Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for such time as I may consume.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Texas. We are open to a compromise. We are willing today to accept the very language that we thought we had agreed upon, which gave us the two and a half issues out of the four which would enable us to have public- private competition at these bases. In order for this to occur, we must return to the earlier compromise language, before the changes were made. Madam President, I cannot tell you what a big deal this is in Northern California. The entire community has been mobilized around this concept of possibly being able to privatize the workload. All we are asking for is fairness. All we are asking is that the deck not be stacked against us. All we are asking is that public depots not have the opportunity to fudge bids by hiding costs. This conference report denies that, and we have decided that we will use every avenue open to us to fight this bill until we either achieve a compromise or a veto.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Texas. Madam President, I rise to oppose the Defense authorization conference report. I oppose this conference report because it contains language that will effectively ban any further public-private competition of depot workload at McClellan and Kelly Air Logistics Centers. If this restrictive depot language remains in the bill, the President has said he will veto the bill. A letter is already in the Record, signed by Office of Management and Budget Director Franklin Raines, to that effect. I will read the letter in part: The bill includes provisions whose intent is to protect public depots by limiting private industry's ability to compete for the depot-level maintenance of military systems and components. If enacted, these provisions, which run counter to the ongoing efforts by Congress and the Administration to use competition to improve DOD's business practices, would severely limit the Department's flexibility to increase efficiency and save taxpayer dollars. Both the Quadrennial Defense Review and the National Defense Panel recommended repeal of current laws constrain DOD's efforts to competitively outsource depot maintenance workload. Rather than facilitating DOD's use of competitive outsourcing, the bill attempts to further restrict it. This so-called compromise essentially puts an end to the Defense Department's plan to conduct public-private competitions for the depot work currently done at both Kelly and McClellan. The possibility for a private company to win one of these competitions is the cornerstone of each community's reuse plan that resulted from the Base Realignment and Closure Act which will close both of these bases at the turn of the century. Continuing to quote from Director Raines' letter: The bill seeks to impose unique and inappropriate requirements on DOD's process for allocating the work now performed at San Antonio and Sacramento Air Logistics Centers. The Department is conducting a fair and open competition to determine the most efficient and cost- effective way to perform this work in the future. Both private contractors and public depots are competing for the work. By dictating how DOD should treat certain competitive factors, this bill seeks to skew any competition in favor of the public depots. This skewing of the outcome of these ongoing public-private competitions is what is unacceptable, and we will fight it to the bitter end. We tried to work with the committee toward an agreement. At one time, the Senators from Texas and California thought we had succeeded in reaching an agreement with the committee. We were ready to buy half a loaf. There were four points we wanted, but the agreement we thought we had only contained 2\1/2\ of those needs. We agreed to back off. Overnight those who wrote the bill put in technical language which essentially killed the ability for private contractors to bid. One of the ways they did it was by hiding their overhead costs. I think the Senators from Texas can well explain how this has happened in the past, and how great a disincentive this would be to any private company who might want to bid on our workloads. I find it amazing that this depot caucus language was still included, even after the first private-public competition held for Kelly's C-5 air work workload was won by Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia. Members of the Depot Caucus have complained from the first day these competitions were announced by the Air Force that they would be unfair and biased. They said that public depots could not possibly win. But Warner Robins won. How did this happen? One of the reasons is that public depots can hide their overhead in other accounts when they bid against private industry for work, and members of private industry on numerous occasions have said this is exactly why they cannot compete under current law. Warner Robins, as I understand it, took advantage of this ability to hide overhead costs to help make their bid below that of their private competitors. In fact, the Air Force had to add approximately $170 million to Warner Robins' bid for the 500 employees and other overhead that had been shifted to other accounts. The way the next two competitions are set up, under this bill, private industry will be very reluctant to bid, and probably will not bid, on the workloads at McClellan and Kelly. In fact, 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.'' Supporters of the depot language say this is a compromise that will allow fair and open competitions at McClellan and Kelly. I say baloney. How can I or my colleagues from California and Texas believe that these competitions will be fair and open when one of the authors of this very language, a 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.'' Now, how are my colleagues and I supposed to believe it is a fair compromise with statements like this? We need fair and open competition for the depot work at McClellan and Kelly. As Secretary Cohen has stated repeatedly, this language just does not provide it. We need to allow public-private competitions in order to achieve the kinds of savings necessary to reach the procurement levels needed to fund the modernization of our weapons systems. Madam President, I have much more to say, but in the interest of time let me say this.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We have tried to achieve a compromise. We are open to a compromise.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the committee and I also thank the chairman of the committee. I was very pleased to hear the chairman's statement that it is his belief that Mr. Kennard possesses an ``unblemished reputation'' for candor and integrity. I appreciate his comments and believe they have been well stated. As California's Senator, I am particularly pleased to rise in support of the President's nomination. Bill Kennard has very strong California roots. He was born in Los Angeles. He graduated with honors from my alma mater, Stanford University. He then attended Yale Law School. Bill Kennard's family also has strong California roots. His father, Robert Kennard, now deceased, was a very well-regarded architect in the Los Angeles area. He formed the largest continuously operating African- American architectural practice in the western United States and also served as the founding member of the National Organization of Minority Architects. His mother, I want this body to know, is also a distinguished person. She grew up in the great Central Valley of California. She received a master's degree in bilingual education and has worked in the field of bilingual education in Los Angeles. The President's nomination is, in fact, a historic one. Following his confirmation, he will be the first African-American to serve as FCC Commissioner in the history of the United States. He is well prepared for the challenges ahead of him. He has a broad telecommunications background in both the public and the private sector and an impressive range of experiences that, I believe, will serve him well and serve the Nation well. Since 1993, as the chairman mentioned, Bill Kennard has served as FCC general counsel. He has represented the Commission before the courts and served as its principal legal advisor. In that capacity, he has defended the commission well. Bill Kennard was a partner in the Washington law firm of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand, specializing in communications law. He has served as assistant general counsel of the National Association of Broadcasters. I also know that he has been involved in the needs of his community here in Washington and has served on the board of a nonprofit homeless shelter. With this committee's leadership, the Congress was able to pass the most comprehensive communications legislation since passage of the 1934 Communications Act, upgrading our telecommunications law to address modern telecommunications needs. The 1996 act sought to develop a regulatory framework that provides the benefit of competition for consumers, spurs the development of new products and reduces costs, while it also removes unnecessary regulatory barriers. Congress has set the stage for a new telecommunications era, and we need to ensure that that law is implemented properly and that it works fairly for consumers. I think that, as FCC general counsel, Bill Kennard has the experience to help see these reforms through. I happen to believe he will be an independent and a strong voice, yet responsive to the concerns that the distinguished chairman has pointed out. I am pleased to add a California voice and to support this distinguished nominee. