Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks about the distinguished service of United States veterans. As Veterans Day approaches, we look forward to honoring the men and women who have served this country with bravery, honor, and valor. I am submitting, for my colleagues, a May 28, 1998 article from the Los Angeles Times written by Patty Andrews, one of the Andrews Sisters. The Andrews Sisters spent much of World War II entertaining the young men who fought so courageously in Europe, the Pacific, Africa, and other parts of the world. In this stirring piece, Ms. Andrews details the service and sacrifices of all of those who contributed to the war effort, and describes how she and her sisters helped to build morale and comforted the wounded. The article follows: [From the Los Angeles Times, May 25, 1998] Bugle Boys of Company B Died To Keep America Free (By Patty Andrews) My sisters and I probably met face to face with more soldiers in World War II than any general or field marshal. The Andrews Sisters entertained tens of thousands of GIs at bases here and abroad throughout the war and I can still see so many of their smiling American faces. I sometimes wonder how many of those faces made it home safely and how many are now just faint memories. I'll carry their memory for as long as I live. But then what? With nothing to publicly commemorate those GIs, their deeds will be forgotten. The faces of the survivors are now creased and seasoned by the years--but they still smile when they see me. And I see them all the time, in airports and shopping malls. The veterans of global war are living their autumn years happily, oblivious to the fact that they are walking history. We have a common bond. We were all soldiers in the greatest war ever. And we share a knowing wink--if you weren't there you'd never understand the terror of total war or exhilaration of saving the world from evil incarnate. I guess I remind the veterans that it all really happened, that it wasn't some hazy memory, that they answered the call and succeeded beyond all expectation. They won a victory so complete that we hardly remember a time when America wasn't a superpower or the most prosperous nation on Earth or one of the few remaining democracies standing against a global gang of dictators. Today we take it all for granted. Those who died to make it possible for us to forget that brutal era would no doubt be satisfied that their sacrifice was worth it. But they were so young. The soldiers who were in their late teens and early 20s. So young that the shows had the flavor of a huge high school football game or a Boy Scout jamboree. Nearly half a million of these brave kids would never know if we won or lost the war or how 50 years of peace and prosperity would transform their country. Their faces will always be innocent and brave, but unknowing. My sisters and I were innocent too, but not for long. We cheered the boys as they left for war but we also welcomed back the wounded and shattered. Those are some of the faces I will never forget. In one San Francisco hospital ward we were briefed about what we were about to see, and we were told not to show too much emotion. Behind the doors of that dire ward were young faces contorted with pain or frozen and mute. The sight of these boys--no different than the thousands of others we entertained except that they had been chewed up and spat out by the maw of war--brought home to me the absolute horror of war and the enormity of our debt to them. In that frightful infirmary we talked, sang and tried to do something--anything--to bring a moment of pleasure, maybe a smile or a look of hope that life will somehow be better. I tried but could not begin to match their contribution. None of us can ever fully repay those boys who sacrificed their youth so we could forget such horror existed. But we need to try. Today, before the memories fade and before the last veteran dies, we need to enshrine their courage. We need a permanent place to honor the generation that gave so much so long ago. We need a memorial that matches their monumental sacrifice and their towering devotion to freedom. In short, we need an official World War II Memorial on the National Mall in Washington. The site has already been selected--all we need now is the will to build it. Helping to build morale and comfort the wounded through our music changed and fulfilled my life, as it did the lives of my sisters, Laverne and Maxene. We were privileged to know so many courageous men and women willing to give their lives for freedom. It's ironic that because of their sacrifice, we can use words like ``freedom'' and ``democracy'' today without having to measure their cost. We must honor those brave young people who paid the price.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, University of California law professor Charles Alan Wright, one of the Nation's leading conservative constitutional scholars, had this to say about Dr. Fletcher: Too many scholars approach a new issue with preconceptions of how it should come out and they force the data that their research uncovers to support the conclusion that they had formed before they did the research. I think that is reprehensible for a scholar and it is dangerous for a judge. I am completely confident that when Fletcher finishes his service on the ninth circuit we will say not that he has been a liberal judge or a conservative judge but that he has been an excellent judge, one who has brought a brilliant mind, greater powers of analysis, and total objectivity to the cases that came before him. I believe that the nomination of William Fletcher will add strength to the ninth circuit and I hope very much that he is confirmed. I would like to also quote Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania Law School: His work is both analytically acute and painstaking in its regard for history. Indeed, love of and respect for history shine through all his work, as the history itself illuminates the various corners of the law he enters. Interestingly enough, the New Republic wrote in an editorial in 1995: Fletcher is the most impressive scholar of Federal jurisdiction in the country. His path-breaking articles on sovereign immunity and Federal common law have transformed the debates in these fields; and his work is marked by the kind of careful historical and textual analysis that should serve as a model for liberals and conservatives alike. If confirmed, Fletcher will join his mother-- And as we know now his mother is going to take senior status -- but his judicial philosophy is more constrained than hers. We hope he is confirmed as swiftly as possible. That was back in 1995 when he was nominated. It is now almost the end of 1998, and as this man has gone through the scrutiny of 3 years of delay, I must say I very much hope that this body will confirm him this afternoon. I believe, as another has said, that he will, in fact, be an excellent, thoughtful and commonsense judge. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for the nomination of Professor William Alan Fletcher to the Ninth Circuit Court. I very much appreciate the views of the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Utah, on this, and his considered judgment that Mr. Fletcher deserves approval by this body. And I hope, indeed, that will be the case. Mr. Fletcher has been before this body for over 3 years now. He has had two Judiciary Committee hearings. I had the pleasure of attending both and listening to him. His responses at these hearings were crisp, to the point, direct, and showed a depth and breadth of knowledge of the law that I think is among the top one percent of those nominees who came before the committee. His credentials are impeccable. As the chairman pointed out, they include: magna cum laude graduate of Harvard; Rhodes scholar; law degree from Yale; service in the Navy; law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan; and a clerkship for District Court Judge Stanley Weigel. Since 1977, he has been a distinguished professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, where he won the 1993 Distinguished Teacher Award and has come to be regarded as one of the most foremost experts on the Federal court and the Constitution. Mr. President, since the distinguished Senator from Alabama raised some concerns about this nominee, I would like to respond to some of those concerns. We asked Mr. Fletcher to respond, and, in fact, he provided us with a response on a number of items that have been raised by Mr. Thomas Jipping, of the Judicial Selection Monitoring Project, and subsequently repeated. The first allegation is what was called the ``discretionary Constitution.'' Mr. Jipping attributes to Professor Fletcher the conclusion: When judges think that the political branches are not doing what they should, judges have the discretionary power to do it for them. And he states: Mr. Fletcher writes that this virtually unlimited judicial discretion is a ``legitimate substitute for political discretion'' when the political branches are ``in default.'' I would like to give you directly the statement from Mr. Fletcher. The article says quite the opposite of what Mr. Jipping wrote. I do not believe in a ``discretionary Constitution.'' As the article makes plain, I view judicial discretion as a problem rather than a solution. Further, I did not write that judicial discretion is legitimate when political branches are ``in default.'' Rather, I wrote that the exercise of judicial discretion in curing constitutional violations in institutional suits is ``presumptively illegitimate'' unless the political bodies that should cure those violations are in ``serious and chronic default.'' I would like to put all of this in the Record. On the second point that has been raised