Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If it is on your time, I would be happy to yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will speak after the Senator from Washington.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may just make my quick statement here. On four occasions, the Federal judges of the ninth circuit and the practicing lawyers of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference have voted in opposition to splitting the circuits. The official bar organization of Arizona--as recently as July 14, a few days ago--and the bars of California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada, and the National Federal Bar Association, all have taken positions against the circuit division. No State bar organization to this day has taken a position in favor of circuit division, let alone this division. Now, let me try to begin to summarize here. I believe strongly--and I think the other side knows I do not throw these comments around loosely--that this is really being done for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. I think some people did not like some of the decisions, specifically in mining and grazing. For some it is being done because they think they will get more judges for their State. I have had Senators tell me that directly. For some, a new courthouse is attractive. The point is, the House of Representatives has passed the very bill, the amendment of which I am carrying here in the Senate. This proposal, notwithstanding anything anyone has said, as a member of the Judiciary Committee for the last 4\1/2\ years --there has never, Mr. President, in the time you've been there, there has never been a hearing on this split. There has never been a discussion of the ramifications of this split on legal precedent or forum shopping. There has never been input from the judicial council, from the judges, from the bar associations on this split. That is fact, Mr. President. That is fact. Yet, an appropriations committee has stolen the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and moved ahead and proposed a split a few weeks ago--2 days later they had a split which split California in half--the next day that was gone and there was the split we are faced with today. That is why I say it is a gerrymander. If this were a map before a court on an electoral district with Arizona floating out here alone, they would say, aha, it is a gerrymander. Yet it can be done by a committee that does not even have authorizing oversight jurisdiction, and, bingo, it is before the full body. I really have a problem with that. I do not think that is right. I happen to agree with my chairman, California is going to have 50 million people by the year 2025. We should take a look at whether or not the interests of justice would be carried out by splitting the largest circuit in the Union. I do not have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is worrying, aha, is this being done because Montana does not like a mining decision? Is it being done because Washington does not like a timber decision? Is it being done because someone else doesn't like another decision? Is it being done because a state wants an additional judge? I mean, this is a very real and pertinent consideration because never before in the history of the Union has a circuit been split in this manner. So it is indeed very, very important. No consideration of costs. I pointed out the Pasadena and San Francisco courthouses; $140 million has just been spent on them. My goodness, I can see the spot done now on television. ``They spend all this money.'' I believe there is no way you can build new courthouses, and staff them with duplicate positions, and not have it cost at least $100 million in 1997 dollars. And do you know what? This goes into place, Mr. President, in October of this year. This is almost the end of July, and then there's August, September, and October 1 this goes into effect. No hearing; no study; no talk; no what do you think, bar of Arizona; what do you think, bar of Nevada; what do you think, bar of Alaska; or what do you think, bar of Idaho? It doesn't meet the smell test. That is the problem for me. Now, let me talk----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Senator misunderstood me. If I might respectfully get this straight----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to respond. I am reading from a letter dated July 18, signed by Procter Hug, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. What he points out is--he is using what I believe is current caseload. I would be happy to share this with the Senator. I read this accurately: The total caseload filings in California, Nevada, Guam and the Northern Marianas would be 5,448. The filings in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington would be 3,012. The point is, with 13 judges, the twelfth circuit would have 239 cases per judge. The ninth circuit would have 363 cases per judge. That is an unfair allocation of cases per judge.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Bryan].

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Barbara Boxer and I are introducing the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997. This legislation is nearly identical to H.R. 858 sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congressman Wally Herger and passed by the House last week on a vote of 429 to 1. The House vote is remarkable for two reasons: First, any legislation involving a controversial issue--particularly on one as contentious as forest management --that receives 429 votes is remarkable in and of itself. Second, the process by which this legislation evolved is really, I think, groundbreaking, and it deserves to be recognized. I first met the Quincy Library Group back in 1992 when I was running for the Senate, and was then very impressed with what they were trying to do. The overwhelming House vote is a real victory for local communities like Quincy which seek to avoid the polarizing--and often paralyzing-- battles that have characterized forest management issues for the last decade. The Quincy Library Group is a local coalition of timber industry representatives, environmentalists, citizens, and elected officials in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties, CA, who came together to resolve their long-standing conflicts over timber management on the national forest lands in their area. They had seen first hand the seemingly ever present conflict between timber harvesting and jobs, environmental laws and protection of their communities and forests, and the devastation of massive forest fires. They also saw that a practical solution to the conflict between timber interests and environmental interests were both going to be wiped out one day by uncontrollable wildfires. And so they tried to get together and talk things out. They decided to meet in a quiet, non-confrontational environment--the main room of the Quincy Public Library. Hence, they became known as the Quincy Library Group. They began their dialog in the recognition that they shared the common goal of fostering forest health, ecological integrity, an adequate timber supply for area mills, and economic stability for their community. So, after a year-and-a-half of negotiation, the Quincy Library Group developed an alternative management plan for the Lassen National Forest, Plumas National Forest, and Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. This legislation is the result. The bill we introduce today implements the Quincy Library Group's plan. I know that some environmental organizations had concerns about aspects of this legislation, and some may still oppose it. But let me make something very clear: As I stated when I met with the Quincy Library Group, in order to have my support, the legislation had to explicitly state that all activities would be carried out consistent with all applicable Federal environmental laws, both substantive and procedural. The administration made this requirement clear as well. The House bill and this legislation do so. Another condition for my support, and that of the administration, was that the legislation must authorize sufficient funds to carry out the plan, so that funds will not be diverted from other important programs like wildlife protection, grazing and recreation. The House bill and this legislation authorize appropriations to do so. With these key provisions in place, I believe this legislation deserves strong support and swift passage. Specifically, this legislation: Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Quincy Library Group's forest management proposal on designated lands in the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests for 5 years as a demonstration of community-based consensus