Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to debate the motion.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to respond to the distinguished Senator from Missouri. I think the Senator is right. I do have a very lengthy presentation to make, and it is going to be quite involved. I would be very happy to yield to him to make his opening statement if he would see that I have the floor regained directly following his statement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Kennedy and I are introducing legislation that would prohibit, for a period of ten years, any person from attempting to clone a human being using somatic cell nuclear transfer technology. The reason for this legislation is simple: the cloning of a human being today remains scientifically dangerous, morally unacceptable, and ethically flawed. Let me be clear about the intent of this legislation right at the outset: I am opposed to human cloning. I do not believe it is, or will ever be, morally acceptable to clone human beings. This legislation was carefully drafted so that it would not prevent or interfere with vital biomedical research into cancer and other diseases, birth defects, infertility, and the mass production of drugs and vaccines. The Bill authorizes the continuation of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, and requires the Commission to report to the President and the Congress in 4\1/2\ years and 9\1/2\ years on the science and ethical issues associated with this technology. The Commission's reports to Congress will also include a recommendation as to whether the moratorium should be continued beyond the ten years set by this legislation. technology outpaces public policy The successful cloning of a sheep in Scotland last year, using a procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, was hailed as an amazing scientific success. But it also ignited a fierce international debate about the potential use of this technique to clone human beings, and the ethical, legal and religious questions raised by such a possibility. Chicago-area physicist Dr. Richard Seed stirred that debate into full force last month when he told the media that he intends to clone human beings. He said that there were ten clinics in the United States interested in offering cloning services and that he believes the demand will be for over 200,000 cases per year, according to the American Medical News. Setting aside the fact that Dr. Seed's claims are somewhat implausible at the moment given the rudimentary state of cloning technology, he did hit a nerve. This is a classic example, in my view, of how the lightening speed with which we are able to develop new technologies can sometimes get ahead of society's ability to handle these advances. I do not believe that, today, we know enough to permit human cloning, or to make a permanent determination about the use of this technology. But, when writing laws that would have such an enormous impact on an entire field of science--science that includes the development of lifesaving new therapies for disease, the prevention of birth defects, and fertility--Congress has a responsibility to be prudent and judicious in drafting legislation. In preparing this legislation, Senator Kennedy and I, and our staffs, met with representatives from: The National Bioethics Advisory Commission; The National Institutes of Health; The American Society for Reproductive Medicine; The Biotech Industry Association; The Department of Health and Human Services; The Food and Drug Administration. Included in the National Bioethics Advisory Commission were members of the religious and medical ethics communities. This bill is carefully drafted to prohibit attempts to clone a human being, while not impeding other important research involving somatic cell nuclear transfer technology, and the cloning of cells, tissues, DNA and animals. procedure is unsafe One compelling reason to prohibit attempts to clone human beings at this time is the fact that the technology is so new that it is unsafe even in animals. Dolly, the famous cloned sheep, was the only success out of 277 attempts, and the procedure has not been repeated successfully (although there are reports of the pending birth of at least one calf using the same cloning procedure). The National Bioethics Advisory Commission concluded that attempting to use this process to clone humans would involve unacceptable risks to the fetus or potential children, possibly resulting in multiple miscarriages, developmental abnormalities, and unknown risks to the mother. Even if and when concerns about safety are resolved, the ethical concerns of cloning humans still remain. This 10-year moratorium will allow us the time to study and debate this issue fully--which we as a society need to do because the science is not going to go away, and we will have to have a greater understanding of it to make informed decisions on its use. must not impede other important research The term ``cloning'' is used by scientists to describe various techniques that involve duplication of biological material, both animal and human. A blanket ban on cloning, or on use of the nuclear cell transplant technique to clone, would be too broad, and would deprive the United States--and the world--of invaluable biological research. The cloning technique that was used to produce Dolly, somatic cell nuclear transfer, was an extension of experiments carried out over 40 years to facilitate understanding of how development of an animal from a single fertilized egg is carried out. The agricultural industry has been using nuclear transplantation research to try to improve livestock breeding. Biotechnology companies are exploring ways to use cloning to improve the production of therapeutic drugs. And health researchers are hoping that a greater understanding of nuclear transplantation cloning can lead to new treatment for human disease. cancer A report issued by the National Institutes of Health, dated January 29, indicates that cloned tissue culture cells have allowed scientists to test potential chemotherapies on cancerous cells, to study the cellular events leading to cancer, and to mass-produce drugs and vaccines. diabetes Cloning technology, using somatic cell nuclear transfer, could teach scientists how to augment the insulin-producing cells in diabetics using cells from their own bodies. Not only could cloning technology revolutionize the treatment for diabetes--it could potentially provide a cure for this debilitating disease. skin grafts Somatic cell nuclear transfer might also be used in the future to create skin grafts for people who are severely burned. In severe burn cases, many times there is not enough healthy skin on the victim to perform a skin graft, so doctors are forced to use skin from cadavers or skin cells grown in tissue culture. In both cases, the skin is genetically different from the burn victim, and while it provides material for emergency grafting, this skin is ultimately rejected and the patient must undergo numerous grafting. Somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning could allow skin to be generated from virtually any of the burn victim's cells, which would be genetically identical and therefore should not be rejected. The life-saving possibilities for this technology are enormous: The creation of nerve stem cells to treat neurodegenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and to help repair injuries of the spinal cord. Bone marrow stem cells, for the treatment of leukemia, sickle cell or other blood diseases. Liver cells to treat liver damage. Muscle cells to treat muscular dystrophy and heart disease. Cartilage-forming cells to reconstruct joints damaged by injury or arthritis. The cloning of cells in culture has reduced the use of live animals in research and has allowed studies of human cells that could not be done otherwise. As scientists from NIH clearly warn, without future research exploring this cloning technology, these and other potential life- saving possibilities will be unrealized. NIH scientists also make clear that all of these possibilities can be accomplished without using this technology to create, or attempt to create, a human being. A letter signed by more than 50 medical and patient organizations sent to Members of Congress last week warning very clearly of the danger in drafting legislation to ban cloning. In the letter they say: Poorly crafted legislation to ban the cloning of human beings may put at risk biomedical research, such as the use of cloning techniques on human cells, genes and tissues, which is vital to finding the cures to the diseases and ailments which our organizations champion. the differences with the president's proposal The bill we are introducing today is very similar to the President's bill which he sent to Congress on June 10, 1997. But it differs from the President's in five important aspects. First, it adds additional provisions to prevent anyone from cloning or even attempting to clone a human being. In addition to the outright prohibition on cloning a human being, the bill prohibits the use of Federal funds for such a purpose. Furthermore, the bill prohibits shipping the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of attempting to clone a human being. This provision will ensure that no one may attempt to evade the law by shipping the product of somatic nuclear cell transfer overseas for the purpose of cloning a human being. Second, it stiffens already tough penalties in the President's bill to deter any attempt at cloning a human being. The bill provides a penalty of $1,000,000 or three times the gross gain or loss from such a violation, whichever is greater. In addition, the bill provides that any property used in an attempt to violate the act, as well as any property traceable to such an attempted violation, will be forfeited. Furthermore, the Attorney General, who is solely empowered to enforce the act, is granted the power of injunction to immediately enjoin violations. Third, the bill preempts state laws that prohibit or restrict research regarding, or practices of, somatic cell nuclear transfer, mitochondrial or cytoplasmic therapy, or the cloning of molecules, DNA, cells, tissues, organs, plants, animals, or humans. This provision is important because I believe we need a consistent national policy and we should discourage the practice of ``forum shopping'' from state to state for lenient laws. This bill is not intended to preempt state laws such as California Penal Code Title 9, Chapter 12, Section 367g, and California Business and Professions Code Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 12, Section 2260, which require that physicians and other medical personnel obtain signed written consent from patients before sperm, ova, or embryos are used for any purpose other than reimplantation in the same patient or in their spouse, and require that any use of sperm, ova, or embryos of donors comply with the written intent of the donor. The California statues were passed in order to address serious allegations by at least 60 California families, that medical personnel at fertility clinics at the University of California at Irvine and the University of California at San Diego transferred donors' sperm, ova, or embryos to researchers or implanted them in other women, without donors' knowledge or consent. These allegations raise grave concerns about serious violations of personal integrity and privacy. This legislation is in no way intended to preempt or interfere in any way with these California statutes, or with related statutes that would have a similar effect. Fourth, the bill we are introducing urges the President to cooperate with foreign countries to enforce restrictions on human cloning. Other countries are moving to ban human cloning and we should join them so that scientists cannot evade our laws by moving their operations offshore. Finally, our bill establishes a 10-year ban, as opposed to the 5-year ban in the President's recommended legislation. It is conceivable that there could be incredible scientific breakthroughs with cloning technology over the next 3 to 5 years. But developing a legal and moral framework for understanding of the potential use and abuse of this technology will take much longer. This legislation sunsets after 10 years, during which time the National Bioethics Advisory Commission must keep Congress and the President informed on the status of the science, its potential uses for society, and make recommendations on whether to continue the prohibition. Congress can extend the ban temporarily or permanently at any time during or after the ten year period if it so chooses. conclusion Creating life outside of the normal reproductive process has challenged many of our basic beliefs--never more so than with the notion of cloning a human being. It is important that we as a society engage in a rigorous public debate to fully understand the science, the dangers, the potential benefits, and the moral and legal implications of this technology. Throughout history, science has empowered humankind to achieve things never before believed possible. Our challenge is to harness this power without losing control over our own lives, or the moral compass that guides us. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the letter to which I referred.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, to sum it up, I believe we have a man among men, a fine jurist, a fine attorney, skilled and knowledgeable in both criminal and civil law. This is the reason I respectfully submit him as someone who is really prototypical of the kind and type of background that one might bring to the Federal district court. I thank the ranking member and I thank the chairman for the rapid processing of this distinguished nominee. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the ranking member, and I thank the Presiding Officer. I also would like to begin by thanking the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for what was, by and large, a rapid and prompt processing of Carlos Moreno. I submitted the name of Carlos Moreno to the President for appointment to the District Court from the Central District of California. In a sense, Madam President, I believe he is prototypical of really what a good Federal judge should bring to that office. I would like to just quickly go over what is an amazing success story. Judge Moreno was born in East L.A., just 2 miles from the Federal courthouse where he will be serving. He has earned the respect and admiration of both the legal and the law community, and he has had 13 years of service on the State courts. He has strong bipartisan support, including the endorsements of the former Governor George Deukmejian and Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block. As the chairman of the committee pointed out, he obtained his bachelor's degree from Yale in 1970 and his J.D. from Stanford in 1975. He began his legal career in the City Attorney's Office of Los Angeles where he worked for 4 years, from 1975 to 1979. He prosecuted numerous jury trials, misdemeanor prosecutions, and criminal and civil consumer protection cases. He worked as a litigation attorney for 7 years, handling commercial litigation in State and Federal courts. So he has experience in both the civil as well as the criminal law. His caseload there included bankruptcy, wrongful termination, banking, real estate, and antitrust. In 1986 the Governor of California, George Deukmejian, appointed him to the municipal court. He served there for 7 years, handling 40 civil jury trials in addition to a regular criminal trial workload. In 1993, Governor Wilson elevated him to the California Superior Court where he served for the past 4 years. He averaged approximately 2 dozen jury trials a year, at least a third of which have been homicides. The remainder have consisted of a broad range of felonies and he has presided over about a dozen bench trials per year. So, 13 years as a municipal and superior court judge. This year he was selected as the superior court judge of the year by the criminal law section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and was described as one who earns praise from both prosecutors and defense attorneys for his fair, even-tempered handling of a high-volume calendar of criminal cases. The large number of court trials he handles in which both sides, both sides, waive the jury and try the case before him is an indicator, I believe, of the trust he has received from opposing counsels. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support by George Deukmejian, former Governor; a letter from the District Attorney of Los Angeles County; and a letter from the Sheriff of Los Angeles County.