critically, on standing, Mr. Fletcher writes: Contrary to what Mr. Jipping wrote, I do not believe Congress can write statutes that allow anyone or anything to sue. Indeed, in some cases I take a narrower view of standing than the Supreme Court. For example, I argued that the Court should not have granted standing in Buckley v. Valeo. My position on standing would not drastically expand caseloads. Further, rather than inviting judges to legislate from the bench, I am particularly anxious that the Federal courts not perform as a ``super-legislature.'' The third point that he has been criticized for is the unconstitutionality of statutes. The critic writes: Mr. Fletcher believes that judges can declare unconstitutional legislation they believe was inadequately considered by Congress. He argues that a statute effectively terminating lawsuits against defense contractors by substituting the United States as the defendant was passed without hearings and based on what he believes are misrepresentations about its operation. That alone would be sufficient to strike down the statute. Now, this is Mr. Fletcher's response: I believe no such thing. I argued that the presumption of constitutionality normally accorded to a statute should not be accorded to the Warner Amendment, based on the following factors: (1) The only body in Congress that considered the amendment was a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, which held hearings and concluded that it was unconstitutional; (2) When the amendment was later attached as a rider to an unrelated defense appropriations bill, it was consistently described as doing the opposite of what it actually did. And so, if I might, to clear these things up, Mr. Fletcher has submitted to us a draft response, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record both the allegations and the responses.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Salvage Motor Vehicle legislation as it has been amended by the Levin/ Feinstein amendment. The sale of rebuilt vehicles that have been wrecked in accidents has become a major national problem. According to the National Association of Independent Insurers, about 2.5 million vehicles are involved in accidents so severe that they are declared a total loss. Yet, more than a million of these vehicles are rebuilt and put back on the road. In many cases, ``totaled'' cars are sold at auction, refurbished to conceal prior damage, and resold to consumers without disclosure of the previous condition of the car. The structural integrity of these vehicles has been so severely weakened that the potential for serious injury in an accident is greatly increased. This bill seeks to address the problem by requiring vehicle owners to disclose that the car has been salvaged if it has sustained damage valued at more than 75% of its retail value. The problem with this approach is that it sets a ceiling rather than a floor for consumer protection. States who may already have stronger definitions of salvage vehicles would be preempted. The amendment that I have offered with the senior Senator from Michigan will eliminate this flaw in the bill. Our amendment says specifically that nothing in this bill will effect a state law that provides more stringent consumer protection relating to the inspection, titling or any other action dealing with salvage vehicles. We believe that this is the best possible outcome. A minimum level of consumer protection will be set at the federal level, but the bill now authorizes states to provide greater or more comprehensive protection if they wish. Protection for consumers in my state of California will be greatly enhanced by the Levin/Feinstein amendment. California law does not set a percentage value for salvage vehicles. Instead it says that a vehicle is salvaged when the owners determines that repairing the vehicle is ``uneconomical''. Our amendment will allow California to maintain that definition as well as states with other protections. California law is also more comprehensive in terms of what vehicles are covered. California's law covers all vehicles including large trucks, motorcycles, and motor homes which would not be covered under the federal law. I believe we now have a good bill. By setting a federal level of consumer protection that is a floor rather than a ceiling, we will achieve the goal of protecting consumers from fraud while at the same time giving states the flexibility to implement a stricter definition for salvage vehicles. I want to thank the Senator from Michigan. Together we have crafted an amendment that will protect the residents of our states and many others. I also want to thank the Majority Leader for his willingness to work with us to improve the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in memory of Mayor Tom Bradley, who is being laid to rest in Los Angeles today. I join with all Angelenos, and indeed all Californians, in mourning this kind, gentle, and wonderful man who led one of the world's great cities with such skill for so many years. For nine years during my tenure as Mayor of San Francisco, I had the pleasure of working with Mayor Bradley on state and national issues and together we offered a loud drumbeat that the cities of our nation need attention. As cities go, so goes the nation, we often said. Through and through, I saw Tom Bradley as mayor who earned the respect of his peers while he demanded attention for his city. First elected Mayor in 1973, Mayor Bradley paved the way for many other leaders on the local and national level. Although he made history as the first African-American mayor of a major city, Tom Bradley ran and won a campaign where he pledged to be a mayor who represented the entire city. He was true to his word, and for a record-setting five terms, he served all the millions of people who call Los Angeles home-- from every racial, cultural, and religious group. Born into a sharecropper's family, Tom Bradley was seven years old when he and his family headed to California to start a new life. When he arrived in Los Angeles in 1924, Tom Bradley remembered that ``reaching California was like reaching the promised land.'' A product of the Los Angeles public school system, his academic abilities enabled him to parlay his high school athletic prowess into a university education. Bradley received a scholarship to attend UCLA, where he soon distinguished himself as a track star. Prompted by a desire to serve the city, Tom Bradley joined the Los Angeles Police Department in 1940. In May 1941, he married the former Ethel Arnold. They had two daughters, Lorraine and Phyllis. As an early example of his enormous capacity for hard work that marked his years as mayor, Tom Bradley worked full-time as a police officer and went to law school at night. he graduated from Southwestern University in 1956 and passed the California Bar Exam. After 21 years of service, he retired from the LAPD with the rank of Lieutenant in 1961 and began to practice law. Urged by community leaders, he decided in 1963 to run for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. He became one of the first African-Americans ever to serve on the Council, and held his seat for 10 years before becoming the city's 37th Mayor in 1973. He ran for Governor of California twice, in 1982 and 1986, and nearly became the first African-American governor of the largest state in the Union. I think he would have made an outstanding governor. Mayor Bradley once said, ``My guiding philosophy as mayor has been and will continue to be, to paraphrase the Athenian Oath, to transmit this city * * * not as a lesser * * * but as a greater, better and more beautiful city than it was transmitted to me. This philosophy continues to be my inspiration.'' Mayor Bradley did so much for the city he loved so well. He attracted businesses to the city and established policies that resulted in the dramatic resurgence of the downtown Los Angeles economic center. The impressive skyline that graces Los Angeles' downtown is the realization of his vision. He turned the city's Harbor and Airports into top-of- the-line businesses, expanding the number of people employed and the city's ability to compete in the world market. Today, when people fly into the Los Angeles airport from abroad, they land at the Tom Bradley International Terminal: a fitting tribute to the man who expanded the airport into the second-busiest in the country. Mayor Bradley secured the 1984 Summer Olympic Games during a time when many predicted economic gloom. Instead, his signature approach of uniting the private and public sectors behind a common goal produced the most successful Olympic Games in modern history. The Games boosted economic activity in Southern California by $3.3 billion, created 68,000 jobs, and ended with a $215 million surplus. Just as important, the Games made all of us proud to be Americans. When we think of Carl Lewis winning his four gold medals, or Mary Lou Retton vaulting her way into the country's heart, we have Mayor Bradley to thank. Mayor Bradley focused economic opportunities both on the inner city, with such community revitalization projects as the Baldwin Hills- Crenshaw and Vermont-Slauson shopping centers, and on the entire city, where he put forward affordable housing and fair planning policies. Mayor Bradley also led a long and hard battle to bring rail transportation to the city of Los Angeles. There were many times it would have been easy to give up, to say the will simply was not there. Yet he was determined, came to the halls in Washington, D.C. often to appeal for funding, and never gave up. Today the Metro Blue Line carries passengers from Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles, and the Metro Red Line carries passengers from downtown to MacArthur Park. Construction