forest management; Protects the California spotted owl and riparian areas by excluding all spotted owl habitat in the pilot project area from logging and other resource management activities during the 5-year pilot project, and requiring the Forest Service to follow the scientific analysis team guidelines for riparian system protection; Calls for the construction of fuel breaks on 40,000 to 60,000 acres a year; Provides for group selection on 0.57 percent of the project area annually as well as individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management; Limits the total acreage subject to forest management activities to 70,000 acres annually; Requires a program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and riparian restoration projects; Requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement prior to the commencement of the pilot project; Authorizes the appropriation of funds to carry out the Quincy Library Group pilot project; Directs the Forest Service to amend the land and resource management plans for the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests to consider adoption of the Quincy Library Group plan in the forest management plans; Requires an annual report to Congress on the status of the pilot project, including the source and use of funds, the acres treated and description of the results, economic benefits to the local communities, and activities planned for the following year; and finally, Requires a scientific assessment of the Quincy Library Group project to be commenced at the midpoint of the project and submitted to Congress by July 1, 2002. At the suggestion of the environmental community, and with the concurrence of the Quincy Library Group, I have added language to the House version of the bill to provide additional environmental safeguards. These additions will ensure that there will be no road building or timber harvesting on the lands the Quincy Library Group plan designated as off base, plan designates certain lands as deferred, and require the annual reports and the final report on the Quincy Library Group project to include a report on any adverse environmental impacts of the pilot project. Finally, it is our intention that areas of late successional emphasis identified in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project report also be protected from resource management activities during the pilot project, and I will seek committee report language on this issue. What all this means is that as a result of the Quincy Library Group pilot project: The threat of catastrophic forest fires will be reduced, through the clearing of underbrush and thinning of the smaller trees; Enough jobs in the forests will be provided to keep the local mills in operation and the communities in existence; and Forest health will be improved, riparian areas will be restored, and biological diversity maintained. Mr. President, I believe the Quincy Library Group deserves a great deal of credit and respect for approaching a tough issue with the goal of finding common ground. There is a lot of common ground. They all live in the area. They all work there. They raise their children there. They all care about both the environment and the industry that provides jobs to the region. They wanted to work out a solution instead of continuing the take-no- prisoners-approach of endless litigation and standoff. I believe the solution-based approach demonstrated by the Quincy Library Group should be supported by the Congress, and that is why I committed months ago to introduce legislation based on this group's efforts. On an issue like forest management and timber harvesting, many local variables are involved and must be considered to find workable solutions: For example, the wildfire threat in Tennessee is not the same as it is in California. And the economic impact of the timber industry may be different in Hayfork, CA than it is in Juneau, AK. The bottom line is that, as long as certain basic standards of environmental law are met, this pilot project will demonstrate whether a local initiative can be successful in developing a forest management plan that works to protect the old growth trees, endangered species, and jobs for the community. And based on that belief I am pleased to support their efforts by sponsoring this legislation in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield to the Senator from Colorado for a unanimous-consent request, and I would appreciate regaining the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado. I'm delighted to see the Senator from New York on the floor. I am hopeful that Senator Faircloth will join us here, since the Senator moved this as an amendment to the appropriations bill in committee. I very much appreciate that and have enjoyed working with him on this matter. Mr. President, I want to talk for a moment about breast cancer. I think every Member of this body was aware that we unanimously passed a sense-of-the-Senate not too long ago urging that more money be devoted to research for cancer. Also, in the women's community, and, really, I think still the majority population of this country, there is rising and enormous concern about breast cancer. The amendment I am making today on behalf of myself and a number of others. I want to mention that just before the recess, in this very Chamber, 51 Senators said they would cosponsor the breast cancer research stamp bill (S. 726) which creates a breast cancer research stamp with 1 cent above the rate of first-class postage. Members thought it was a good idea. Well, I need to move this because I very much fear it will not happen if I don't take the opportunity that we have today to bring this matter forward. Let me begin by saying that this is a wellspring from the breast cancer community. This measure is supported by the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, Association of Operating Room Nurses, California Health Collaborative, the YWCA, and I could go on and on. Representative Fazio in the House has introduced the same legislation with 100 cosponsors in January of this year. It is my understanding that Representative Molinari talked to the Speaker and is putting it on a calendar which will move it rapidly in the House. The idea for this legislation came from a physician in Sacramento, CA, an oncologist; and Representative Fazio brought it to the attention of the House as the original sponsor. This oncologist has treated some 1,000 women for breast cancer. And he, like physicians all over this country in the health community, has seen a really startling rise in breast cancer. In the 1950's, 1 in 20 women developed breast cancer. Today, the incidence is one in eight, and growing. It kills 46,000 women a year. Every 12 minutes an American woman dies of breast cancer. It is the leading cause of cancer death for women between the ages of 35 and 52, and it is the second leading cause of death in all women. So, today, 1.8 million women in America are diagnosed with breast cancer, and 1 million women, in addition to that, don't know they have breast cancer. This year, 184,300 new breast cancer cases will be diagnosed, and 17,100 of those in California. One of the interesting things is that the breast cancer rates differ throughout the United States. The San Francisco Bay Area has one of the highest breast cancer rates in the world. Rates in the Northeastern United States are substantially higher than in the South. Some believe in the medical community that environmental factors may contribute as much as 90 percent to breast cancer. The rates vary among countries. Women in Japan have about five times less breast cancer than women in the United States. And when people migrate they tend to acquire the cancer rates closer to those of the newly adopted countries within a generation. So within a generation, we find that reduced tendency for cancer increases. We have invested as a country, about $2 million in breast cancer research. The funding has quadrupled since 1990. There is still no cure. The national commitment to cancer research has been stagnant since 1980. Today, NIH can fund only 23 percent of their applications. The NIH budget is less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. And I believe the latest polls show that 80 percent of the people of this country believe that cancer research and medical research is an appropriate cause of action for the Federal Government. The National Cancer Institute in 1996 could fund 26 percent of their applications. That is a drop from 32 percent in 1992. So the idea came from Sacramento, from the oncologist who treated 1,000 women with breast cancer. What if we had a unique trial project, an optional stamp of 1 cent above whatever the first class rate was, where breast cancer groups and women all across