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on the fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill. This conference report contains both authorization and appropriations for the all-important Headwaters Forest acquisition in northern California. Mr. President, California's ancient redwood forests are among our Nation's most valued treasures, which is why the battle to preserve them has reached a fever pitch in recent years. The Headwaters Forest, nearly 3,000 acres located in Humboldt County, is one of the last remaining ancient redwood groves still in private hands. The land is owned by the Pacific Lumber Co., which is owned by the Maxxam Corp. Over the past decade there have been over a dozen attempts to save this ancient redwood grove. All have failed. Five attempts at Federal legislation failed. Three attempts at State legislation failed. Three statewide bond measures to raise funds to acquire the redwoods were rejected by California voters. Two State legislative measures to reform California forestry regulations, one that would have restricted logging on private lands, and another that some said was not restrictive enough, both failed. With the background, last year I was asked to see if I could facilitate an agreement between the property owner and the State and Federal Governments. After more than 100 hours of intense negotiations, an agreement was reached for the State of California and the Federal Government to jointly purchase the Headwaters Forest from Pacific Lumber Co. Under the Headwaters agreement, the governments will purchase the 3,000-acre Headwaters Forest and the 425-acre Elkhead Springs Grove, plus nearly 4,000 additional acres of adjacent land to serve as a buffer. In all, approximately 7,500 acres would be acquired and protected. The price under the Headwaters agreement is $380 million, of which the Federal Government will contribute $250 million and the State will contribute $130 million. Without the Federal funding to complete this agreement, there is no agreement. And if there is no agreement, the Pacific Lumber Co. will proceed with its huge taking lawsuit against the Federal Government for the cost of any regulations that prevent the company from logging its old growth redwoods. In the end, the real losers will be the American taxpayers who will possibly pay even more if Pacific Lumber wins its taking lawsuit. That is why this conference report is so important. It provides the $250 million federal share for Headwaters. Specifically, this Headwaters package includes: Appropriation of $250 million for the Federal purchase of the Headwaters Forest; appropriation of $10 million for a payment to Humboldt County, CA; and a prohibition on the expenditure of $250 million for 180 days from date of enactment. This will allow a period of time for the authorizing committees to review the issues associated with the Headwaters transaction and recommend any changes in the authorization if necessary. The funding will be available at the end of the 180 days. The conference report also provides an authorization to purchase the Headwaters Forest. While many believe the Department of the Interior has more than sufficient authority to acquire the property, I know that others disagree and have insisted on authorizing legislation. The authorization is contained in this conference report. Specifically, this bill authorizes the Headwaters acquisition with the following conditions: The State of California provides $130 million for its share of the costs, the State of California approves a sustained yield plan for the Pacific Lumber Co. property, a habitat conservation plan is approved and an incidental take permit is issued to Pacific Lumber, an appraisal of the lands to be acquired is done and reviewed by the Comptroller General, Pacific Lumber Co. dismisses its lawsuit against the Federal Government, a report is made to Congress on applicable HCP standards, Humboldt County is eligible for payment in lieu of taxes [PILT] payments for Federal lands acquired, 50 percent of management costs in excess of $100,000 will come from non-Federal sources, development of a management plan, with consideration of management by a trust, and expiration of the authorization on March 1, 1999. If asked, is this authorization exactly what I would have drafted, the answer is no. But it gets the job done. And that is what is important. I firmly believe that the Headwaters agreement is our last best hope to preserve these magnificent ancient redwoods. I urge my colleagues to approve this conference report.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. The first letter is to Frank Raines of OMB asking that 2 million additional dollars in fiscal year 1999 be included, and giving the rationale for those inclusions. I have received a letter dated October 20 indicating--and I thank him very much for that--that OMB is reviewing the request. I also have a letter dated September 23 to Bruce Babbitt of the Interior, and to John Bernal of the International Boundary and Water Commission. I have received no response to either of these letters. It is my view that the Department of the Interior should take this off of the back burner and put it on the front burner. And I would respectfully suggest that they utilize the same club-fed methodology that they have used I think with great success in handling California's water problems. This is where the Secretary of the Interior really takes the responsibility to pull together all of the disparate groups into a kind of working commitment to see that the right thing is done. My concern is that the die-off could continue for years, and the chemical and agricultural wastes continue to interface. If you fly above this river you will see where the river leaches out a crystalline substance into the agricultural heartland of the Imperial Valley. You will see where it directly abuts green field row crops. This I think is the potential danger in terms of the future for people working in that area, not only for blisters but also for something potentially much more serious. So I am hoping that Secretary Babbitt will elevate this into a club- fed effort and that we can really get cracking. The House Subcommittee on Water and Power also held an oversight hearing in Palm Desert on October 3 of this year, a few weeks ago, helping to focus national and regional attention on the Salton Sea and the need for action. However, as I said, at this time there is no agreement on a plan. And the critical research must be done. But what is clear to me is that it must be expedited. We now have a die-off that has been going on throughout this decade, and is escalating. We now have identified microorganisms which yield typhoid, cholera, and tuberculosis, and other diseases in what is a 350-square-mile body of water which is polluted in a major and very sad way. So the longer a solution is delayed, Mr. President, the worse the situation will become. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Senate what I believe to be a building environmental crisis in southern California, and that has to do with the Salton Sea. Let me begin by telling you what the Salton Sea is. The modern day Salton Sea is often referred to as the largest manmade water body in California. It was formed in late 1905 as a result of a break in a temporary levy along the Colorado River. For a period of about 16 months after the breach, the Colorado River flowed into the below-sea- level depression then known as the ``Salton sink,'' filling it to a depth of more than 80 feet above its lowest elevation. Since that time, the water level in the sea has been seeking a balance between desert forces that extract water as a product of evaporation and the inflows of water from surface and subsurface sources. The Salton Sea is about 350 square miles. It is 35 miles long, it has 115 miles of shoreline, and it is 15 miles wide. It is a big body of water. Today, the depth is about 51 feet, and I believe it is about 234 feet below sea level. This lake was originally a freshwater lake. It is now dying because of a confluence of events. It is the combination of the rising salinity levels caused by the evaporation I just mentioned--and the body of water is now 25 percent saltier than the ocean--plus major disease outbreaks and other up to this point identified as unknown causes that scientists believe are linked to millions of gallons of polluted agricultural drainage as well as chemical wastes coming out of Mexicali. Now, these wastes flow from the Alamo and the New Rivers, which go from Mexico, flow north, and empty into this huge body of water. The body of water is best