is now underway to extend the Red Line to North Hollywood. Finally, to reinforce his strong emphasis on education and to shield Los Angeles youth from drug peddlers and street gangs, Mayor Bradley initiated an ambitious plan, called L.A's BEST (Better Educated Students for Tomorrow), to provide computer training, tutorial assistance, and other enrichment activities to students in Los Angeles' low income neighborhoods. Under the program, parents are able to voluntarily keep their children at school from 2:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. each school day to learn and play. Today L.A.'s Best serves over 5,000 children each day, and has shown dramatic results in boosting students' academic achievement and self-esteem. Mayor Tom Bradley shaped Los Angeles. He guided the City through enormous growth and change. His 20 years were marked by too many triumphs to count, and even in the bad times, during the devastating civil unrest that took place after the Rodney King verdict, his strong leadership and gentle demeanor brought Angelenos together to work for the common good. For many Angelenos, Mayor Bradley was a father figure: physically imposing at six-foot-four, and intellectually imposing as the sharp-minded, politically astute big city mayor, but always so warm and gentle that you instantly felt at ease when you talked with him. He was a great leader, but more than that, he was a great person. There are simply not enough people like him in politics. Mr. President, I know that Tom Bradley will be remembered as one of the city's greatest and most beloved mayors. His loss is a blow to the City of Los Angeles. I know that I join all Angelenos today in sending my thoughts and prayers to his wife and daughters.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska for his courtesy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the 40th anniversary of NASA is historic. It does have an impact on my State of California. I want to take a moment and wish NASA a happy birthday. I want to salute the fact that they have captured the world's imagination with missions such as the Mars Pathfinder and the Hubbell Space Telescope. Experiments and technological feats performed on Space Shuttle missions are paving the way for a permanent presence in space. Mr. President, as I said, I join my colleagues in recognizing the many historic achievements that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has made in its forty years of service. This is a particularly exciting period for our space program, not simply because NASA is celebrating its 40th Anniversary but more importantly because of the major advances being made in the exploration of our solar system. As I said, in recent years, NASA has captured the world's imagination with missions such as the Mars Pathfinder and the Hubble Space Telescope. Experiments and technological feats performed on Space Shuttle missions are paving the way for a permanent presence in space. One of the most telling signs of our changing world is that, NASA, whose original mission was national defense in the cold war with the Soviet Union, is now working with Russia to develop the first International Space Station. I am very proud to say that some of NASA's most valuable research has been accomplished in my home State of California. In 1958, the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena built and controlled the first United States satellite sent into orbit. In the four decades that have followed, JPL has contributed to the exploration of most of the known planets in our solar system. The full list of JPL's role in planetary exploration is far too long to address here. But I want to mention one recent accomplishment. In December of 1996, NASA launched the Mars Pathfinder, another JPL built and controlled spacecraft. The Pathfinder successfully placed a rover on the surface of the red planet that beamed-back pictures that were viewed around the world with awe. I actually had the unique pleasure to visit JPL last year and was actually able to send commands up to the rover and then watch and see the rover move based on the command. It was rather amazing because the computer I was on actually went to a station in the desert which then beamed it directly to Mars, and so a few minutes after I pressed the command into the computer, I actually watched the rover move on the planet Mars. It was an amazing experience. California is also home to one of NASA's premier research laboratories, the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory. NASA Ames provides research in the fields of supercomputing, software development, and automated reasoning. As the lead center for Aviation Operations Systems, Ames manages the research effort in air traffic control and has the major responsibility for wind tunnel testing and simulation. As California has been a major partner in NASA's success in the past, we will continue to lead as we move into the 21st century. NASA has developed a strategic plan that will build on its accomplishments with a renewed focus on scientific research and the application of a new cutting-edge technology. I am confident that California will continue to provide the backbone for this program. I want to take a few moments to talk about what I believe is one of the most remarkable feats in the history of a space program filled with remarkable feats. Later this month, the Space Shuttle Discovery will be embarking on Mission STS-95. As we know, our colleague, Senator John Glenn will be making his second trip into space on this flight. While his presence will certainly be missed here in the Senate, I know my colleagues share my pride in his achievements and wish him the best on his historic return to space. On February 20, 1962, John Glenn piloted the ``Friendship 7'' spacecraft on the U.S.'s first manned obtial mission. During the almost 5 hour flight, Senator Glenn worked on some of the first technical and medical experiments ever performed while orbiting the Earth. Now, more than 35 years after that first flight, Senator Glenn will soon be returning to space. It is interesting to note some of the advancements that have been made since that first ground breaking flight. The shuttle's flight will last 9 days instead of 5 hours, it will orbit the planet at 345 miles an hour rather than 16, and it will circle the Earth 144 times rather than 3. The comparison between these two flights capsulizes the advancements that have been made in the space program and it is remarkable that one man will experience both. Senator Glenn has done more to promote our space program than perhaps any other person. Millions of people held their collective breath as he led the country into orbit of the Earth in 1962 and the world will again watch as he leads NASA into the next century. Mr. President, it is with great pride and respect that I pay tribute to the many achievements NASA has made in its first 40 years. I know that I stand with the rest of the nation in anticipation of what will be accomplished in the next 40.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, for me, this is a sad day. Someone in politics whom I have very much respected passed away this morning, and that was Tom Bradley, former mayor of Los Angeles. Tom was one of America's finest mayors, a tireless advocate on behalf of the cities of America. I had an opportunity to work closely with him during the 1980s when we were both mayors. I saw firsthand how he would go about solving a problem. He was kind and gentle, but he was tenacious about promoting the city of Los Angeles that he so deeply loved. He leaves a rich legacy for Los Angeles and for the entire State of California. No Californian--and particularly no Los Angeleno--will ever forget the pride of hosting the 1984 Olympics. Tom Bradley showed that an American city could host a profitable and spirited Olympic ceremony. His other accomplishments are many: Bringing public rail transportation to his city; building an international airport--Tom Bradley Airport--and a port that generated hundreds of thousands of jobs for the region; opening the doors of city government so that city workers reflected the rich cultural diversity of Los Angeles. One particular vision I have of Tom Bradley which I will never forget is when we met, of all places, on the Great Wall of China as mayors in June of 1979. I was there to secure a sister city relationship between San Francisco and the city of Shanghai. While San Francisco got that relationship, Tom Bradley went right out and secured a similar relationship between Los Angeles and Guangzhou. Tom knew the importance that the Pacific Rim would play in his city's future and he would literally travel anywhere in the world to help promote the city. He was a forceful and successful advocate for the cities of America every time cities needed a strong voice. His presence was matched by a wonderful and soft gentleness that I, personally, will never forget. My deepest sorrow goes to his family and to his many friends. Mr. President, I know we all will do our part to see that Tom Bradley's vision for Los Angeles lives on and on for generations to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to support the conference agreement on H.R. 6, the Higher Education Act bill. The bill has a number of provisions that will be helpful to my state: It authorizes $300 million in new initiatives to strengthen teacher training for elementary and secondary. It continues student loans and increases the maximum authorized Pell grant from $4,500 to $5,800 by 2003 to help low-income students get a college education. It continues federal support for colleges and universities, such as science and engineering programs and graduate fellowships. The opportunity to pursue an education, particularly a college