this Nation who care have the option to buy that stamp, and 1 cent would go for breast cancer research? The administration costs incurred by the post office would be absorbed by that additional 1 cent. I have had an occasion to discuss this with the Postmaster General. He is not in favor of it. He is not in favor of it because it has not been done before. And it has not been done because there are those that say, ``If we do it for this, why don't we do it for that? If we do it for women, we should to it for men.'' Well, we are in an era of diminishing resources. We all know that. Everybody has looked at cuts. This is not a cut. This is a unique thing. It is a trial project. If it works, we learn something from it. If it doesn't work, no money is lost from the Federal Treasury, or from the post office. One of the things I believe every Member of this body has seen, whether it is in ``The Race for the Cure'' or the women that come into our offices, is a very unusual resilience in the breast cancer survivor community. They are climbing mountains, they are showing they can survive. They have banded together in support groups. It is a wonderfully unusual thing. They would like this to be done. They are in these Halls lobbying for it. They are in my office. I know they are in Senator Faircloth's office, and they have been in other offices saying, ``Give us a chance. We will use this as fundraisers. We will go out and buy first-class stamps for a cent above the rate. We will sell them to our members. We will get our members to do this.'' I think it is a worthy trial. It is a worthy project. Whether it works, I don't know. They tell me that if 10 percent of the first-class stamps were bought through this option it would produce $60 million. I don't know whether it will or not. I know that there is an enthused, energized community out there. You may see them wearing one design for a breast cancer stamp on their lapels, walking around the Capitol. I know that they care and care very deeply. When I first introduced the bill earlier this year, I had some sponsors on the bill. They came to me, and said, ``You know, you haven't been working very hard. You only have 6 or 7 co-sponsors.'' So because we were on the floor for 3 hours before the Fourth of July break, I went around to each member, and 51 Senators said, ``Yes.'' They would vote for it. ``Put my name down.'' And I did. They are on this piece of paper in front of me. This is an opportunity to cast that vote. This is an opportunity to try something new. People will come before us and say, ``Oh, my goodness. If we do this for breast cancer, we should do it for prostate cancer.'' Well, maybe we should. I don't know. But the proposal out there is this one, and it is all throughout the United States now. People will say, ``Oh. Why don't we do it for AIDS?'' Well, the breast cancer community has made this proposal. They are united about it. They want to try it. I have agreed to sponsor it in the Senate. Senator Faircloth has agreed to be a cosponsor, along with Senator D'Amato, Senator Kent Conrad, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Feingold, Senator Johnson, Senator Kerry, Senator Mack, Senator Reid, Senator Thurmond, and Senator Torricelli. I can't put all of the 51 names on this because I didn't specifically say it would be an amendment. I said, a bill. So I am told I should call everybody again. But I believe there is the opportunity. I think the case has been made, if you see what happens to women afflicted with breast cancer. And you see this amazing surviver community and what they are willing to do. In a way, this stamp is a tribute to that kind of resolute spirit that can conquer what for many has been a mortal disease. So I am hopeful, Mr. President, despite those who I know on the Appropriations Committee that do not want to see this happen. They don't want to do it on this bill. But if it doesn't happen here, perhaps it won't, and we will send out a message to the breast cancer survival community that we will not try anything new. If you have a disease, you will try anything to get rid of it. I think this body should try one new thing, and let's see if it works, and let's see if we can produce 60, 70, 80, or 90 million new dollars for breast cancer research. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. As we know, with anything done the first time you never really quite know what it is going to do. I have had estimates. The group supporting this has done some research. I know what they have told me. I cannot make any guarantee to this body that it will produce a lot of money. I do know that it is worth a try, in my opinion. It is important to people. There is a movement behind it. The breast cancer stamp now exists as of now and it has no fundraising connected to it. It is simply a first-class stamp. This has the ability, for people that want to do so, to buy for the reason of raising an additional cent. I think every one of us know people immediately close to us that are suffering from breast cancer. I happen to believe the women of America are going to respond to this. I think young women are going to respond to it. I think you are going to see interesting ways that people are going to sell first-class stamps. I think that is good for the post office. It is good for the mail, and hopefully it will be good for breast cancer. I know I didn't buy an Elvis Presley stamp. What was the other stamp? I didn't buy the other breast cancer stamp. I will buy these. I think there are many others like me. I don't know how many. But I think it is worth a try. I thank the Senator for his comments. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. Yes. At this time, if I may be afforded a reaction and comment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The cost of collecting the money is absorbed in that 1 cent. Yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. The administrative costs are absorbed under the one additional cent.

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

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

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

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Barbara Boxer and I are introducing the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997. This legislation is nearly identical to H.R. 858 sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congressman Wally Herger and passed by the House last week on a vote of 429 to 1. The House vote is remarkable for two reasons: First, any legislation involving a controversial issue--particularly on one as contentious as forest management --that receives 429 votes is remarkable in and of itself. Second, the process by which this legislation evolved is really, I think, groundbreaking, and it deserves to be recognized. I first met the Quincy Library Group back in 1992 when I was running for the Senate, and was then very impressed with what they were trying to do. The overwhelming House vote is a real victory for local communities like Quincy which seek to avoid the polarizing--and often paralyzing-- battles that have characterized forest management issues for the last decade. The Quincy Library Group is a local coalition of timber industry representatives, environmentalists, citizens, and elected officials in Plumas, Lassen, and Sierra Counties, CA, who came together to resolve their long-standing conflicts over timber management on the national forest lands in their area. They had seen first hand the seemingly ever present conflict between timber harvesting and jobs, environmental laws and protection of their communities and forests, and the devastation of massive forest fires. They also saw that a practical solution to the conflict between timber interests and environmental interests were both going to be wiped out one day by uncontrollable wildfires. And so they tried to get together and talk things out. They decided to meet in a quiet, non-confrontational environment--the main room of the Quincy Public Library. Hence, they became known as the Quincy Library Group. They began their dialog in the recognition that they shared the common goal of fostering forest health, ecological integrity, an adequate timber supply for area mills, and economic stability for their community. So, after a year-and-a-half of negotiation, the Quincy Library Group developed an alternative management plan for the Lassen National Forest, Plumas National Forest, and Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. This legislation is the result. The bill we introduce today implements the Quincy Library Group's plan. I know that some environmental organizations had concerns about aspects of this legislation, and some may still oppose it. But let me make something very clear: As I stated when I met