Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I opposed the override of the veto of H.R. 1122, a bill banning emergency late-term abortions. There are several reasons why this is a flawed bill. This bill attempts to ban a specific medical procedure, called by opponents, partial-birth abortion, but there is no medical definition of partial-birth abortion. The language in this bill is so vague that it could affect far more than the one particular procedure it seeks to ban, procedures used during the second and possibly the first trimester of a pregnancy. There is no exception to protect the health of the woman. This bill would ban a type of medical procedure regardless of whether it is the medically safest procedure under a particular set of circumstances. States are legislating prohibitions on abortions. H.R. 1122 would criminalize the use of a medical procedure called, by the bill, partial-birth abortion. This term does not appear in medical textbooks or training. Doctors do not know what it means. The doctors who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee could not identify, with any degree of certainty or consistency, what medical procedure this legislation refers to. For example, when asked to describe in medical terms what a partial-birth abortion is Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of OB/GYN Medical Education at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago called it ``a perversion of a breech extraction.'' (page 127) Dr. Nancy Romer, a practicing OB/GYN and Assistant Professor at Wright State University School of Medicine, who said the doctors at her hospital had never performed the procedure, had to quote another doctor in describing it as ``a dilation and extraction, distinguished from dismemberment D and Es.'' (page 182) When the same question was posed to legal experts in Judiciary Committee hearings--to define exactly what medical procedure would be outlawed by this legislation--the responses were equally vague. This vagueness means that every doctor that performs even a second trimester abortion could be vulnerable and could face possible prosecution under this law. The language in this bill is so vague that, far from outlawing just one abortion procedure, the way this bill is written virtually any legal procedure could fall within its scope. I asked the legal and medical experts who testified at the Judiciary Committee hearing if this legislation could affect abortion-not just late-term abortion-but earlier abortions as well. Dr. Lewis Seidman, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, gave the following answer. ``As I read the language in a second trimester pre-viability abortion where the fetus in any event will die, if any portion of the fetus enters the birth canal prior to the technical death of the fetus, then the physician is guilty of a crime and goes to prison for two years.'' Dr. Seidman continued his testimony, concluding that ``if I were a lawyer advising a physician who performed abortions, I would tell him to stop because there is just no way to tell whether the procedure would eventuate in some portion of the fetus entering the birth canal before the fetus is technically dead, much less being able to demonstrate that after the fact.'' (223) Dr. Cortland Richardson, Associate Professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, in testimony before a House committee, said that the language ``partially vaginally delivers'' is vague, not medically oriented, and just not correct. ``In any normal second trimester abortion procedure by any method, you may have a point at which a part, a one inch of umbilical cord, for example, of the fetus passes out of the cervical opening before fetal demise has occurred.'' (H.R. Rep No. 267, September 27, 1995 testimony) So this bill could affect far more than just the few abortions performed in the third trimester, and far more than just the one procedure being described. This bill has no exemption to protect the health of the mother and as such, would directly eliminate that protection provided by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood V. Casey. If this bill were law, a pregnant woman seriously ill with diabetes, cardiovascular problems, cancer, stroke, or other health-threatening illnesses would be forced to carry the pregnancy to term or run the risk that the physician could be challenged and have to prove in court what procedure he or she used, and whether or not the doctor ``partially vaginally-delivered'' a living fetus before death of that fetus. Here are some examples, provided to me by gynecologists, of rare maternal medical conditions that could necessitate a post-viability procedure to protect a woman's health. The health of these women would be endangered in these situations. A fetus has a huge hydrocephalic head (or other greatly enlarged organ) three times the normal size and a cranium is filled with fluid. The head is so large the woman physically cannot deliver it. Labor is impossible, because the fetus cannot get down the birth canal and out. A caesarian is impossible because it would require a huge, up-and-down incision, which would rupture in future pregnancies or labor. Thus, a woman could not have future children and this procedure affects her ability to have future pregnancies. A condition called arthrogryposis, or a rigid fetus, the fetus cannot move down and out in labor, and labor risks rupturing the woman's cervix. With prolonged intense pushing the mother's heart is put at risk. If this stiff fetus cannot be delivered by a caesarian, a large vertical incision would be required, thus risking future pregnancies. Women with certain health conditions cannot tolerate the stress of labor or surgery. They include cardiac problems like congestive heart failure; severe kidney disease (e.g. renal shutdown); severe hypertension, diathesphesis, and Von Willibrand's Disease (bleeding, clotting disorder). Pre-eclampsia (toxemia) is a serious complication of pregnancy and a leading cause of maternal and fetal death that affects the placenta. The placenta does not attach to the wall of the uterus and thus limits the amount of blood and nutrients reaching the fetus, causing it to be underweight and prone to complications. This condition can progress to eclampsia, which can lead to convulsions, kidney failure, and death. The only treatment is to deliver the fetus. The woman cannot withstand labor or surgery. A woman with diabetes might have a decline in renal function. She might not be able to tolerate the physical stress of labor or surgery. Why is this legislation even necessary? Roe v. Wade unequivocally allows States to ban all post-viability abortions unless they are necessary to protect a woman's life or health. Forty-one States have done so. Surely, anyone who believes in States' rights must question the logic of imposing new, Federal regulations on States in a case such as this in area where States have legislated. Medical decisionmaking should be made by medically trained people, not Congress. Congress cannot anticipate every medical situation and explicitly delineate them in law. During pregnancy, labor, and delivery, complicated conditions can develop that are often last minute, life-threatening, and complex for the mother and fetus. No legislator can ever anticipate, craft into law, every conceivable medical emergency that a physician caring for a pregnant woman will face. We have entrusted and trained physicians to make safe and ethical medical decisions based on scientific and medical data on the benefits and risks to the patient. They do so based on their extensive training, their best medical judgment, proven medical techniques, and therapeutic assessment of the patient. Physicians are sworn to protect the health of their patients. Congress should not pass legislation that would deny a physician the ability to provide care that in their professional judgment is medically necessary. Medical decisionmaking or choosing the most appropriate therapy is based on the risk benefit for the mother and fetus, medical training, multiple decisional building blocks by medical experts, often a team. It is highly individualized. Every case is different. The medical history of patients varies tremendously. There are no absolutes. It is based on medical knowledge and training on a wide array of choices. Only the attending physicians in consultation with the woman, with all the facts of the medical case and the medical history assembled, can make the decision. Physicians are bound by ethics, licensing, practice guidelines, and liability. Decisions are often team decisions, not made by one isolated physician and always in consultation with the patient or family. We hire trained professionals because we want their expertise. In the words of the California Medical Association, ``We believe that this bill would create an unwarranted intrusion into the physician- patient relationship by preventing physicians from providing necessary medical care to their patients . . . political concerns and religious beliefs should not be permitted to take precedence over the health and safety of patients.'' The American Women's Medical Association wrote, ``We do not believe that the federal government should dictate the decisions of physicians . . .'' Let me make this clear: I oppose post-viability abortions. They are wrong, except to save the mother's life and health. Late-term abortions are rare and they should be rare. When the Senate considered this bill last year, on May 14, 1997, I offered a substitute to the bill before us. My substitute had 3 provisions. it would have prohibited all abortion procedures after a fetus is viable, not prohibited abortions if in the medical judgment of the physician, an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman, and imposed civil penalties. I continue to believe that my substitute would accomplish the goals of the bill before us while protecting women's health and constitutional rights. Mr. President, these are tragic situations, situations that most of us could never imagine. We had couples come to us and tell us heartbreaking stories about babies they dearly wanted, but babies they could not have because to go through labor and delivery the mother would have died, been seriously injured or prevented from having future pregnancies. These were people who explored every available option, who consulted experts, to save the baby that they very much wanted. These are rare and difficult circumstances. The Federal Government has no place interfering, making this tragic situation any more difficult or complicated for these families. This is a vague, poorly constructed bill. It attempts to ban a medical procedure without properly identifying that procedure in medical terms. It is so vague that it could affect far more than the procedure it seeks to ban. It fails to protect women's health at a time when they face tragic complications in their pregnancies. I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the President's veto.