education, has long been a hallmark of American society. In California, shifts in the economy make higher education more important than ever. Service-related jobs, such as those in high tech industries, have displaced many traditional manufacturing jobs. These new jobs require a level of knowledge and skill that can for the most part only be gained by a college education. California has long been a leader in providing a strong higher education system. The University of California (UC) has nine campuses that serve 132,000 students. Total enrollment at UC is projected to grow by about 36,500 students by fall 2006. The California State University System (CSU) consists of 22 regional campuses with 286,000 students. Enrollment is expected to grow by 31.4 percent or 105,809 students by year 2006. Another important element of higher education in California is the California community college system, the largest community college system in the world. Its 106 campuses provided vocational, academic, and community service programs to over 1.5 million students of varying ages, income levels and educational backgrounds in 1997. Roughly three of four public postsecondary students were in enrolled in community colleges. The system is expected to increase by 28.9 percent as its attendance is projected to be over 1.8 million by fall 2006. California faces huge challenges in higher education in the coming years: First, enrollment in California's public schools, the college generation of the future, is growing at three times the national rate. Enrollment in the three major segments of higher education will increase by 28.9 percent, or by 549,144 students, between 1996 and 2006, according to the state's Department of Finance. California will have this surge in college applicants because (1) the number of high school graduates has increased by 22 percent since 1993; (2) many adult workers are changing careers by choice because of organization restructuring, or to enhance their employment skills; (3) migration to California from other states and countries is continuing; and (4) more Californians over 40 are pursuing lifelong learning. Second, California has 21,000 teachers on emergency credentials and will need up to 300,000 new teachers in the next decade. Third, California has many first generation, bilingual and ``nontraditional'' students. California State University, for example, has a large number of ``nontraditional'' students, students who are older than the usual college age. This is because many community college graduates transfer to CSU and many CSU students are working people seeking to progress professionally or maintain technical proficiency. Similarly, approximately 41 percent of community college students are in the 20-29 age group. I am pleased that the House-Senate conferees accepted several provisions that I authored to help students and institutions in my state: First, the 5th year Pell grant: That authorizes the Secretary of Education to award on a case-by-case basis Pell grants for disadvantaged students for the fifth year of teacher education required in California to get a teaching credential. This could enable 12,000 disadvantaged students to become teachers in California, according to the Congressional Budget Office, at a time when we are facing a severe teacher shortage and have 21,000 teachers in the classroom on emergency credentials. Second, distance learning: The bill also includes two of my amendments to the distance learning demonstration (teaching away from the traditional campus via a computer, teleconferencing or other technologies). The first, clarifies that university ``systems'' (e.g., UC system, CSU system) would be eligible and the bill increases the number of demonstration sites from five to fifteen. Third, school districts with high numbers of limited English proficient students: The bill authorizes state grants for innovative ways to reduce teacher shortages in high poverty areas. At my suggestion, the bill includes as eligible or target areas, school districts with disproportionate numbers of limited English speaking children. In California, 1.3 million students have limited English proficiency, a tripling since 1986 and at least 87 languages are spoken. Fourth, study of few borrowers: The bill provides that schools whose student loan default rate exceeds 25% for three years will be ineligible to participate in the student loan program. For schools like California's community colleges, that have just a few borrowers, this method gives the appearance of having a very high default rate. For example, if the school has only four borrowers but two defaulters, they would have a 50 percent default rate. The manager's amendment includes my suggestion of a study of the effectiveness of this measurement method by September 30, 1999. Student financial aid is essential to enabling millions of students to get a higher education. The California Postsecondary Education Commission estimates that 50-55 percent of students at California's public and private institutions are receiving some form of state, federal or institutional financial assistance. Expenses for tuition and supplies at California's postsecondary institutions, public and private, averaged $19,500 during the 1997-98 school year. Most families have a hard time saving that kind of money. By continuing federal student grant and loan programs, this bill will continue to open doors to education for many Californians. The higher education bill is a bipartisan and constructive bill that will help our nation provide a college education to millions of Americans. I hope my colleagues and the President to join me in enacting this important bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is right. And I am delighted the Senator is in the Chamber, because many people have said about this amendment, ``Well, why isn't Federal law enough?'' And if the Senator will recall, we both voted for the Federal clarification law in the case of Oklahoma City that would give victims the right to be notified, to be present in the courtroom, and to make a statement. And even after we clarified the law, the Federal judge held that if a victim was present, that victim could not make a statement. So this again is, I think, an additional rationale for this constitutional amendment. I do want to point out the valuable support of Professor Laurence Tribe of the Harvard Law School, and I would like to just briefly quote portions of his testimony last year before the House hearing on the amendment. The rights in question--rights of crime victims not to be victimized yet again, through the processes 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 society of justice would aspire to protect and strive never to violate. Our Constitution's central concerns involve protecting the rights of individuals to participate in all those governmental 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 Constitution of the United States. 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 the 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. So, in a sense, this is all the heart of our argument. Today, the accused, the defendant, has 15 specific rights in the Constitution. The victim of a violent crime, or any other crime, has no rights in the Constitution. Consequently, there is no protected, no basic floor of rights across this Nation. Each State varies. And when one of these rights conflicts with a right guaranteed to a victim by a State constitutional amendment, the Federal Constitution will always prevail. We believe very strongly that 15 rights should be balanced by the 7 rights that we would provide to victims under this constitutional amendment. ``The right to receive notice of the proceedings.'' What could be more basic? Somebody assaults you, somebody has raped you, somebody has robbed you--at least you receive a notice to the hearing. ``The right to attend the trial, and any other public proceeding at which the defendant is present.'' ``The right to be heard at certain stages in the proceeding: The release of the offender; acceptance of a plea bargain; and sentencing. ``The right to be notified of the offender's release or escape.'' This is something for me which goes back to the 1974 case of a woman having to call to plead to know when her husband's murderer and her own attacker would be released, and because she does not have that information to this day guaranteed to her, to this day she lives in anonymity. She has changed her name and she has changed her place of residence because she believes one day he will get out and one day he will come after her. No American should have to live that way. That is a basic right we provide in this constitutional amendment. ``The right to an order of restitution, albeit $1, presented by a judge,'' which is significant to every victim. We had interested victims testify to this. Senator Kyl, I am sure, will remember how meaningful and important just the simple act of restitution was to them. ``To have the safety of the victim considered in determining a release from custody.'' These are, in essence, the basic rights that we would provide to begin to balance this scale of justice throughout time. The only way it can be done is by adding a constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I, once again, thank Senator Kyl. It has been a great pleasure for me. I hope we will have the time to debate this fully on the floor and have a vote. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator will yield on one point, I would like to add to those thanks, and thank him for being so generous. I would like to add Roberta Roper of the National Victims Constitutional Amendment Network, who worked with Steve Twist so actively; David Beatty of the National Victims Center; and John Stein and Marlene Young of the National Organization for Victim Assistance. If I might say this: Some people have pooh-poohed--maybe pooh-poohed is not a good senatorial word--let me say denigrated this concept. As one who sat on 5,000 cases, sentencing them, setting sentences and granting paroles for 6 years of my life, I can tell you that I believe this constitutional amendment will make more of a difference in the criminal justice system than virtually anything else that could be done. I think it is extraordinarily important. I know the Senator joins me in this, and I hope we will be able to have that full debate early on in the next Congress.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. On Paul Cassell, I think the Senator will remember, in the Judiciary Committee he had very compelling testimony and he submitted a brief which he had written particularly on this. I found it very, very compelling. I would like to refer to it in the text of our remarks, so people who might be interested would go back and read that brief.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Arizona. I want Senator Kyl to know that it has really been a very great pleasure for me to work with the Senator over these past 2 years. I think it has been for me one of the best experiences I have had in the time I have been in the Senate, and that is two Senators from different political parties sitting down to try to work out something which is enormously difficult to do, and that is the drafting of a new constitutional amendment. The Senator mentioned that we have done 60-plus drafts, and that we have met with the Attorney General, the White House, met members of victims' groups. The Senator brought in the counsel for victims. Larry Tribe, from Harvard University, worked with us, and we believe, I think, that we have an amendment that will now stand the test of public scrutiny and stand the test of time. I want to share, Madam President, with the Senate how I first became involved in victims' rights. It was in the mid-1970s in San Francisco when a man broke into a home on Portrero Hill. He tied the man in the home to a chair and murdered him by beating him with a hammer, a chopping block and a ceramic vase. He then repeatedly raped his 24- year-old wife, breaking several of her bones. He slit her wrist and tried to strangle her with a telephone cord before setting their home on fire and leaving them to go up in flames. Miraculously, this young woman, whose name I purposely left out of this, is still alive. She testified against him. He is still in State prison, to the best of my knowledge. But when I became mayor she used to call me every year and say, ``I'm terrified that he might get out. I don't know if and when he will get out. His parole is coming up. Could you help me?'' I recognized then that there really were no rights that victims had. In 1982, California became the first State in the Union to apply some victims' rights. It was a bill of rights. It passed the electorate overwhelmingly. That is the reason when people saw the family of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in court it wasn't because they had Federal rights or constitutional rights; it was because the constitution of the State of California provided that right in 1982. Some 28 other States have followed. So you might say, ``Well, what's the problem?'' The problem is each State is different, and there is no basic floor of rights guaranteed to every victim. Therefore, if rights come in conflict, obviously, the rights provided in the Constitution prevail. Now, what rights are in the Constitution? These are the constitutional rights today. You will see the rights of the accused, 15 specific rights guaranteed in the Constitution: the right to counsel, the right to due process, to a speedy trial, to a prohibition against double jeopardy, self-incrimination, against unreasonable searches and seizures, to have warrants issued only on probable cause, a jury of your peers, to be informed of accusations, and so on. You will then on the other side see the rights granted to victims are ``none.'' Well, one has to look back and say, how did this happen? I have looked back, and how it happened is very interesting. Our Founding Fathers, when they included the rights of the accused in the Constitution, did not think to include the rights of crime victims. Then again in 1789 there were not 9 million victims of violent crimes every year. As a matter of fact, there were not much more than 4 million people in all of our colonies. In fact, there are more victims of violent crime each year, by far, than there were people in the country when the Constitution was written. Additionally, the way the criminal justice system worked then, victims did not need a guarantee of these rights. In America, up to the late 18th century and well into the 19th century, the concept of the public prosecutor did not exist. Victims could and did commence criminal cases themselves, by hiring a sheriff to arrest the defendant and then initiating a private prosecution. The core rights in our amendment--to notice, to attend, 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 in the last 35 years--it became easier and easier for the victim to be left out of the process. Another scholar 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. So there was no need to guarantee those rights in 1789, and, as we all know, the Constitution protects people from government rather than providing most people with certain basic rights. But the criminal justice system has changed dramatically since then and the prevalence of crime has changed dramatically. So we believe that the need and circumstances both combine to restore balance to the criminal justice system by guaranteeing the rights of violent crime victims in the United States. I am very proud to have 12 coauthors on the Democratic side for this constitutional amendment, and I am particularly proud to have the support of Senator Biden of Delaware. Senator Biden of Delaware was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I say to the Senator from Arizona, when I came on that committee back in 1992 and was very helpful to me in learning the ropes of the committee. I have great respect for him. So it was very significant to me when we worked with him, made certain compromises in the amendment, and gained his support.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator will yield for just one moment?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to take note of the first signs of progess in the Middle East peace process in many months. This morning, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu of Israel, and Chairman Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority met with President Clinton at the White House to try to move the implementation of the stalled Oslo peace ageeements forward. While no agreement was reached, these talks produced enough progress for the President to decide to send Secretary of State Albright and Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross to the Middle East next week to try to bring the parties to an agreement. Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat are expecting to return to Washington in mid-October, with the hope that they will be able put the finishing touches on a deal at that time. The progress representated by today's meeting is significant, I believe, for several reasons. First, it reminds us of the essential need for there to be strong American leadership if there is to be progress on the Middle East. No Middle East peace agreement has ever been concluded without high-level U.S. involvement, and this time is no differnt. The personal attention of the President of the United States and the Secretary of State are crucial to advancing this process, especially at a time when the parties have reached an impasse. Among supporters of Israel, who long for it to live at peace with its neighbors, there is broad recognition of the centrality of the American role in Middle East peacemaking. That certainly is the view expressed by a group of over 100 senior Jewish community leaders from California, in a letter they sent to Presdient Clinton last week. This letter is signed by 105 prominent Jewish leaders (rabbis, community activists, academics, and philanthropists). It expresses what I believe to be the widespread feeling of the American Jewish community. In clear language, they appeal to the President not to lose sight of the essential American role in helping Israel reach the peace it is longing for. They write: We have been strongly supportive of your Administration's efforts to narrow the gaps between the two parties and help them to reach an agreement. As in past Arab-Israeli negotiations, the American role in getting both sides to say yes is indispensable. Although mediating this complex dispute can be a thankless task, and some naysayers may urge you to put the peace process on the back burner, now is not the time to stop searching for ways to help both peoples resolve their differences. Today's meeting shows that the President shares their sense of urgency and is taking it to heart. I ask unanimous consent that this letter and the 105 signatories be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Today's meeting is also important, not just because of what it says about the process and the U.S. role, but also for what the prospect is that it can yield an agreement in just a few more days or a few weeks. Far too much time has been lost. Israel and the Palestinians have been stuck for months on how to complete the interim agreements launched by the Oslo process, so that they can move on to the critical final status talks. These interim talks deal with hard and important questions: How much of the West Bank Israel will redeploy from, what