent that year, and this year it was re-introduced by Senator Ashcroft. I am proud to be the first co-sponsor of Sen. Ashcroft's bill. Two aspects of methamphetamine make the rapid growth in California especially troubling. First, meth leads to paranoid, violent, and even bizarre behavior by hardcore users. I will never forget the report of a New Mexico man, high on meth and alcohol, who beheaded his 14-year-old son and threw the head out of the window of his van, on a crowded highway. Second, meth is cooked in this country in dangerous, clandestine labs, which use highly flammable chemicals, blow up in explosions, and leave toxic, hazardous waste sites, which require environmental cleanup. This is not a silver bullet which will solve the problem, but it is one more useful step which we can take in this fight. I am also pleased that this bill contains several appropriations which I worked for to combat the spread of methamphetamine: $18.2 million for the California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement's anti-methamphetamine strategy; $24.5 million to hire 100 new DEA agents to target meth trafficking organizations; and $5 million for hazardous waste cleanup of lab sites. I am disappointed, however, that the conferees did not support the Senate's appropriation of $15 million for transfer to the Drug Diversion Control Fee Account. The clandestine meth labs operate primarily by converting legitimate pharmaceutical products, such as pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, into meth. The Drug Diversion Control Fee Account supports the DEA's efforts to control the diversion of such legitimate pharmaceuticals to illicit use, and we should provide it with greater support. justice appropriations I am pleased that several programs for which I have worked are fully funded in this bill: COPS funding 88,000 police officers throughout the country now has $1.4 billion provided in this bill to fund another 17,000, reaching the President's goal of hiring 100,000 police--and exceeding it by 5 percent. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant continued funding of $523 million for this program, which is important to California's cities and counties who utilize this funding to supplement COPS funding for non- personnel law enforcement expenditures. $283 million is provided for the Violence Against Women Act, increasing support for these programs. I have heard from women's organizations in support of funding for battered woman's shelters and other support services. California sorely needs these resources. The President's budget request of $95 million for at-risk children's prevention programs is fully funded, as I requested. With a growing adolescent population, California needs continued funding of anti- truancy, mentoring, and curfew initiatives. A total of $40 million is provided in various ways for the successful Weed and Seed program. Criminal gang activity is a severe problem in many California cities and localities, and many of these California gangs spread their criminal activity to other states. I am committed to curbing the growth of gangs, and Weed and Seed prevention funds are essential to that effort. I have heard from a number of California mayors, including Mayor Omar Bradley from Compton, who support the program and expanded funding. Another $12 million is provided for prevention efforts to combat youth gangs, under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Terrorism and technology programs This bill also provides for several programs which were of particular interest to me as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information of the Judiciary Committee; Extensive funding is provided for a variety of programs to combat terrorism and to be prepared to meet the threat which this form of evil poses, including: $145 million for the counterterrorism fund, $135 million for state and local preparedness for the threat of chemical and biological weapons, including: personnel protective gear, communications equipment, decontamination equipment, training, needs assessment, technology development; and bomb technician equipment. It also includes: $10 million for the National Critical Infrastructure Protection Center, $282 million to the FBI for counter-terrorism and foreign counterintelligence investigations. $23.4 million is authorized from Justice's asset forfeiture fund to support more efficient use of the communications spectrum by law enforcement. The need to have adequate spectrum available for law enforcement is a particular concern of local law enforcement leaders from California. Enabling more efficient use of the available spectrum will help to address this concern. crime prevention This bill also provides for several California programs to reduce crime which I have supported, including: State Criminal Alien Assistance Program: I am particularly pleased that continued funding of $585 million to reimburse states and localities for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens is provided, restoring the $50 million which had been cut by the Senate. This is particularly important to California, which bears the lion's share of the burden of incarcerating criminal aliens. This, however, is still not sufficient to meet the costs borne by the states and localities, and I will continue to work in the future for this program. Delancy Street Foundation/Criminal Justice Council Juvenile Justice initiative received $750,000 earmarked for this public-private comprehensive effort designed to interrupt the cycle of chronic crime and transform a young person's negative cycle to a positive one by providing major life-altering interventions at continuous points. This program can serve as a model for the rest of the nation in simultaneously decreasing juvenile crime and providing new and real opportunities for youths. Compton's crime problems merit special consideration and treatment. According to Mayor Omar Bradley, there are 9,000 suspected gang members in Compton, amounting to ten percent of the City's population. Compton's homicide rate is nearly 10 times that of similar sized