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Kennedy and I are introducing legislation that would prohibit, for a period of ten years, any person from attempting to clone a human being using somatic cell nuclear transfer technology. The reason for this legislation is simple: the cloning of a human being today remains scientifically dangerous, morally unacceptable, and ethically flawed. Let me be clear about the intent of this legislation right at the outset: I am opposed to human cloning. I do not believe it is, or will ever be, morally acceptable to clone human beings. This legislation was carefully drafted so that it would not prevent or interfere with vital biomedical research into cancer and other diseases, birth defects, infertility, and the mass production of drugs and vaccines. The Bill authorizes the continuation of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, and requires the Commission to report to the President and the Congress in 4\1/2\ years and 9\1/2\ years on the science and ethical issues associated with this technology. The Commission's reports to Congress will also include a recommendation as to whether the moratorium should be continued beyond the ten years set by this legislation. technology outpaces public policy The successful cloning of a sheep in Scotland last year, using a procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, was hailed as an amazing scientific success. But it also ignited a fierce international debate about the potential use of this technique to clone human beings, and the ethical, legal and religious questions raised by such a possibility. Chicago-area physicist Dr. Richard Seed stirred that debate into full force last month when he told the media that he intends to clone human beings. He said that there were ten clinics in the United States interested in offering cloning services and that he believes the demand will be for over 200,000 cases per year, according to the American Medical News. Setting aside the fact that Dr. Seed's claims are somewhat implausible at the moment given the rudimentary state of cloning technology, he did hit a nerve. This is a classic example, in my view, of how the lightening speed with which we are able to develop new technologies can sometimes get ahead of society's ability to handle these advances. I do not believe that, today, we know enough to permit human cloning, or to make a permanent determination about the use of this technology. But, when writing laws that would have such an enormous impact on an entire field of science--science that includes the development of lifesaving new therapies for disease, the prevention of birth defects, and fertility--Congress has a responsibility to be prudent and judicious in drafting legislation. In preparing this legislation, Senator Kennedy and I, and our staffs, met with representatives from: The National Bioethics Advisory Commission; The National Institutes of Health; The American Society for Reproductive Medicine; The Biotech Industry Association; The Department of Health and Human Services; The Food and Drug Administration. Included in the National Bioethics Advisory Commission were members of the religious and medical ethics communities. This bill is carefully drafted to prohibit attempts to clone a human being, while not impeding other important research involving somatic cell nuclear transfer technology, and the cloning of cells, tissues, DNA and animals. procedure is unsafe One compelling reason to prohibit attempts to clone human beings at this time is the fact that the technology is so new that it is unsafe even in animals. Dolly, the famous cloned sheep, was the only success out of 277 attempts, and the procedure has not been repeated successfully (although there are reports of the pending birth of at least one calf using the same cloning procedure). The National Bioethics Advisory Commission concluded that attempting to use this process to clone humans would involve unacceptable risks to the fetus or potential children, possibly resulting in multiple miscarriages, developmental abnormalities, and unknown risks to the mother. Even if and when concerns about safety are resolved, the ethical concerns of cloning humans still remain. This 10-year moratorium will allow us the time to study and debate this issue fully--which we as a society need to do because the science is not going to go away, and we will have to have a greater understanding of it to make informed decisions on its use. must not impede other important research The term ``cloning'' is used by scientists to describe various techniques that involve duplication of biological material, both animal and human. A blanket ban on cloning, or on use of the nuclear cell transplant technique to clone, would be too broad, and would deprive the United States--and the world--of invaluable biological research. The cloning technique that was used to produce Dolly, somatic cell nuclear transfer, was an extension of experiments carried out over 40 years to facilitate understanding of how development of an animal from a single fertilized egg is carried out. The agricultural industry has been using nuclear transplantation research to try to improve livestock breeding. Biotechnology companies are exploring ways to use cloning to improve the production of therapeutic drugs. And health researchers are hoping that a greater understanding of nuclear transplantation cloning can lead to new treatment for human disease. cancer A report issued by the National Institutes of Health, dated January 29, indicates that cloned tissue culture cells have allowed scientists to test potential chemotherapies on cancerous cells, to study the cellular events leading to cancer, and to mass-produce drugs and vaccines. diabetes Cloning technology, using somatic cell nuclear transfer, could teach scientists how to augment the insulin-producing cells in diabetics using cells from their own bodies. Not only could cloning technology revolutionize the treatment for diabetes--it could potentially provide a cure for this debilitating disease. skin grafts Somatic cell nuclear transfer might also be used in the future to create skin grafts for people who are severely burned. In severe burn cases, many times there is not enough healthy skin on the victim to perform a skin graft, so doctors are forced to use skin from cadavers or skin cells grown in tissue culture. In both cases, the skin is genetically different from the burn victim, and while it provides material for emergency grafting, this skin is ultimately rejected and the patient must undergo numerous grafting. Somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning could allow skin to be generated from virtually any of the burn victim's cells, which would be genetically identical and therefore should not be rejected. The life-saving possibilities for this technology are enormous: The creation of nerve stem cells to treat neurodegenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and to help repair injuries of the spinal cord. Bone marrow stem cells, for the treatment of leukemia, sickle cell or other blood diseases. Liver cells to treat liver damage. Muscle cells to treat muscular dystrophy and heart disease. Cartilage-forming cells to reconstruct joints damaged by injury or arthritis. The cloning of cells in culture has reduced the use of live animals in research and has allowed studies of human cells that could not be done otherwise. As scientists from NIH clearly warn, without future research exploring this cloning technology, these and other potential life- saving possibilities will be unrealized. NIH scientists also make clear that all of these possibilities can be accomplished without using this technology to create, or attempt to create, a human being. A letter signed by more than 50 medical and patient organizations sent to Members of Congress last week warning very clearly of the danger in drafting legislation to ban cloning. In the letter they say: Poorly crafted legislation to ban the cloning of human beings may put at risk biomedical research, such as the use of cloning techniques on human cells, genes and tissues, which is vital to finding the cures to the diseases and ailments which our organizations champion. the differences with the president's proposal The bill we are introducing today is very similar to the President's bill which he sent to Congress on June 10, 1997. But it differs from the President's in five important aspects. First, it adds additional provisions to prevent anyone from cloning or even attempting to clone a human being. In addition to the outright prohibition on cloning a human being, the bill prohibits the use of Federal funds for such a purpose. Furthermore, the bill prohibits shipping the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of attempting to clone a human being. This provision will ensure that no one may attempt to evade the law by shipping the product of somatic nuclear cell transfer overseas for the purpose of cloning a human being. Second, it stiffens already tough penalties in the President's bill to deter any attempt at cloning a human being. The bill provides a penalty of $1,000,000 or three times the gross gain or loss from such a violation, whichever is greater. In addition, the bill provides that any property used in an attempt to violate the act, as well as any property traceable to such an attempted violation, will be forfeited. Furthermore, the Attorney General, who is solely empowered to enforce the act, is granted the power of injunction to immediately enjoin violations. Third, the bill preempts state laws that prohibit or restrict research regarding, or practices of, somatic cell nuclear transfer, mitochondrial or cytoplasmic therapy, or the cloning of molecules, DNA, cells, tissues, organs, plants, animals, or humans. This provision is important because I believe we need a consistent national policy and we should discourage the practice of ``forum shopping'' from state to state for lenient laws. This bill is not intended to preempt state laws such as California Penal Code Title 9, Chapter 12, Section 367g, and California Business and Professions Code Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 12, Section 2260, which require that physicians and other medical personnel obtain signed written consent from patients before sperm, ova, or embryos are used for any purpose other than reimplantation in the same patient or in their spouse, and require that any use of sperm, ova, or embryos of donors comply with the written intent of the donor. The California statues were passed in order to address serious allegations by at least 60 California families, that medical personnel at fertility clinics at the University of California at Irvine and the University of California at San Diego transferred donors' sperm, ova, or embryos to researchers or implanted them in other women, without donors' knowledge or consent. These allegations raise grave concerns about serious violations of personal integrity and privacy. This legislation is in no way intended to preempt or interfere in any way with these California statutes, or with related statutes that would have a similar effect. Fourth, the bill we are introducing urges the President to cooperate with foreign countries to enforce restrictions on human cloning. Other countries are moving to ban human cloning and we should join them so that scientists cannot evade our laws by moving their operations offshore. Finally, our bill establishes a 10-year ban, as opposed to the 5-year ban in the President's recommended legislation. It is conceivable that there could be incredible scientific breakthroughs with cloning technology over the next 3 to 5 years. But developing a legal and moral framework for understanding of the potential use and abuse of this technology will take much longer. This legislation sunsets after 10 years, during which time the National Bioethics Advisory Commission must keep Congress and the President informed on the status of the science, its potential uses for society, and make recommendations on whether to continue the prohibition. Congress can extend the ban temporarily or permanently at any time during or after the ten year period if it so chooses. conclusion Creating life outside of the normal reproductive process has challenged many of our basic beliefs--never more so than with the notion of cloning a human being. It is important that we as a society engage in a rigorous public debate to fully understand the science, the dangers, the potential benefits, and the moral and legal implications of this technology. Throughout history, science has empowered humankind to achieve things never before believed possible. Our challenge is to harness this power without losing control over our own lives, or the moral compass that guides us. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the letter to which I referred.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will amend the Clean Air Act to allow California to operate its own reformulated gasoline program, which is stricter than the federal program and meets the air quality requirements set forth in the 1990 Clean Air Act. What the bill does The bill provides that if a state's reformulated gasoline rules achieve equal or greater emissions reductions than federal regulation, that state's rules will take precedence. This works to exempt California from overlapping federal oxygenate requirements. The bill is the Senate version of legislation introduced last year in the House by Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego) and cosponsored by 46 members of the California Congressional delegation. The bill applies only to states which have received waivers under Section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, for which California is the only state currently eligible for such a waiver. By exempting California from the oxygenate requirement, this legislation will give gasoline manufacturers the flexibility to reduce or even eliminate the use of gasoline oxygenates, such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)--which has been detected in alarming amounts in California groundwater. The legislation allows the companies who serve California's gasoline needs to continue to adopt better methods of producing California Cleaner Burning gasoline, without being restricted by oxygenate requirements. california air quality history California's efforts to improve air quality predate similar federal efforts, and have achieved marked success in reducing toxic emission levels, resulting in the cleanest air Californians have seen in decades. This trend will continue with the passage of this bill. Since the introduction of the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline program, there has been a 300 ton per day decrease in ozone forming ingredients found in the air. This is the emission reduction equivalent of taking 3.5 million automobiles off the road. California reformulated gasoline reduces smog forming emissions from vehicles by 15 percent. The state has also has seen a marked decrease in first stage smog alerts, during which residents with respiratory ailments are encouraged to stay indoors. California Environmental Protection Agency Chairman John Dunlop, who supports this legislation, says: . . . our program has proven (to have) a significant effect on California's air quality. Following the introduction of California's gasoline program in the spring of 1996, monitor levels of ozone . . . were reduced by 10 percent in Northern California, and by 18 percent in the Los Angeles area. Benzene levels (have decreased) by more than 50 percent. Although California has made great progress in decreasing the amount of toxins in the air, the overlap of federal regulations, on top of the strict state regulations, does not allow the state much flexibility in the design and implementation of its reformulated fuels program. This inflexibility makes it difficult for gasoline producers to respond effectively to unforeseen problems associated with their product. Such is the case with the oxygenate MTBE leaking into California groundwater. Refiners are bound by federal law to include an oxygenate in their gasoline, even if they can make gasoline which meets Clean Air Act emissions requirements without its use. Thus, the need for the legislation is twofold--to streamline overlapping federal and state regulations, and to allow gasoline manufacturers the flexibility to make California Cleaner Burning Gasoline without oxygenated fuels. Federal reformulated gasoline requirement history Federal reformulated gasoline, and the oxygenate requirement included in it, came as a response to the worsening air quality of many American cities. For many years major cities, including San Diego, Sacramento and Los Angeles, were facing serious pollution problems due to increasing amounts of smog and ozone in the air. As the air quality worsened, people around the country began experiencing more frequent respiratory illnesses, and increased asthma attacks due to the toxins in the air. In 1990, Congress recognized the gravity of this national problem and amended the Clean Air Act to ensure that our nation's most smoggy and polluted areas were the beneficiaries of tougher motor vehicle emission control standards. One of these amendments directed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt a federal reformulated gasoline program for urban areas with the most serious pollution problems. The federal reformulated gasoline program mandated that this new cleaner burning gasoline reduce emissions of benzene, a known human carcinogen, and other toxins. The federal program also mandated that this reformulated gasoline contain 2 percent by weight oxygenate, which functions to make the gas burn more completely and efficiently. california reformulated gasoline By December 1994, the oxygenate requirement went into effect. In California, this mandate affected three cities in particular, where the air quality was the worst. Reformulated gasoline was required to be sold during the winter season in the greater Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento regions. This gasoline contained 11 percent MTBE, in order to meet the federal oxygenate requirement. While federal Clean Air Act regulations were being promulgated, the California Air Resources Board developed even tougher and more stringent environmental standards. However, these standards permitted more flexibility in how they could be achieved by California's gasoline manufacturers. By establishing a State Implementation Plan which restricts eight different properties that affect emissions of toxic air pollutants and ozone forming compounds, California's stricter regulations were approved by the U.S. EPA and are federally enforceable. Additionally, California regulations contain an innovative predictive model which is based on the analysis of a large number of vehicle emission test studies. Refiners have the option of using this model to produce reformulated gasoline as long as its usage results in equivalent or greater reductions in emissions than federal regulations. California EPA states that the predictive model ``shows that a different formulation will achieve equivalent or better air quality benefits.'' While the amendments to the Clean Air Act have helped reduce emissions throughout the United States, they imposed limitations on the level of flexibility that U.S. EPA can grant to California. The overlapping applicability of both the federal and state reformulated gasoline rules has actually prohibited gasoline manufacturers from responding as effectively as possible to unforeseen problems with their product. This bill addresses exactly this type of situation. This legislation rewards California for its unique and effective approach in solving its own air quality problems by permitting it an exemption from federal oxygenate requirements as long as tough environmental standards are enforced. mtbe contamination of california groundwater This legislation will allow refiners to address the problems that have occurred with the use of MTBE as it has leaked into groundwater supplies. Such problems were certainly not anticipated during the drafting of these amendments, and therefore only exemplifies the need for a California exemption to this requirement. MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly through soil and gravel, therefore posing a more rapid threat to aquifers than the other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur. MTBE is easily traced, but very difficult and expensive to