steps the Palestinian Authority will take to ensure a sustained crackdown on terrorist groups, how the security services of the two sides will work together to prevent acts of terrorism, and the understanding that both sides must refrain from unilateral actions that undermine the other side's confidence in the peace process. Nothing about these talks is easy, but the time has long since come for both sides to take politically difficult, but fundamentally necessary, decisions that will allow this process to move forward. Israel's security and Palestinian dreams of self-determination can only be realized through a mutually agreed permanent peace agreement. To the extent that today's meeting and the talks set for upcoming days represent a chance to complete the interim agreements and begin final status talks, there is reason for hope. The final status talks-- which are supposed to be completed by May 4, 1999, but will probably take much longer--are going to be difficult enough. They will deal with the hardest questions of all: sovereignty, settlements, refugees, water, and Jerusalem. Every day these final status talks are delayed, they only become more difficult. Every day they are delayed, the temptation on each side to take unilateral measures only increases. Every day they are delayed is another opportunity for extremists on each side to use violence to try to destroy the chances for peace altogether. If the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority are truly committed to peace, as I believe they are, they cannot let that happen. They must work hard in the next several days to complete the interim agreement, and then move quickly to make progress in the final status talks. At this season of renewal in the Jewish calendar, when a new year and new beginnings are at hand, it is my hope and prayer that a new day may at last be dawning in the lives of Israelis and Palestinians. For that to happen, their leaders, with the strong support of the United States, must act to now to seize the opportunities that are before them. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 September 24, 1998. Hon. William Jefferson Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: As American Jews dedicated to Israel's security and to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, we want to express our appreciation for your steadfast commitment to the Jewish state and its quest for a secure peace. As you face the many formidable challenges confronting your Administration and our country, we urge you to reestablish the Middle East peace process as an urgent American priority. We believe it is important for the U.S. to encourage Israel and the Palestinian Authority to redouble their efforts to achieve an agreement on further Israeli redeployment and enhanced security measures as soon as possible. The longer this process drags on inconclusively, the greater the danger of a total collapse of the entire peace process, which inevitably will lead to more violence and bloodshed. We have been strongly supportive of your Administration's efforts to narrow the gaps between the two parties and help them to reach an agreement. As in past Arab-Israeli negotiations, the American role in getting both sides to say yes is indispensable. Although mediating this complex dispute can be a thankless task, and some naysayers may urge you to put the peace process on the back burner, now is not the time to stop searching for ways to help both peoples resolve their differences. The success of the peace process is, in our view, crucial to Israel's long-term security and the strategic interests of the United States. Polls consistently show that this position reflects the widespread feeling in the American Jewish community. We hope that, buoyed by this support, you will keep striving to remove obstacles from the road to a secure Arab-Israeli peace. Sincerely, signatories to letter to president bill clinton from california jewish leaders Rabbi Mona Alfi, Sacramento; Eric Alon, Palos Verdes Estes; Rabbi Melanie Aron, Los Gatos; Arnold J. Band, UCLA; Rabbi Lewis M. Barth, Los Angeles; Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak, Los Angeles; Michael Berenbaum, Los Angeles; Rabbi Brad L. Bloom, Sacramento; Martin Block, San Diego State University; Donna Bojarsky, West Hollywood; Harry R. Brickman, UCLA. Eli Broad, Los Angeles; Rabbi Samuel G. Broude, Oakland; Rabbi Steven A. Chester, Oakland; Rabbi Helen Cohn, San Francisco; Bruce C. Corwin, Beverly Hills; Rabbi Mark Diamond, Oakland; Rabbi Shelton J. Donnell, Santa Ana; Richard Dreyfuss, West Hollywood; Rabbi Steven J. Einstein, Fountain Valley; Irwin S. Field, Beverly Hills; Rabbi Harvey J. Fields, Beverly Hills; Sybil Fields, Beverly Hills; Rabbi Allen I. Freehling, Los Angeles. Elaine Galinson, La Jolla; Murray Galinson, La Jolla; Rabbi Robert T. Gan, Los Angeles; Rabbi Laura Geller, Beverly Hills; Don L. Gevirtz, Santa Barbara; Guilford Glazer, Beverly Hills; Stanley P. Gold, Beverly Hills; Carole Goldberg, UCLA; Danny Goldberg, Malibu; John Goldman, Atherton; Lucy Goldman, La Jolla; Jona Goldrich, Culver City. Bram Goldsmith, Beverly Hills; Osias Goren, Pacific Palisades; Rabbi Roberto D. Graetz, Lafayette; Danny Grossman, San Francisco; Lois Gunther, Los Angeles; Richard Gunther, Los Angeles; Rabbi Jason Gwasdoff, Stockton; Rabbi Johanna Hershenson, Aliso Viejo; Stanley Hirsh, Los Angeles; Rabbi Steven B. Jacobs, Woodland Hills; Carol Katzman, Los Angeles; Rabbi Bernie King, Irvine. Rabbi Allen Krause, Aliso Viejo; Luis Lainer, Los Angeles; Mark Lanier, Los Angeles; Susan B. Landau, Los Angeles; Gary Lauder, San Francisco; Laura Lauder, San Francisco; Rabbi Martin Lawson, San Diego; Irwin Levin, Los Angeles; Carol Levy, Los Angeles; Mark C. Levy, Santa Monica; Peachy Levy, Santa Monica; Rabbi Richard N. Levy, Los Angeles. Rabbi Alan Lew, San Francisco; Rabbi David Lieb, San Pedro; Peter Loewenberg, UCLA; Rabbi Brian Lurie, Ross; Rabbi Janet Marder, Los Angeles; Michael Medavoy, Culver City; Arnold Messer, Beverly Hills; Rabbi Herbert Morris, San Francisco; David Myers, UCLA; Raquel H. Newman, San Francisco; Joan Patsy Ostroy, Los Angeles; Norman J. Pattiz, Culver City. Debra Pell, San Francisco; Joseph Pell, San Francisco; Sol Price, San Diego; Jon Pritzker, San Francisco; Lisa Pritzker, San Francisco; Arnold Rachlis, Irvine; David Rapoport, UCLA; Rob Reiner, Beverly Hills; Kenneth Reinhard, UCLA; Rabbi Steven Carr Reuben, Pacific Palisades; Rabbi Moshe Rothblum, North Hollywood. Edward Sanders, Los Angeles; Rabbi Harold Schulweis, Encino; Paul Siegel, La Jolla; Rabbi Robert A. Siegel, Fresno; Alan Sieroty, Los Angeles; Rabbi Steven L. Silver, Redondo Beach; Richard Sklar, UCLA; Terri Smooke, Beverly Hills; Marcia Smolens, San Francisco; Fredelle Z. Spiegel, UCLA; Steven L. Spiegel, UCLA; Rabbi Jonathan Stein, San Diego. Arthur Stern, Beverly Hills; Faye Straus, Lafayette; Sandor Straus, Lafayette; Rabbi Reuven Taff, Sacramento; Allan Tobin, UCLA' Rabbi Martin Weiner, San Francisco; Sanford Weiner, Los Angeles; Howard Welinsky, Culver City; Steven J. Zipperstein, Stanford University. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The FAA reauthorization bill will provide important and necessary funding to our nation's aviation system. It is crucial that we work to pass this legislation before the end of this session. But, there is one provision in this bill that we must resolve before we can go forward. The exemptions to the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Perimeter Rule has come to our attention as a section of this bill which opens the door to an array of concerns. The change in the Perimeter Rule will allow for six new daily round trip flights between Reagan National Airport and airports beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter. We have some questions as to who will be served if these exemptions are enacted by Congress. We would like to see the highest level of service provided to the most number of passengers. Do you believe that this Perimeter Rule exemption would prevent airlines from competing to provide the greatest amount of service to the most number of passengers?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will vote to table this amendment to S. 1301, the Bankruptcy Reform bill, which expresses the sense of the Congress ``that the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee should promptly reduce the Federal Funds rate.'' My vote to table this amendment should not be construed as opposition to lower interest rates. Rather, I do not believe it is the duty of this body, nor do I believe that it is appropriate for this body, to tell the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee what to do.