cities in the Southeast L.A. area, with more homicides in January alone (14) than 23 of the other 27 cities had in all of 1996. Seventy-six percent of suspected homicide offenders were under the age of 27. The report directs the Justice Department to consider grants to help fight this uniquely severe crime problem by upgrading Compton's woefully outdated police computer system and by establishing a Compton Youth Intervention Center for afterschool programs to serve as a safe haven for 1,000 youth. My colleagues from California, Senator Boxer, and I jointly requested this $2 million earmark to support this proven, successful initiative that has already helped over 12,000 California police officers better understand how they can promote tolerance and reduce prejudice in their workplaces and communities. With this additional funding, the Center can implement its plan to conduct four-day workshops to train tolerance instructors from police Departments from around the country on how to control prejudice and hate crimes. These officers will then be able to go back to their communities and teach other officers how to combat prejudice and bias. The overwhelmed 911 emergency response system has prompted cities around the nation to experiment with a 311 non-emergency number to relieve the burden and improve access to emergency assistance. The 311 telephone system would allow police departments such as Los Angeles' to free officers from the burden of responding to non-emergency 911 calls and gives the community an easy-to-remember link to the police, thus strengthening community policing. The conference report supports the use of funds for non-emergency numbers such as 311. cancer research The bill also includes $2.9 billion for the National Cancer Institute, a 15 percent increase. Cancer afflicts 1.2 million Americans each year. Cancer will kill 1,500 people a day this year. But we currently invest less than 2 percent of cancer's health care costs in research to find a cure and treatments. NCI can currently only fund 28 percent of grants, less than one-third approved for funding. In the September 25 hearing of the Senate Cancer Coalition, Dr. Allen Lichter, President of the American Society for Clinical Oncology said, ``It often takes several years to get a clinical cancer trial activated from the idea stage to the point of involving patients because of insufficient funds. For every clinical trial that gets activated, there are many worthwhile trials sitting undone.'' I submit that this is not a vigorous war on cancer, when we are funding less than one-third of grants proposed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Susy Smith, who has served as my Legislative Director for nearly my entire Senate career. Her contributions to my legislative efforts have been without parallel, and she leaves with an impressive record of achievement and the profound respect of all who have been fortunate enough to work with her. Susy is one of those unique people who knows how to make government work for its people. Her work in the Carter administration, along with her more than ten years as a top level congressional aide to Congressman Norm Mineta, Senator Barbara Mikulski, and myself, have been a testament to both her talent and commitment to public service. Her quiet leadership, innate sense of judgment, and uncanny ability to stay on top of dozens of issues pending before the Senate made her an enormously valuable asset to my office. Susy also possesses a deep and abiding faith in the American political process, and the role that Congress plays in our constitutional system of government. She has helped me imbue my staff with a sense of their duty to serve the people of California, together with the knowledge that the work we do here truly makes a difference in people's lives back home. Susy has played a vital role in helping to pass some of my most important legislative initiatives such as the Desert Protection Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, and the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act. In fact, over the past 5 years, Susy has put her indelible stamp on every piece of legislation that came out of my office. Her hard work has paid off not just for the people of California, but for the entire Nation-- in safer streets, in more money for cancer research, in better health care for America's women, and in national parks that all of us can enjoy, to name just a few. What stands out most about Susy is her wonderful ability to bring out the best of everyone. Her good judgement, great sense of humor, and supportive nature carried the staff through many tough battles, long days, and stressful times. She is not only a sharp political strategist and astute policy analyst, but a terrific manager and steadying presence in the office. I have appreciated her professional spirit and have placed much confidence in her decision making and perspective. So it is with a deep sense of admiration, some sadness, and heartfelt good wishes that my staff and I say goodbye to Susy, secure in the knowledge that she will be just as successful in all her future endeavors as she has been working in the U.S. Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the 105th Congress draws to a close, I rise to express my disappointment over something we did not do. The Senate, despite strong support from both sides of the aisle, has not brought the nomination of James C. Hormel to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg to the floor, has not had a debate on the nomination, and has not had a vote on it. This failure is really quite incomprehensible. The President nominated James Hormel for this post on October 6, 1997. After a thorough review by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the committee approved the nomination by a vote of 16-2 and reported it to the full Senate with the recommendation that it be confirmed. And yet here it is, October 14, 1998, in the final hours of this Congress, and the nomination has not budged from the Executive Calendar. Mr. Hormel is eminently qualified for the job of