with the Quincy Library Group, in order to have my support, the legislation had to explicitly state that all activities would be carried out consistent with all applicable Federal environmental laws, both substantive and procedural. The administration made this requirement clear as well. The House bill and this legislation do so. Another condition for my support, and that of the administration, was that the legislation must authorize sufficient funds to carry out the plan, so that funds will not be diverted from other important programs like wildlife protection, grazing and recreation. The House bill and this legislation authorize appropriations to do so. With these key provisions in place, I believe this legislation deserves strong support and swift passage. Specifically, this legislation: Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Quincy Library Group's forest management proposal on designated lands in the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests for 5 years as a demonstration of community-based consensus forest management; Protects the California spotted owl and riparian areas by excluding all spotted owl habitat in the pilot project area from logging and other resource management activities during the 5-year pilot project, and requiring the Forest Service to follow the scientific analysis team guidelines for riparian system protection; Calls for the construction of fuel breaks on 40,000 to 60,000 acres a year; Provides for group selection on 0.57 percent of the project area annually as well as individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management; Limits the total acreage subject to forest management activities to 70,000 acres annually; Requires a program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and riparian restoration projects; Requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement prior to the commencement of the pilot project; Authorizes the appropriation of funds to carry out the Quincy Library Group pilot project; Directs the Forest Service to amend the land and resource management plans for the Plumas, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests to consider adoption of the Quincy Library Group plan in the forest management plans; Requires an annual report to Congress on the status of the pilot project, including the source and use of funds, the acres treated and description of the results, economic benefits to the local communities, and activities planned for the following year; and finally, Requires a scientific assessment of the Quincy Library Group project to be commenced at the midpoint of the project and submitted to Congress by July 1, 2002. At the suggestion of the environmental community, and with the concurrence of the Quincy Library Group, I have added language to the House version of the bill to provide additional environmental safeguards. These additions will ensure that there will be no road building or timber harvesting on the lands the Quincy Library Group plan designated as off base, plan designates certain lands as deferred, and require the annual reports and the final report on the Quincy Library Group project to include a report on any adverse environmental impacts of the pilot project. Finally, it is our intention that areas of late successional emphasis identified in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project report also be protected from resource management activities during the pilot project, and I will seek committee report language on this issue. What all this means is that as a result of the Quincy Library Group pilot project: The threat of catastrophic forest fires will be reduced, through the clearing of underbrush and thinning of the smaller trees; Enough jobs in the forests will be provided to keep the local mills in operation and the communities in existence; and Forest health will be improved, riparian areas will be restored, and biological diversity maintained. Mr. President, I believe the Quincy Library Group deserves a great deal of credit and respect for approaching a tough issue with the goal of finding common ground. There is a lot of common ground. They all live in the area. They all work there. They raise their children there. They all care about both the environment and the industry that provides jobs to the region. They wanted to work out a solution instead of continuing the take-no- prisoners-approach of endless litigation and standoff. I believe the solution-based approach demonstrated by the Quincy Library Group should be supported by the Congress, and that is why I committed months ago to introduce legislation based on this group's efforts. On an issue like forest management and timber harvesting, many local variables are involved and must be considered to find workable solutions: For example, the wildfire threat in Tennessee is not the same as it is in California. And the economic impact of the timber industry may be different in Hayfork, CA than it is in Juneau, AK. The bottom line is that, as long as certain basic standards of environmental law are met, this pilot project will demonstrate whether a local initiative can be successful in developing a forest management plan that works to protect the old growth trees, endangered species, and jobs for the community. And based on that belief I am pleased to support their efforts by sponsoring this legislation in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I rise in strong opposition, and I hope it will be robust opposition, to the Dodd-McCain amendment, which would gut the narcotics certification process and replace it with absolutely nothing. Mr. President, I just heard the distinguished Senator say ``trust General McCaffrey.'' With all due respect to General McCaffrey, this is such a volatile and unpredictable area that it is impossible to know what to believe. It is understandable that General McCaffrey could stand before the world and say, ``I trust General Gutierrez Rebollo. He is an honest man.'' Whoops. The next thing we know, he is on the take. My goodness, how can you gut a process and replace it with nothing except trust when we have already found that trust to be wanting. Now, let me say for a moment, I want to divide my remarks into three parts. The first is foreign assistance and who should get foreign assistance as a product of this amendment. The second is a certification process and what it has actually done in Colombia. The third is Mexico postsummit and what has not happened. This debate is really about whether we should give foreign aid and support development loans to other nations with no strings attached even if we know that the leaders and government of the country do nothing to assist in stopping the flow of drugs to the United States. I think we need to clear up a major misconception about the debate here today on the drug certification process. This is not a debate about whether drug certification is a process that hurts our relations with our allies in the hemisphere because we sit and pass judgment on other nations. This is a debate about foreign assistance and under what circumstances the United States should offer assistance to other nations. With the exception of humanitarian assistance, the United States provides foreign assistance not only because America has a great and good tradition of assisting other states, but because we want to encourage certain types of behavior--because we want cooperation on political, security, or economic policy. The distinguished manager of the bill, Senator McConnell, has said it very well today again and again. He said, ``Foreign aid is not an entitlement program. Just because you received it last year does not mean you should receive it this year. You have to earn it.'' A nation that does not fully cooperate with our efforts to keep drugs from reaching our schools and our children has not earned the right to receive foreign assistance from the United States. We are not obligated to provide assistance. We provide this assistance because it is in our interest to do so, because it encourages behavior and policies which we support. Before we provide money, we have every right to expect that we will get cooperation from those nations to which we provide it. Indeed, we have a duty to our constituents not to send their tax dollars to a country if it is undermining our counternarcotics effort. That, in fact, is why we have the certification process as an instrument for cooperation--not because we want or enjoy the opportunity to sit in judgment on other nations. It is not a policy for faint hearts. I admit that. It is not about rating who we like or who we do not like. It is not about saying you are good and you are bad. The current certification process may not be perfect, but it accomplishes something very important. Once a year