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support S. 1301, and intend to vote for its passage. It gives bankruptcy judges the tools they need to require that capable debtors take responsibility for their debts. Furthermore, it does so in a manner that empowers bankruptcy judges to seek solutions to consumer insolvency, rather than straitjacketing them with a strict formula. Finally, S. 1301 contains strengthened provisions to protect the priority of child support and spousal support, which I supported in the Judiciary Committee. Responsibility cannot be a one-way street, however. The blame for the current record number of consumer bankruptcies lies not only with unsound consumer spending habits, but often with unwise and irresponsible lending practices that facilitate and even foster such recklessness. This amendment aims to deter such recklessness in credit practices. It authorizes the Federal Reserve Board to conduct a study of industry practices of soliciting and extending credit indiscriminately, without taking steps to ensure that consumers are capable of repaying their debt, or in a manner that encourages consumers to accumulate additional debt. The Federal Reserve Board is further authorized to study the effects of such practices on consumer debt and insolvency. Within two years of enactment, the Federal Reserve Board will make public a report on its findings, regarding the credit industry's indiscriminate solicitation and extension of credit. The amendment allows the Federal Reserve Board to issue regulations that would require additional disclosures to consumers, and to take any other actions, consistent with its statutory authority, that the board finds necessary to ensure responsible industrywide practices and to prevent resulting consumer debt and insolvency. This amendment directly addresses one of the major causes of personal bankruptcies: bad consumer debt. It's a simple matter of arithmetic. The typical family filing bankruptcy in 1997 owed more than one-and-a-half times its annual income in short-term, high interest debt. This means that the average family in bankruptcy, with a median income of just over $17,500, had $26,500 in credit card and other short-term, high interest debt. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the FDIC, and independent economists all link the rise in personal bankruptcies directly to the rise in consumer debt. Last year, the credit card industry sent out a record 3.1 billion unsolicited offers. That's 30 solicitations to every household in America. The number of solicitations jumped 20% last year alone. Based on industry estimates, between 1992 and 1996, credit card companies offered about a million dollars of credit to every household in the United States. There are well over a billion cards in circulation--a dozen credit cards for every household in the country. Three-quarters of all households have a least one credit card, and three out of four of them also carry credit card debt from month to month. Not surprisingly, credit card debt has increased accordingly. Credit card debt doubled between 1993 and 1997: The amount of credit card debt outstanding at the end of 1997 was $422 billion, twice as much as the amount in 1993. Credit card usage has grown fastest in recent years among debtors with the lowest incomes. Since the early 1990's, Americans with incomes below the poverty level nearly doubled their credit card usage, and those in the $10,000-25,000 income bracket came in a close second in the rise in debt. The result is not surprising: 27% of the under- $10,000 families have consumer debt that is more than 40% of their income. Nearly one in ten has at least one debt that is more than sixty days past due. These are the families for whom real income has actually declined since 1989. Credit card issuers earn about 75% of their revenues from the interest paid by borrowers who do not pay in full each month. Several companies have instituted charges or even canceled credit cards for customers who pay in full each month, preferring customers with large credit balances who pay minimum monthly payments. As bankruptcy levels have risen, total credit card profitability has grown--credit card lending is now twice as profitable as all other lending activities. In the third quarter of 1997, credit card banks showed a 2.59% return on assets, compared to a 1.22% return on assets reported by all commercial banks. This amendment most likely would not affect the vast majority of the credit card industry, who responsibly check consumer credit history before issuing or ``pre-approving'' credit cards. Representatives of large credit card issuers such as Bank of America have assured me and my staff that they do not provide credit cards to consumers without a thorough credit history check. However, I should note that every credit card issuer that I and my staff spoke with said that one thing they do not check is income. In other words, credit card issuers have no idea whether persons to whom they issue credit cards have the means to pay their bills each month. Furthermore, major credit cards such as Visa and Mastercard do not require banks who issue their cards to check credit history. This bill would affect lenders who fail to even inquire into a consumer's ability to pay, or those who specifically target consumers who can't or won't repay balances. A growing segment of the credit industry known as ``sub-prime'' lenders increasingly searches for risky borrowers, who they know will make inappropriately low minimum monthly payments, carry large monthly balances from month to month, and pay high interest rates. Such lending has become the fastest growing, most-profitable subset of consumer lending. Although losses are substantial, interest rates of 18 to 40% on credit card debt make this lending profitable. Many of these often relatively unsophisticated borrowers don't realize that minimum monthly payments just put them deeper in a hole, which in many cases leads to bankruptcy. For example, industry analysts estimate that, using a typical minimum monthly payment rate on a credit card, in order to pay off a $2,500 balance--assuming the consumer never used the card to charge anything else ever again--it would take 34 years to pay off the balance, and total payments would exceed 300% of the original principal. The FDIC observes that by marketing high-risk debt to customers who are at substantial risk for non-payment, credit card issuers have contributed to the rise in consumer bankruptcies. On May 2, 1997, the FDIC issued warnings to banks about the risks posed by increased subprime lending. Some industry analysts predict that overall loan default rates will double by the year 2001 and thus warn that ``by lowering their credit standards and saturating the market with loans, many banks will be unable to avoid potentially enormous delinquencies and write-offs.'' Subprime lending is growing even among reputable lenders. Senator Lauch Faircloth, who notes that he ``abhors . . . constraints on the private sector,'' recently stated about the subprime market: ``We have very reputable, very fine institutions, spinning off subsidiaries to get into what I would consider very precarious, reckless, bordering on sleazebag lending.'' Since the Senate Judiciary Committee considered this bill in June, I have received examples from constituents of credit card companies who offer credit cards to persons who are wholly unable to afford them. I have also had my staff review solicitations they have received. I want to give you some examples of the sort of inappropriate credit card solicitations my constituents and my staff have received. A constituent from San Ramon, CA, wrote that her 7-year old son received a ``charter membership offer'' for a Visa Signature Card. The constituent writes: If banks are offering bankcards to small children, who else (or what else) are they offering them to. This kind of unsolicited mail is ridiculous. This is not an isolated occurrence. Both sons of a staff member who works in my San Francisco office received credit card offers--and they're 12 and 15 years old. The 12-year-old is an eighth grader, with no income other than a $25 a month allowance and gifts from his grandmother and holiday and birthday gifts. He is a Star Trek fan, and he was offered a ``Star Trek Platinum Plus MasterCard,'' with up to $100,000 in credit. The card features discounts on Star Trek merchandise and entertainment events. The solicitation noted an introductory 3.9 percent annual percentage rate in large, bold print. The small print on the back explains that the rate applies only to initial balance transfers and cash advance checks. The actual annual percentage rate is 14.99 percent. The 12-year-old's 15-year-old brother was also offered a credit line of up to $100,000 on the ``First USA Platinum MasterCard for Science Fiction Enthusiasts.'' This card offered a free space pen and a 9.99 percent ``fixed'' annual percentage rate. The small print explained that if payment is received ``late'' twice in any 6-month period, the annual percentage rate balloons to 19.99 percent. If payment is not received for 2 consecutive months, the rate balloons further to 22.99 percent. It's not just children. A constituent from Lakewood, CA, wrote to me last month: I am sending to you [a solicitation] which I received in the mail yesterday. It was addressed to my mother and was offering her a platinum credit card with a $100,000 credit line. What's wrong with this? My mother's been dead for seven years! The constituent continues: What really bugs me about this is that credit card companies send out these solicitations for their plastic cards and then when they get burned, they start crying foul. They want all kinds of laws passed to protect them from taking hits when it's their own practices that caused the problem. A 22-year-old constituent from Pacifica, CA, who makes $25,000 a year, was offered 3 platinum cards with a credit limit of up to $100,000 on each card. Two of the cards advertised in large, bold print, ``introductory'' annual percentage rates of 3.9 percent for cash advance checks and balance transfers. The fine print on both cards disclosed the actual annual percentage rates on purchases of 14.99 percent. The other card offered free mileage on US Airways. The fine print disclosed its annual percentage rate as 18.4 percent; 21.9 percent if the account is in default. Another constituent, also from Pacifica, CA, who is unemployed, was offered a platinum card with an up to $50,000 credit line. As with a number of these offers, the solicitation boldly advertised an ``introductory'' annual percentage rate of 3.9 percent for cash advance checks and balance transfers, but the fine print on both cards disclosed the actual annual percentage rate on purchases of 14.99 percent. The other card offered free mileage on US Airways. Besides