U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. He has had a diverse and distinguished career as a lawyer, businessman, educator, and philanthropist, and he gained diplomatic experience as a member of the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva in 1995 and as a member of the U.S. delegation to the 51st U.N. General Assembly in 1997. He was even confirmed unanimously by this very Senate for the latter post on May 23, 1997. He has been an upstanding civic leader in San Francisco, and he has been honored for his work by organizations too numerous to mention. He is a man who is kind to all he meets, generous beyond measure, and deeply committed to making the world and his community a better place to live for all people. He is a devoted father of five grown children, and grandfather of 13. Anyone who knows him, as I have been privileged to do for over two decades, knows that he is a man of decency and honor, and the type of person who should be encouraged to be in public service. So this is the situation we face: we have a nominee with outstanding talents and credentials; he was previously confirmed by this Senate for another post; he was approved by the Foreign Relations Committee by a 16-2 vote nearly a year ago; and over 60 Senators support bringing his nomination to a vote. And yet, we have never had the opportunity to vote on it. Why? Because several Senators on the other side of the aisle have placed holds on the nomination, preventing a debate and a vote they knew they would lose. And the Majority Leader has refused to call up the nomination, effectively allowing the passage of time to kill it. Why has Mr. Hormel been denied the Constitutionally delineated due process of a Senate debate and vote? The answer is simple: Mr. Hormel is gay. With no other reasonable grounds to block this nomination, one can come to no other conclusion than that some Senators are simply opposed to a gay man serving our country as a U.S. Ambassador. I believe the Senate does not want to allow this type of discrimination to prevail, and I think the vast majority of my colleagues agree. But so far, it appears that discrimination has prevailed. I believe the majority of Americans agree with this position as well. To cite just one measure, newspaper editorials have appeared in support of Mr. Hormel's nomination across the country, including in the: Albany Times Union, Albuquerque Journal, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Atlanta Journal & Constitution, Boston Globe, Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette, Chicago Tribune, Cincinnati Post, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Detroit Free Press, Evansville Courier, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Hartford Courant, Houston Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune, Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, New Orleans Times Picayune, New York Daily News, New York Times, Peoria Journal-Star, Philadelphia Inquirer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Portland Press Herald, Providence Journal, Riverside (Ca.) Press-Enterprise, Rocky Mountain News, San Diego Union-Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Santa Rosa (Ca.) Press Democrat, Seattle Post- Intelligencer, Springfield (Ill.) Journal-Register, St. Louis Post- Dispatch, St. Petersburg Times, Syracuse Post-Standard, Tulsa World, Washington Post, and York (Pa.) Daily Record. Many of these newspapers have also run op-ed columns which call for a vote on the nomination, as have the: Arizona Republic, Buffalo News, Columbus Dispatch, Dallas Morning News, Denver Post, Des Moines Register, Detroit News, Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Greensboro News & Record, Madison Capital Times, Memphis Commercial Appeal, Northern New Jersey Record, Raleigh News & Observer, Salt Lake City Tribune, and USA Today. I deeply regret that the Senate has not been permitted to have its say on this eminently qualified nominee solely because he is gay. But the Senate's failure to act need not prevent Mr. Hormel from assuming his post. In a case such as this, where the Senate has so clearly failed to fulfill its Constitutional obligation with respect to a nomination, even though a clear majority of the Senate supports that nomination, I believe it is entirely appropriate for the President to use his Constitutional authority to make a recess appointment. Luxembourg is a NATO ally, and we need an ambassador there. Mr. Hormel has every qualification necessary to be an outstanding ambassador, and he would have been overwhelmingly confirmed if the Senate had been allowed to vote. But we were not. I, therefore, urge President Clinton, after Congress adjourns, to make a recess appointment of James Hormel to be U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. It is the right thing to do, and it will give the country the benefit of the service of James Hormel, which the Senate has failed to do. Mr. President, because the Senate has not had the opportunity to debate this nomination, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record some of the materials I would have used in the course of that debate, including some of the notable editorials, op-ed pieces, and letters of support that have come to my attention.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished manager. May I have 10 minutes?