clean up. Higher quantities of MTBE in drinking water has a smell similar to turpentine and a taste like paint thinner. Although we do not have all of the data we need to determine the potential damage of MTBE to our water and our health, we do know that it is increasingly a problem for California: MTBE has been detected in drinking water supplies in a number of cities including Santa Monica, Riverside, Anaheim, Los Angeles and San Francisco; MTBE has also been detected in numerous California reservoirs including Lake Shasta in Redding, San Pablo and Cherry reservoirs in the Bay Area, and Coyote and Anderson reservoirs in Santa Clara; The largest contamination occurred in the city of Santa Monica, which lost 75% of its ground water supply as a result of MTBE leaking out of shallow gas tanks beneath the surface; MTBE has been discovered in publicly owned wells approximately 100 feet from City Council Chamber in South Lake Tahoe; In Glennvile, California, Near Bakersfield, MTBE levels have been detected in groundwater as high as 190,000 parts per billion-- dramatically exceeding the California Department of Health advisory of 35 parts per billion; and 250 underground fuel tank sites have leaked MTBE in Santa Clara County not far from water wells used by the residents of San Jose. In the face of mounting evidence of extensive MTBE contamination in California groundwater, several gasoline manufacturers, including Chevron and Tosco (Union 76), have made it clear they would like to have the flexibility to use only the amount and type of oxygenate necessary to continue to meet the environmental specifications of clean burning gasoline. Many manufacturers believe that it is possible to meet California's more stringent clean air standards using reduced amounts of, or in some cases, no oxygenate in their gasolines. In a recent letter to me, Chevron chairman Ken Derr expressed his belief that while he believes MTBE is safe if handled properly, his company is exploring other options. He says: (Chevron has) taken another look at the extensive body of data that relates to fuel composition to vehicle emissions and have concluded that it may be possible to make more gasoline without MTBE and still meet California's cleaner burning gasoline standards. If California refiners can meet the stricter state clean air standard while reducing or eliminating the use of a chemical that is contaminating California water, it makes good sense to give them the flexibility they need to solve the problem. By amending the Clear Air Act to waive the requirement for oxygenates in California, which already has in place its own stricter standards, this legislation does not detract in any way from the gains in emission reductions mandated in the Clear Air Act. It will simply allow for companies like Chevron to meet Clean Air Act requirements, while maximizing the advantages of increased flexibility in order to respond more efficiently and effectively to any unforseen problems encountered in the production of California cleaner burning gasoline. If exempting California from the oxygenate requirement meant weakening the Clear Air Act in any way, I would be the first person to stand up and lead the battle against such an effort. This bill does not weaken the Clear Air Act, but instead is a step in the right direction, towards sound environmental policy. This narrowly-targeted legislation simply makes sense. With this bill, California is once again taking the initiative to lead the way in ensuring the protection of the air we breathe, and the water we drink. By allowing the companies that supply our state's gasoline to utilize good science and sound environmental policy, we can achieve the goals set forth by the Clear Air Act, without sacrificing California's clean water. In short, when we pass this legislation, we will take another step forward in ensuring that protecting our air qualify does not come at the expense of safeguarding our water. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will amend the Clean Air Act to allow California to operate its own reformulated gasoline program, which is stricter than the federal program and meets the air quality requirements set forth in the 1990 Clean Air Act. What the bill does The bill provides that if a state's reformulated gasoline rules achieve equal or greater emissions reductions than federal regulation, that state's rules will take precedence. This works to exempt California from overlapping federal oxygenate requirements. The bill is the Senate version of legislation introduced last year in the House by Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego) and cosponsored by 46 members of the California Congressional delegation. The bill applies only to states which have received waivers under Section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, for which California is the only state currently eligible for such a waiver. By exempting California from the oxygenate requirement, this legislation will give gasoline manufacturers the flexibility to reduce or even eliminate the use of gasoline oxygenates, such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)--which has been detected in alarming amounts in California groundwater. The legislation allows the companies who serve California's gasoline needs to continue to adopt better methods of producing California Cleaner Burning gasoline, without being restricted by oxygenate requirements. california air quality history California's efforts to improve air quality predate similar federal efforts, and have achieved marked success in reducing toxic emission levels, resulting in the cleanest air Californians have seen in decades. This trend will continue with the passage of this bill. Since the introduction of the California Cleaner Burning Gasoline program, there has been a 300 ton per day decrease in ozone forming ingredients found in the air. This is the emission reduction equivalent of taking 3.5 million automobiles off the road. California reformulated gasoline reduces smog forming emissions from vehicles by 15 percent. The state has also has seen a marked decrease in first stage smog alerts, during which residents with respiratory ailments are encouraged to stay indoors. California Environmental Protection Agency Chairman John Dunlop, who supports this legislation, says: . . . our program has proven (to have) a significant effect on California's air quality. Following the introduction of California's gasoline program in the spring of 1996, monitor levels of ozone . . . were reduced by 10 percent in Northern California, and by 18 percent in the Los Angeles area. Benzene levels (have decreased) by more than 50 percent. Although California has made great progress in decreasing the amount of toxins in the air, the overlap of federal regulations, on top of the strict state regulations, does not allow the state much flexibility in the design and implementation of its reformulated fuels program. This inflexibility makes it difficult for gasoline producers to respond effectively to unforeseen problems associated with their product. Such is the case with the oxygenate MTBE leaking into California groundwater. Refiners are bound by federal law to include an oxygenate in their gasoline, even if they can make gasoline which meets Clean Air Act emissions requirements without its use. Thus, the need for the legislation is twofold--to streamline overlapping federal and state regulations, and to allow gasoline manufacturers the flexibility to make California Cleaner Burning Gasoline without oxygenated fuels. Federal reformulated gasoline requirement history Federal reformulated gasoline, and the oxygenate requirement included in it, came as a response to the worsening air quality of many American cities. For many years major cities, including San Diego, Sacramento and Los Angeles, were facing serious pollution problems due to increasing amounts of smog and ozone in the air. As the air quality worsened, people around the country began experiencing more frequent respiratory illnesses, and increased asthma attacks due to the toxins in the air. In 1990, Congress recognized the gravity of this national problem and amended the Clean Air Act to ensure that our nation's most smoggy and polluted areas were the beneficiaries of tougher motor vehicle emission control standards. One of these amendments directed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt a federal reformulated gasoline program for urban areas with the most serious pollution problems. The federal reformulated gasoline program mandated that this new cleaner burning gasoline reduce emissions of benzene, a known human carcinogen, and other toxins. The federal program also mandated that this reformulated gasoline contain 2 percent by weight oxygenate, which functions to make the gas burn more completely and efficiently. california reformulated gasoline By December 1994, the oxygenate requirement went into effect. In California, this mandate affected three cities in particular, where the air quality was the worst. Reformulated gasoline was required to be sold during the winter season in the greater Los Angeles, San Diego and Sacramento regions. This gasoline contained 11 percent MTBE, in order to meet the federal oxygenate requirement. While federal Clean Air Act regulations were being promulgated, the California Air Resources Board developed even tougher and more stringent environmental standards. However, these standards permitted more flexibility in how they could be achieved by California's gasoline manufacturers. By establishing a State Implementation Plan which restricts eight different properties that affect emissions of toxic air pollutants and ozone forming compounds, California's stricter regulations were approved by the U.S. EPA and are federally enforceable. Additionally, California regulations contain an innovative predictive model which is based on the analysis of a large number of vehicle emission test studies. Refiners have the option of using this model to produce reformulated gasoline as long as its usage results in equivalent or greater reductions in emissions than federal regulations. California EPA states that the predictive model ``shows that a different formulation will achieve equivalent or better air quality benefits.'' While the amendments to the Clean Air Act have helped reduce emissions throughout the United States, they imposed limitations on the level of flexibility that U.S. EPA can grant to California. The overlapping applicability of both the federal and state reformulated gasoline rules has actually prohibited gasoline manufacturers from responding as effectively as possible to unforeseen problems with their product. This bill addresses exactly this type of situation. This legislation rewards California for its unique and effective approach in solving its own air quality problems by permitting it an exemption from federal oxygenate requirements as long as tough environmental standards are enforced. mtbe contamination of california groundwater This legislation will allow refiners to address the problems that have occurred with the use of MTBE as it has leaked into groundwater supplies. Such problems were certainly not anticipated during the drafting of these amendments, and therefore only exemplifies the need for a California exemption to this requirement. MTBE is a highly soluble organic compound which moves quickly through soil and gravel, therefore posing a more rapid threat to aquifers than the other constituents of gasoline when leaks occur. MTBE is easily traced, but very difficult and expensive to clean up. Higher quantities of MTBE in drinking water has a smell similar to turpentine and a taste like paint thinner. Although we do not have all of the data we need to determine the potential damage of MTBE to our water and our health, we do know that it is increasingly a problem for California: MTBE has been detected in drinking water supplies in a number of cities including Santa Monica, Riverside, Anaheim, Los Angeles and San Francisco; MTBE has also been detected in numerous California reservoirs including Lake Shasta in Redding, San Pablo and Cherry reservoirs in the Bay Area, and Coyote and Anderson reservoirs in Santa Clara; The largest contamination occurred in the city of Santa Monica, which lost 75% of its ground water supply as a result of MTBE leaking out of shallow gas tanks beneath the surface; MTBE has been discovered in publicly owned wells approximately 100 feet from City Council Chamber in South Lake Tahoe; In Glennvile, California, Near Bakersfield, MTBE levels have been detected in groundwater as high as 190,000 parts per billion-- dramatically exceeding the California Department of Health advisory of 35 parts per billion; and 250 underground fuel tank sites have leaked MTBE in Santa Clara County not far from water wells used by the residents of San Jose. In the face of mounting evidence of extensive MTBE contamination in California groundwater, several gasoline manufacturers, including Chevron and Tosco (Union 76), have made it clear they would like to have the flexibility to use only the amount and type of oxygenate necessary to continue to meet the environmental specifications of clean burning gasoline. Many manufacturers believe that it is possible to meet California's more stringent clean air standards using reduced amounts of, or in some cases, no oxygenate in their gasolines. In a recent letter to me, Chevron chairman Ken Derr expressed his belief that while he believes MTBE is safe if handled properly, his company is exploring other options. He says: (Chevron has) taken another look at the extensive body of data that relates to fuel composition to vehicle emissions and have concluded that it may be possible to make more gasoline without MTBE and still meet California's cleaner burning gasoline standards. If California refiners can meet the stricter state clean air standard while reducing or eliminating the use of a chemical that is contaminating California water, it makes good sense to give them the flexibility they need to solve the problem. By amending the Clear Air Act to waive the requirement for oxygenates in California, which already has in place its own stricter standards, this legislation does not detract in any way from the gains in emission reductions mandated in the Clear Air Act. It will simply allow for companies like Chevron to meet Clean Air Act requirements, while maximizing the advantages of increased flexibility in order to respond more efficiently and effectively to any unforseen problems encountered in the production of California cleaner burning gasoline. If exempting California from the oxygenate requirement meant weakening the Clear Air Act in any way, I would be the first person to stand up and lead the battle against such an effort. This bill does not weaken the Clear Air Act, but instead is a step in the right direction, towards sound environmental policy. This narrowly-targeted legislation simply makes sense. With this bill, California is once again taking the initiative to lead the way in ensuring the protection of the air we breathe, and the water we drink. By allowing the companies that supply our state's gasoline to utilize good science and sound environmental policy, we can achieve the goals set forth by the Clear Air Act, without sacrificing California's clean water. In short, when we pass this legislation, we will take another step forward in ensuring that protecting our air qualify does not come at the expense of safeguarding our water. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Kathy Lacey, my deputy legislative director, who I regret will retire at the end of December after serving California for 27 years as a staff member in the U.S. Senate. Kathy came to Washington, DC 27 years ago having studied at Vassar College and after graduate work at the University of Southern California. Her graduate work at USC was in Asian studies and Chinese language. She knew other friends who had used their studies by going to work for the Federal Government and she thought she would find similar opportunities. Instead, former Senator Alan Cranston hired Kathy and she went to work using her love and knowledge of California. When Kathy describes her service in the U.S. Senate to younger staff just starting their careers, she says that her effort was always on behalf of the people of California. Her work ranged from trying to assist farmers with export of their crops, to helping cities get their funds to build sewage treatment plants, to fixing levees or to analyzing the science of radioactive waste, pests, and pesticides, or endangered species. But what gives Kathy the most satisfaction is the work which she has done, both with me and with Alan Cranston, to protect California's special places. Legislation she has worked on over her 27-year career has protected almost 12 million acres of wilderness in California. More than half of that acreage was part of the Desert Protection Act. I could not have successfully gotten that bill passed without Kathy's knowledge and continuous work. But Kathy was also involved in the creation of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, establishment of Channel Island National Park, expansion of Redwood National Park, protection of Mineral King through its addition to Sequoia National Park, establishment of the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area, preservation of the Tuolumne River, enactment of the Smith River bill which protected watersheds and old growth in the Six Rivers National Forest, and designation of almost all of the wilderness in California including the 1.8-million-acre California wilderness bill. Kathy grew up in Pasadena. Her parents had come to California as teenagers. Her mother and brother still live there. Because Kathy chose to come to Washington, DC, and work for California, she has made a lasting contribution to her State. Kathy plans to leave the Congress and have new adventures with her husband, Cal, who has also recently retired. On behalf of everyone in California, I thank Kathy for her professional spirit which was important to me from my first days in the U.S. Senate and I thank her for her dedicated example which has proved so significant to California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to cosponsor legislation introduced by my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator Jeffords to extend the production tax credit, a tax incentive to encourage wind-generated energy. Today, California's Tehachapi-Mojave area is the world's largest producer of wind-generated electricity. The New York Times has described the area's 5,000 electricity