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As the Senate considers appropriations for the National Endowment for Arts and the Humanities Act, the primary source of federal support for the arts, humanities and museums, I wish to express my support for these programs. Arts as Part of Our History Mr. President, throughout this nation's history, the arts have been an integral part of our background and heritage. Over the years, music, dance, art, and personal expression have evolved to reflect our changing culture and attitudes. In a country of great diversity, from education and socioeconomic background to political perspective and religious views, all people should have the opportunity to experience America in its many forms, including the arts. NEA Is a Success In 1966, when Congress created the National Endowment of the Arts, the mission was to expose all people, across the nation, from California to Maine, from New York to North Dakota, of all backgrounds and origins, to music, dancing, theater, art and literature. Since then, the NEA has more than succeeded with its mission. The NEA helps support community festivals, rural chamber music, arts centers, galleries, arts libraries, town halls, children's organizations, and other social and civic institutions where families can experience the arts. NEA-sponsored programs build bridges of understanding among diverse groups of Americans. Economic Benefits The arts also stimulate local economies. By attracting tourist dollars, the arts stimulate business development, encourage urban renewal, attract new businesses, and improve the overall quality of life for our cities and towns. Nationally, nonprofit arts organizations generate an estimated $37 billion in economic activity and return $3.4 billion in federal income taxes to the U.S. Treasury each year. In other words, for every $ 1.00 dollar spent by the NEA, $34.00 are returned to the United States. Every $1.00 spent by the NEA attracts $12.00 to the arts from other sources. Increased Job Opportunities The arts also create job opportunities for more Americans. More than 1.7 million Americans are employed in the non-profit arts industry. This number is higher than any other profession including legal services, police and firefighting, mining, advertising, and forestry and logging. Since 1970 the number of artists employed in the U.S. has more than doubled. Even with this increase, the United States still spends nearly fifty times less on the arts than any of its major allies. Creates State and Federal Partnerships To ensure that people across the country have access to arts programs, the NEA promotes partnerships between the state and arts agencies, schools and local organizations. This cooperative system of arts support links local, state and regional associations in order to ensure that support and assistance is provided to organizations that work with culturally diverse populations, older adults, people with disabilities, and individuals living in institutions. Before the NEA, only 5 states had state-funded arts councils. Today, all 50 states do. Currently, the NEA sustains 25 partnerships with federal agencies including the Departments of Education and Justice, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, and the National Science Foundation. education Benefits The arts can improve learning and be part of a well-rounded education. Research from 1995-97 from the College Entrance Examination Board shows that students who studied the arts scored an average of 83 points higher than non-arts students on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the SAT. Children with a piano background have also scored better on math tests. The NEA and the state arts agencies provide $30 million in annual support for more than 7,800 arts education projects in more than 2,400 communities. In 1997, the NEA invested $8.2 million, 10 percent of its annual grant dollars, in kindergarten through grade 12 arts programs. Arts education improves life skills including self-esteem, teamwork, motivation, discipline, and problem solving that help young people compete in a challenging and high-tech workforce. nea affects california and states nationwide Cutting funding means cutting programs. NEA has supported many California efforts: programs such as the I Do Dance Not Drugs program in South Central Los Angeles that works with latch-key kids would be demolished; a grant to the Pacific Symphony Association in Santa Ana, California funds Class Act, 95 a program which supports and enhances music education for up to 17,000 students at 20 elementary schools in Orange County through a series of activities, including repeated interaction with an Orchestra musician and direct exposure and interactive experiences with the Orchestra and the music it performs, would not be possible without NEA funding; to support a comprehensive education program at Berkeley public elementary schools, the Berkeley Symphony Orchestra will help train teachers in music, encouraging student interaction with the composer, an introductory orchestral concert, classroom visits, and a culminating presentation at which students perform side by side with Berkeley Symphony Orchestra professional musicians; the California Arts Council supports arts education and the partnership project with the California Assembly of Local Art Agencies to strengthen the State's local art agencies; programs which support Native American artists in Eureka, California to put on workshops for students and citizens on art could be terminated. Public Supports NEA By a margin of 3 to 1, Americans support govemment-funded arts programs. Moreover, a 1996 Lou Harris poll states that 61 percent of Americans said they would be willing to pay $5.00 more in taxes to fund the arts. This is important because private donations tend to support larger arts organizations, not smaller, independent projects and groups. The NEA works hard to fund a wide range of expression. NEA Reforms With reforms now requiring grantees to adhere to strict guidelines, trying to address the concerns of some who worry that some projects are objectionable can rest assured. National panels of private citizens select grantees in a rigorous, democratic review process. In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues that the total for arts and humanities-related spending for the 1997 fiscal year was less than 1% of the total budget. The National Endowment for the Arts costs each American about 36 cents per year. Arts institutions have affected millions of Americans. Whether its been watching a famous play, wandering through a beautiful museum, or having the opportunity to live a dream by singing on stage in a local theater company, the NEA fosters an excellence, diversity, and vitality of the arts in the United States which could never be matched by any other institution. It represents a national commitment to excellence our nation's culture, heritage, and, most important, its people. The NEA benefits our citizens, educational institutions, economy, and our spirits. We cannont, in good faith, deny Americans access to such an national treasure.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will try to do it in 7\1/2\ minutes. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to bring this body's attention to a number of very serious problems that have now been documented in the U.S. Customs Service's drug enforcement efforts at ports of entry on the Southwest Border. Back in March 1996, I asked the General Accounting Office to investigate the continuing influx of drugs entering our country across the border with Mexico, and the inability or unwillingness of the Customs Service to effectively address the problem. I was especially concerned about reports that trucks loaded with drugs were coming into the country without inspection by Customs. The investigation by the GAO over the past 18 months has now confirmed my long-standing concerns that there are major weaknesses in several Customs' programs that were supposed to help separate so-called ``low-risk'' Mexican cargo shipments from those that are of higher drug smuggling risk. These programs were intended to help expedite the processing of cargo by companies with no previous involvement in narcotics smuggling, which had been thoroughly checked so authorities could focus on other shipments considered to be of significant risk of drug smuggling. The problems uncovered by the GAO's 18-month investigation are, by themselves, cause of serious concern. But what is also disturbing, is that the flow of large amounts of drugs through our ports of entry has apparently continued even while the GAO was conducting its research. Four reports in all have been issued by the GAO: Customs Service: Information on Southwest Border Drug Enforcement Operations (GAO/GGD-97-173R, Sept. 30, 1997). Customs Service: Process for Estimating and Allocating Inspectional Personnel (GAO/GGD-98-107, April 30, 1998). Customs Service: Drug Interdiction: Internal Control Weaknesses and Other Concerns With Low-Risk Cargo Entry Programs (GAO/GGD-98-175, July 31, 1998). Customs Service: Internal Control Weaknesses Over Deletion of Certain Law Enforcement Records (GAO/GGD-98-187, August 21, 1998) The August 1998 report was particularly troubling and I sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin on August 17, 1998, asking for his response. To date, I have not heard back from him. I am also including a copy of this letter in the record. The problems identified in