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which is the substitute amendment to H.R. 2431 being offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. At the outset, I would like to express my appreciation and respect for the distinguished Assistant Majority Leader, Senator Nickles, and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. I want to salute their deeply held commitment to religious freedom for all people. I am aware that they and their staffs have been negotiating this bill for many months. They have been through draft after draft, talking with the Administration, a large number of Senators with different interests, and a wide range of concerned outside organizations. Their mission has been to produce a bill that would make a meaningful contribution to combating the problem of religious persecution in foreign countries, one that would pass with broad support in the Senate, and a bill that the President would sign. I know how long and hard they have been working on this effort. Earlier this week, they had hoped to move the bill forward. There were still a number of provisions which I was concerned about, and I felt that since the bill had not come through the Foreign Relations Committee, on which I sit, and would not be open to amendment on the floor, I wanted a chance to address those concerns. Despite the marathon talks the Assistant Majority Leader and the Senator from Connecticut had already engaged in on this bill with so many others, and despite my late entry into the fray, they graciously and without hesitation agreed to sit down with me to see if we could come to common agreement. We were also joined by Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat. I am happy to report that, as a result of these discussions, with good will by all sides, we were able to reach agreement on each of the provisions that was of concern to me, and I think the bill is better for it. Let me explain what we agreed upon. First, I have come to the conclusion that when the Congress legislates sanctions, we need to provide the President with a reasonable amount of flexibility in the implementation, both to respond to changing conditions, and to protect other American interests. Normally, we provide the President with a waiver authority for sanctions, but the standard of that waiver is critical. The State Department believes, and I agree, that the ``national security'' waiver standard in the most recent draft was too high--it would be difficult for the President to waive the sanctions required under this act except in extraordinary circumstances. A waiver of ``national interest'' was deemed by the sponsors to be too low. So we compromised: the President can now waive the sanctions in this bill if the ``important national interest'' requires it. Second, the definition of what constitutes a ``particularly severe violation'' of religious freedom was originally drafted in such a way that it could have inadvertently triggered other sanctions--those required for gross violations of human rights --under sections 116 and 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act. There was no intent on the part of the sponsors to trigger two sets of sanctions, so it was simply a matter of ensuring that a different standard was required for each trigger. The standard we agreed upon was proposed by Senator Lieberman. Particularly severe violations of religious freedom are now defined as ``systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom.'' To my mind, this is neither a higher nor lower standard than the ``consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights'' that requires a separate set of sanctions under the Foreign Assistance Act, but it is a sufficiently different standard that it a finding under one act should not automatically trigger sanctions under both acts. I think this is an important improvement in the bill. Third, we were concerned that there could be situations in which the President has already taken significant action against a country, in large part to respond to human rights abuses, and then a finding of particularly severe violations of religious freedom would require additional actions under this act. In the case of a country like Sudan, where we have already imposed extensive sanctions, it makes sense for the President to be able to cite an existing sanction as fulfilling the requirements of the International Religious Freedom Act. Again, to the best of my knowledge, the sponsors of the bill had no desire to force the President to impose redundant sanctions on a country. So, in section 402(C)(4) we have developed language that allows the President to cite an existing sanction as fulfilling the requirements of this act. I think this change also makes the bill better. We are all aware that there are people of faith who are suffering for their beliefs in many parts of the world. As a nation founded on the precious principle of religious freedom, a principle which is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, we cannot and must not turn a deaf ear to the cries of the oppressed. Making the protection of religious freedom a high priority in our foreign policy is the right thing to do. The challenge is to create mechanisms to promote religious freedom and protect persecuted believers that: provide enough flexibility to respond to different conditions at different times and places; avoid unintentionally making life harder for those we seek to help; and, make a meaningful contribution to the cause of religious freedom without unduly jeopardizing other important national interests. That is why I have so much respect for what the distinguished Assistant Majority Leader and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut have been trying to do these many months. They have worked hard to listen to the concerns of the Administration, other Senators, religious organizations of every denomination, the business community, and other interested parties. They have tried to develop a bill that will help the United States protect those in danger of persecution for their faith, while taking into account the broad and deep requirements of U.S. foreign policy interests. I think they have succeeded. Evidence of their success is in the broad and diverse coalition of religious organizations and human rights groups who have worked tirelessly to support the bill. Further evidence of this success, I believe, will be evident by the overwhelming support I expect the Senate will demonstrate when it votes shortly. And perhaps the most impressive evidence of their success is that earlier today, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger informed the Minority Leader that the Administration now supports the bill as drafted. After so many months, we know that the President will sign this bill, and it will become law. I yield the floor.