known as being between Palm Springs and the Mexican border. It is near the areas we considered for the Desert Protection Act, and originally it was hoped that it would be a major recreation area. As a matter of fact, it was hoped that about $500 million a year in revenues would be produced because of recreational and job opportunities. Instead, it is now just a dreadful situation. The two rivers I just mentioned, the New River and Alamo River, account for about 78 percent of the water replenishment of the Salton Sea. The Whitewater River on the northern end also dumps agricultural runoff into the Salton Sea. I first visited the area in 1990 when I was in El Centro. I remember going to the banks of the New River and there were workers there, volunteers, picking up rubbish along the riverside. They had on elbow-high gloves. I asked the question, ``Why do you wear these gloves?'' They told me that even above the gloves they would get blisters when they worked around the area. So in 1990 something was going on. It has gotten a lot worse since then. In 1996, pathogenic micro-organisms were identified in the sea's environment, and that includes the New River. Among them were the organisms capable of causing polio, typhoid, cholera, and tuberculosis. Also, concerns about public health from disease-causing agents have resulted in the issuance of public health advisories warning of the dangers of eating fish caught in the sea. Because of its diverse ecosystem, the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge has been ranked among the top 10 of our Nation's 510 national refuges. It is of critical importance to the western region because of its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and Mexico. It is a key component in the Pacific flyway for millions of migratory water birds that rest at that refuge on their annual journeys to and from Canada and South America. So birds that touch down there may well also be dying elsewhere. However, an increased frequency and severity of massive die- offs of thousands of waterfowl and shore birds and millions of fish have been occurring in the Salton Sea in recent years, and it's threatening the existence now of the entire regional ecosystem. The size of the calamity is mind-boggling. The mortality toll includes birds from every one of the species that visit the sea, including the endangered California brown pelican, with which I happen to be particularly enamored. The degradation of the Salton Sea ecosystem is also taking a toll on the economy of the surrounding area, and we have seen economic values drop off precipitously. There are some who believe it is too late to save the Salton Sea because the problems are too complex and too large. I don't share that point of view, and I am asking this body's support for increased efforts to address the sea's problems to prevent further degradation of this environmentally rich ecosystem and to preserve it for all time. Let me quickly mention a brief chronology of happenings. In 1992, more than 150,000 waterfowl, known as eared grebes, died from an undiagnosed cause. In 1996, a severe botulism outbreak killed more than 15,000 birds, including more than 1,400 endangered brown pelicans. About 15 percent of the western race of the North American white pelican have perished in the last 2 years. That is 15 percent of the entire white pelican population of the west coast. Earlier this year, an outbreak of Newcastle disease decimated an entire nesting colony of nearly 2,000 double-crested cormorants. The destruction of the cormorant nesting colony on a small island less than 100 yards long, which had been popular with the birds, shows how quickly death comes in this area. One week the island was alive with the sounds and sights of hundreds of nesting waterfowl, of eggs hatching and new fledglings checking out their surroundings. The next week they were all dead, every one of them. Today, all that is left are the skeletal remains and the rotting carcasses that dot the island. It is a macabre, tragic scene, as I think some of these photos begin to show. This is a bird skeleton in a nest. Right here you can see one of the bird skeletons and a baby carcass in the sand with a nearby pen, just to show you the size. There are just a few in this photo, but they dot the whole landscape. The birds died in their nests or where they collapsed in the sand, unable to fly or walk. So the scenes you see are depicted all over the island. Two of my staff members visited the Salton Sea recently--just a couple of weeks ago--and had to carefully pick their steps in order to avoid stepping on dead birds. Equally tragic is the sight of birds stricken with botulism which affects the nervous system. First they lose their ability to fly, and then the ability to stand upright or walk. Lastly, as the deadly disease progresses they become completely paralyzed and can no longer raise their heads, and they drown or they die of starvation. So the task of rescuing sick and dying birds and cleaning up the endless stream of carcasses is being handled by dedicated men and women of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge in Imperial County. I have the utmost respect for their work. Since last March, they have been bringing in boatloads--often three times a week--of stricken birds and carcasses of the dead that have been picked up throughout the sea. The death toll as of October 22 for this year stood at 6,792 birds, including 234 endangered California brown pelicans. The White pelican held by refuge worker, Marcos Orozco, rescued a week or so ago, and the other sick birds in the boat may have a chance to survive. They are the lucky ones who will undergo emergency treatment at the refuge's recently completed hospital in an attempt to stabilize them until they can be transferred to a volunteer organization's rehab facility in Orange County. If successful there they will be released back to the wild. Let's talk about the brown pelican that you see dead in this photograph. And you see part of the Salton Sea here with this small island and vastness behind it. Last year more than 1,400 of these birds perished in the waters and on the mud flats of the sea. For refugee worker Orozco, it was the first time in his 26-year career at the Salton Sea that he had seen a die-off of brown pelicans. However, the deaths are continuing, and the prospects are not good. ``It is not a pretty sight,'' notes refuge manager Clark Bloom who has observed grown persons breaking down and crying when they witnessed the sick and dying birds. My big concern here is that not enough is being done. And I am almost as sure as I am standing here that it is only a question of time before some of these micro-organisms also begin to impact people as well. Right now it is birds. But if it were people, I think the shouts would be deafening. And it is hard for me to imagine what 1 million dead fish floating on the surface of this lake must look like. But for Ken Sturm, the wildlife biologist at the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge, the scene is one he will not forget. He reported that the lifeless mass of Tilapia, a popular sport fish which he observed at the northern end of the sea, extended more than 3 miles in length. That was on September 8, about 6 weeks ago. But that isn't the beginning nor the end. On September 24, another floating mass of at least 1,000 dead fish was spotted at the southern end of the refuge. Scenes like this are commonplace along many shoreline areas, and in much larger numbers, I am sorry to say. A parasite which affects the gills of the fish is a prime suspect in some of the fish die-offs, but more scientific research is needed to pinpoint the exact cause. Another suspect which some experts believe could trigger conditions leading to the fish kills is a purplish algae like that shown in this photo. It doesn't look like much. But they believe it is a potentially deadly algae. I would hazard a guess that it probably comes from some chemical waste. There are some bright spots. The first, of course, is the staff of the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge. They have been doing a truly commendable job. However, they need additional resources, including boats and personnel, in order to respond adequately. Also, the Pacific wildlife project in Orange County, a volunteer group, deserves commendation. Ninety percent of the birds that are rescued would have perished without their care. Also noteworthy is the fact that private groups, agencies, and businesses in the area have contributed to date more than $60,000 this year in cash and services to finance construction of a field hospital for sick birds at the Federal refuge. Whether the sick white pelicans in the refuge that you see in the photo here make it or not is unknown. They have just been brought in from the sea and given emergency treatment, and we will see if they survive. While these efforts are underway, the Federal Government and others are analyzing projects for restoration of the Salton Sea. This is where it gets very complicated. The Bureau of Reclamation in September of this year issued its final draft on the Salton Sea which