it focuses the attention of our executive branch and of other nations whose cooperation we need on what is perhaps the most crucial national security issue this country faces. If anyone had to ask me what is America's No. 1 national security threat, I would say drugs, drugs, drugs. There is no other. It is my firm belief that without the drug certification process, we would have no debate of this kind. So I am not sorry we have this process. I think it focuses our efforts, and, even when it bruises feelings of other nations, it ultimately produces more cooperation, not less. Now, let us for a moment look at Colombia, a country which we did decertify 2 years ago. The evidence is clear. When we decertified Colombia, the reaction was initially very harsh, and then, very quickly, Colombian cooperation began to improve. Colombian officials came to my office just a month or so ago, and here is what they told me: In the last year, Colombia has fumigated 20,000 hectares of cocoa, the most ever; destroyed 800 drug laboratories; began working with the United States to develop a radar system to allow the government to secure control of all Colombian airspace, an air control system that allowed them to force down approximately 50 small drug-runner planes--force down 50 small drug- runner planes--which would have otherwise evaded Colombian air traffic control. They have begun working with the U.S. Coast Guard to develop strategies for intercepting narcotics traffickers at sea; they have passed tough new laws on asset forfeiture for narco-traffickers, and they are implementing them; they have arrested and convicted at least 5 politicians I know of, and incarcerated them for taking money into their campaign funds from narco-traffickers; they have passed tough new penalties increasing sentences by 4 and 10 times for drug-related offenses; and they have instituted aggressive new proceedings against the Cali and Medellin cartel leaders. The Medellin cartel leaders are all in prison. The cartel is no more. And the Cali cartel is in the process of disintegrating. Does anyone honestly believe that Colombia would have taken these steps in this fashion if it had not been for the U.S. drug certification process? I think not. And as a matter of fact, I am of the view that if this continues, Colombia should be recertified, and we should say thank you for working on this problem in the way in which you have. Before Colombia was decertified, the powers of the cocaine cartels grew. The number of hectares planted with coca grew. The corruption in the Colombian judicial and political systems grew. But when the United States said ``enough'' and decertified Colombia, all of a sudden the Colombian Government did an aboutface. I think that this example can affect other nations as well. Unfortunately, much of the trafficking and the transportation of drugs has moved to Mexico, and this is the next frontier of the battle. Now, let's compare the situation in Colombia today with that in Mexico today post-summit, post-Presidential visit to Mexico. Still, not a single extradition of a Mexican national on drug charges. I say on drug charges. On other charges perhaps. Despite all of the debate last year, despite the economic summit, not a single extradition of a Mexican national wanted in this country for drug charges has been carried out by the Mexican Government. There are continued restrictions on the operations of United States drug enforcement agents in Mexico. Even when working in cooperation with their Mexican counterparts they still cannot protect themselves if they are working on the other side of the border. They still are not allowed to carry weapons. Coast Guard ships in pursuit of trafficking vessels on the sea still need to give Mexico 30 days' notice before putting into port to refuel. There are no air or maritime agreements to forge a joint approach for interdiction of narco-trafficking. There is still massive corruption at all levels of the government, law enforcement and the military, prosecutors killed, judges murdered, and, most recently, the plastic surgeon that did the surgery on Amado Carrillo-Fuentes has reportedly--I cannot verify it, but reportedly-- disappeared. Drug cartels are running rampant in Mexico. Corruption along the U.S. border--and I will speak for California--has never been worse, never been worse. The cartels are now controlling street gangs in Los Angeles, and this is where I stand up and say ``I have had enough.'' My distinguished colleague and friend from Connecticut read from a number of editorials. You know, I judge stories by the by-line. There is a reporter whom I respect very much. His name is Marcus Stern. He writes for the San Diego Union Tribune. This is a headline on the 12th of this month, ``Drugs still flown over the border, say agents.'' Let me quote from part of this article: But a dozen military and civilian officials directly involved with the counter-drug effort along the California- Mexico border said in interviews during recent weeks that the skies in San Diego and Imperial counties are largely out of control and are still being heavily used by drug traffickers. It's pretty much wide open * * * * * * * * But the antidrug officials interviewed in recent weeks said military observation posts deployed along the border are spotting a half-dozen planes a week flying into Imperial County alone. The planes are flying low at dusk with their lights out, the officials said. This is happening every day on the border. It is the wrong time to do gut the certification process. The administration has agreed to give us a report on September 1 on progress made by Mexico. That is pursuant to our Senate-passed resolution. I, for one, am eagerly awaiting it, to see what progress has been made. At this stage, I know of no real progress that has been made. The sponsors of this amendment argue that Mexico fails to cooperate because of the certification process. They argue that Mexican pride and nationalism make it difficult to appear to respond to American threats. That's nonsense. It is baloney. President Zedillo, whom we all believe is committed to fighting the drug traffickers, has said repeatedly that drug trafficking is the No. 1 threat to Mexico's national security. Well, either it is or it isn't. If it's such a grave threat to Mexico's national security, they should cooperate with us in their own interests, not because we make demands. Extradite drug pushers, allow U.S. Coast Guard ships to refuel, allow DEA agents working the other side of the border to carry firearms to protect themselves. I believe we have every legitimate reason to make clear we will not accept anything less than full cooperation. The whole issue is an issue right now, precisely, I believe, because the administration was not honest in the certification process in dealing with Mexico. As much as I, too, would like to see a more flexible certification process, the situation with Mexico, for me, underscores exactly why we need a certification process. I come from a State that is perhaps the most impacted State in the Union with these drugs. Yes, cocaine prices have dropped on the streets of Los Angeles in the last 5 years. It is not because of a certification process. It is because we have not had the guts to do what we should have done and decertify Mexico. I believe that's the reason. To replace a policy which may come to some fruition this next year with nothing is wrong. I agree with the idea of a commission. I am happy to have commissions. I learned when I was mayor, if you didn't know what to do, appoint a committee. Better still, appoint a commission. But I know what to do. We have to stop those overflights. We have to see that the border is enforced. We have to press for cooperation. We have to have extradition for those for whom there is a bona fide American arrest subpoena or warrant who traffic in narcotics. So, I am not prepared to vote for an amendment that leaves us with no plan but simply takes Mexico off the hook: No evaluation this fall, no ability to read the September 1 report presented by the administration and make a decision as to whether there has or has not been any progress, then wait 2 or 3 years for this undefined, ephemeral ``something.'' Respectfully, I can't turn around and just depend on trust when another nation's leading anti-drug official turns out to be on the take. What's wrong with our intelligence? How can that happen? We don't question it even. How can that happen? It did. And that, I believe, typifies our drug policy with Mexico. Frankly, it has been one of spin. I, for one, am not going to buy the spin. I want to see the results on the street. When cocaine prices on the street corners of Los Angeles rise, I know something has happened. When I pick up this newspaper and, instead of