Customs' drug enforcement efforts at three cargo inspection facilities (Loredo, Texas; Nogales, Arizona; and Otay Mesa, California) have been occurring during a time when the North American Free Trade Agreement has stimulated significant increases in commercial trade. The increased trade generated by NAFTA has resulted in significant expansion of opportunities for drug trafficking organizations. This is largely because of the excellent ``cover'' commercial trade activity provides, according to a report issued by Operation Alliance, a federally sponsored drug enforcement coordinating agency in El Paso. The Operation Alliance Report clearly describes the ways in which drug smugglers are exploiting increased trade. Let me cite just a few examples of how drug traffickers are taking advantage of the increased trade generated by NAFTA: Traffickers are making extensive use of ``legitimate'' systems for moving drugs into the United States by becoming thoroughly familiar with Customs documents, procedures and processes. Traffickers are also becoming involved with well-known legitimate trucking firms that would be less likely targets of law enforcement scrutiny. Known drug traffickers are also involved as owners or controlling parties in other commercial trade-related businesses to assist in the storage and transportation of drugs, such as semi-trailer manufacturing companies, railroad systems, factories, distributing companies and warehouses. Some traffickers have sought trade consultants to determine what merchandise moves most quickly across the border under NAFTA rules. Against this backdrop of traffickers exploiting legitimate means of transporting cargo across the border for their own illicit smuggling operations, we now have the GAO finding disturbing evidence of problems in Customs' drug enforcement efforts. Problems found by the GAO include: Internal control weaknesses in a program known as ``Line Release,'' intended to identify and separate ``low-risk'' shipments from those with apparently higher smuggling risk. These flaws at all three of the above-mentioned border crossings are seriously jeopardizing the security of the program. Incomplete documentation of screening and review of applicants at Otay Mesa, as well as Nogales. Lost or misplaced Line Release application files and background checklists that served as support for approving applications. Otay Mesa officials were unable to locate 15 of 46 background checklists in the Line Release program. No recertification requirement for companies already approved for the Line Release Program to ensure that the participants remained a low risk for drug smuggling. (The Otay Mesa Port did recertify participants on the basis of their shipping volume criteria, but does not recheck those same companies for their compliance or perform follow-up background checks, the GAO said.) A lack of documentation of supervisory reviews and approval of decisions. Mr. President, given these problems in a program whose intent was to expedite crossing of low-risk shipments so more enforcement attention could be focused on high-risk shipments, the effectiveness of the Line Release program is called into question. Moreover, the GAO found that Customs officials themselves have little confidence in the ``Three Tier Targets'' concept, another enforcement initiative implemented in 1992, which was supposed to help identify low- and high-risk shipments so inspectors could focus their attention on suspect shipments. Under the program, Customs headquarters identified how cargo shipments would be divided into three-tier categories, but allowed the ports of entry to develop their own procedures for assigning risk. The GAO found that this program does not work because there is insufficient information in the Customs' database for researching foreign manufacturers. What this means is that the reliability of the risk designations, which range from ``little risk'' for narcotics smuggling to a ``significant risk,'' are questionable and therefore unreliable. The GAO report noted that some inspectors (at Laredo) were ``more suspicious of shipments classified as low risk because they had doubts about the reliability of the tier designations.'' Such doubts could lead to a self-defeating exercise in which inspectors checked more low- risk shipments instead of focusing their attention on high-risk shipments, the GAO said. Although I have cited only a few of the numerous problems and concerns identified in the GAO reports dealing with low-risk cargo entry programs, they are sufficient to raise serious doubts about the effectiveness of Customs' drug enforcement efforts at our Southwestern Border Ports of Entry. But, unfortunately, there is more. The GAO also found significant internal control problems with a Treasury Enforcement Communications System, which is used to compile lookout data for law enforcement purposes, including identification of persons and vehicles suspected of drug smuggling. The system is used by more than 20 federal agencies, including the INS, DEA, IRS and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. However, Customs did not have adequate controls over deletion of records from the system and Customs' guidance for its use does not follow standards set by the Comptroller General, and which renders it vulnerable to deletion of data without checks and balances by management. The bottom line: this could result in cargo shipments being expedited when they in fact should be stopped and searched. In addition to communications problems, and the previously cited weaknesses in the Line Release and Three-Tier Targeting program, the GAO also found problems with the processes for estimating and allocating inspection personnel at the ports. For example, under the current Customs' employees union contracts, inspectors can only be moved to new sites if they volunteer, which I find quite surprising. The GAO report also found that inconsistent practices in the agency's personnel decision-making processes could prevent Customs from accurately estimating the need for inspector personnel and allocating them to ports. This inability to quickly allocate resources to where they are needed most is just another hindrance in our drug interdiction efforts at the border. Mr. President, the problems go on and on. It's an alarming situation that demonstrates the Southwest Border is still, without question, ground zero in U.S. drug interdiction efforts. More than 70% of the cocaine and other narcotics entering this country come across our Southwest border. In fact, narcotics intelligence officials continue to warn that an estimated 5 to 7 tons of cocaine enters this country every single day of the year. In the last two years, Congress has authorized more than $100 million for 650 additional inspectors and state-of-the-art technologies along the Southwest border. The President's budget in FY1999 calls for an additional $104 million for Southwest Border drug interdiction efforts. Despite our best efforts and constant drum beat by Members of Congress, including myself, to try to tighten Customs' drug enforcement efforts, little progress has been made. Trucks are still getting through our ports of entry with their loads of illicit drugs concealed in cargo ranging from electronics components to vegetables, or in false compartments built into the trucks. For example, one of the largest cocaine seizures ever made in California's Imperial County occurred last November when Border Patrol agents found 835 pounds of the drug concealed in a tractor trailer rig of Mexican registry at a highway checkpoint about 50 miles north of the border. (Source: U.S. Border Patrol.) The next month Border Patrol agents seized 474 pounds of marijuana in another truck of Mexican registry in Calexico, CA., across the border from Mexicali, Mexico. (Source: U.S. Border Patrol) At the Otay Mesa Cargo Inspection facility, there have been 24 seizures within the last year of drugs found concealed in trucks and trailers, including those of two Line Release participants. (Source: information provided San Diego District Office by a Customs inspector.) And, in August of 1997, the New York Times News Service reported the following: For nearly a year, 18-wheel trailer trucks, driven by experienced truckers recruited in Michigan, have been rolling north from the Mexican border to New York, delivering tons of concealed cocaine and marijuana and carrying back millions of dollars in illegal drug profits. Authorities said the trucks were dispatched by Mexico's most powerful drug-trafficking syndicate, once headed by the late Amado Carillo Fuentes. A parallel investigation discovered the smuggling of at least 1.5 tons of cocaine a month in crates of fruits and vegetables from Mexico, according to the New York Times Service article. One wonders if these cocaine-laden vegetable shipments were routinely passed through by border inspectors month after month because they were part of the Line Release or other Customs' programs that had classified the shipments as low-risk for drug smuggling. More than once, officials at Customs have told me that not only is it impossible to increase inspection of trucks and cars entering our borders, but that it is not really necessary. Customs is relying on its sophisticated technology, including electronic technology, random searches, and Customs' vast intelligence operations, to stop the drug smugglers. But the fact is, while Customs is having internal control problems, the drug traffickers have developed detailed knowledge and profiles of our port operations, and are using the ``cover'' that legitimate commercial trade activity provides to penetrate our borders and smuggle drugs. Additionally, the ``random'' searches that I have heard so much about are supposed to keep traffickers trembling in their ``big-rigs.'' But they have become so predictable that, as Customs has previously told my staff: ``traffickers know what cargo, conveyances, or passengers we inspect, how many of those conveyances are checked on an average day, what lanes we work harder, and what lanes are more accessible for smuggling.'' Mr. President, I know how difficult this task is, and I want to commend the extremely hard working men and women of the United States Customs Service, but the impact of Customs' internal control problems have dire consequences in our fight against drugs in our cities and in our rural areas. But without effective internal controls over the Line Release program, the Three-tier risk program and other enforcement initiatives cited by the GAO, Customs' ability to detect drug smugglers and to interdict drugs at the border is seriously jeopardized. Mr. President, we must address the Customs' internal control problems now. We need to fix the problems before authorizing any additional programs that would further complicate our drug interdiction efforts at the border. As the ranking member of the Technology Terrorism Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee, I hope to work with the Chairman of the Subcommittee to hold hearings on the issues raised by the GAO reports so that we can fully understand the problem and identify a long-term solution. I will work with the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee to identify a way for such hearings to be held without delay. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letters to GAO and to Secretary Rubin be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to convey my strong support for the $3,000,000 this bill contains for land acquisition at Lake Tahoe. This funding is crucial if we are to control the erosion problem that is robbing Lake Tahoe of its striking water clarity. Lake Tahoe is the crown jewel of the Sierra Nevada. The clarity of its blue waters, and the beauty of its surrounding forests and high mountains, inspired Mark Twain to call it ``the fairest view the whole earth affords.'' Mark Twain would still recognize the Lake Tahoe Basin today, but it is no longer a pristine wilderness surrounding a perfectly clear lake. Today Lake Tahoe is a year-round recreational mecca, drawing millions annually to its ski slopes, hiking trails, and crystal clear waters. Lake Tahoe is a major economic force in both California and Nevada, contributing $1.6 billion annually to the economy from tourism alone. The environment and the economy are inextricably linked at Lake Tahoe. The famous azure lake and its surrounding pristine forests are the primary reasons that people visit the region. Protecting environmental quality at Lake Tahoe is key to preserving the economy of the Sierra region. Scientists agree that the Lake is in the midst of an environmental crisis. Lake Tahoe is one of the largest, deepest, and clearest lakes in the world, but that remarkable clarity is disappearing at the rate of over a foot a year. In the 1960s, you could drop a white plate into Lake Tahoe and watch it fall 105 feet before it disappeared. Now you can watch the same plate fall only 70 feet. As the Lake's water clarity decreases, algae is taking over. In 10 years, the effects could be irreversible. Why the troubling decline? The answers are quite simple: air pollution and erosion. Algae is fed by nitrogen, a key component in car exhaust, and phosphorous, a key component of run-off that flows into Lake Tahoe from streams, paved roads, old logging roads, golf courses, and even private homes. Lake Tahoe was once ringed by wetlands that filtered out most of this harmful sediment and debris. But most of the wetlands have been filled in to provide more lakefront property. The lake's clarity continues to deteriorate. For nearly 20 years, the Forest Service has been slowing this deterioration by acquiring environmentally sensitive land at Lake Tahoe--land especially prone to the erosion that is slowly strangling the Lake--and protecting it from development. Since 1980, the Forest Service has purchased 11,000 acres at Lake Tahoe. This acquisition program has the wholehearted support of Lake Tahoe's elected officials, as well as both environmental and business groups. The $3 million for land acquisition contained in this bill will help buy parcels like the Wells property, an 18.5 acre site adjacent to a County park that includes some of the few remaining wetlands surrounding Lake Tahoe, as well as a stretch of Burke Creek that provides a vital wildlife corridor. If the Forest Service is not able to buy this property, it may end up being developed into 50 condominium units. Land acquisition funds may also be used for a phased-in purchase of High Meadows, a 2300-acre parcel that remains the largest private inholding in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The meadows include the headwaters for Cold Creek, one of Lake Tahoe's most sensitive watersheds. Protecting the property could dramatically reduce the amount of sediment and debris that flows currently flow into Lake Tahoe from Cold Creek. I commend the Committee for including these land acquisition funds for Lake Tahoe in this bill. I am disappointed that the House did not include any funds in its version of the bill. I intend to urge the Senate conferees on this legislation to protect the full $3 million in conference. Unfortunately, this $3 million barely scratches the surface of what is needed to restore the environment at Lake Tahoe. The region's environmental problems extend well beyond its famous azure lake. Insect infestations have killed over 25 percent of the trees in the forests surrounding Lake Tahoe, creating a severe risk of catastrophic wildfire that could destroy communities and have a devastating impact on water quality at the Lake. The millions of cars that visit the Lake Tahoe Basin each year worsen erosion problems from roads and produce nitrogen that ends up feeding algae in the Lake. The Federally-chartered Tahoe Regional Planning Agency estimates that preserving the Lake's water quality, restoring its fragile forest ecosystem, and establishing a public transportation system that would reduce air pollution and road run-off could cost $900 million in Federal, State, local, and private funds. The Federal government, through the United States Forest Service, owns nearly 80 percent of the land in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Therefore, we have a unique responsibility for protecting Lake Tahoe. Two important Federal reports that are currently pending will help determine what steps the Forest Service must take to stop the environmental decline at the Lake. One report is the Watershed Assessment, a study being conducted by an independent team of scientists, that will create a model of Lake Tahoe's ecosystem to help us determine the impact of proposed environmental restoration projects. Lake Tahoe is so fragile that we need to be sure prescribed burning to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire at one end of the lake does not cause too much erosion or air pollution in another part of the Lake. The Watershed Assessment will provide the Forest Service with the tools to make those tough judgment calls. The other Federal effort underway is an interagency review of the Environmental Improvement Program, a list of more than 500 environmental improvement projects that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency proposes to implement at Lake Tahoe. The Environmental Improvement Program has the full support of Lake Tahoe's local governments, business leaders, and environmental groups. Now the Federal government is assessing which of the environmental projects on this list should have high priority for Federal funding, and whether new programs are needed to provide that funding. I plan to act upon the results of these studies as soon as they are complete in December 1998. I am hoping to offer legislation in the next session that would authorize a new Federal initiative, led by the U.S. Forest Service, to address Lake Tahoe's erosion and forest health problems. I am working with a bi-partisan group of Tahoe's business, environmental, and community leaders to develop a proposal, and I hope that the Forest Service will become an active player in the process as well. In 1997, President Clinton and Vice President Gore visited Lake Tahoe. I attended the Forum they sponsored, as did Senators Boxer, Reid and Bryan. We applauded the President as he announced an ambitious Tahoe initiative that included $50 million over two years for land acquisition, prescribed burning, watershed restoration, public transportation, upgrades to wastewater pipelines, erosion control, and scientific research at the Lake. Unfortunately, since then, Lake Tahoe seems to have dropped off the Administration's radar screen. The Administration never even fulfilled the $50 million in commitments the President made at Tahoe, let alone extend those commitments to fiscal year 1999. In his 1999 budget request, President Clinton did not make any specific requests for Tahoe, and the Forest Service will be lucky if they receive $5 million from the Administration next year for forest health and erosion control projects. Forest Service officials at Lake Tahoe are doing a heroic job of reducing fire risk in the forest while simultaneously protecting Lake Tahoe's water quality. They need more resources if they are going to reverse declining environmental quality at the Lake and its surrounding forests. Time is running out for Lake Tahoe. If we do not act quickly with a full commitment of Federal resources, the crown jewel of the Sierra could become permanently tarnished. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in preserving this national treasure for generations to come. Let's look at this $3 million for land acquisition as a down payment, not the last word.