evaluated 54 alternatives to improve the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the sea. Five of those alternatives will be now considered further. The problem is no one agrees. The recently enacted 1998 Energy and Water appropriations bill includes $400,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue its research project. The conference report in the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill includes $6 million in the EPA's budget for continued research on the Salton Sea--now you are beginning to see the number of agencies that are coming into this--including $1 million for the University of Redlands and $5 million for the Salton Sea Authority. I have written letters, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to weigh in on the provisions included in the VA-HUD conference report regarding the health care needs of Northern California's veterans. The conference report provides a total of $70.8 million for renovations to the existing McClellan Air Force Hospital at Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento, as well as for outpatient clinics in Fairfield, Mare Island, Martinez, Auburn, Chico, Eureka, and Merced. While I applaud this much-needed expansion of services in Northern California, I remain deeply disappointed by Congress' decision not to build a veterans hospital at Travis Air Force Base. Since 1991, veterans in Northern California have been waiting for a new hospital to replace the Martinez hospital, which was closed for seismic reasons. I made a commitment with Vice President Gore to help bring a full veterans hospital to Fairfield, and I have been fighting for 4 years to get this project fully funded. Two previous Congresses appropriated funding to construct the Travis VA Hospital. Now, unfortunately, we are turning our back on that commitment. It is truly a sad day when the men and women who have served our country without question--and who have the right to expect their government to fulfill its promises--are simply told ``tough luck.'' The fact is that a clear majority in Congress oppose the hospital's construction. This opposition has only grown stronger after two independent reports--one by the General Accounting Office and one by Price Waterhouse--concluded that the Travis VA hospital was not justified. Key Committee chairmen in both the House and Senate have made it clear that Congress will provide no Federal funds for a replacement hospital at Travis. The VA-HUD conference report does appropriate $70.8 million for veterans' health care needs in Northern California, including: A sharing agreement between VA and the Department of Defense for 100 VA beds at David Grant Medical Center at Travis. These beds will be serviced by VA doctors. A new $13.5 million VA clinic, to be built adjacent to David Grant Medical Center. This clinic will include emergency room facilities, ambulatory surgery, mental health, some specialty services, and offices for doctors. Conversion of McClellan Hospital at Mather Air Force Base to a VA Hospital. This will provide 55 new VA beds. Upgrades to the VA outpatient clinics at Mare Island and Martinez. New outpatient clinics in Auburn, Chico, Eureka and Merced. Contracts with community hospitals in Martinez and Redding. While this plan does not fulfill the promise that the VA made to Solano County veterans and does not establish the hospital that veterans groups like Operation VA fought so hard for so long to obtain, when examined in light of the position of current congressional leaders, it does provide health care for many veterans who presently cannot access the VA system. The new outpatient clinics and additional hospital beds will make it far easier for veterans in Northern California to benefit from the VA health system. For the first time, vets living along the North Coast and in the Sierra will have real and meaningful access to the VA. They will not have to drive for 4 hours or more for basic care. Their visits to the five new VA outpatient clinics will undoubtedly result in higher utilization of the VA inpatient facilities at Travis and Mather Air Force Bases. I know that the people of Solano County have a lot of unanswered questions about the VA proposal, and I pledge that I will work with them to make sure that VA offers the high quality and accessibility of care that our veterans deserve. I am sure that groups like Operation VA will continue to fight for improved veterans health care in Northern California, and I am proud to join in that fight.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, a woman who devoted most of her life to improving the lives of others lost her battle with cancer recently, and I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the accomplishments and the contributions of this extraordinary woman. Angie Martin struggled with the dreaded disease of breast cancer for the past 5 years. She died on August 31 at her home in Sausalito, CA, and a memorial service will be held here in Washington, DC on Monday, September 29. The many people who knew Angie know that this memorial will not be in mourning for her death, but in celebration of a life of service to others. The world is filled with passionate idealists. Angie was of the rarer breed of people who also had the ability to inspire passion in others. Rarer still was her talent for turning those passionate ideas into action. Her efforts were always aimed at improving the lives of others, the most rare gift of all. Angie Martin pioneered grassroots organizing techniques, establishing a vital link between citizen action and social change, and created a model for grassroots and political campaigns nationwide. Working with consumer advocate Ralph Nader in Connecticut in the early 1970's, Angie helped to create the first ever citizens lobby devoted to environmental and consumer issues. She worked to improve conditions for migrant workers in New York state, and organized the highly acclaimed 1986 Hands Across America event to build awareness for the cause of hunger and homelessness in the United States. Together with her friend and partner, Gina Glantz, Angie took on some of our Nation's toughest issues: homelessness, hunger, migrant workers, gun violence, teen pregnancy. Her counsel was valued by many of our Nation's most prominent leaders, including Senator Ted Kennedy and Vice President Walter Mondale. Angie battled her disease with the same conviction and courage she brought to fighting for causes she believed in. Her legacy will live on in the lives of those she worked with, and in the lives of those she helped through her passionate efforts over the last three decades. My thoughts and prayers are with her husband, Gene Eidenberg, and daughters, Danielle and Elizabeth. I know many of my colleagues will join me in paying tribute to this remarkable woman, by continuing the fight to find a cure for breast cancer and for all cancers, and by continuing to address the important issues for which she dedicated her life's work.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, about 2 weeks ago it came to my attention that several countries may be exporting semiautomatic assault weapons into this country despite the 1968 Gun Control Act, which limits the importation of these weapons. When I asked the ATF to explain why these weapons were granted import permits, I learned that ATF, in the last few years, has not applied--or at least has not been consistent in applying--a standard of review for importation of weapons set by Congress under the 1968 Gun Control Act, a standard which has been specifically applied to semiautomatic rifles and shotguns since 1984. The Gun Control Act of 1968 allows importation of only those types of firearms ``generally recognized as particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to, sporting purposes.'' definition of sporting purposes In 1984, ATF conducted a comprehensive analysis of the sporting purposes of rifles and shotguns. They looked at the legislative history, studied the available literature, made a technical evaluation of the weapons, and conducted a wide-ranging comprehensive survey and determined that there were clear differences between semiautomatic assault rifles and semiautomatic rifles used in traditional sports. The term ``sporting purposes'' refers to traditional sports such as target shooting, skeet and trap shooting, and hunting. In 1989, with the support of President Bush, ATF announced the import ban of more than 40 semiautomatic assault weapons. ATF subsequently ruled most of the weapons not legal for importation, stating that ``There is nothing in the law to indicate the term `sporting purposes' was intended to recognize every conceivable type of activity or competition which might employ a firearm.'' A June 30 ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal heard that: ``The Secretary of the Treasury had implied authority under the Gun Control Act to order temporary suspension.'' Further, the Court's decision stated that arguments against the suspension of these weapons ``places too much emphasis on the rifle's structure for determining whether a firearm falls within the sporting purpose exception. While