seeing ``Drugs still flown over the border,'' I see ``Five Planes Downed, Pilot, Copilot Arrested, Two Tons of Cocaine Recovered,'' then I know we have something going on on the streets, as they say. So, that is what I am looking for. When I see Mexico say, ``Here are the cartel leaders, we are going to bring them to trial, we are going to bust the cartels,'' then I know we have something going. So, until then, to do away with the certification process, I think, is to say to the people of the United States, ``We are going to do nothing for the next 3 years.'' I, for one, am not going to be party to that policy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed by Senator Grassley, Senator Coverdell, Senator Torricelli, Senator John Kerry, and myself, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, and I thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity. I didn't come to the floor prepared to speak on this amendment. I came to speak on a another amendment. Having said that, I must say I am sorry this sense-of-the-Senate amendment has been raised. I think it would be a big mistake to pass this sense of the Senate that would essentially say to the People's Republic of China, ``we are going to isolate you from the rest of the world.'' Make no mistake about it, that is what this amendment says. Anyone that has had a look at China knows that, historically, China has never wanted to interrelate with the rest of the world. Those of us who were in Hong Kong for the handover heard many comments about the British occupation of Hong Kong as a kind of bounty from the opium wars where Britain forced on China the opium trade, and the whole British control of Hong Kong as a colony developed from that time. Having said that, the question is, really, is anything productive solved by forcing China into a position of isolationism, strengthening the hard-liners in China, providing a setback to the development of the rule of law and, most importantly, providing a setback to the economic democracy that is now developing all throughout the eastern seaports of the People's Republic of China? My answer to that is no. My answer to that is it signals to China that, effectively, Senate policy at the very least would be to try to contain China, isolate China, and not allow China to be a normal trading party with the United States of America. Internationally, that signals catastrophe. Now, what does it mean for the United States? For the United States, and as a Californian, in my State, with one-third of our economy now dependent on Asia--not necessarily on China, but Asia--it means a loss of jobs. For the rest of the United States, it means a loss of jobs. The Senator from Kentucky just alluded to what it would mean for Hong Kong. He alluded to the fact that we heard no democratic leader say MFN should be denied China. Exactly the opposite. We heard democratic leaders in Hong Kong saying to deny China MFN would negatively impact the people of Hong Kong. They estimate it would take economic growth and cut it by half, from 5 percent to 2\1/2\ percent. They say that it would cost up to 86,000 jobs in Hong Kong, and that even a partial cancellation, even a 6-month extension, would create a kind of uncertainty that would disturb the market in Hong Kong. I think it is misguided to think you can deny a nation as large as China, the largest nation in the world, normal trading relations--not special trading relations, nothing special about it, but normal trading relations--and do anything other than shoot ourselves in the foot, because a whole ripple effect would be felt throughout the United States. And the flip side in China would be the growing isolation, the hard-liners being able to say, ``I told you so.'' Right now in China it is widely speculated that the next premier will be a man whose name is Zhu Rongji. He was at one time the mayor of Shanghai. I know him. He also is the author of the marketplace economy for China. He supported Shanghai as the first independent economic zone, which really was the first of these dynamic economic zones, and then, second, he has supervised an amazing transformation of the marketplace. Today, only 50 percent of the companies in China are wholly owned by the central government. It used to be 100 percent of the companies were owned by the central government; 25 percent of these are in private hands today. They are becoming more competitive, more efficient. Sure, it is difficult because the big employers of China are the centrally owned companies. So it takes time. In direct response to the distinguished Senator's concern about human rights--because I share these concerns very, very much--I have been trying for 6 years now, almost twice a year, to get the Chinese Government just to sit down with the Dalai Lama, just to try to come to terms with him with respect to cultural and economic preservation of Tibetans within Tibet. So far, I have not been successful. I don't expect to stop trying. But during the 6-year period, what I have noticed has been interesting within the rest of China. What I have noticed is a growth in the rule of law. What I have noticed is that the Chinese are now eager to modernize their commercial codes, their criminal codes. The next step needs to be an independent judiciary; by this, I mean independent from party control, a judiciary that is paid well, that is seen to be independent. Qiao Shi, head of the National People's Congress, proposed a limitation of administrative detention today in China--picking up an individual, and holding them in custody cannot be done for more than 30 days. That is a step forward. China has lived for 5,000 years under the rule of man; the rule of law is going to take some time. I commend the distinguished Senator for his commitment to this issue. If he had visited China in the late sixties or the early seventies, when Richard Nixon went to China and negotiated the Shanghai communique in 1972, it was a very much more constricted China. No one would have talked to the distinguished Senator. Everybody dressed alike. Everybody marched to the sound of the same drummer. The red books of the Cultural Revolution were still evident on the streets. The music still blared every morning. The controls were evident. It is a very different China today. None of that is true today. People will talk. They will say what they think. There is a freer lifestyle. There is an improved standard of living. I believe that if you have an economic democracy, a social democracy will follow one day, just as sure as the sun comes up every morning, because the more people see the economic marketplace, the freedom that trade gives them, the increased educational levels, the benefit it produces, they then enter into the dialog and they learn about other cultures. So I believe that from the days of the 1960's, of the Cultural Revolution and its aftermath, really lasting up to 1979, 1980, in the ensuing 17 years after 1980, there have been major changes within China. What we need to do is engage China, send working teams over on a regular basis, sit down with Chinese leaders, enable them to understand how our Government works and what our concerns are and what our national interests are and, I think, bring China into the mainstream of world leadership, not isolate it. Nothing sends a message of isolationism and containment for China more strongly than denying normal trading relations. Mr. President, I believe this amendment should be defeated. It will not bring about a positive result for the ends that both the distinguished Senator and I would like to see. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill which expresses the Sense of Congress that U.S. payment for the cost of NATO enlargement is contingent on our NATO allies' willingness to pay their fair share of the costs of NATO enlargement as well. I was concerned and surprised to read French President Chirac's statement last week that ``France does not intend to raise its contribution to NATO because of the cost of enlargement.'' Mr. President, we all know that NATO enlargement will cost money. And those costs must be borne fairly by all members. If France or Germany or any other member of NATO is unwilling to pay its fair share, then this seems to me to be a faulty foundation for the expansion of NATO. Indeed, as an article in the July 14-20 issue of Defense News stated: Its decision to admit new members threatens to tear the Western alliance asunder if the European allies fail to shoulder a larger proportion of NATO's future security costs, according to U.S. and European diplomats and analysts. The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that the United States is willing to pay its share of the cost of NATO enlargement. No more. No less. But this amendment also makes clear that if the Europeans are unwilling to pay their share of the costs, then the United States will not pay either. The bottom line is that the costs should be fairly met and paid for by all Alliance members. The United States can not and should not pick up the share of European countries unwilling to do their part. This amendment, I believe, sends a strong message to our European allies as we enter into the NATO enlargement process that if we are to enlarge the alliance it must be done fairly, and it must be done right.