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Elizabeth Snyder, a longtime civic leader who helped pave the way for women to assume positions of leadership in California. She died in Los Angeles on August 26, 1998. Elizabeth first came to national attention in 1954, when she was elected Chair of the California Democratic Party, becoming the first woman in the United States to be elected chair of a major political party in any state. In a career that spanned more than half a century, Elizabeth worked prominently in the California presidential campaigns of Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, and Lyndon Johnson and served as the California Co-Chair of President Jimmy Carter's 1976 Presidential campaign. Born on April 8, 1914, in Minnesota of immigrant parents, Elizabeth and her family moved to San Diego in the early 1920s. Following the collapse of her father's business at the outset of the Great Depression, Elizabeth, her mother and two brothers relocated to East Los Angeles where life was, in her words, ``lean, precarious and hard.'' Elizabeth graduated with honors from Garfield High School in 1931. She studied at Los Angeles City College and graduated as a political science major from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1933. She went on to become one of the first two doctoral candidates in UCLA's political science department. After World War II, Elizabeth became involved in the first of many Congressional campaigns on behalf of her lifelong friend and mentor, Congressman Chet Holifield. In 1959, she co-founded one of California's first political campaign management firms, Snyder-Smith. Although she remained committed to what she believed were the true ideals and principles of the Democratic Party, Elizabeth never hesitated in non- partisan races to support Republicans whom she believed to be best qualified to serve in office. None of her political activities was more important to Elizabeth than her lifelong effort to bring about greater participation by women in the political arena. During the 1970s, Elizabeth devoted herself to the mentoring of Los Angeles women in politics, holding weekly luncheon meetings of The Thursday Group at her Bunker Hill apartment. Her dedication to improving our society extended beyond the realm of politics. She was especially proud of her work on the prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome which culminated in ordinances requiring the restaurants and bars to post warnings to women regarding the dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. In addition to all her varied civic activities, Elizabeth will be remembered fondly by the literally thousands of men and women to whom she provided comfort and assistance in overcoming the adversities of alcoholism and substance abuse. In 1994, she received the prestigious CORO Public Affairs Award in recognition of her lifelong commitment to the reform of the American system of government in which she so deeply believed. As Elizabeth herself once wrote, In the last analysis, the most significant single political activity is not winning elections and defeating opponents, it is improving, expanding and correcting government structure, so that democracy works. On behalf of my colleagues in the Senate, I extend my heartfelt condolences to her husband, Nathan, and her daughter, United States District Judge, Christina A. Snyder.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and myself to address the two amendments that I have just sent to the desk. The first amendment addresses the political, economic, and social turmoil now facing Indonesia, one of our most important allies, and calls for a more active U.S. role in supporting a peaceful economic and political transition in Indonesia. The second amendment expresses my concern and condemnation over the allegations regarding the brutal treatment and rape of ethnic Chinese women in Indonesia during the riots that occurred this past May, a situation that, if left unaddressed, threatens to undermine the other progress that Indonesia is making. Taken together, I believe that these two amendments provide a solid framework for U.S. policy towards this vital country. Indonesia is a country of great significance for the United States, and we have a great deal riding on the outcome of the current period of economic and political transition. Indonesia is the world's fourth-most populous nation, and its ethnic and religious diversity boasts the world's largest Muslim population; Indonesia is comprised of over 13,000 islands which span important sea lanes, including 50 percent of volume of all international shipping and every major route between the Indian and Pacific Oceans; Indonesia has served as a vital engine of East Asian economic growth. It possesses vast natural resources, including oil and gas. Before the disruption caused by the current global financial crisis, the World Bank in 1997 estimated that Indonesia would possess the world's 6th largest economy by early in the new century, and Indonesia has been an active proponent of more liberal trade measures in the Asia-Pacific region; As the largest member of ASEAN, and a founder of the Asian Regional Forum, Indonesia has been a linchpin of regional security, and has worked with the United States on many key regional security concerns; In short, the United States has a profound national interest in the emergence of a stable, prosperous and democratic Indonesia from its current period of instability. Let me briefly recap some of the issues currently facing Indonesia and the developments which underscore, I believe, the need for these two Amendments. First, in response to public pressure to step down, earlier this year President Suharto resigned after thirty-two years in office. Following an orderly transfer of power, the new President, B.J. Habibie, assembled a cabinet, took some initial steps towards political reform, and pledged new elections. Several dangers still lie ahead. Indonesia lacks a system with strong and capable democratic institutions and has a long history of regional, religious and ethnic tensions. The road to a more open and democratic political system will be long and hazardous. Second, at the same time as Indonesia must make progress in this political transition, it is imperative that the Habibie government also take action to address the economic crisis that continues to buffet Indonesia. In other words, it is in the national interest of the United States that there be a stable, prosperous and democratic Indonesia and that it come out of its current period of instability. The first amendment before this body addresses the political, economic, and the social turmoil now facing Indonesia, and it calls for a more active U.S. role in supporting a peaceful economic and political transition and for America to lead a major humanitarian effort. Mr. President, today, at least 7\1/2\ million people are facing starvation in that country. The second amendment is a sense of the Senate that expresses the concern and condemnation regarding allegations for the brutal mistreatment of the ethnic Chinese community within that country. That community totals about 6 percent of Indonesia's population. It is an entrepreneurial mercantile class. Once before, in the 1960s, during a pro-Communist revolution, the Chinese ethnic community was made a scapegoat, and literally tens of thousands of people were killed. This time, once again, there was a brutal outbreak against this community, and this resolution condemns it in no uncertain terms. Mr. President, I believe that Indonesia is extraordinarily important economically. As I said, the rupiah has fallen by over 70 percent in value in the past year. The country is saddled with about $80 billion in private debt and the prospect of a fall of 10 percent in its gross domestic product and a drop of over 25 percent of its manufacturing output. The economy is at a standstill. Inflation is threatening to reach triple digits and unemployment is rising rapidly. While I believe that Indonesia has the long-term capacity to work its way back to prosperity, in the short term the pain will likely get worse as the full effect of the financial crisis works its way through the economy. Finally, Indonesia is on the brink of a profound humanitarian crisis. In the past year Indonesia has faced severe droughts and massive fires, with the end result being that Indonesia is now unable to produce sufficient food to meet the needs of its people--food shortages which have been exacerbated by the current economic crisis. In a somewhat limited assessment earlier this year, the World Food Program estimated that more than 7.5 million Indonesians in the Eastern areas faced severe food shortages, malnutrition, and starvation as a result of the drought and fires. Others have estimated that with the effects of the economic crisis compounding the natural disasters, upwards of 100 million people across all of Indonesia may soon face acute food shortages. The Administration, I believe, is to be commended for its handling of the situation thus far. President Clinton's meeting with Suharto at APEC last fall, Special Presidential Envoy Mondale's session with Suharto in March, Secretary Albright's numerous discussions with Foreign Minister Alatas, and Assistant Secretary Roth's many trips to Jakarta have provided the United States an opportunity to encourage and support Indonesian political and economic reform. The Administration has also made important pledges of food aid--more than 230,000 tons this year through grants and ``soft'' loans, with much more promised if and as the crisis deepens. In assessing the challenges facing Indonesia, however, I believe that the United States must do more to assist the people of Indonesia to take advantage of the challenges and opportunities of a post-Suharto era. Indeed, beyond the ``macro'' questions of political and economic reform, hard-won gains made over the past thirty years in such areas as nutrition, sanitation and public health are all under threat, while, crime, child labor, and poverty are on the rise. Ordinary Indonesians are suffering as a result of this crisis. First, in recognition of the need to help alleviate that suffering, this Amendment supports the Administration's pledges of humanitarian food assistance. Moreover, it calls on the United States to take a leading role in the international community in developing and implementing efforts to meet Indonesia's humanitarian and food needs, with the goal of assuring that programs are put in place which will prevent famine and which will meet the basic needs of Indonesia's people. I believe it is extraordinarily important that the United States lead a major international effort at humanitarian relief to see that the people of Indonesia avoid starvation. And this sense of the Senate, the first resolution, puts this body in support of the administration's actions and urges the administration to go a step further and lead a major international humanitarian relief effort. Second, this amendment supports Indonesia's efforts to move forward with economic reforms. As