the Bureau must consider the rifle's physical structure, the Act requires the Bureau to equally consider the rifle's use.'' I do not believe that ATF is currently applying the sporting purposes test based on their own analysis in approving import permits for semiautomatic assault rifles. As a result of this inconsistency in the standards of review, tens of thousands of military-style assault weapons may, in fact, be coming in to the country from all over the world. I have spoken directly to President Clinton about this--and I am joined so far by 30 of my colleagues in this request--and that is that he temporarily suspend importation of specific semiautomatic weapons until a determination can be made as to the suitability of these weapons for sporting purposes as required by this Federal statute. Let me point out that the 1994 assault weapons legislation was not intended, nor do I believe it does, supersede or conflict with the 1968 law. I have requested from ATF a list of all semiautomatic weapons granted import permits in the last 2 years and the specifications for those weapons, where they are going and to whom, and whether the manufacturer is state or privately owned. They indicate it will take 4 more weeks to provide it. As of this moment, though, one particular case stands out. It involves a munitions manufacturer owned by our friend and ally, the Government of Israel. The reason we know this is because Israel was up front and indicated to the ATF what weapons they were planning to export. The Los Angeles Times reported the pending export as a part of a recent investigation. That is how I found out, and I now believe and am concerned that a flood of weapons may be taking place into this Nation. Israel Military Industries, a Government-owned munitions manufacturer, has been granted permission to export to the United States for commercial sale tens of thousands of semiautomatic assault weapons. The weapons, the Uzi American and the Galil Sporter are modeled after weapons used and created for the Israeli military. The Uzi, because of its reliability and accuracy, has been used by the armed forces of over 20 nations, including the U.S. Secret Service. It features a large pistol grip that extends beneath the center of the body of the weapon. The Uzi is touted as ``lethality in a tiny package'' by a reference book called ``The World's Greatest Small Arms.'' The author of that manual explains that the Uzi grip ``is positioned roughly at the point of balance of the gun which makes the weapon much easier to control when firing bursts.'' The text goes on to explain that the ammunition feed is through the butt and magazines are inserted from below the grip, ``a system that helps the firer replace magazines quickly, especially in the darkness.'' The Uzi American planned for export, according to ATF, is based on the Uzi minicarbine. Except for the shorter length and changes to the stock, again according to the reference book, ``is virtually, in all other respects, identical to the Uzi carbine'' which was barred from importation in 1989 by the ATF under President Bush's order. The Galil was created in Israel subsequent to the Six Day War in 1967. The Israeli military, looking for a lighter, more convenient weapon, enlisted a design team to combine the best features of the AK- 47 and the M-16 rifle. The weapon was finished in 1972 and was used in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. The modified version of the Galil now planned for export, as it has been described to me, in addition to being designed for semiautomatic fire, is modified as follows: The bayonet mount was removed. The threaded muzzle for attaching a flash suppressor was removed. And the folding stock, designed for concealability, is replaced by a fixed wooden stock. The protruding pistol grip, which enables the weapon to be held at the hip to spray fire, was modified by essentially attaching a wood bridge that connects the pistol grip and the stock, called a thumbhole grip. A key point that the ATF ruled is that the grip, as redesigned, protrudes conspicuously and, therefore, still constitutes a pistol grip, an assault weapon characteristic under the 1994 Federal law. Both the Uzi and Galil, as modified, would be exported with a standard 10-round ammunition clip as required by U.S. law. However, these weapons are capable of accepting 30-, 50-, and 100- round magazines, millions of which are available and still legally sold in this country and still imported, although they are banned from importation. Now, even as modified, the Uzi and Galil are capable of firing bullets as fast as the operator can pull the trigger. They each possess a grip that allows the weapon to be fired from the hip, and ATF indicates that with a few alterations, they are able to be made fully automatic. In short, these are the same type of weapons that many Americans are trying to keep off our streets and out of the hands of criminals. I believe that the permitted importation of tens of thousands of these weapons is a terrible mistake on the part of the ATF. Assault weapons, like the Uzi and the AK-47, which is similar to the Galil, are weapons often used against police, often with deadly results. Let me give you some examples. A case with which I am very familiar--and I have talked to the commanding officer of this officer who hails from my city, and the incident took place a few blocks from my home--a San Francisco police officer by the name of James Guelff was on duty one November night in 1994. A young father, he was usually the first to arrive on the scene of a crime. That night, a call came in about a sniper firing at civilians at Pine and California Streets. The perpetrator was armed with several assault rifles and pistols, including a 9-millimeter Uzi semiautomatic pistol, 30- and 50-round clips and more than a thousand rounds of ammunition. He had more firepower than the entire complement of 104 police officers responding to the scene combined. Officer Guelff, a highly decorated 10-year police veteran, was the first to arrive on the scene. He was immediately pinned down by assault rifle fire. He was struck while attempting to reload his police-issue revolver. He bled to death while his fellow officers and rescue team tried in vain to reach him. Because the suspect was wearing body armor and a Kevlar helmet, officers had to try to angle their shots under the helmet to bring him down. Several other people were shot and injured before the suspect was killed. Following that incident, I authored legislation which increases criminal sentences for using body armor in the commission of a crime. Thanks to you, Mr. President, as you know, that legislation, called the James Guelff Body Armor Act, is currently included in S. 10, the juvenile crime bill now before the Senate, and I should say thanks to the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch. Less than 1 month ago, police in Tacoma, WA, faced a man with an SKS assault rifle. The man fired on police and struck Officer William Lowry twice, killing him. The rifle, police say, was modified to carry a high-capacity magazine and to fire automatically. Last February, in Los Angeles, two would-be bank robbers took on approximately 350 police officers from 5 agencies in a major shootout in Hollywood, Los Angeles. The criminals were armed with three fully automatic Norinco assault weapons, modeled after the AK-47, an import from China, a fully automatic HK-9 imported from Germany, a fully automatic Bushmaster assault weapon modeled after the banned AR-15, and a semiautomatic Berreta 9-millimeter pistol. These weapons had all been altered to be made fully automatic. The perpetrators wore body armor from their neck to their ankles, even going so far as to duct tape body armor to any part of their body that could possibly be exposed. They fired 1,100 rounds of ammunition from high-capacity magazines that could hold as many as 50 bullets, taping them together in a unique way so that they can be replaced quickly in a style used by soldiers in combat. They wounded 11 police officers and 7 civilians before being shot and killed. This has been shown on many television shows. There is footage of it from beginning to end. I can tell you, the streets resemble a war zone. Police on the scene were so outgunned that they had to go to a nearby gun store and ``borrow" assault-type weapons in order to match the gunmen's firepower. Governor Wilson has now provided weapons to police departments which are fully automatic, again escalating the battle on our streets. In addition to Officers Guelff and Lowry, Officer William Christian of Washington, DC, was killed with a MAC-11 in 1995; Officer John Novabilski of Prince Georges County, MD, killed with a MAC-11 in May 1995; Officer John Norcross of Haddon Heights, NJ, killed with an AK-47 in April of 1995; Officer Timothy Howe of Oakland, killed with an AK-47, April 1995; Officer Daniel Doffyn of Chicago, killed with a TEC-9, March 1995; Officer Henry Daly, Washington, DC, killed with a TEC-9, November 1994; Officer Michael Miller of Washington, DC, killed with a TEC-9 in November 1994. Officer Martha Dixon-Martinez of Washington, DC, killed