low introductory interest rates, which inevitably balloon, and frequent flier miles, the range of gifts offered to induce people to take on new credit cards is incredible. In the past couple of months that I have been asking my staff to save solicitations, ``free'' gifts offered to them--and to me--to take on new credit cards, have included everything from: free telephone calling cards, to transistor radios, attache cases, Godiva chocolates, Waterford crystal, and electronic organizers. And the credit card companies are anything if not persistent. Over the past couple months, one of my staff members has received 4 offers for second mortgages, totaling $75,000 in credit, one of which was sent twice; $230,000 in credit, with free gifts as incentives; and a ``college alumni'' card, offering a ``third opportunity'' to apply. These sort of come-on's, targeting people who oftentimes are simply incapable of affording the credit card, are by no means unique to Californians. Bankruptcy Judge John Akard of the Northern District of Texas wrote that the attorneys for one couple who filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy asked them to record solicitations received after filing for bankruptcy. The received over 50 solicitations over the next 24 months, offering cumulatively over $2 million in credit; 25 of these were ``pre- approved.'' Consumer bankruptcy attorneys tell my staff that some companies send credit cards to bankruptcy filers courtesy of their bankruptcy attorneys. In fact, a staff member informed me that when he did pro bono work for indigent people filing bankruptcy, the pro bono attorneys had to constantly tell the bankruptcy filers not to take on new credit cards, which credit card companies targeted to them, knowing that they could not disavow their debt for a period of six years following bankruptcy. In many cases, credit cards offered to consumers who have no ability to repay them and no reason having them is a direct cause of personal bankruptcy. The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee for the Southern District of California provided my office with some examples, taken directly from the rolls of recent bankruptcy filers in San Diego: One bankruptcy filer had $41,989 in debt, run up on 25 retail and credit cards--but only $17,520 in yearly income; another bankruptcy filer, had $23,826 in debt, run up on 6 credit cards and 7 retail cards--and only $4,320 in yearly income; still another bankruptcy filer had $28,054 in debt, run up on 6 credit cards and 9 retail cards, but only $11,520 in yearly income; and in the most egregious case, one filer had $97,372 in debt, run up on a total of 26 cards--13 credit cards and 13 retail cards--and had no yearly income. Another filer had over $50,000 in debt run up on 7 credit cards--and no yearly income. Similarly, the United States Trustee for the Northern District of California provided my office with a case study of some of the recent bankruptcy cases filed in San Francisco; a ``naturopath'' with an annual income of $8,100, accumulated $44,690 in credit card debt, on 13 credit cards before declaring bankruptcy; a truck driver with $22,368 in annual income, accumulated $102,645 in credit card debt on 14 credit cards before declaring bankruptcy; an unemployed person with no annual income, accumulated $50,927 in debt on 14 different credit cards before declaring bankruptcy; and the list goes on. U.S. bankruptcy trustees have also provided my office with letter after letter, originally sent by U.S. bankruptcy panel trustees to creditors, alleging ``bad faith'' on behalf of consumers, because the debtor accumulated credit card debts they could have had no realistic expectation of repaying. For example, one letter notes that the debtor accumulated over $110,635 in credit card debt, but had $500 in monthly income, and had incurred a net loss in income in 1996 and 1997. If the consumer acted in bad faith, one wonders about the faith of the credit card companies that issued the credit cards in the first place and allowed the consumer to continue to accumulate debt. Obviously, in each of these cases, banks kept on issuing credit cards, and kept on allowing consumers to rack up still more debt on the cards, despite clear evidence that the consumer would never be able to repay the debt. During the debate on this bill, we have heard much about the financial burden that consumer bankruptcies levy on each of us as consumers. Clearly, part of the responsibility for that financial burden rests with the credit card companies and retailers who irresponsibly continue to issue credit in such cases. Indeed, industry consultants have estimated that credit card companies could cut their bankruptcy losses by more than 50% if they would institute minimal credit screening. As I mentioned at the outset, I support S. 1301, which gives bankruptcy judges effective tools to require responsible behavior from debtors once bankruptcies occur. This amendment is necessary to promote the responsible behavior needed to prevent such bankruptcies from occurring in the first place, by preventing the runaway consumer debt that is one of the principal causes of the rise in personal bankruptcies. I urge my colleagues to vote for the adoption of this amendment. I end my comments with one statement: Responsibility is a two-way street. And what is sauce for the gander is also sauce for the credit card company. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the amendment has been accepted by both sides. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Durbin, Senator Jeffords, and myself, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I note that both Senator McCain and Senator Smith came to the floor to present their thoughts on Kosovo. I would really like to join them and second their remarks. Mr. President, it is estimated that at least 250,000 Kosovar Albanians have been displaced by the violence and bloodshed of the past several months, and that many are currently living in the forests, without access to adequate food, shelter or medical care. With winter soon approaching, we are on the verge of a major humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo, which is the direct result of a cruel and intentional policy directed by President Milosevic and carried out by Serbian security forces in Kosovo. The time has come--indeed, it is my belief that the time came long ago--for the United States, our NATO allies, and the entire international community, to back with resolve that what happened in Bosnia must not be allowed to happen again in Kosovo. For too long, we have stood by passively while Milosevic has acted in bad faith. He has made numerous commitments to halt the violence, such as that contained in his joint statement with President Yeltsin on June 16, and he has honored none of them. In July, the Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan resolution which called on the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal to indict President Milosevic for his crimes in Bosnia. That resolution has not yet been carried out. In my mind, the time has come for the United States to call an end to the charade of taking at face value the word of a man the U.S. Senate believes should be indicted as a war criminal. If thousands, or tens of thousands, of people in Kosovo now die because they have been systematically forced from their homes, forced into the forests, denied access to food, warmth, shelter and medical care, it is a crime worthy of the world's condemnation. With winter imminent in the Balkans, the U.N. Security Council is prepared to vote on a resolution threatening force under article 7 of the U.N. Charter unless Milosevic calls a cease-fire and negotiates with Kosovo's Albanian separatists. At the end of this week, Secretary Cohen will be meeting with other NATO defense ministers. According to press reports, the Clinton administration has already asked the North Atlantic Council to seek commitments of arms, material and troops from NATO members to complete plans for a multinational force. I hope and trust that this means that a plan of action to halt the violence and bloodshed in Kosovo--a plan with clear benchmarks for success and a clear exit strategy--will be at the top of the NATO defense minister's agenda. I trust that Secretary Cohen will take a strong leadership position at this meeting, and that Secretary Albright is taking an equal stand on this issue in discussions with her counterparts. Although I wish it were not the case, we have seen all too often that when Washington hesitates, our Europe allies become paralyzed. And, lastly, I hope and trust that this time NATO, acting in coordination with the United Nations, will develop a plan consistent with this pressing humanitarian need, which will be quickly implemented, and not just talked about. Mr. President, it took us 4 years to develop the courage to join and urge NATO to intervene in Bosnia at the cost of 200,000 dead and 2 million displaced. Hundreds, if not thousands have already been killed in Kosovo, and hundreds of thousands have been forced from their homes. What more needs to happen before the international community acts? There is no doubt that the search for peace in Kosovo has thus far proved elusive, and that finding a solution which provides Kosovar Albanians with full political rights and civil liberties will be difficult. But the time has come for the international community to take action: We must keep our promise not to allow Kosovo to become another Bosnia, and, unless Milosevic halts the violence immediately and unambiguously, to commit ourselves to the course of a much-needed humanitarian intervention in Kosovo. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

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