I have already said, while I am encouraged by some of the positive signs we have seen thus far, the key question is whether the Habibie government will be more successful than its predecessor in carrying through on its economic reform commitments. To that end this amendment calls on the United States to adopt a more aggressive approach to working with Indonesia to implement serious and far reaching economic and fiscal reform: To restructure corporate debt, reform bankrupt and corrupt economic structures, implement transparent legal and banking systems, and open its economy to greater international trade. At the same time, this amendment recognizes that such economic reform can not come without considerable disruption to the lives of many Indonesians, and it thus supports efforts by the Government of Indonesia to cast a wide social safety net to provide relief to those in need. Finally, given President Habibie's public affirmation of the importance of moving on political reform and economic recovery in tandem--an approach I agree with--this amendment also calls on the Administration to take a more activist approach to working to develop democratic institutions and processes in Indonesia, to see that the human rights of all Indonesians are respected and protected, and for the Government of Indonesia to adhere to its commitment to hold elections. In sum, this amendment seeks to encourage the development of more active and engaged U.S. approach to Indonesia, and a U.S. policy which will work the Indonesian government to develop and lead a reform process that is deep and wide, reaches out to all Indonesians, and lays the groundwork for restored confidence in Indonesia's political and economic future. The second amendment which I have offered today speaks to a specific situation in Indonesia which I fear, if left unaddressed, runs the risk of undermining the progress which Indonesia has made and the goals articulated by my first amendment: The question is the treatment of its ethnic Chinese minority during the riots of this May, and specifically what appears to be systematic rape against the female population as an instrument of terror. Mr. President, in all too many places and in all too many conflicts in recent years we have witnessed the use of rape and sexual torture as an instrument of war and ethnic cleansing. Although, I am sad to say, some incidents of rape have always accompanied war and turmoil in human history, the record of the past few years, with the use of organized, systematic campaigns of rape as a tool of terror, is almost as though a new chapter in the barbarity of human history has been opened. I was therefore deeply troubled when I learned that there are serious and credible allegations that rape was used as an instrument of terror in targeted attacks on the ethnic Chinese community in Indonesia during the riots this past May. According to credible reports, at least 168 cases of rape occurred in Jakarta alone during the riots of May 13-15, 1998 as part of a pattern of political violence targeted against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. An investigative report published in Asiaweek on July 24, 1998 describes incidents documented by Rosita Noer, an Indonesian physician and human rights activist. For example, ``In three Chinese areas of west Jakarta, between 5 and 8 pm, dozens of men dragged a hundred or so girls on to the streets, stripped them and forced them to dance before a crowd. Twenty were raped, then some burned alive, says Noer. She examined six other victims attacked in their homes in different areas of Jakarta. The girls were between the ages of 14 and 20; four of them had been raped by seven men.'' In light of such reports, I was encouraged by President Habibie's decision two months ago to set up a national committee of inquiry to investigate the rapes, and his branding these rapes as criminal, inhumane actions. I have been troubled, however, by the lack of clear and decisive action taken by the Government of Indonesia over the past three months to investigate these rapes and bring the perpetrators to justice. Just this past weekend, for example, Indonesian Women's Affairs Minister Tutty Alawiah, one of the leaders of the government investigation, was reported in the press to have stated that ``The team has been conducting an investigation for 1\1/2\ months now but has found no women who fell victim to gang rape or who claimed to have been raped during the May riots.'' Minister Tutty Alawiah's statement, and those of other leading Indonesian political figures have also been quoted in the press as doubting the veracity of the rapes, fly in the face of the voluminous credible findings of independent groups, such as the Indonesian Human Rights Commission, as well as numerous reports in the media, which have found considerable evidence of the these criminal, inhuman, rapes. For example, in an August 3, 1998 story Business Week reported that ``On May 14, trucks loaded with muscular men raced to shopping centers and housing projects owned by ethnic Chinese. The men doused the shops and houses with gasoline and set off devastating fires. At least 182 women were raped or sexually tortured, some of them repeatedly, by men with crewcuts whom the victims believed to be soldiers. At least 20 women are confirmed to have died as a result.'' ``Confirmed to have died.'' I do not want to cast aspersions on the government's official investigation, but I can not help but find it curious that a journalist can find evidence of the rapes and the aftermath yet one of the leaders of the government's investigation can not. I find this particularly troubling in light of an August 1, 1998 Agence France-Presse news story which reported that ``At least 22 victims and witnesses of rapes during the widespread rioting in Indonesia in May have talked to a team set up by the government to probe violence during the unrest.'' What has become of the evidence provided by these 22 victims and witnesses, that Minister Tutty Alawiah claims that no evidence of the rapes can be found and that no victims have come forward? The Chicago Tribune, on July 29, 1998, carried a story featuring ``Aileen'', a still-hospitalized 24 year old ethnic Chinese women raped by a group of men and left in a pool of blood. Are the government investigators unwilling or unable to find this women, and the many others like her, so easily found and interviewed by an American journalist? Perhaps most telling, a July 13, 1998 report by the Volunteers Team for Humanity, headed by Father Sandyawan, a respected Indonesian human rights activist, found ample documentation of systematic and organized rapes targeted at Indonesia's ethnic Chinese community. The report contains locations of rapes, the modus operandi of the perpetrators, dates of the rapes, and quotes from victims and witnesses, among other documentary evidence. Indeed, it is ironic to note that the authors of this July 13 report undertook their documentary efforts precisely because they feared that there would be efforts to ``cover the case up as if it never happened.'' What has become of this credible volume of documentation gathered by a respected independent group in the context of the government investigation? In short, there appears to be ample evidence that these rapes occurred, and that the director of the United Nations Development Fund for Women was well-founded in her belief when she stated that these rapes occurred as part of an ``organized reaction to crisis.'' I realize that the Indonesian government investigation is not yet complete. But I find it deeply troubling that there are signs that the official government investigation of these incidents may be guided more by political considerations then by a commitment to the truth and to justice. We all know that there are numerous problems that arise with efforts to investigate and document rape. Many women are afraid to speak to investigators. There is embarrassment and great social stigma. And, in a case like Indonesia, where there are allegations that members of the armed forces may have been involved in the riots and rapes, there is a special need to assure that any victims who cooperate with the investigation receive protection. But given the ability of others--independent groups and the media--to compile significant and credible evidence of the rapes which appeared to have occurred during the May riots, it is unsettling, to say the least, to be faced with the prospect that the government may try to deny that the rapes occurred at all, let alone to bring to justice those responsible. Thus, the second Amendment which I have offered here today condemns in no uncertain terms the rapes and mistreatment of the ethnic Chinese community during the May riots. Moreover, it urges a full, fair, and complete investigation of the rape allegations and calls for those responsible to be brought to justice. It calls on the Government of Indonesia to assure that the human rights of the ethnic Chinese community--indeed of all Indonesians-- should be respected and protected; that the reparations the government has pledged to those who lost property in the May riots should be expedited, and that rape victims should receive just compensation as well, including medical care where still-needed. The Amendment also calls on the Administration to provide support and assistance to the Indonesian government and the independent human rights groups investigating these allegations, in the interest of assuring full, fair, and complete investigations. Lastly, it calls for the administration to provide Congress with a report evaluating the allegations surrounding these rapes, the actions taken by the Government of Indonesia, and the implications for U.S.