producing wind turbines as a vision of the future. Wind generation energy provides a renewable, clean, environmentally sound source of energy in California. I am pleased to lend my support to the Grassley-Jeffords legislation. The production tax credit provides a 1.5 cent tax credit for each kilowatt of electricity produced in the United States during the first ten years a new wind energy production facility is in service. The legislation is an inexpensive way to encourage clean, efficient and sustainable energy future for our children and grandchildren. Under current law, the production tax credit is scheduled to expire in 1999, complicating the planning and development of new wind energy generation facilities. New wind energy facilities, like any major construction project, take several years to move from planning to operation. Without the certainty of the credit after 1999, investors will be reluctant to commit funds for the development of new wind energy facilities. Industry officials have already noticed a decline in investment, which can be attributed to the credit's uncertainty. Wind energy is the world's fastest growing energy technology. The amount of wind-generated power has increased by 25 percent each year during the last 5 years, growth which is expected to accelerate through 2010. Wind-generated energy is expected to become a $400 billion industry worldwide by 2020. However, most of the growth is occurring in Europe, rather than here in the United States. No new wind power generation development has occurred in the United States since 1991. I am pleased that California companies, including those in south and central California, are among the world's leading manufacturers and developers of wind energy facilities. If domestic firms are able to capture even one-fourth of the jobs associated with serving the growing market, the growth would support approximately 150,000 jobs. These are high-technology engineering jobs, traditional areas of strength for California, providing a solid economic foundation. The Grassley-Jeffords legislation will have important environmental consequences as well. The President's initiative against global warming includes $5 billion program of tax incentives, which could include the extension of the production tax credit. Coal is currently the Nation's largest source of power, providing 55 percent of the Nation's energy needs. However, coal has the highest level of carbon dioxide, when compared with the amount of electricity produced. Wind production energy is a significantly cleaner alternative, helping to decrease carbon dioxide emissions. Wind energy could supply 30,000 megawatts of energy by 2010, rather than current 1,700 megawatts today, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 18%. These are cost-effective steps for our energy future. I am pleased to join Senator Grassley, who has demonstrated his long- standing commitment to this important issue, and cosponsor the Grassley-Jeffords legislation. Without an extension, I am concerned wind energy production will not be able to develop, undermining economic, environmental and clean air goals. Wind generation energy provides a renewable, clean, environmentally sound source of energy for California's future. I am pleased to lend my support to the legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I was pleased to join yesterday with the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, as a cosponsor of his bill, S. 1413, the Enhancement of Trade, Security, and Human Rights Through Sanctions Reform Act. This bill is an attempt to bring some order to one of the more vexing foreign policy problems we in Congress face--the question of when to impose unilateral economic sanctions. Congress has been quick to enact unilateral economic sanctions over the years in response to behavior of foreign nations that we find objectionable. At times, the executive branch has done the same. By one estimate, between 1993 and 1996, the United States imposed unilateral sanctions 61 times on 35 countries. The question we must ask, and which in my view we fail to ask at times, really is fundamental to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy: Are U.S. interests advanced best by deepening relations or diminishing relations with a country that is not acting as we would like? Frankly, there is no one answer to this question. The answer clearly varies from case to case. There is no doubt that unilateral sanctions do have a place in our foreign policy tool box. I have voted for them at times, as has nearly every Member of Congress. However, there is no doubt, as well, that we have imposed sanctions recklessly at times, without due regard to their effectiveness, or to the damage they could cause other U.S. foreign policy interests, the U.S. economy, and our ability to provide humanitarian assistance. What S. 1413 would do is force Congress and the executive branch to apply the brakes in the occasional rush to impose unilateral sanctions. Our effort is not to prevent unilateral sanctions in all cases, but instead to impose a more judicious process that we should follow before they are imposed. This process is designed to create some breathing space--time to adequately consider both the possible impact of unilateral sanctions on other U.S. interests, and whether there are other policy alternatives that might be more effective than unilateral sanctions. It will also ensure that when we do pass unilateral sanctions, we do not lock ourselves into a policy that deprives us of all flexibility. By making Presidential waivers and a 2-year sunset policy standard practice for the imposition of unilateral sanctions, we will ensure that we are not forced to perpetuate a policy that is not working, has become outdated, or is excessively damaging U.S. interests in other areas. It is worth repeating that nothing in this legislation will prevent us from passing unilateral sanctions into law. This bill is merely designed to bring some order and discipline to the process. I want to commend the Senator from Indiana for his leadership in this area, and I look forward to working with him to pass this bill into law.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I am joined by a bipartisan group of my colleagues in submitting a resolution that expresses support for the agreements reached at the recent summit between President Clinton and President Jiang Zemin of the People's Republic of China. As the resolution makes clear, the United States and China did not come to agreement on every issue that divides us during the summit. Significant, even fundamental differences remain in some areas, particularly in the area of human rights. But there is no question that the summit was a positive step forward in building a cooperative partnership between the largest developed country and the largest developing country on earth. The summit has, of course, occasioned a vigorous debate on the United States' policy toward China. It seems to me that the key to a successful China policy is to be able to encourage this large nation to take its place in the world as a stable, responsible leader that can help ensure peace and stability in Asia and the world. The question is how to do this? Our choices seem to boil down to two: Some say we should contain China, prevent its rise, and isolate it from the world community. We should recognize it as an adversary. Others--myself and the cosponsors of this resolution included--say we should engage China, understand that our relationship is complex, develop a strategic partnership where we have like interests, and through intensive communication try to achieve common ground. Last week's summit was, in my view, the beginning of a course of ongoing top level dialogue and diplomacy. It showed that we must deal with China on the top levels. Prior to last week, our two presidents had had little communication. There was no red telephone, no way for the leaders to speak. Our dialogue was sporadic, and took place on second and third levels. Was the summit a success? Yes. It was definitely more that just a series of photo-ops. It accomplished progress and concrete results which bear explicit restatement. First, the summit established the ability of two country's leaders to talk with each other. They have resolved to engage in ongoing communication, conduct regular summit meetings--indeed, President Clinton will go to China next year--and the establishment of a telephone hotline. This high-level communication is important, because Beijing does not always know what all its ministries are doing. Our intelligence can help bring it to their attention, as was the case when Chinese companies shipped ring magnets to Pakistan. U.S. intelligence also helped China shut down a number of illegal CD factories. Second, the summit produced a very important nuclear non- proliferation agreement. China committed that it would engage in no new export of nuclear technology, expertise, or equipment to Iran. This is in addition to China having already signed the N.P.T., the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the CWC, and its commitment to abide by the Missile Technology Control Regime and its annexes. China also agreed to participate in multi-lateral efforts to control and monitor the export of nuclear materials. In exchange we have agreed to allow the export of peaceful nuclear energy technology to China. Third, the summit led to several extremely useful military-to- military agreements. Two two sides agreed to expand military-to- military exchanges, including at the Secretary of Defense level, and to establish communications links to avoid accidental incidents at sea between the our navies. Fourth, the summit produced agreements aimed at increasing U.S.-China cooperation on law enforcement. China agreed to the stationing of two DEA agents at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, and we will expand our cooperation in combating organized crime, counterfeiting, alien smuggling, and money laundering. Fifth, the two sides reached agreements aimed at improving China's energy usage and decreasing its pollution problem. The United States and China will engage in a cooperative effort--using U.S. technology to work on China's serious urban air pollution problem, and to provide electricity to rural villages. Sixth, in perhaps the most important contribution we can make to the cause of human rights in China, the two sides agreed on a number of measures aimed at promoting the rule of law in China. The United States and China will engage in a joint effort in developing the rule of law in China. It will involve the training of judges and lawyers, exchanges of legal experts, and assistance to China in drafting new criminal, civil, and commercial codes. Seventh, even in the area of human rights, there were some modest gains. I emphasize ``modest'' because we still have fundamental differences with the Chinese on human rights. What we see as issues of basic human freedom and dignity, the regard as their ``internal affairs,'' with deep implications for China's stability and unity. America's position was clearly put forward--by the President, by Members of Congress, and by the many demonstrations that followed President Jiang around. I believe Chinese leaders may now have an understanding of the depth of feeling about human rights issues in the United States in a way they could not have known before the visit. Nevertheless, there was some limited progress. China agreed to receive a group of religious leaders from the U.S. to conduct fact- finding on religious freedom. China also agreed to resume a prisoner accounting project run by a businessman and human rights activist, John Kamm. In addition, China agreed to the establishment of a non- governmental organization human rights forum. Preparatory sessions will be held soon. And just prior to the summit, China signed the U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which obligates parties to promote these rights in their countries. Clearly, there were also major disappointments on human rights. There was no release of dissidents, and no comment that indicated any new thinking on Tiananmen Square. On Tibet, China clings to old and discredited arguments and has been non-committal on all overtures for talks with the Dalai Lama, and the repression in Tibet continues. But even with the disappointments, things are changing in China. No large country has changed as much as China has in the last 30 years since the end of cultural revolution. Today there is a freer lifestyle, an improved standard of living, and much greater educational opportunities. There is a greater openness, and tremendous economic development. There is also a gradual lowering of tariffs and opening of borders. Our relationship with China is not without its strains. Taiwan, for example remains the number one issue of sensitivity for China. The Chinese view it as a fundamental issue of sovereignty. I think the Administration understands this, and is firmly committed to the One China policy. But otherwise, all issues remain negotiable and subject to the enterprise of diplomacy conducted at the highest levels. In this regard, the summit was definitely a step forward. For that reason, my colleagues and I submit this resolution to recognize the achievements of the summit, and to express our support for President Clinton's intention to make a return visit to China next year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to cosponsor legislation introduced by my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator Jeffords to extend the production tax credit, a tax incentive to encourage wind-generated energy. Today, California's Tehachapi-Mojave area is the world's largest producer of wind-generated electricity. The New York Times has described the area's 5,000 electricity producing wind turbines as a vision of the future. Wind generation energy provides a renewable, clean, environmentally sound source of energy in California. I am pleased to lend my support to the Grassley-Jeffords legislation. The production tax credit provides a 1.5 cent tax credit for each kilowatt of electricity produced in the United States during the first ten years a new wind energy production facility is in service. The legislation is an inexpensive way to encourage clean, efficient and sustainable energy future for our children and grandchildren. Under current law, the production tax credit is scheduled to expire in 1999, complicating the planning and development of new wind energy generation facilities. New wind energy facilities, like any major construction project, take several years to move from planning to operation. Without the certainty of the credit after 1999, investors will be reluctant to commit funds for the development of new wind energy facilities. Industry officials have already noticed a decline in investment, which can be attributed to the credit's uncertainty. Wind energy is the world's fastest growing energy technology. The amount of wind-generated power has increased by 25 percent each year during the last 5 years, growth which is expected to accelerate through 2010. Wind-generated energy is expected to become a $400 billion industry worldwide by 2020. However, most of the growth is occurring in Europe, rather than here in the United States. No new wind power generation development has occurred in the United States since 1991. I am pleased that California companies, including those in south and central California, are among the world's leading manufacturers and developers of wind energy facilities. If domestic firms are able to capture even one-fourth of the jobs associated with serving the growing market, the growth would support approximately 150,000 jobs. These are high-technology engineering jobs, traditional areas of strength for California, providing a solid economic foundation. The Grassley-Jeffords legislation will have important environmental consequences as well. The President's initiative against global warming includes $5 billion program of tax incentives, which could include the extension of the production tax credit. Coal is currently the Nation's largest source of power, providing 55 percent of the Nation's energy needs. However, coal has the highest level of carbon dioxide, when compared with the amount of electricity produced. Wind production energy is a significantly cleaner alternative, helping to decrease carbon dioxide emissions. Wind energy could supply 30,000 megawatts of energy by 2010, rather than current 1,700 megawatts today, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 18%. These are cost-effective steps for our energy future. I am pleased to join Senator Grassley, who has demonstrated his long- standing commitment to this important issue, and cosponsor the Grassley-Jeffords legislation. Without an extension, I am concerned wind energy production will not be able to develop, undermining economic, environmental and clean air goals. Wind generation energy provides a renewable, clean, environmentally sound source of energy for California's future. I am pleased to lend my support to the legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden of Oregon, as well Senator Max Baucus and Senator Slade Gorton to introduce legislation to strengthen tax incentives and encourage more charitable giving in America. The legislation, based on S. 1121 which I introduced last year, represents an important step to encourage greater private sector support for important educational, medical, and other goals in local communities across the country. Americans are among the most caring in the world, contributing generously to charities in their communities: American families contribute, on average, nearly $650 for each household, or about $130 billion annually, to charities. Approximately, three out of every four households give to nonprofit charitable organizations. However, charities are very concerned for the future, as Federal efforts to balance the budget will limit funds for social spending for urgent needs like children's services, homelessness, job training, and health care. While support for charities grew by 3.7 percent in 1994, contributions for human services, the area most closely associated with poverty programs, dropped by 6 percent. Nonprofit charities are very concerned about their ability to maintain their current level of services or grow to address unmet needs. Nonprofit charities can never replace government programs, but they can play a critical role and provide vital social services. The Federal Government must ensure we are doing everything we can to encourage support for charities, which supplement Federal programs. expanding