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would greatly appreciate it if my colleagues, the chairman of the appropriations Committee and the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee would join with me in a colloquy regarding the committee's support for a firefighting demonstrator kit for the UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter for the Army National Guard. It is my understanding that the Army National Guard needs and wants improved capability on its UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter to enable them to more effectively augment the firefighting capabilities of State and local government other Federal agencies. To this end, the Army is pursuing a cooperative research and development agreement or CRADA with Sikorsky Aircraft to obtain this demonstrator aircraft. Once received, this modified Black Hawk will be used in a 3-month, National Guard, operational suitability test with the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank both the Chairman and the ranking member for their interest in this program and their support. Amendment No. 856 (Purpose: To express the Sense of Congress regarding cost-sharing for NATO enlargement)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns of my colleagues on this issue. I think we all agree that there are few more important foreign policy issues facing the United States then ensuring that the Bosnian peace process succeeds. I am pleased with the effort has been made by Senators on both sides of this issue to see that we did not need to vote on a cut-off of funds for our ground forces in Bosnia. However, it is precisely because I want to see the peace process succeed that I feel that I must nevertheless voice my concerns about this amendment. It is my belief that our presence in Bosnia must be one without any preconditions as to time. We must stay long enough to make sure that the job we started gets done, and gets done right. Any effort to set a date to cut off funds, as Senator Feingold proposed in his amendment, or which suggests a firm date for the withdrawal of all U.S. ground combat troops, as Senator Levin's second degree amendment to Senator Feingold's amendment does, telegraphs U.S. policy to those who would oppose us, and to those who oppose the implementation of the Dayton Accords. I do not think that there is a single Member of this Chamber that does not wish that 1 year had been sufficient time for the Dayton Accords to be implemented, and that U.S. troops were not still needed in the Balkans. But the simple fact of the matter is that there are aspects of the Dayton Accords which have not yet been fully implemented--aspects which require a little more time if they are going to have a chance to take root. Earlier this year voter registration began for the municipal elections scheduled for Bosnia this September. True, I wish that conditions existed to hold these elections last year when they were originally planned. But those conditions did not exist then; they do now. What sort of signal will we send to those who support peace and democracy in Bosnia if, even as they are preparing for municipal elections, we are telling them that the troops who safeguard the peace process and democracy are on the way out? Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic and his Party of Democratic Action have formed a coalition with a number of opposition parties to seek broad-minded support in the municipal elections. This amendment will cut his legs out from under him, and give strength to those who would like to see Bosnia destroyed. This fall Serbia will hold a presidential election. It will be a difficult campaign for Milosevic's opponents, but not an impossible one. That Milosevic's grip on power might be lessened would have been inconceivable a year ago. It is not inconceivable now. But setting a date for cutting off funds for U.S. forces or for the withdrawal of all U.S. ground combat troops without giving the President flexibility will all but guarantee Milosevic's re-election. I do not believe that supporters of this amendment intend it as a boost to Milosevic's campaign, but that is exactly what it will do. Right now in the Republika Srpska there is a power struggle going on between President Plavsic and pro-Karadzic hardliners based in Pale. How this struggle will play out, and whether the more moderate supporters of President Plavsic can retain control, or whether the pro- Karadzic forces will seize control of the Republic Srpska has profound implications for the future of peace and stability in the Balkans. The pro-Karadzic forces, the Pale hardliners, the war criminals, have adopted a wait it out strategy. They think that the United States will be withdrawing next year without any follow-on force to SFOR. If they just bide their time, they believe, come next summer they will be able to overturn Dayton and destroy any hope for Bosnia. This amendment will tell them that they have won. I do not think that giving support to the Pale hardliners is the intent of the supporters of this amendment, but that is exactly what this amendment does. It will tell them that they are right; all they have to do is wait, and that the United States will leave without fully implementing Dayton, without following through on our commitment to create a secure and stable Bosnia. After we have done so much we cannot abandon Bosnia now. It is true there are still unsettled issues with refugees, with reconstruction, and with indicted war criminals in the former Yugoslavia. And again, I would not argue that we did not want or hope that these matters would have been taken care of by now. But having said that, setting a date for a troop pullout will not help us to resettle refugees, to speed economic reconstruction, or to apprehend indicted war criminals. Instead, it will send a message to refugees that they cannot hope to be safely resettled; to those trying to rebuild their businesses that they should not bother; and to war criminals that they only have to remain in hiding a little bit longer, and then they will be free to commit their ghastly crimes once again. The continued presence of U.S. forces is critical in keeping the peace process on track. And the fact of the matter is that the United States-led peacekeeping force is the glue that holds peace process in the former Yugoslavia together. Those who suggest we set a date certain for a troop pullout argue that we have already spent a lot of money pursuing peace in the Balkans, and that to continue to stay will cost us even more. But to set a date to pull out now will all but guarantee that the peace process will break down, and that all that we have invested in Bosnia in the past year and a half will be wasted. Establishing a date certain for a United States pullout will set in motion a clock whereby the forces of nationalism and ethnic hatred in the former Yugoslavia will begin to plan for renewed war. And, if war breaks out again in the Balkans and spreads elsewhere in the region, it will be far more costly for the U.S. to have to intervene once again than if we retain the flexibility to maintain our presence. Those who suggest we need to set a date for a United States pullout from Bosnia also argue that without this clear end-date there is danger of mission creep, and of Bosnia becoming a quagmire. Just the opposite. Anyone who has paid attention to what has happened with the NATO peacekeeping force in Bosnia for the past year and a half can only come to one conclusion: SFOR has a clear mandate. There has been no mission creep and there is not going to be any mission creep. In fact, concern for the safety of our troops would dictate that we allow the military to continue with planning based on their current mission and deployment, and to pull out on a schedule dictated by the military facts on the ground without having the Senate dangerously compromise their position by telegraphing our plans and intentions. In addition, this abrupt U.S. departure will almost certainly doom any effort to create some follow-on force or mechanism to insure the peace process continues. Again, I wish it were not the case. I wish that our European allies would act in a more decisive way without United States having to take the lead--but we are dealing