- Indonesian relations. Essentially what the resolution does is condemn these acts, calls on the administration to work with the Indonesian government committee investigating these acts in hopes that the investigation will be forthcoming and straightforward and will take adequate measures to bring to justice those responsible for these riots and these rapes. To those in Indonesia who may misinterpret my intent with this Amendment let me be clear: I do not offer this Amendment as an attack on the Government of Indonesia. Just the opposite. I offer it because I understand how difficult it can be to face up to misdeeds and take necessary and responsible action to rectify the situation, and I want the people of Indonesia to know that as they move forward and deal with this difficult issue that if they do the right thing their friends will be there to offer support and assistance. It is my belief that if Indonesia does not take adequate measures to bring to justice those responsible for the May riots and rapes, it may well set itself down a course in which political and economic reform, democratization, respect for human rights--in short, many of the measures which Indonesia so desperately needs to undertake to work itself out of the present crisis--become all but impossible. That would be a great tragedy for the people of Indonesia, and a great disappointment to those of us here in the Senate who consider ourselves friends of the Indonesian people. Mr. President, Indonesia is undergoing a dramatic transformation. The transition to a more pluralistic system will likely be lengthy and difficult. The United States has long sought to promote a more open and tolerant Indonesia. I believe that the United States must continue to work closely with Indonesia during this critical transition period, while acknowledging that only the Indonesian people can determine their future. It is my hope that the two amendments which I have offered today can contribute to this process. I thank the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, for his support of these two amendments to the bill. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I don't think it is all going to be smooth and all going in one direction. I find the arrest of dissidents in the wake of the President's visit or prior to the President's visit as 100 percent wrong. Senator, if there is one thing I have learned about the Chinese, they can be ham-handed in how they function. They can be their own worst enemies in how they handle, because they function under a different, I think, value system in this regard. Sometimes, I believe, it is overreaction. I have read things, and I sit back and say, why did this have to happen? Now, let's talk for a moment about forced abortion. I think it is an abysmal practice, it is a barbaric practice. China says they do not countenance and they do not want to permit it. That is the official government policy. Are there occasions where, in this vast country, forced abortion is committed, do I believe? I believe there are instances where forced abortions are, in fact, committed. I also believe, though, that by pointing this out continually, we will see some changes. I think it has to be understood that China still has over 100 million people way under the poverty line, some living in caves, some living in the most impoverished circumstances, particularly in western China. It has to be understood that China is a nation of 1.2 billion people, growing rapidly. When I first went to China in 1979, what I was told was, what we have for one person must be extended to five people. I have seen since that time the quality of life improving for people. I have seen the easing of restrictions. I have seen the improvement in the dialog. I have seen the stress on education. I have seen the opening of the society. I have to think that is healthy for the society. I think if we engage that society, if we talk with people on equal levels, if we treat China without humiliating China but treat China with equality, that we will see major positive changes in the future. So I appreciate the opportunity to have this dialog. I respect your values. I respect what you are trying to do in this regard. I just happen to believe, based on my knowledge, my understanding, and my experience with China and the Chinese people, I believe it would be highly unproductive. I just wanted an opportunity to come to the floor and have that opportunity to state my views. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to answer the questions of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. Yes, I oppose a measure which would oppose the granting of visas. The normal diplomatic and pragmatic efforts of a government-to-government effort to engage and discuss, to bring to light of day, to continue to persuade and develop a better sense of values would be truncated and cut off. I believe, I say to the Senator, as one who has watched China for some 35 years now, that this is a country which has been humiliated by the West in the past. This is a country that has 5,000 years of dictatorship by one individual, generally an emperor, an emperor who could cast aside people, who could kill people at will--then revolutionary war heroes, basically people who were uneducated. This is the first post-revolutionary war leadership that has had some Western education, that has some Western understanding. China closed itself off from the West after the Boxer Rebellion and because of what happened in the opium trade, never wanting any kind of interaction with the West. Now, for the first time, China is open, I believe, to Western values, to Western ideas. I happen to believe it is to our interest. We didn't settle the enormous intellectual property and piracy problems by saying, if you commit a piracy act, you won't have a visa to the United States. We settled it by sending over delegation after delegation of officials to let the Chinese Government know what this was all about, to identify and help identify those factories that were producing illegal goods, and to follow up and see, in fact, that the Chinese Government was willing to take action to shut them down. It has worked. It will be a bumpy road. But cutting off visas of officials isn't the way to handle problems, whether they relate to IPR, whether they relate to technology transfer, whether they relate to other military endeavors or trade matters, I believe. I must say, I believe this is the first time in the last year that the administration has really made up their mind that what they are going to do is engage China fully and completely at the top level. I believe it is having enormous dividends and that we will see in the years to come a much more open country, a country that has taken steps to make greater reforms. You have to realize that to those of us who sit on the west coast, the Pacific rim is our world of trade. The Pacific rim has by far exceeded the Atlantic Ocean as the major theater of trade. In my State, approximately over a third of the jobs depend on trade with Asia. We want to have positive relations with Asia, positive relations with the Philippines, with Taiwan, with South Korea, with China, with all of the ASEAN countries as well. Increasingly, we have an opportunity, we believe, on the Pacific, to form a Pacific rim community that is peaceful, where trade can take place, where like values can be shared. I must tell you, I buy into that dream. I want to see it happen.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 3124 Mr. President, as one who has watched China for some 35 years now, and been a frequent visitor for the past 20 years, I would like to make a few comments on the Hutchinson amendment, which effectively would set up a protocol whereby officials beneath the rank of Cabinet officials could be refused visas to come to this country. The amendment, while it promotes a worthy goal, goes about it in a completely, I believe, counterproductive way. I do not think there is any Senator in this body who does not condemn the practice of forced abortion, forced sterilization, or any other coercive population control device or measure. We all condemn it. I do not think there is any Senator in this body who does not condemn religious persecution that prevents people from freely exercising their own personal religious beliefs. Of course, not. We all condemn that. This amendment takes a stand on a principle but it does nothing to help solve the problem it is designed to address, and there is the rub. We all agree there are certain practices and policies still in China that we oppose. The question we need to ask ourselves is this: What is the best contribution we can make to producing change, real change, in China? I submit that the answer is, we can engage China at all levels, all levels of government. Academia, business, law, and every other kind of social interaction should be energized. We should welcome every chance to interact with the Chinese people and officials as an opportunity to expose them to our values, to expose them to the rule of law, to Democratic values, to individual liberties. The path set out by this amendment, I believe, is extraordinarily dangerous and it takes us on the opposite path. It is a path of isolation and containment. It cuts ourselves off from the very people we need to help educate and persuade and expose to Western values. And it would surely spark similar countermeasures by the Chinese Government to deny visas to U.S. officials, further deepening our isolation from one another, and developing the adversarial relationship that many of us believe need never happen. It could go on and on in a vicious cycle. Do any of my colleagues seriously believe that any Chinese official would be dissuaded from conducting any human rights action because they would be denied a visa to the United States? I think not. I do deeply believe that if Chinese officials are exposed to U.S. society--and this has begun. I know it has been criticized, but I see it working. I come from a Pacific rim State where there is a great deal of interaction with Asia. I see our values go across the Pacific. I see them enter the Chinese mainland. I see the changes that have been made. Mr. President, when Richard Nixon went to China in 1972, China was still in the midst of the Cultural Revolution. There has never been a more brutal period in Chinese history than the Cultural Revolution. We have seen those dark days recede. We have seen a new leadership in place. For the first time, I believe that this new leader now has the face, has consolidated his power, to begin to make certain major reforms. I very deeply believe we are going to see those reforms in the next few years. Already, there is writing here and in China about the order given to the Chinese military to remove