tax incentives for charitable giving The Federal Government must provide the leadership and the tools to encourage more charitable giving through the Tax Code. One source of untapped resources for charitable purposes is closely held corporate stock. A closely held business is a corporation, in which stock is issued to a small number shareholders, such as family members, but is not publicly traded on an exchange. This type of business is very popular for family businesses involving different generations. However, the tax cost of contributing closely held stock to a charity or foundation can be prohibitively high. The tax burden discourages families and owners from winding down a business and contributing the proceeds to charity. This legislation would permit certain tax-free liquidations of closely held corporations into one or more tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. Under current law, a corporation may have to be liquidated to effectively complete the transfer of assets to a charity, incurring a corporate tax at the 35 percent tax rate. In 1986, Congress repealed the ``General Utilities'' doctrine, imposing a corporate level tax on all corporate transfers, including those to tax exempt charitable organizations. A charity may also be subject to taxation on its unrelated business income from certain types of donated property. These tax costs make contributions of closely held stock a costly and ineffective means of giving funds to a charity. If we are going to find new ways to strengthen charities, we need to review the tax costs which undercut the incentive to give and the value of a charitable gift. Volunteers are already hard at work in their communities and charitable funding is already stretched dangerously thin. Charities need added tools to unlock the public's desire to give generously. We need to create appropriate incentives for the private sector to do more. In California, volunteer and charitable organizations, together, perform vital roles in the community and deserve our support. I would like to offer some examples, which can be also found throughout the country: Summer Search: In San Francisco, the Summer Search Foundation is hard at work preventing students from dropping out of high school. Summer Search helps students successfully complete school and, for 93 percent of the participants, go on to college. With increased charitable contributions, Summer Search could help keep kids in school and on track toward graduation and a more productive contribution to the Nation. Drew Center for Child Development: I am deeply concerned with increases in the number of child abuse and neglect cases, which now total nearly 3 million children in the United States. Social services block grants cuts will impose new burdens on local communities. The Drew Child Development Center, located in the Watts area of Los Angeles, works directly with children and families involved in child abuse environments. There are thousands of other families that could benefit from the Drew Center program if only more resources were available. Stronger tax incentives to boost charitable giving could provide the Drew Center with some of the resources needed to combat this enormous problem. The Chrysalis Center: In 1993 I visited the Chrysalis Center, a Los Angeles organization dedicated to helping homeless individuals find and keep jobs. Chrysalis provides employment assistance, from training in jobseeking skills to supervised searches for permanent employment. The Center has helped place thousands of people in permanent, full-time jobs in the last decade. Jobs for the Homeless: Jobs for the Homeless assists with job placement services for the homeless in Berkeley and Oakland, supporting over 1,400 men and women. However, thousands more need their help. The former homeless individuals have landed successful positions in manufacturer, retailers, and small and large businesses. Without more contributions, Jobs for the Homeless will be unable to provide the necessary support and increase their literacy or drug rehabilitation programs, critical ingredients in moving people back to work. Today, Senators Smith, Wyden, Baucus, Gorton, and I introduce tax incentive legislation to encourage stronger support for the Nation's vital charities. The proposal: Eliminates the corporate tax upon liquidation of a qualifying closely held corporation under certain circumstances. The legislation would require 80 percent or more of the stock to be dedicated to a charity; and clarifies that a charity can receive mortgaged property in a qualified liquidation, without triggering unrelated business income tax for 10 years. By eliminating the corporate tax upon liquidation, Congress would encourage additional, and much needed, charitable gifts. Across America, countless thousands have built successful careers and have generated substantial wealth in closely held corporations. As the individuals age and plan their estates, we should help them channel their wealth to philanthropic goals. Individuals who are willing to make generous bequests of companies and assets, often companies they have spent years building, should not be discouraged by substantially reducing the value of their gifts through Federal taxes. While the Joint Tax Committee has not yet prepared an official revenue cost, previous estimates suggest a cost of about $400 million over 5 years. However, as a result of capital gains tax reform adopted earlier this year, the cost if likely to be significantly lower. Of equal significance, the same revenue estimating assumptions project big increases in charitable giving as a result of the legislation, stimulating between $3 and 5 billion in charitable contributions. This tax proposal may generate as much as seven or eight times its projected revenue loss in expanded charitable giving. I encourage others to review this legislation and listen to the charities in your community. The legislation has been endorsed by the Council on Foundations, which represents foundations throughout the country, and the Council of Jewish Federations. Since the introduction of the legislation last year, the proposal has been revised to sharpen the bill's focus and target the legislation in the most effective manner. I want to encourage the review process to continue, so we may continue to build support and target the bill's impact for the benefit of the Nation's nonprofit community. With virtually limitless need, we must look at new ways to encourage and nurture a strong charitable sector. Private charities cannot replace the government, but if the desire to support charitable activity exists, we should not impose taxes to decrease the value of that support. Tax laws should encourage, rather than impede, charitable giving. By inhibiting charitable gifts, Federal tax laws hurt those individuals that most need the help of their government and theie community.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering legislation with Senator Kyl as original cosponsor, a legislation which provides full reimbursement to state and local counties for costs incurred for emergency medical services and ambulatory services provided to undocumented aliens injured during a pursuit by border patrol or under the custody of federal, state, or local authorities. This legislation: Authorizes full reimbursement for emergency medical costs, including ambulatory services for illegal aliens who are injured during illegal crossings at land and sea ports, or during a pursuit by border patrol, or while in custody of federal, state, or local authorities; Authorizes up to $18 million per year for the next 4 years from a separate account under the Attorney General to reimburse states and localities for emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens. Requires the Attorney General to submit a written report to Senate and House Judiciary Committees on the policy and practice, including custody practice, of the border patrol by March 1, 1998. Requires annual report by the Attorney General to Senate and House Judiciary and Appropriations Committees on the implementation of this bill. INS reports show that in FY96, 1.65 million illegal aliens were apprehended, of which 97% or 1.6 million apprehensions were made at the Southwest Border. INS also reports that more than 300,000 illegal aliens come into the country every year and in FY97, over 111,000 criminal and other illegal aliens were put through formal deportation proceedings. With increased focus on apprehending illegal aliens at the 140 mile stretch of our Southwest border, recent reports also show increases in unreimbursed emergency medical service cost of illegal aliens to state and local county hospitals. The California State Auditor recently released a report which charged that San Diego alone incurred up to $8.1 million in unreimbursed charges in emergency medical service for illegal aliens between January 1996 and May 1997. The Auditor estimates that San Diego hospitals incurred from $4.9 million to $8.1 million in unreimbursed emergency medical services and ambulatory services for up to 1074 illegal aliens during the seventeen month period. The unreimbursed medical service costs include hospital care, costs incurred for paramedics and air transportations, physicians, surgeons and laboratories. These uncompensated services, which hospitals and other emergency service providers are required to provide under California law, were provided to illegal aliens who were injured during illegal crossings at the border and while escaping border patrol pursuits. The Sacramento Bee recently reported the following: Every time a Border patrol chase results in injuries, San Diego area hospitals provide `free' care to those injured... (For instance), medical care for Fransciso Quintera--who was struck by a car while fleeing Border patrol agents--cost UCSD Medical Center over $1 million in uncompensated expenses. In one recent vehicle chase, a van loaded with illegal immigrants crashed while evading the Border Patrol, costing Scripps Hospital $200,000 and Mercy Hospital $100,000 in uncompensated care. In the 1996 Immigration Act, Congress acknowledged the huge cost shift to state and local county hospitals in unreimbursed cost for emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens by authorizing full reimbursement for emergency Medicaid and ambulatory services. However, the $25 million appropriated annually over the next 4 years under the Balance Budget Act for emergency Medicaid for illegal aliens is insufficient to cover the full cost of emergency medical services for illegal aliens nationwide, where high immigrant States like California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona and Massachusetts end up picking up the responsibility for caring for the injured illegal aliens. In fact, for fiscal year 1998, there are no appropriations for reimbursement for emergency ambulatory services, as authorized by the 1996 Immigration Act. Instead, Congress only requires INS to perform a pilot project in Nogales, Arizona and report its findings to Congress. Appropriating $25 million over the next 4 years and performing a pilot project in Nogales, Arizona is not enough to cover the millions of dollars high immigrant States like California incur every year in unreimbursed emergency medical and ambulatory costs for illegal aliens injured at the border or during a border patrol pursuit. Mr. President, time has come for the Federal Government to take full responsibility for the cost associated with providing emergency medical services, including ambulatory services, for illegal aliens and lifting the fiscal burden on State and local counties. Thank you and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, a California company has embarked on an effort that I believe demonstrates how entrepreneurship and public service can go hand in hand. The Recovery Network is a new nationwide cable television program dedicated to helping people recover from the devastating disease of addiction. This Santa Monica-based network is the first of its kind and the only broadcast network in the world devoted entirely to substance abuse recovery and prevention. It is estimated that more than 130 million Americans suffer from or are affected by alcoholism, drug abuse, eating disorders, depression, gambling and other addictions. The Recovery Network offers a lifeline of help to millions of those in need offering group recovery sessions, information on 12-step recovery programs, a 24-hour 800-number help line, discussion shows designed for children of alcoholics and parents with drug abuse problems, and information shows on the pharmacological effects of alcohol and other addictive substances. Recovery Network serves not only those in need of help, but also the friends, families, teachers, and professionals seeking guidance and tools to effect change. Another important part of the Recovery Network is the localized programming effort. ``Neighborhood Recovery'' enables local community groups to offer their services through cable programming. Organizations like Californians for Drug-Free Youth, and the Miami Coalition for a Safe and Drug-Free Community can reach out to people in their specific area offering information on local meetings and other resources. I believe this type of public service programming is exactly what Congress envisioned when it passed the Cable Communications Act in 1984, ``* * * to provide the widest possible diversity of information sources and service to the public'' and ``* * * assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interest of the local community.'' Community cable became a permanent fixture on the American landscape in 1948. Its purpose was to service remote communities with a master antenna providing a clear television broadcast signal. Three years later, 70 cable systems services 14,000 homes nationally. Since then, cable television has become a vital full-service link to citizens in every city and town in the United States, serving more than 67 million households nationwide. People suffering from alcohol and drug addiction have found the Recovery Network there to help when they were most in need: One young couple from Ohio who was traveling and struggling to maintain their sobriety early in recovery happened upon the Recovery Network on their hotel television. They said ``* * * we turned you on unknowingly, and it was like an AA meeting right in our hotel room. It really helped us refocus on what is important, and that is AA and staying sober.'' An Indiana viewer wrote ``I just want to say thank you for the programs and the light at the end of the tunnel that they showed me.'' A Michigan man wrote ``Thank you for making such a big difference in my life.'' A California woman wrote ``When I can't make a meeting, I know you're there for me.'' Recovery Network has become a leader in delivering effective programming which provides solutions to these problems in the privacy of the home and in offering positive lifestyle choices as an alternative. The Recovery Network is supported by every major drug abuse prevention and recovery organization in the Nation, including the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the National Drug Prevention League, National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors and the National Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education. Mr. President, I am proud that the Recovery Network is a product of the State of California and I wish them much success in their endeavor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering legislation with Senator Kyl as original cosponsor, a legislation which provides full reimbursement to state and local counties for costs incurred for emergency medical services and ambulatory services provided to undocumented aliens injured during a pursuit by border patrol or under the custody of federal, state, or local authorities. This legislation: Authorizes full reimbursement for emergency medical costs, including ambulatory services for illegal aliens who are injured during illegal crossings at land and sea ports, or during a pursuit by border patrol, or while in custody of federal, state, or local authorities; Authorizes up to $18 million per year for the next 4 years from a separate account under the Attorney General to reimburse states and localities for emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens. Requires the Attorney General to submit a written report to Senate and House Judiciary Committees on the policy and practice, including custody practice, of the border patrol by March 1, 1998. Requires annual report by the Attorney General to Senate and House Judiciary and Appropriations Committees on the implementation of this bill. INS reports show that in FY96, 1.65 million illegal aliens were apprehended, of which 97% or 1.6 million apprehensions were made at the Southwest Border. INS also reports that more than 300,000 illegal aliens come into the country every year and in FY97, over 111,000 criminal and other illegal aliens were put through formal deportation proceedings. With increased focus on apprehending illegal aliens at the 140 mile stretch of our Southwest border, recent reports also show increases in unreimbursed emergency medical service cost of illegal aliens to state and local county hospitals. The California State Auditor recently released a report which charged that San Diego alone incurred up to $8.1 million in unreimbursed charges in emergency medical service for illegal aliens between January 1996 and May 1997. The Auditor estimates that San Diego hospitals incurred from $4.9 million to $8.1 million in unreimbursed emergency medical services and ambulatory services for up to 1074 illegal aliens during the seventeen month period. The unreimbursed medical service costs include hospital care, costs incurred for paramedics and air transportations, physicians, surgeons and laboratories. These uncompensated services, which hospitals and other emergency service providers are required to provide under California law, were provided to illegal aliens who were injured during illegal crossings at the border and while escaping border patrol pursuits. The Sacramento Bee recently reported the following: Every time a Border patrol chase results in injuries, San Diego area hospitals provide `free' care to those injured... (For instance), medical care for Fransciso Quintera--who was struck by a car while fleeing Border patrol agents--cost UCSD Medical Center over $1 million in uncompensated expenses. In one recent vehicle chase, a van loaded with illegal immigrants crashed while evading the Border Patrol, costing Scripps Hospital $200,000 