with reality here. I fully support the spirit of Senator Levin's amendment: I too believe that Europe should take greater responsibility for Europe, and that a SFOR follow-on force led by Europe in the context of the European Security and Defense Identity should be the next phase of peacekeeping in Bosnia. But if the United States precipitously pulls out of Bosnia our European NATO allies may be unable to lead a follow-on force. What if United States ground combat troops are required in Bosnia until August 1, 1998, or even December 1, 1998, to effect a smooth, safe, transition? Indeed, under the dynamic set in motion by this amendment, if Europe wanted to lead such a follow-on mission in Bosnia with United States support it would be reasonable of them to question whether or not we would be there to support them. Do we really want to set a precedent here of giving our friends and allies reason to question whether the United States will be there to support them when they need our assistance? To send that sort of message would have tremendous implications--and none of them good--for U.S. interests throughout the globe. It is my hope, and I think that of many of my colleagues, that a European-led follow-on force to SFOR will take the lead in maintaining the peace in Bosnia come next June. But that follow-on force may require some United States military support and assistance, on the ground, in Bosnia. This amendment, by preventing the United States from supporting our European allies, will destroy any chance that such a European-led force could come into being. Both the President and the Secretary of Defense have suggested that United States forces will be able to pull out of Bosnia by June 30, 1998. There is no reason to doubt their word or intention. But, as my colleagues surely know, the unexpected may occur. There may be good reason to keep some or even a substantial United States force in Bosnia past next June. Or, there may be reason to pull our forces out sooner. The bottom line here is that we cannot and should not put our military in a disadvantageous position by setting a date certain for a pull out. It is my belief that if we continue to work the peace process, and give the President the discretion that, as Commander in Chief, he deserves, by the time United States forces prepare to leave Bosnia and Herzegovina, the peace process will have been given sufficient time to develop deep, sustainable, roots. To adopt this amendment will risk killing the peace process and all but condemns Bosnia to further bloodshed. Again, I would like to extend my appreciation to my colleagues on all sides of this issue who have worked hard to find a compromise. Nevertheless, I feel that I must I oppose this amendment and would urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the DOD authorization bill for fiscal year 1998. This is a responsible bill that recognizes the national security threats we face, and properly funds the operations and modernization accounts needed to support the finest military in the world. Over the past year, we have been constantly reminded that our military must be able to respond to a variety of threats all over the globe. The United States is unlike any other country in that we can identify important national interests in every region on the Earth, and our military must have the right equipment, training and resources to protect those interests. Our Armed Forces must be prepared for a variety of missions, from peacekeeping, humanitarian, and peace enforcement operations to rapid, full scale deployment. This authorization bill recognizes the missions and roles our Armed Forces will face and provides an appropriate level of funding. While the fiscal year 1998 DOD authorization bill is nearly $3 billion higher than the President's budget request, it keeps total defense spending $3.3 billion below last year's inflation adjusted level. Although some of my colleagues may think this a negligible reduction, this is the 13th year in a row where the U.S. defense budget is less than it was the year before. I believe this bill takes a significant step forward regarding DOD's depot maintenance policy. It maintains the public/private competition for depot maintenance workloads at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases which can save future taxpayer dollars. If the competitions for these workloads are won by the private sector, hundreds of millions of dollars in savings could be realized by avoiding the costs of new military construction, movement of the workload, and retraining workers at the remaining Air Logistics Centers. Privatization of non-core depot maintenance workloads is supported by Gen. John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dr. John White, Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Aerospace Industries Association, Business Executives for National Security, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Public/private competition is a good idea, and I am pleased this bill recognizes its value. This bill also moves to address the critical readiness issues by author- izing more than $77 billion in near-term readiness funding. This includes an increase of more than $1 billion for high priority programs such as ammunition procurement, flying hours, cold weather gear, and barracks renovation. This year's defense bill also recognizes the needs of our men and women in uniform. I believe the committee wisely includes additional military construction projects, adopts a single, price-based housing allowance based on a national index for housing costs, and a 2.8 percent pay raise to better our uniformed military's standard of living. I applaud the adoption of Senator Stevens' amendment, to which I was an original cosponsor, to create a position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a four-star general to represent the National Guard Bureau. The National Guard is a vital part of our armed services, serving in times of crisis both at home and abroad. A four-star general will give the National Guard, which now comprise 55 percent of our ground forces, equal consideration and input at the real decision making levels in the Department of Defense. I do not, however, support all the extra funds that were added to this bill. I felt it important to support of Senator Bingaman's amendment to cut $118 million from the Space Based Laser Program. I believe that a national missile defense is a laudable goal. There is, however, no immediate or even mid-term threat to U.S. security that suggests the need for the immediate development of this space based national missile defense system. Only Russia and China have nuclear- armed ICBM's that can reach the United States and China has no more than a dozen or so of these weapons. There is consensus within the national security and intelligence communities that it is very unlikely that additional countries can or will build ICBM's within the next two decades. I will continue to strongly support the funding of critical theater missile defense systems and a national missile defense system that meet projected threats and achieve an affordable ballistic missile defense. Under this scenario, should threats to the United States begin to materialize, we will have sufficient lead-time to respond to those threats, and dedicate higher funding levels to develop and deploy a national missile defense system. I also supported the Wellstone amendment to offset cuts in the veterans' health care budget by allowing the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $400 million from DOD funds. I believe it is imperative that we support our veterans who have fought to guarantee us our freedom. The planned cuts in the VA will certainly have an effect on the availability and quality of health care and other essential services that are available to our veterans. I believe it would be only fair to give the Secretary of Defense the ability to transfer the funds which would offset the VA cuts, especially when this bill authorizes $2.6 billion more than the President's request. Finally, Mr. President, I believe the Senate has acted wisely in requiring a comprehensive study of the base closure process before any further base realignment and closure rounds can occur. As the senior senator from California, I have seen firsthand how cumbersome and nightmarish the BRAC process has been. Communities continue to struggle with the base reuse process. In addition, environmental cleanup of closed bases is proceeding much slower and at much greater cost than expected. Finally, there are no reliable figures to show how much the Department of Defense has saved in the prior BRAC rounds, much less reliable estimates for savings in future rounds. I will not vote for further base closure rounds until these problems are resolved.