themselves from all commercial endeavors. Surprisingly enough, this, for the first time, has been done with transparency--in other words, a public statement for all to know that the new policy of the Chinese Government is that the Chinese military will not run commercial operations in trade, in business, or in any other pursuit. This is a very healthy, a very positive advance, which I think the entire free world should take hold of. Additionally, you heard voluntarily the President of China, after many of us have importuned him over a long period of time, I myself beginning in 1991 carrying messages from His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, to the President of China, urging that there be a meeting--for the first time, the President of China has said publicly, with transparency, that if His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, makes a statement that respects the fact that Tibet is a part of China and that independence is not a part of the discussions, that there can be meetings that follow. This is, true, a breakthrough in rhetoric, but it has never happened before in the 8 years I have been trying to achieve it. That happened while the President was in China. So these changes are being made. One by one--perhaps not enough--the freeing of political dissidents, the adoption of a 30-day period of administrative leave, the Chinese interests in developing exchanges in the rule of law, to develop a modern commercial code, a modern criminal code, hopefully to press for the independence of the judicial branch of Government which currently is subject to party control --all of these are the breakthroughs that we should begin to press. We have certain intellectual property, certain intellectual property concerns. How could those ever be brought about if we could not have an exchange of lower level officials to see to it that intellectual property laws are being carried out? It makes no sense to me. I believe it is one step toward containment and isolation. I believe that both of those are unwarranted, highly counterproductive----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Not on this amendment, Mr. President, but the Hutchinson amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the substitute version of S. 512, The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, which the Senate is considering today. On May 20, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information, on which I serve as Ranking Member, heard from victims of identity theft from both Subcommittee Chairman Kyl's and my home states. The victims told cautionary tales of lives suddenly, and without warning, turned upside down by the crime of identity theft. Theirs are not isolated stories. The Secret Service last year made nearly 9,500 identity theft-related arrests, totaling three-quarters of a billion dollars in losses to individual victims and financial institutions. Such losses have nearly doubled in the last two years, and no end to the trend is in sight. In one out of every ten of these cases, identity theft is used to violate immigration laws, to illegally enter the country or to flee across international borders. It used to be that identity theft required wading through dumpsters for discarded credit card receipts. Today, with a few keystrokes, a computer-savvy criminal can hack into databases and lift credit card numbers, social security numbers, and a myriad of personal information. The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act does two critical things in the war on identity theft: it gives prosecutors the tools they need, and it recognizes that identity theft victimizes individuals. Prosecutors tell us that they lack effective tools to prosecute identity theft and to make victims whole. S. 512 has been drafted in consultation with prosecutors to give them the tools they need. S. 512 does so in a number of important ways: It updates pre-computer age laws to criminalize electronic identity theft; It stiffens penalties and adds sentencing enhancements that prosecutors tell us they need to effectively prosecute crimes; and It allows law enforcement agents to seize equipment used to facilitate identity theft crimes. Earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Victim's Rights Amendment to the Constitution, of which I was also proud to be an original cosponsor. Similarly, S. 512 for the first time recognizes that individuals, and not just credit card companies, are victims of identity theft, and it provides them with proper restitution. It protects victims rights, fully recognizing individuals as victims of identity theft, establishing remedies and procedures for such victims, and requiring restitution for the individual victim. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my Senate colleagues to pass it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, S. 1360, the ``Border Improvement and Immigration Act of 1998'' sponsored by Senator Abraham requires an entry-exit system at air ports by the year 2000 and requires a feasibility study of an entry-exit system for land and sea ports within a year. However, it does not address all the problems for which Section 110 of the 1996 Act was intended. I hope that during conference, we can improve the bill by mandating a workable deadline for creating an entry-exit system at all land and sea ports. Section 110 of the 1996 Immigration Act requires an automated entry- exit system by October 1, 1998. It also requires the Attorney General to identify visa overstays, making the system an integrated part of data collection by the INS. The purpose of Section 110 in current law is to fix the problem which exists now. INS says that in FY96, over 24 million non-immigrants came into the U.S. INS also says that they are ``unable to calculate overstay rates on nonimmigrants in general or for particular nationalities.'' INS also told my staff that they ``do not have an estimate'' of the average length of overstay for nonimmigrants or know the ``destinations of nonimmigrants''. The purpose of Section 110 is to make sure INS has the ability, by building an integrated data system at all ports of entry--including air, sea and land ports of entry, in order to know who is coming into the country and who is leaving and more importantly, who is breaking the law by overstaying. INS estimates that there are over 5 million illegal aliens in this country and 41% of the illegal alien population is due to visa overstays--that these aliens failed to depart. (source: 1996 Statistical Yearbook of INS). In the 1997 report, the INS Inspector General concluded that currently, INS has no real ability to identify the characteristics of the visa overstays which could be used in developing an enforcement strategy that effectively targets visa overstays. It also found that capturing entry-exit information only at airports reveals information about 10% of the nonimmigrants in this country who come through airports. The other 90% come and leave through sea and land ports and therefore, are unknown if there is no entry-exist system at those ports. INS' inability to identify visa overstays has greater significance when we add the fact that there are over 4- 5-million border crossing cards which have been issued since 1940's. Having an integrated entry-exit system at the land borders is critical in keeping track of all nonimmigrants, those with visas and border crossing cards, providing valuable information for law enforcements, not only to deport visa overstays but in prosecuting those drug runners who provide a critical link into the heartland of America. Time has come to fully implement the 1996 Immigration Act. I hope that during conference, we can find a workable deadline for INS to create an entry-exit system at both sea and land ports. Doing a feasibility study is helpful in planning the implementation but without tough mandates to install entry-exit systems--while drug runners go back and forth freely at the Southwest border without law enforcement's knowledge, and while potential terrorists slip in easily through the Canadian border--is not the intent of Section 110 when Congress passed the 1996 Immigration Act last year. Thank you Mr. President and I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed in the Record after the text of S. 1360.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, my heart goes out to the families of the two officers slain in Friday's brutal shooting. These two men will be forever known for their bravery, courage and heroism in laying down their lives to protect all of us who pass through the halls of the United States Capitol. The Capitol police officers, Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson, made the ultimate sacrifice that any person can give in laying down their lives so that others would be spared. Their actions demonstrated the highest form of bravery, selflessness, and professionalism. We must all remember that the price of democracy is indeed, a high one. At times, the openness of our government is sometimes challenged by events like those that took place this past Friday. But even though our democracy sometimes seems fragile when challenged by senseless violence, we must all do our part to ensure that this type of violence never happens again. I am confident we will take those steps as a nation. I had just landed in Colorado when I learned what had happened in the Capitol building. When my plane arrived, I received an emergency call from my office informing me of the tragic events. In an instant, my mind fell back to November 28th, 1978 when in City Hall in San Francisco the double assassination of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk took place. I knew the terrible anguish--even anger--that accompanies events like this one. This event also shows the depth to which America's infatuation with weapons can lead to tragedy. Not only do we now see youngsters shooting other youngsters, but also the unthinkable slayings in what should be one of the safest places in our nation, the United States Capitol. In this very difficult time, I am proud to say that Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson will always be remembered as American heroes. recognition of sacrifices of jacob j. chestnut and john m. gibson