and Mercy Hospital $100,000 in uncompensated care. In the 1996 Immigration Act, Congress acknowledged the huge cost shift to state and local county hospitals in unreimbursed cost for emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens by authorizing full reimbursement for emergency Medicaid and ambulatory services. However, the $25 million appropriated annually over the next 4 years under the Balance Budget Act for emergency Medicaid for illegal aliens is insufficient to cover the full cost of emergency medical services for illegal aliens nationwide, where high immigrant States like California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona and Massachusetts end up picking up the responsibility for caring for the injured illegal aliens. In fact, for fiscal year 1998, there are no appropriations for reimbursement for emergency ambulatory services, as authorized by the 1996 Immigration Act. Instead, Congress only requires INS to perform a pilot project in Nogales, Arizona and report its findings to Congress. Appropriating $25 million over the next 4 years and performing a pilot project in Nogales, Arizona is not enough to cover the millions of dollars high immigrant States like California incur every year in unreimbursed emergency medical and ambulatory costs for illegal aliens injured at the border or during a border patrol pursuit. Mr. President, time has come for the Federal Government to take full responsibility for the cost associated with providing emergency medical services, including ambulatory services, for illegal aliens and lifting the fiscal burden on State and local counties. Thank you and I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden of Oregon, as well Senator Max Baucus and Senator Slade Gorton to introduce legislation to strengthen tax incentives and encourage more charitable giving in America. The legislation, based on S. 1121 which I introduced last year, represents an important step to encourage greater private sector support for important educational, medical, and other goals in local communities across the country. Americans are among the most caring in the world, contributing generously to charities in their communities: American families contribute, on average, nearly $650 for each household, or about $130 billion annually, to charities. Approximately, three out of every four households give to nonprofit charitable organizations. However, charities are very concerned for the future, as Federal efforts to balance the budget will limit funds for social spending for urgent needs like children's services, homelessness, job training, and health care. While support for charities grew by 3.7 percent in 1994, contributions for human services, the area most closely associated with poverty programs, dropped by 6 percent. Nonprofit charities are very concerned about their ability to maintain their current level of services or grow to address unmet needs. Nonprofit charities can never replace government programs, but they can play a critical role and provide vital social services. The Federal Government must ensure we are doing everything we can to encourage support for charities, which supplement Federal programs. expanding tax incentives for charitable giving The Federal Government must provide the leadership and the tools to encourage more charitable giving through the Tax Code. One source of untapped resources for charitable purposes is closely held corporate stock. A closely held business is a corporation, in which stock is issued to a small number shareholders, such as family members, but is not publicly traded on an exchange. This type of business is very popular for family businesses involving different generations. However, the tax cost of contributing closely held stock to a charity or foundation can be prohibitively high. The tax burden discourages families and owners from winding down a business and contributing the proceeds to charity. This legislation would permit certain tax-free liquidations of closely held corporations into one or more tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. Under current law, a corporation may have to be liquidated to effectively complete the transfer of assets to a charity, incurring a corporate tax at the 35 percent tax rate. In 1986, Congress repealed the ``General Utilities'' doctrine, imposing a corporate level tax on all corporate transfers, including those to tax exempt charitable organizations. A charity may also be subject to taxation on its unrelated business income from certain types of donated property. These tax costs make contributions of closely held stock a costly and ineffective means of giving funds to a charity. If we are going to find new ways to strengthen charities, we need to review the tax costs which undercut the incentive to give and the value of a charitable gift. Volunteers are already hard at work in their communities and charitable funding is already stretched dangerously thin. Charities need added tools to unlock the public's desire to give generously. We need to create appropriate incentives for the private sector to do more. In California, volunteer and charitable organizations, together, perform vital roles in the community and deserve our support. I would like to offer some examples, which can be also found throughout the country: Summer Search: In San Francisco, the Summer Search Foundation is hard at work preventing students from dropping out of high school. Summer Search helps students successfully complete school and, for 93 percent of the participants, go on to college. With increased charitable contributions, Summer Search could help keep kids in school and on track toward graduation and a more productive contribution to the Nation. Drew Center for Child Development: I am deeply concerned with increases in the number of child abuse and neglect cases, which now total nearly 3 million children in the United States. Social services block grants cuts will impose new burdens on local communities. The Drew Child Development Center, located in the Watts area of Los Angeles, works directly with children and families involved in child abuse environments. There are thousands of other families that could benefit from the Drew Center program if only more resources were available. Stronger tax incentives to boost charitable giving could provide the Drew Center with some of the resources needed to combat this enormous problem. The Chrysalis Center: In 1993 I visited the Chrysalis Center, a Los Angeles organization dedicated to helping homeless individuals find and keep jobs. Chrysalis provides employment assistance, from training in jobseeking skills to supervised searches for permanent employment. The Center has helped place thousands of people in permanent, full-time jobs in the last decade. Jobs for the Homeless: Jobs for the Homeless assists with job placement services for the homeless in Berkeley and Oakland, supporting over 1,400 men and women. However, thousands more need their help. The former homeless individuals have landed successful positions in manufacturer, retailers, and small and large businesses. Without more contributions, Jobs for the Homeless will be unable to provide the necessary support and increase their literacy or drug rehabilitation programs, critical ingredients in moving people back to work. Today, Senators Smith, Wyden, Baucus, Gorton, and I introduce tax incentive legislation to encourage stronger support for the Nation's vital charities. The proposal: Eliminates the corporate tax upon liquidation of a qualifying closely held corporation under certain circumstances. The legislation would require 80 percent or more of the stock to be dedicated to a charity; and clarifies that a charity can receive mortgaged property in a qualified liquidation, without triggering unrelated business income tax for 10 years. By eliminating the corporate tax upon liquidation, Congress would encourage additional, and much needed, charitable gifts. Across America, countless thousands have built successful careers and have generated substantial wealth in closely held corporations. As the individuals age and plan their estates, we should help them channel their wealth to philanthropic goals. Individuals who are willing to make generous bequests of companies and assets, often companies they have spent years building, should not be discouraged by substantially reducing the value of their gifts through Federal taxes. While the Joint Tax Committee has not yet prepared an official revenue cost, previous estimates suggest a cost of about $400 million over 5 years. However, as a result of capital gains tax reform adopted earlier this year, the cost if likely to be significantly lower. Of equal significance, the same revenue estimating assumptions project big increases in charitable giving as a result of the legislation, stimulating between $3 and 5 billion in charitable contributions. This tax proposal may generate as much as seven or eight times its projected revenue loss in expanded charitable giving. I encourage others to review this legislation and listen to the charities in your community. The legislation has been endorsed by the Council on Foundations, which represents foundations throughout the country, and the Council of Jewish Federations. Since the introduction of the legislation last year, the proposal has been revised to sharpen the bill's focus and target the legislation in the most effective manner. I want to encourage the review process to continue, so we may continue to build support and target the bill's impact for the benefit of the Nation's nonprofit community. With virtually limitless need, we must look at new ways to encourage and nurture a strong charitable sector. Private charities cannot replace the government, but if the desire to support charitable activity exists, we should not impose taxes to decrease the value of that support. Tax laws should encourage, rather than impede, charitable giving. By inhibiting charitable gifts, Federal tax laws hurt those individuals that most need the help of their government and theie community.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to commend and strongly support Gen. Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Policy Control, in his call for increased funds for the drug interdiction effort. I have been one who has been most critical over the low priority effort that has been made to stop the flow of drugs into this country. The recent series in the Washington Post--I think it was five articles--pointed out that anywhere from 5 to 7 tons a day of heavy narcotics is flowing into our country. General McCaffrey reports that he has been visiting at least four Cabinet Secretaries, including the Cabinet Secretary representing Defense, to really ask for moneys to increase the interdiction efforts with respect to hard narcotics. I, who have criticized, must also be one who stands and supports this. Later today, Senator Coverdell and I, and I hope the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, who has just come to the floor, will be joining in a letter to the Secretary, also indicating our support. General McCaffrey insists that he cannot certify the Pentagon's requested budget for fiscal 1999 unless it includes $141 million in additional drug interdiction funding. I believe the general is right in taking this action. I urge the administration to support him. While highlighting the fact that other Federal agencies have increased their counternarcotics spending at a faster rate, the general has asked that the Defense Department increase the amount it spends for the drug fight in four key areas. The first is Andean coca reduction. He is asking for an increase of $75 million to carry on the drug fight in the Andes region, where American and local officials are working in cooperation to disrupt the cocaine export industry. National Guard counterdrug operations--he is asking for an increase of $30 million to support antidrug activities of the National Guard that partially restores reductions incurred since 1993 in State plans funding, which include support for counterdrug activities along the border. Third, he is asking for an increase of $12 million for a program to intercept traffickers in the Caribbean Basin, including southern Florida, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the eastern Caribbean. This would implement commitments made by the President during the Caribbean summit in Barbados. And he is asking for money for Mexican initiatives, an increase of $24 million to provide additional resources to reduce the flow of illicit drugs from Mexico and for a drug training program for Mexican officials so that they can locate and arrest drug traffickers and money launderers at the border. The point that General McCaffrey makes, that I think is so important, is although the domestic funding of domestic agencies to fight drugs has gone up, the Defense Department funding, which is really the interdiction funding--the air surveillance, the radar, the trafficking, those thing that is going into really cutting off the flow of narcotics--has gone down by 2 percent this year. If you look at a chart of its decline over a period of years you will see where it went up to a high in 1992, came dramatically down by 1994, and has remained virtually flat, even declining some more, between 1995 and 1999. So the current DOD budget is only 1.3 percent higher than fiscal year 1990. We were told we have 5 to 7 tons of cocaine and hard narcotics coming in over our border a day. And yet, the DOD budget is only 1.3 percent higher in these areas than it was in 1990. That is less than a single year of inflation. So, I think the head of this Office of Drug Control has a very, very good point in asking for this money and, frankly, for really putting his foot down. Many of us in the Senate have been after him to be more vigorous to stop the flow of narcotics: ``Why don't you do something about it? Why don't you see that the air and sea and land interdiction is beefed up?'' He can't do that without the resources to do it. Mr. President, I happen to believe in terms of the appropriateness of it being in the Defense Department budget, that there is no threat to America's national security equal to the threat of drugs. Tens of thousands of people are killed in this country from drugs. Hundreds of thousands of lives in this country are ruined by drugs. It is largely responsible today for the crime rate in virtually every community throughout this Nation. It is a driving force and a central drawing card for the gang movement in the United States and its spread across State lines. The cartels have flourished because of it, and with it has come some of the most violent actions which anyone can possibly conceive: prosecutors killed, attorneys threatened. Just today, if you pick up the newspaper, you will see one of the cartel leaders, Amado Carrillo Fuentes, who underwent plastic surgery. The doctors who performed that surgery disappeared. Their bodies were just found. Their fingernails had been pulled out. Their bodies were covered with burns. The garrote still remained around their neck. And this is everyday action surrounding drugs, the movement of drugs and the activities of the five big Mexican cartels. All of this has created increased and, I think, unnecessary tensions between two countries, neighboring countries--the United States and Mexico--who should be good friends and working together. We can't work together without the resources to carry out the job well. No Nation today, again, presents the threat to this Nation's national security as does the heavy flow of narcotics into this country. So I am very proud, and Senator Coverdell and I will be issuing a joint press statement indicating our strong support for this action. We want a standup drug czar. We want him to call it as he sees it. We want him to take forceful action wherever that action is needed. I am proud to stand here representing one of the States that is impacted in a major way by drugs, to say both to the Secretary of Defense and to the President of the United States, ``Please support the drug czar in his request for these additional moneys. They are necessary for him to do the job.'' I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senate, in particular I thank the majority and minority leaders for the agreement that allowed the confirmation of Christina Snyder as a Federal district court judge to proceed. I think this body will be proud of Mrs. Snyder's work on the bench. I have a great deal of faith in her. I thank the majority leader very much for scheduling this vote on the nomination of Christina Snyder. Mrs. Snyder is an excellent candidate, and I am delighted that the Senate will act today on her nomination. Christina Snyder's nomination has been pending before the Senate since being reported by the Judiciary Committee on September 18, and the California district courts face an urgent need for additional judges on the bench. I recommended Chris Snyder to the President, in January 1996, for appointment to the central district of California because I believe she is extremely well qualified for the position. Christina Snyder is a highly respected lawyer in Los Angeles. She has more than 20 years of experience in the courtroom and served as a partner in three respected Los Angeles law firms. She has focused her legal career on civil proceedings, where approximately 70 percent of her cases have been in the Federal courts. Her practice has consisted of complex civil litigation, representing mostly defendants, including cases involving the Federal securities laws, civil RICO, antitrust, intellectual property, and the Lanham Act. Christina's record for integrity and decisiveness has earned the respect of her peers, both Democrats and Republicans alike. Chris Snyder has the support of professors, judges, and lawyers in the central district and throughout California. Among her many supporters are such prominent Republican Los Angeles leaders as Mayor Richard Riordan, who noted his very high regard and enthusiastic support for her, and Sheriff Sherman Block. As a testament to her high regard by her colleagues in the legal profession, Mrs. Snyder was nominated for membership to the prestigious American Law Institute. Membership in the organization is equally divided between lawyers, judges, and legal professors. It is indeed an honor to be elected to the organization and Mrs. Snyder was elected to the institute the very first time she was nominated, a noteworthy accomplishment. Mrs. Snyder has also lectured on various subjects related to banking law and intellectual property law, and is currently coauthoring a treatise on the local rules of practice of the Federal courts in the State of California. As an attorney for over 20 years, she has the experience and temperament to excel in this position. I urge the Senate to confirm her nomination to the central district court. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise on this final day of debate on the conference report to the DOD bill, and I do so to express my strong opposition. Now, I very much regret this. I have great fondness for the chairman of the Committee, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, and great respect for the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin. The great bulk of the bill I wish to support. I understand that there are important things in the bill. However, from the perspectives of Texas and California, there is a basic unfairness in this bill that we cannot leave unaddressed, and I rise to address those points. I want to say how privileged both my colleague from California and I have been to work with the senior and junior Senators from the great State of Texas in trying to remedy the unfairness in this bill. Unfortunately, I must indicate we have not been able to achieve an accommodation, and therefore we register our objections through our ``no'' votes. I oppose the conference report because it contains language that will effectively stop, ban, prohibit any further public/private competitions of depot workloads at both McClellan and Kelly Air Logistics Centers. These competitions will lower the cost of weapons systems repair and will save the taxpayer money. It is hard for me to understand why they are not being permitted to go ahead. It is unfortunate that this debate has to take place. We felt we had an agreement. The distinguished Senator from Michigan knows that he called me one night to indicate that at least 2\1/2\ points of the four points we had raised would be accommodated. We agreed to that. We backed off. Overnight, committee language was written which essentially undid the compromise, and we have been able to achieve no remedy since that time. In the debate last week, this body heard that if this restrictive depot language remained in the bill, the President would probably veto the bill. A strongly worded letter was sent to the majority leader and other senior Members of Congress detailing the administration's concern dovetailing our concern. I will not read the letter, but I would like to talk about some of the points in it. The depot language in this bill constrains DOD's ability to conduct competitions for depot-level repair work. This will result in decreasing the amount of potential savings the Department would reap from these competitions and could then redirect to fund other vital needs like readiness and weapons modernization. Second, the administration is correct. The conference report absolutely ``seeks to impose unique and inappropriate requirements on DOD's process for allocating the work now performed at the closing San Antonio and Sacramento Air Logistics Centers.'' Contrary to what members of the Depot Caucus espouse, the option to privatize this depot work was explicitly made available in the 1995 BRAC closure report. The BRAC 95 Commission specifically recommended that the Department ``consolidate the remaining workloads to other DOD depots or to private-sector commercial activities as determined by the Defense Depot Maintenance Council.'' And, yes, the President did strongly support the Commission's decision which specifically reinforced the option of privatization. In his letter to the chairman of the BRAC 95 Commission, the President wrote, ``I was pleased to learn that . . . you confirmed the Commission's recommendations permitting the Department of Defense to privatize the workloads of McClellan and Kelly facilities in place or elsewhere in their respective communities. . . . In my communications with Congress, I have made clear that the Commission's agreement that the Secretary enjoys full authority and discretion to transfer workload from these two installations to the private sector, in place, locally or otherwise, is an integral part of the overall BRAC 95 package it will be considering.'' The President goes on to say without ambiguity, Moreover, should the Congress approve this package but then subsequently take action in other legislation to restrict privatization options at McClellan or Kelly, I will regard this as a breach of Public Law 101-510 (the base closure law) in the same manner as if the Congress were to attempt to reverse by legislation any other material direction of this or any other BRAC. While I'm on the subject of the BRAC, let me clear the air on this point. Some have alleged that this public/private competition process which could result in this work being privatized at McClellan and Kelly is just a crooked attempt to keep these bases open. Let me say, without ambiguity, it is not. McClellan and Kelly will both be closed in 2001. BRAC 95 made that decision. And, the communities of Sacramento and San Antonio are struggling to deal with this decision and make the best of it today. Nearly 3,000 jobs not associated with the ongoing competition at McClellan's Air Logistics Center will be moved to other Air Force depots because when McClellan's gates are locked in 2001, that is it. Those 2,300 jobs that are associated with the public/private competition may also be moved to other Air Force depots depending upon its outcome. That's it. If this depot language remains in the conference report, McClellan will undoubtedly lose these remaining 2,300 jobs. And that is what this is all about. As far as the property and buildings at McClellan are concerned, they will be transferred under the base reuse process to recipients in the local community according to their base reuse plan. Third, the Department is already conducting a fair and open public/ private competition at McClellan and Kelly. The depot language in this conference report would change that. It would, without question, skew these competition in favor of the public depots. But, don't take my word for that, or the administration's, just listen to the supporters of the depot language. One of the authors of the language, the junior Senator from Oklahoma, believes that this language shuts the door on private industry's ability to compete. Quoted in the Daily Oklahoman he said, ``I think it's highly unlikely any (contractor) would want to bid on it.'' How are my colleagues and I supposed to believe this is a fair competition? Not only is that the sentiment of the Depot Caucus, but in the letter we have heard quoted on the floor very effectively by the distinguished Senator from Texas, the Industry-Depot Coalition, the Aerospace Industries Association, the American Electronics Association, the American Shipbuilding Association, the Contract Services Association, Electronic Industries Association, National Defense Industry Association, Professional Services Council, and Shipbuilders-- all agree that the impact of this is to kill private competition. In a letter today sent to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, the chairman of the committee, they point out that the legislation, `` * * * places in statute competitive requirements that are at this time only to be applied to the proposed competitions for the workloads at Kelly and McClellan. As believers in fair competition and equal treatment in all areas of competition, we simply cannot support a statutory requirement such as this one, that places unique requirements on only one category of bidders. If the object is to ensure fair competition, the statute should reflect that philosophy clearly, unambiguously, and uniformly.'' Mr. President, I have had calls from private contractors saying they can't compete and won't compete under this language. I have said to them, ``Would you put this in writing? Will you go public?'' Do you know what they told me? ``We are afraid to. There will be reprisals against our companies if we state this publicly.'' Have we come to that? Let me also say, the Sacramento Bee quoted an industry representative who said, ``I can't conceive of a company that would bid for McClellan and Kelly under these circumstances.'' So, the Senators from Texas and the Senators from California are fighting for survival. We are fighting for the ability to do what is professed to be the will of this body, which is to see if private competition can be effective in handling some of this workload and that a fair bidding and contracting process exists to carry out that competition. Secretary Cohen has supported us in this effort and for that I am very pleased. It is amazing to me that the Depot Caucus has taken this position. Let me cite the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia as an example. Members of the Depot Caucus have complained from the first day that the competition announced by the Air Force would be unfair and biased. They said public depots couldn't possibly win. But, Warner Robins won. How did this happen? One of the reasons it happened is that public depots can hide their overhead in other accounts when they bid against private industry for this work. Members of private industry on numerous occasions have said this is exactly why they can't compete under this bill that is being passed today. Warner Robins, as I understand it--and I have never been contradicted in this--took advantage of this ability to hide overhead costs to help make its bid below that of their private competitors. In fact, the Air Force had to add penalties to Warner Robins' bid for the 500 employees and other overhead that had been shifted to other accounts. When conference began, the President's advisers said that he would veto the DOD authorization bill if these depot provisions were included in the bill. This veto message has not changed. The Depot Causus' anticompetition provisions, included in this bill by the conferees, will serve to delay and restrict the public-private competitions for depot workload currently underway at both McClellan and Kelly Air Force Bases undermining any effort to do this work in the private sector in a more cost-effective way. DOD's own policy calls for greater reliance on the private sector for appropriate depot maintenance workload. Outsourcing helps preserve private sector capabilities and enhances DOD's ability to capture new technologies that are constantly being developed in the private sector. By introducing greater competition into the mix, outsourcing lowers the cost of depot-level maintenance activities increasing funding levels for modernization and readiness needs. Secretary Cohen stated earlier this year that these provisions: . . . could cost the Department significant sums in lost annual savings and start-up costs. The could severely impact military readiness. The San Antonio and Sacramento workloads involve thousands of highly trained workers and large, expensive equipment and facilities. . . . To transfer all of these workloads without a competitive evaluation and risk assessment would be unwise from a business perspective and would involve a significant risk of disruption in mission performance and degradation in military readiness. DOD has stayed true and faithful to the Secretary's statement in also urging and recommending to the President that this bill be vetoed. So, I urge my colleagues, please support the Senators from Texas and California in opposing this conference report until these depot provisions are removed from the bill. We need to let these competitions go forward in a truly fair and level way so that we can fund the modernization and the readiness accounts. DOD believes that the first competition will result in an expected savings of $190 million. That is what is at stake in this issue, as far as funding for readiness and preparedness of the military is concerned--$190 million. Turning to another subject, I would also like to raise concerns with a provision in the conference report on revised export rules for computers. The conference report enacts new, and I believe damaging, restrictions on the sale of many types of computers. The proposal is unworkable and will result in undermining our security in the long run. Computer technology advances rapidly. What was called a supercomputer only a few years ago, represents only routine computing power today. An overbroad restriction will not make the world a safer place, but will undermine U.S. interests by locking up U.S. exports, shifting sales to foreign manufacturers and denying the administration the necessary flexibility to respond to evolving technology and worldwide competition. Export restrictions must be based on an objective review of a computer's computing power and the computing needs of the potential computer application. In a letter to conferees, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger wrote. The President's 1995 decision to streamline computer export controls addressed the outdated controls then in effect. Given the rapid pace of technological change, we must avoid substituting similarly inflexible controls mandated by Congress. It is vitally important to maintain our ability to adjust controls to keep pace with technological change while focusing our limited resources on exports of national security concern. So the administration needs the authority to distinguish between sales that jeopardize national security and those that do not. That is what the administration is asking for. In stating this as a rationale, as well, they would recommend that this bill be vetoed if it goes out in its present form. I believe that is a correct assessment. I think we only kick ourselves in the pants, to have this kind of a restriction in this bill. Other countries will simply buy elsewhere. Our companies will lose those sales and the President, as well as the Department of Commerce, will lose any flexibility they have in making some decisions that are really based on meaningful criteria. This bill fixes that criteria at a lower level on computers that are not, in fact, supercomputers today. That is the mistake that is inherent in the writing of this provision. It is for these reasons that Senators Gramm, Hutchison, Boxer, and I oppose this bill. There are those who have said, and I want to address it, these four Senators are resisting pay raises. They don't want increases in housing allowances. They don't want authorization of military construction projects. That is baloney, and it is the reason that the four of us introduced a bill last week that goes ahead and authorizes the pay raises, the hazardous duty pay, the military construction projects, and military health care.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. These are the reasons we oppose this bill. We ask our colleagues to oppose it as well. Regardless, the President is going to veto this bill and I am happy, at least, about that. Mr. President, I know my colleague from California would like to utilize the remainder of this time and I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe the Senators from California have 45 minutes reserved. I would like to exercise that time now and utilize as much of that as I may consume. I would appreciate being notified when 20 minutes have gone by so that my colleague and friend from California might utilize the remainder of the time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to offer my views on this fast track proposal before the Senate. I have followed the debate very carefully. California has a significant stake on issues of international trade, an important engine driving the California economy today. In recent weeks, we have heard a great deal about fast track, often with broad, sweeping claims. Some have said those voting against fast track are protectionist, xenophobic or antitrade. Others have claimed fast track is the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. I want to take a few minutes to describe just what I think fast-track authority is all about. Fast track is the abrogation of congressional authority to have some leverage on trade agreements and the ability to offer amendments on the floor. This fast-track bill provides the President, for the remainder of his term, plus an optional extension, the authority to negotiate any trade treaty in the world and bring it rapidly to this body, without an opportunity to offer amendments. Article 1, section 8, of the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress responsibility over economic matters. Through fast track, we are effectively abrogating this responsibility. There is no State in this Nation that has a more important role on issues of trade than the State of California. The stakes are very high. California is the seventh largest economy on Earth. We are the economic powerhouse and the economic engine of the Nation, responsible for 13 percent of the Nation's economy and 20 percent of the Nation's export. Free and fair trade is an integral part of California's economic future. But free and fair trade can only be brought about through a level playing field, with everybody playing by the same rules. My job as a U.S. Senator is to stand up and articulate my State's interests when its needs and concerns are not being taken into consideration. Simply stated, fast track gives the President total authority to negotiate any trade agreement. Is fast track absolutely necessary? We have heard a great deal of comment and concern, calling for the passage of fast track: ``We have to do it, we have to do it, you are un-American if we don't do it.'' But the fact of the matter is this President has concluded 220 trade agreements, and only 2 of them, the GATT Uruguay round and the North American Free Trade Agreement, have required fast-track authority. In fact, other than GATT and NAFTA, there have only been three additional agreements in the Nation's history that have been adopted through the fast-track process: the Tokyo round of GATT in 1975, the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement in 1998 and the United States-Israel Free Trade Agreement in 1989. These are the only five agreements in the history of our Nation that have been passed using the fast-track process. Yet we have seen exports increase in our country by 50 percent since 1991, without fast-track. Today, exports are 30 percent higher than they were in 1993. The trade growth and the trade agreements are occurring without fast-track authority. Now, it may well be if I were the President of the United States, I would want to have fast track, too. It would make my life simpler. I would not have to deal with a Congress that can sometimes be recalcitrant or difficult and, at our best, obstreperous, and at