with a TEC-9 in November 1994. Officer Julio Andino-Rivera, of Puerto Rico, killed with an AR-15 in September 1994; Officer Dan Calabrese of Winslow Township, NJ, killed with an Uzi in June of 1994; And a case I often use, a rookie police officer in Los Angeles on her first call, the top rookie of her class, Christy Hamilton, killed with an AR-15 responding to a domestic violence call. These weapons are not designed for sporting purposes. They are not designed for hunting. They are the weapons of choice for grievance killers, for gangs, and for those who go up against the police. They are designed to kill large numbers of people in combat, just as the Uzi and the Galil were designed for the Israeli military to do just that. They have no place on the streets of a civilized society. Israel has been a friend and an ally to the United States, a friendship I and other Members of this body have strongly supported. It is my personal hope--and I have written to Prime Minister Netanyahu and expressed this--that a nation that understands, perhaps better than most, the paramount importance of any government's responsibility to ensure the safety and security of its people will understand that there is a moral issue at stake here that far outweighs any commercial value the sale of these weapons holds for their country. There is a munitions manufacturer owned by the State of Israel. And by advancing this export, the Israeli Government is putting the official imprimatur of its people on the commercial sale of weapons designed, not for hunting but for combat, not to protect but to kill. It is my earnest hope that the Israeli Government will respond to these importunings and will lead the way in and set an example for others to follow. More than 4,000 people were killed by gang violence in Los Angeles alone in one 5-year period--1991 to 1995--gangs that all too often use these kinds of weapons to terrorize and control neighborhoods. We do not need more of these weapons on our streets. As I said, I have asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to personally intervene to stop the export of these weapons to the United States. I have personally had the opportunity to discuss this with the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. Once again, I appeal to the Prime Minister's sense of what is right and, in the best interest of our continued friendship and the mutual security of our two people, to please prevent this sale. It is important also to understand that we are not singling out only those weapons being exported by Israel. I have requested information on semiautomatic rifles that have been approved for importation from more than 17 other countries that may have similar military features which distinguish them from the traditional definition of a sporting rifle. To the extent that any other such weapons are discovered, and if such weapons are manufactured by Government-owned entities as is the case with these weapons, I will be making the same request of those government leaders as well. In the meantime, 30 of us now urge President Clinton to use his executive authority to temporarily suspend this importation of weapons and to direct the ATF to use the traditional sporting purposes standard in determining whether any semiautomatic assault weapons should be approved for importation to the United States. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, S. 830, the bill before us today, will improve the tools used by the Federal Food and Drug Administration to bring more, safe and effective drugs, biologics and medical devices to the American people more quickly. FDA is one of our Government's most important agencies because FDA approves life-saving medicines and devices and FDA protects us from unsafe and ineffective medicines and devices. Thanks to FDA, products like defective heart pacemakers, dangerous intrauterine devices, and overheating infant incubators are not sold. FDA's 2,100 scientists and 7,000 other employees monitor about $1 trillion worth of products each year, inspect over 15,000 facilities a year, and examine about 80,000 product samples. FDA finds about 3,000 products a year unfit for consumers and detains 30,000 imports a year at ports of entry. Hope for Cures for Diseases Millions of Americans have serious, debilitating illnesses for which there is no treatment or cure. There are 3,000 to 4,000 genetic diseases alone. Cancer kills half a million Americans per year. Diabetes afflicts 15 million Americans a year, half of whom do not even know they have it. Fifteen thousand American children die every year. And, for children, the rates of asthma, bronchitis, sinusitis, heart murmurs, epilepsy, and anemia are on the rise. We put our faith in the medical industry and Government to find cures and therapies. Americans want an FDA that brings safe and effective drugs to market as quickly as possible to alleviate suffering, pain, and disease and to prevent death. The bulk of the bill before us today, a bill to accelerate the approval of prescription drugs, biologics, and devices, is an important bill to the Nation and especially to my State. It is a good bill, except for section 807, ``National Uniformity'', provisions that could interfere with California's efforts to protect the public health laws. California's Role California is the Nation's premier medical technology base, public and private. Many of the Nation's leading drug, biotech, and device companies collaborate with the State's nine academic medical centers and conduct some of the world's leading health research. The UC system has spawned 30 Nobel laureates. Forty percent of California's biotech companies were started by UC scientists. The Nation's largest concentration of health care technology companies is in California who employ 165,000 people. California's 900 health care technology companies are producing leading edge products, for example, the first new therapy for cystic fibrosis in 30 years, Genentech; technology that enables doctors to do heart surgery without opening the chest cavity, Heartport; a cancer drug that is genetically engineered and stimulates the bone marrow to produce important white blood cells, Amgen; and linear accelerators for treating cancer, Varian, and intraocular eye lenses, Allergan. California produces 19 percent of all U.S. medical instruments, 20 percent of all diagnostic materials, and 13 percent of all biologics. There are 915 drugs, biologics, and devices under development in my State. So the bill before us is important to both the human health and the economic health of the Nation and of California. Key Provisions The bill includes several improvements over current law that will bring more drugs, medical devices, and biotech products to people more quickly: 1. Extends User Fees: Extends for 5 years the Prescription Drug User Fee Act to accelerate drug and biologics approvals. The prescription drug user fees, enacted in 1992, have enabled FDA to hire 600 additional drug reviewers and FDA has cut drug approval times almost in half, from 29.2 months in 1992 to 15.5 months in 1996, according to the drug industry. This means that patients have had access to drugs almost a year sooner. These include a new class of drugs for asthma; a new treatment for multiple sclerosis; five new cancer drugs; the first new insulin product in 14 years; and three new antiviral medicines for AIDS, including two protease inhibitors. This bill reflects the agreement of the drug and biotech industries to pay over $500 million in new user fees over the next 5 years, which could bring to the public 1,000 medicines now in the pipeline. These renewed user fees could help FDA cut drug approval times even more, an additional 10 to 16 months. 2. Clinical Trials Database (the Feinstein-Snowe bill): Requires NIH to establish a database, including a 1-800 number, for patients and medical providers to obtain information on clinical trials on serious and life-threatening diseases. This provision incorporates S. 87, a bill I introduced with Senator Snowe, last August, was suggested by one of my constituents in a hearing of the Senate Cancer Coalition, which I co-chair. Facilitating access to information can help patients and their doctors learn about research underway and can expand the pool of research participants. 4. Pediatric Drugs: Provides 6 months of additional market exclusivity of a drug when the manufacturer, at the request of the FDA, conducts pediatric studies to support pediatric labeling for a drug. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, only 20 percent of drugs have been tested and proven to be safe and effective for use in infants and children. This creates serious problems for pediatricians who must prescribe with inadequate information or deny children important therapies. In a July 24 letter to me, they give the example of asthma and say that in most children it manifests itself by age five, but there is only one asthma drug labeled for children under age five. 5. Accelerating Approvals: The bill includes a number of provisions designed to modernize, streamline, and accelerate the drug and device approval process. For example, it allows products manufactured at a small or pilot facility to demonstrate safety and efficacy prior to scaling up to full manufacturing, unless FDA determines that a full- scale facility is necessary to ensure safety and effectiveness. For biotech products, it establishes one license, rather than the current two, covering both the biologics or product license and the plant's manufacturing processes license . For medical devices it requires FDA to meet with manufacturers to establish the type of scientific data needed to demonstrate efficacy of the device and it requires FDA and the applicant to meet to evaluate the status of an application 100 days after submitting applications. PreEmpting California's Public Health Laws California has a long history of regulating nonprescription drugs and cosmetics and has led the Nation in many instances in protecting the public in these areas. For example, in 1981, California adopted a requirement that nonprescription drugs carry a label warning pregnant or nursing women to consult with their physician or pharmacist prior to using a drug. In the following year, FDA adopted the California requirement. But section 807 of the bill, titled ``National Uniformity,'' restricts States' actions by prohibiting States from establishing or continuing, for nonprescription drugs, any requirement that is ``different from or in addition to or that is otherwise not identical with'' a Federal requirement. For cosmetics, Section 807 prohibits states from establishing or continuing requirements for packaging and labeling that are ``different from or in addition to or that is otherwise not identical with'' a Federal requirement. California Attorney General Lungren, in a July 14 letter, cites the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law as an example. He argues, ``* * * we are concerned that this provision may be construed to preempt States from imposing any requirements on cosmetics or over-the-counter drugs, and could therefore prevent the State of California from enforcing significant laws dealing with the health and safety of its citizens in the absence of a specific FDA exemption.'' The California Department of Health Services has also raised concerns about the preemption language, concern about the bill's impact on their ability to protect the public health. I believe in allowing States to enact stronger laws to protect the health of citizens and introduced an amendment on September 15 to allow California's laws to stand. I appreciate the colloquy of my colleague and the bill manager, Senator Jeffords, that clarifies the extent of preemption intended by the authors of the bill. Senator Jeffords clarified that it is not the intent of this bill to prohibit the state from issuing public statements to warn the public about public health dangers. He said that it is not the intent of the bill to preempt State enforcement authority such as California's power to embargo products and to license and annually inspect facilities. On advertising, he stated that it is not the intent of the bill to affect State laws that prohibit false and misleading advertising or to prohibit unsubstantiated claims for nonprescription drugs. My office will remain in communication with the State to determine if problems develop and work with Senators Jeffords and Kennedy in this regard. The bill does include, at my request, an explicit protection--an exemption from preemption--for California's ``Proposition 65,'' a ballot initiative enacted in 1986 on a 63 to 37 percent vote which requires anyone exposing someone to chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects to give a warning. Attorney General Lungren wrote on July 14 to Senator Jeffords, ``S. 830 [as reported from the Labor Committee] would, in the absence of specific FDA exemption, appear to prevent the State of California from enforcing both the Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law as well as Proposition 65, a state `Right to Know' statute, passed by the voters of California in 1986. * * * We therefore respectfully urge you to seek modification of your bill to address this issue.'' Proposition 65 has provided important protections to the public and has prompted manufacturers to reformulate products. Because of this law, for example, manufacturers removed toluene from nail polish, lead from antacids, and calcium supplements and leadfoil from wine bottles. I am pleased that the Senate agreed with my request to explicitly exempt proposition 65, preserving this important California law, and I thank my colleagues for their support. I believe it is wrong to preempt California's progressive drug and cosmetic laws. The citizens of my State have chosen to safeguard the public health through a strong State law and I have worked to protect our State's laws in this bill. Conclusion By extending prescription drug user fees, we can give FDA some of the resources it needs to bring products to the public and alleviate human suffering. I hope that this bill can move quickly to enactment so that the public will have a strong FDA.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. For both drugs and cosmetics, currently under California law, if DHS has probable cause to believe that a drug or cosmetic is adulterated, misbranded, or falsely advertised, DHS can embargo the product, remove it from commerce. In their letter, DHS says, ``This power may be considered in addition to a Federal requirement.'' Could you clarify your intent in this area?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Section 807 of the committee substitute for S. 830 prohibits State and local governments from establishing or continuing-- for nonprescription drugs, any requirement that is different from, in addition to or otherwise not identical to a Federal requirement; for cosmetics, any requirements for packaging and labeling that are different from, in addition to or otherwise not identical to a Federal requirement. This includes any requirement relating to public information or any other form of public communication relating to a warning of any kind for a nonprescription drug. My State, California, has a long history of regulating nonprescription drugs and cosmetics and I would like to ask the bill manager's to engage in a colloquy with me to clarify his intent and the language of the bill. The California Department of Health Services in a September 12 letter expressed their concern that they would have to request interpretations from FDA. They wrote: ``For interpretation of Federal requirements, and in order to determine if a State conflict exists, it will be necessary for States to continually request from the Federal Government an interpretation of their requirements and both Federal and State legal review of those interpretations.'' Could you explain the bill's intent?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. For nonprescription drugs, California law requires comprehensive and annual inspections of manufacturers. Federal law requires limited inspections on no timetable. DHS maintains that the ``State's requirements for drug manufacturer licensing and the annual inspections may be considered a requirement in addition to the Federal requirement.'' What is the chairman's intent in this bill, as it addresses licensing and inspections by States?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. My State has expressed concerns about advertising, saying that State law has advertising restrictions, that is prohibition on false and misleading advertisment, advertising of unproven remedies, that may be preempted. Could you elaborate on the bill's intent in the drug advertising area?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleague. I hope that this discussion will clarify the true intent of the authors of this bill and provide some clarification of the State's authority to protect the public health under this bill. Vote on Amendment No. 1130, as modified

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. According to California officials, a number of requirements now in force in California could be considered to be in addition to Federal law under this bill and therefore could be preempted. The first area relates to public warning requirements. The California Department of Health Services maintains that the bill would likely prohibit State-initiated public health warnings. California DHS asked, for example, if point-of-purchase placards could be required. Could my colleague comment on the intent of the bill with regard to State public warning requirements?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that provides permanent resident status to three children, Sergio, 17 years old; Fauricio 15 years old; and Ana Lozano, 14 years old; who were granted immigrant visas to come to the United States with their mother earlier this year. Now they have lost their mother and could be deported because they were recently orphaned. The children have lived with their mother, Ana Ruth Lozano, until her death in February of this year due to complications from typhoid fever. Since their mother's death, the children have been living with their closest relative, their U.S.-citizen grandmother who lives in Los Angeles. Without their mother, the children do not have the legal right to remain in the United States. The Lozano children can be deported because the immigration law prohibits permanent legal residency to minor children without their parents. Without their mother, these children can be deported by the INS despite the fact the children have no family who will take care of them in El Salvador except their estranged father who, INS reports show, was abusive to the mother and the children. Without this bill, the children will most likely be sent to an orphanage in El Salvador. Here in the United States, the childern have their U.S.-citizen grandmother and uncles who will give them a loving home. I have previously sought administrative relief for the Lozano children by asking the INS district office in Los Angeles and Commissioner Meissner if any humanitarian exemptions could be made in their case. INS has told my staff that there is nothing further they can do administratively and a private relief bill may be the only way to protect the children from deportation. I hope you will support this bill so that we can help the Lozano children begin to rebuild their lives in the United States. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the attached news article and the bill be entered into the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that provides permanent resident status to three children, Sergio, 17 years old; Fauricio 15 years old; and Ana Lozano, 14 years old; who were granted immigrant visas to come to the United States with their mother earlier this year. Now they have lost their mother and could be deported because they were recently orphaned. The children have lived with their mother, Ana Ruth Lozano, until her death in February of this year due to complications from typhoid fever. Since their mother's death, the children have been living with their closest relative, their U.S.-citizen grandmother who lives in Los Angeles. Without their mother, the children do not have the legal right to remain in the United States. The Lozano children can be deported because the immigration law prohibits permanent legal residency to minor children without their parents. Without their mother, these children can be deported by the INS despite the fact the children have no family who will take care of them in El Salvador except their estranged father who, INS reports show, was abusive to the mother and the children. Without this bill, the children will most likely be sent to an orphanage in El Salvador. Here in the United States, the childern have their U.S.-citizen grandmother and uncles who will give them a loving home. I have previously sought administrative relief for the Lozano children by asking the INS district office in Los Angeles and Commissioner Meissner if any humanitarian exemptions could be made in their case. INS has told my staff that there is nothing further they can do administratively and a private relief bill may be the only way to protect the children from deportation. I hope you will support this bill so that we can help the Lozano children begin to rebuild their lives in the United States. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the attached news article and the bill be entered into the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on campaign spending reform. I recognize that this is not the first bill introduced in Congress on this issue. In fact, at last count, there were 85 bills introduced in either the House or the Senate on campaign finance reform--17 of them in the Senate alone. Frankly, I would be quite satisfied if the bill I am introducing today was tabled in favor of a floor vote on the McCain-Feingold bill, of which I am a cosponsor. Last week, all 45 Democrats in the Senate pledged to vote for McCain- Feingold if given the opportunity. Combined with the three Republican cosponsors of the bill, this legislation needs only three more votes for passage. Surely there are three more Republicans who will support this bill. But we are not there yet, and I believe strongly that action must be taken on this subject now. Today. This Congress. This session. This Congress has spent $10 million in taxpayer funds investigating wrongdoing in the last election cycle. Eighty-four Members of this Congress have called for special prosecutors. We've spent 6 months in public hearings decrying how bad the system is, how bad soft money is, and how badly we need reform. There is nothing to hide behind if this Congress does not act on reform. I do not believe Members of this body can or should be able to take a pass on reform based on disagreements with McCain-Feingold, or based on an all-or-nothing attitude. Therefore, I offer my legislation as a bill that contains the common denominators--the basic elements--of reform that many of us profess to agree on. Let me state clearly; I am a cosponsor of McCain-Feingold and will vote for McCain-Feingold if it comes to the floor for approval, as I believe it should. My legislation is an alternative, focussed on what I, and what most of my colleagues, have said are the most pressing areas in need of reform: the elimination of soft money, greater disclosure on contributions, and regulation of dollars now unregulated. The cornerstone of any campaign reform bill must address the issue of soft money. After all the charges and disclosures about the abuse of soft money in federal campaigns, we would be hard-pressed to explain to the public why we did not take action at least on this issue. However, just banning soft money--for which there appears to be sufficient support in both Houses--cannot be our only action. A simple ban on soft money will force the shifting of these dollars into unregulated independent expenditure campaigns where huge amounts of anonymous money is used to influence campaigns and--most commonly--to attack candidates. Between $135 and $150 million was spent on so-called issue ads in 1996--about 35 percent of the $400 million spent on all campaign advertising in 1996, according to a new study released yesterday by the Annenberg Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The study--the most comprehensive on this issue to date--showed that, compared with other forms of political advertising and coverage, the content of issue ads were the highest in ``pure attack.'' To this end, I have prepared this small package of measures--many of which appear in other bills--which, taken together, is a step on the road to spending reform, and would be a solid step forward in the battle to decrease the flood of unregulated money in campaigns. Specifically, this bill would: Ban soft money to national parties. During the last election, both parties spent a combined total of over $270 million in soft money. Democrats spent $122 million and Republicans spent almost $150 million. Over the first 6 months of this year, both parties have raised $34 million in soft money, with Republicans out-pacing Democrats $23 to $11 million. Change the definition of ``express advocacy'' to include any communication that uses a candidate's name or picture within 60 days of an election as ``express advocacy''. Only ``hard'' dollars--limited in amount and fully disclosed--could be used to fund independent campaigns of a candidate's name or image is used in express advocacy for or against a candidate. Change the personal contribution limit from $1,000 per election to $2,000 per election and index those contribution limits for inflation in the future. The $1,000 per election limits have not been changed since 1974. That was 23 years ago and, as every candidate knows, the cost of printing postage and buying media has more than quadrupled in that time. Increase the disclosure requirements so that any group or individual spending more than $10,000 up to 20 days prior to an election would have to report that to the FEC within 48 hours. This threshold drops to $1,000 within 20 days of an election. Implement a policy whereby if a person is not eligible to vote in U.S. elections, he or she would not be permitted to contribute to candidates or parties. Lower the threshold for reporting contributions to candidates from $200 to $50. This increases disclosure. Allow the FEC to seek an injunction in U.S. District Court if it has evidence that a violation of campaign laws is about to occur. Permit the FEC to refer matters to the Attorney General for prosecution if any significant evidence of criminal wrongdoing exists. I believe a bill containing these elements is doable this year and I offer it as a package for the consideration of this body. In closing, it is my sincere hope we will move to enact meaningful campaign finance reform this year. If we can't act now, after all that has been said and done this year, I'm afraid we never will. The American people deserve more than lip service on campaign reform. I implore the majority leader to bring the McCain-Feingold bill to the floor and allow us to debate it, amend it, and vote on it. If we can't agree on the McCain-Feingold bill, then let us vote on an alternative such as mine. Either way, let us have at it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.