our worst, an actual impediment. However, the Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body and I feel sometimes no legislation is better than just any legislation. Yet with this fast track matter, we have seen a great rush. We are told we can't wait until next session or next year to have more thoughtful consideration on this issue. We have to do it right now. I must tell you, the stakes are very big for my State. Fast track forces me to give my authority to offer changes. I give up my ability to pick up the phone and tell the administration, ``Hey, if you negotiate this, I'm going to try to amend it on the floor because it disadvantages industries in my State.'' The bottom line is, I think, the argument that the United States can't negotiate trade agreements without fast track, based on the record, are incorrect. Senator Byron Dorgan has ably pointed out that the agreements that have been the subject of fast track, have been followed by a growing negative trade balance. Yet we can't do anything about it so we don't talk about it. Under NAFTA, a $1.7 billion trade surplus in 1993, after NAFTA's passage, grew to a record trade imbalance of $16.3 billion by 1996. Our trade deficit with Canada has also grown, more than doubling from $11 to $23 billion annually. We can't amend NAFTA, we can't change NAFTA. All we can do is give 6 months' notice and withdraw. The stakes are very big now, and withdrawal is not apt to happen politically. The GATT agreement, which I voted for, has contributed to the largest merchandise trade deficit in U.S. history, rising in each of the last 4 years to an all-time high of $165 billion today. I think these mounting trade deficits should be a loud and clear message that America should negotiate better trade deals rather than give up congressional responsibility through fast track. To me, these experiences say, ``Go slow. Fast track may well backfire.'' Yet, through fast track, we are saying we have to proceed quickly, we have to give up all scrutiny, we have to give up all right of amendment: do it fast, do it fast. I would like to discuss one area where we face significant concerns. Right now, the international financial markets are more complex than ever. Today's international trading picture is more diverse and complicated than ever before. Take, for example, the currency problems some Southeast Asian nations are experiencing, which may well create a very unanticipated result. Earlier this month, the International Monetary Fund announced it is preparing an emergency line of credit for Indonesia. The Indonesian rupiah has dropped more than 18 percent against the dollar since late September. Thailand received a $17 billion loan from an IMF-led consortium in August, which represents the second largest IMF rescue package ever. Indonesia and Thailand now join the Philippines as Asia's former ``economic tigers'' who have looked for IMF emergency help due to financial crisis. As you may recall, following NAFTA, the United States extended the largest loan package to Mexico when it faced financial crisis and the peso was devalued. Much to Mexico's credit, this loan was promptly and fully repaid. Many knowledgeable people involved in the Pacific rim trading theater believe these currency fluctuations are very serious harbingers of things to come. In many of these countries, banking practices may also be a subject of concern, with loans extended to those with political clout, rather than the most worthy. These currency fluctuations may foreshadow major banking scandals in the future. If you combine questionable banking practices with currency fluctuations, we may see a scenario in which the only course open to some of these nations is for them to press harder to increase their exports and erect import barriers, regardless of what the trade agreements say. Further, the United States does not have a great record in enforcing many of the agreements that are on the books. As a result, U.S. manufacturers would lose exports and market share. Free and fair trade is an integral part of California's economic future. But under fast track, California's two Senators could very easily get rolled despite the State's enormous economic stake. Many States, each with two Senators, don't have nearly the economic interests that we do. My State could face an agreement that very much disadvantages California's industries, and I would have no opportunity to try to correct that. We are the leading agricultural State in the Union, home to 10 percent of the Nation's food processing employment. The California wine industry is the Nation's leader, producing 75 percent of the wine and 90 percent of the wine exports. We are the leading high-technology State, providing 20 percent of the Nation's jobs in high technology. We lead the Nation in entertainment, providing 50 percent of the Nation's production. We are home to 5 of the Nation's 10 largest software firms. We are the Nation's leader in biotechnical and pharmaceutical products, providing as much as 30 percent of the Nation's output. Yet, under fast track, I am asked to give up any opportunity to fight for my State's interests on the floor of the U.S. Senate if they are disadvantaged by a trade agreement negotiated by the administration. I cannot agree to those restrictions. Let me talk for a moment about specific concerns with S. 1269, the Finance Committee bill. I have listened intently to the debate other the past several weeks. I have scrutinized amendments which may be offered to this legislation. In my view, the major deficiencies in the fast-track legislation before the Senate have not been addressed. In some ways, the legislation before the Senate today is weaker in addressing those concerns than in prior fast-track laws. Under S. 1269, trade negotiations that involve issues such as protecting U.S. manufacturing, labor, or environmental standards, cannot be included in the fast-track process but will have to be dealt with separately where they could be the target of amendments, Senate filibusters, or bottled up in committee and never see the light of day. Let me give an example. Unlike previous fast-track laws, S. 1269 requires that a provision of a trade agreement, to be entitled to receive the protection of fast track, must be ``directly related to trade.'' Previous fast-track laws have provided fast-track benefits to those provisions of an agreement that ``serve the interests of U.S. commerce'' and are ``necessary and appropriate'' to carry out the agreement. So what is the practical effect of the changes? If a trade agreement included a component to fund border cleanup, these cleanup provisions could not be protected by fast-track rules because they are not considered ``directly related to trade.'' They would have to proceed through the regular legislative process, subject to amendments, filibusters, with no certainty the provisions would ever receive a vote. For example, NAFTA implementing legislation reduced tariffs in Mexico, Canada, and the United States and created the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission and the North American Development Bank to fund environmental cleanup. Although adopted in the NAFTA fast- track approval process, these two entities would not be eligible for fast-track if they were included in a future trade agreement brought under S. 1269's fast-track authority. S. 1269 limits congressional opportunity to remedy worker safety, wage, and environmental concerns. Section (2)(b)(15) of the bill seeks to prevent foreign governments from ``derogating,'' or reducing, a country's laws or regulations to provide a competitive advantage to its domestic companies or to attract investment to the country. That sounds good, but what about those countries who have weak or even no environmental or labor standards in the first place? There is no provision in this legislation that would obligate countries to enact fair labor or environmental laws or to remedy serious inequities that already exist between the United States and other countries. Furthermore, because efforts to address these inequities would not be considered ``directly related to trade,'' any agreement addressing these issues would not be protected under fast-track rules but would be subject to amendment, filibuster, and other procedural rules that could prevent them from ever seeing the light of day. Additionally, even in those cases where a country has derogated or failed to enforce environmental or labor laws, S. 1269 sets up an impossible enforcement standard. Not only must the United States prove that a country waived or reduced a law or regulation, but it must also prove that it did so to obtain a competitive advantage. Under this legislation, the onus is on the United States to prove a country's motives. Let me give you some examples of the competitive disadvantage U.S. manufacturers would face, disadvantages the United States would be unable to require other countries to correct: PCB's and benzene are prohibited in the United States in order to protect public health and safety, but they remain legal, low-cost solvents in Mexico. This reduces a Mexican company's manufacturing and cleanup/disposal costs to the disadvantage of United States companies, but raises significant health risks. Mexico has a significant problem monitoring and controlling hazardous waste. Less than 20 percent of the industries producing hazardous waste in Mexico, 70 out of 352 industries, report proper hazardous waste disposal. Fewer than 20 percent of those industries meet their obligations. A 1995 report indicates that up to a quarter of all hazardous waste, about 44 tons daily, originating in the industrial border area in Mexico, the maquiladora area, simply disappears with no documented end point. No U.S. companies could get away with that. But companies in Mexico are able to get away with, undermining public health and safety, and gaining a cost advantage along the way. In Tijuana, 7 miles south of California, lead and arsenic is, today, collecting in an uncontrolled pile. In the United States, these materials, which are found in every battery, can only be handled in a ``contained or controlled'' environment to protect against leakage, and they are buried in clay or porcelain-lined pits. In Tijuana, no cleanup has occurred. I would like to offer another example. Molded plastic, such as the simple types of chairs or tables in many backyards, emits toxic fumes during the molding process. In the United States, the fumes must be captured during manufacturing under what's called an exhaust hood. But in Mexico, the cheaper manufacturing process is conducted in open air without an exhaust system, allowing for the release of the harmful toxins. Now, these are specific, ongoing examples of disparities in environmental standards that serve as either an inducement for manufacturers to lower their standards, or a competitive disadvantage to U.S. manufacturers who are required to meet higher standards to protect public health and safety. They also are part of the sucking sound that Ross Perot described, in which U.S. industries are drawn to Mexico to manufacture, because they don't have to abide by the higher standards in the United States. There is no remedy for this under this fast-track law. Without a remedy available as part of trade negotiations, these disparities in standards only encourage the flow of more jobs to areas with the lowest standards and, hence, the lowest manufacturing cost. The low-cost areas will include many Asian countries in the future. Now, I would also like to give you a specific example illustrating the problems and why I feel so strongly. The example involves the California wine industry, which represents 75 percent of the Nation's output of wine and 90 percent of the Nation's wine export products. NAFTA had an immediate negative impact on the California wine industry. Coincident with NAFTA, Mexico gave Chilean wines an immediate tariff reduction, from 20 to 8 percent, and a guarantee of duty-free status within 1 year. By contrast, United States wines face a 10-year phaseout of a much higher Mexican tariff, disadvantaging them in the Mexican market. The result was predictable: United States wine exports to Mexico, following NAFTA, dropped by one-third, while Chilean wine exports to Mexico nearly doubled. Chilean wine picked up the market share lost by United States wineries dominated by California. During the NAFTA debate, the administration pledged, in writing, to correct inequities within 120 days of NAFTA's approval. I would like to quote from a letter from the U.S. Trade Representative: . . . I will personally negotiate the immediate reduction of Mexican tariffs on U.S. wines to the level of Mexican tariffs on Chilean wines and, thereafter, have hem fall parallel with future reductions in such tariffs. You would think that at least by today, 3\1/2\ years later, the tariffs would be equal. Not so. Three and one-half years later, they remain enshrined in law and there seems to be nothing we can do about it. As a matter of fact, as a result of an unrelated trade dispute, Mexico actually raised tariffs on United States wine to the pre-NAFTA level of 20 percent, an increase above the 14 percent rate it had reached. The 20-percent tariff remains in effect today, representing a wipeout of United States market share to the Chilean wine entering Mexico. From Mexico's standpoint, the strategy is clear. You keep the tariffs up for a period of time, eliminate United States market share, and another country comes in that doesn't face those tariffs and builds up sales and market share. That is exactly what has happened, chapter and verse. GATT, which I supported, also contained monumental inequities for this important industry. This time, the problem was in the European Union, and this is how it worked. Even though the United States had the lowest tariffs of any major wine producer, United States negotiators agreed in the Uruguay round to drop our tariffs by 36 percent over 6 years, while the world's largest wine producer, the European Union, dropped its tariffs by only 10 percent. As a result, the current U.S. tariff on all wine products is an average of 2.4 percent, compared to the EU's current average tariff is 13 percent. GATT also disadvantaged California's entertainment industry, which allowed European restrictions on U.S. programming to persist. Europe didn't accept the GATT commitments on the audio-visual services. Instead, the EU maintained its 1989 European Union Broadcast Directive, which limits the market for U.S. movies and television broadcasting. France, for example, requires that 40 percent of all feature films and transmission time must be of French origin, while 60 percent must be of EU origin, leaving only 40 percent of the market open for United States competition. So, you see, GATT and NAFTA, both the product of fast-track during my time here in the Senate, left California industries with significant disadvantages. During those negotiations, I called the administration and I said, ``These are huge industries in my State and they will be hurt under this agreement.'' And I was effectively rolled. Why should I, or any Member of this body, give up our opportunity to stand on this Senate floor and move an amendment to protect an industry within our State? That is what fast-track does, ladies and gentlemen. That is what fast-track does. Through fast-track, we knowingly abrogate our responsibility, despite the requirements of the Constitution of the United States, article I, section 8, which gives that authority to the Congress of the United States. As I said earlier, if I were President, I might want fast-track authority. I am not; I am a U.S. Senator. I am elected to protect the people and the industries and the workers in my State. Now, there are ways that the legislation can be strengthened. One is to require that tariffs in other countries be reduced first, before we commit to deeper reductions in already lower United States tariff levels. All too often, the price of modest tariff reductions abroad is deeper reductions in the United States. U.S. producers need a level playing field. Another important area for improvement is stronger enforcement. We need stronger enforcement tools, if trade barriers are not lowered as provided for in the agreement. A recent report from the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan said more effort must be dedicated to enforcement of existing trade agreements. We can have appropriate environment and labor incentives built into these agreements. I have always believed that the American dream was that workers on a plant production line, by dint of his or her work, could buy a home, buy a car and earn enough to send his or her kids to school. The American dream, to me, has always been that, by dint of labor, you can have all of the opportunities in this great country. I didn't run for the U.S. Senate to preside over the diminution of the California worker or the American worker. I didn't run for the U.S. Senate to see that a 60 cents an hour minimum wage standard would prevail. I ran for the U.S. Senate to try to see that this American dream enables somebody, by the dint of their labor, to buy a home, buy a car and send their kids to good schools, so that the next generation can do better than the previous generation. I don't think that is an unrealistic dream. It has always been the dream of America. We can have appropriate environment and labor incentives. Another area for reform is an effective dispute-resolution process. Farmers face phytosanitary disputes on the border all the time. Arbitrarily, countries and border agents can deny access to products like wheat in China or grapes in Australia or citrus in another country because of some claim somewhere. These barriers may have little basis in science or public health, but may reflect political judgments. In conclusion, let me only say that I represent a huge State. I don't serve on the Finance Committee. The only opportunity I have to protect the industries and people of my State is the ability to stand up on this floor and introduce an amendment and say to the administration, ``If you do this, I am going to filibuster the bill, I am going to amend the bill, and I am going to protect the people of my State.'' Fast track is a total surrendering of this ability, without knowing what agreements are coming down the pike, without knowing what I am going to be asked to accept, or the industries are going to be asked to do. Fast track has to be reviewed in that framework because that is the true framework in which this decision is going to be made. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.