Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, July 11, marks the second anniversary of the fall of the so-called safe area of Srebrenica, one of the three eastern enclaves in Bosnia. By most estimates, following the fall of Srebrenica over 8,000 Muslim refugees fleeing the Serb forces simply disappeared. Many of these refugees were old men, women, and children, killed in acts of inhuman cruelty. Even today, 2 years later, the vast majority of these people are still unaccounted for. Others from Srebrenica were luckier--forced to flee their homes as part of a brutal policy of ethnic cleansing. I am still haunted by an image from a picture that I saw in the newspaper shortly after the fall of Srebrenica. It was a picture of a young woman, a refugee from Srebrenica, around 20 years old, who climbed a tree, tied a rope around her neck, and hung herself. A photographer captured her lifeless body as it hung from the tree. Mr. President, I look at that picture and I think: What kind of nation are we if we can not see to it that the people who practiced rape, practiced genocide, practiced ethnic cleansing, are not brought to justice? We know who these people are. We know where they live. The fact is, of the 74 war criminals indicted by the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague, only 9 have been apprehended. Where is the conscience of the world? I first wrote to the President about this issue on September 11 of last year, following a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at which administration witnesses provided testimony to the effect that there were no capable international or national institutions in Bosnia with both the authority and the ability to apprehend indicted war criminals. The President responded to this letter that ``although the peace will not be complete until indicted war criminals are brought to justice,'' IFOR would not hunt down war criminals, and that U.S. policy would be to ``continue our efforts to press all parties to turn over indicted war criminals to the Tribunal.'' In the months since then we have seen how willing the parties to Dayton have been to turn over indicted war criminals. When the IFOR mandate ended and IFOR was replaced by SFOR, I took up this issue with Secretary Perry, writing him on December 4 last year-- again, following a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee-- that I believed that it was essential that the follow-on force have clear, unambiguous authority for apprehending war criminals or to provide more effective support to other authorities in carrying out this task. I received a response from the Department of Defense on February 18 of this year that again stated that the administration shared my concern on the importance of this issue, but that no additional efforts to apprehend war criminals would be forthcoming. I also took this question up with the other Democratic and Republican women of the Senate. The nine of us sent a letter to the President on March 3 of this year in which we requested that the President: . . . look at this problem as a top priority and indicate to us precisely how the international community might ensure the arrest and extradition to The Hague of those responsible for crimes against humanity. The President responded to us on April 11. His letter stressed the role of the International Tribunal in ``establishing accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity . . .'' The President also stated that: I share your sense of urgency and my Administration is committed to assisting the Tribunals in the apprehension and extradition of those indictees who remain at large. We are currently examining a variety of options in this regard. Frankly, I found the President's response to be inadequate. And in mid-April I wrote to both the President and the Secretary General of the United Nations urging an aggressive stand to see that indicted war criminals are brought to justice. As I stated in my April 21 letter to the President, it is my belief that: Unless the United States takes a position of aggressive leadership on this issue in the international community, we run the risk that future historians will conclude that the lessons of current U.S. foreign policy are that crimes against humanity, genocide, and the use of rape as an instrument of war are acceptable--and that those who perpetrate these crimes can do so with impunity. We would, moreover, put at risk all the gains of the Dayton process if we do not bring these war criminals to justice. The President responded to me on June 19, stating that, ``My foreign policy team is examining several options to assist and enhance the ability of the Tribunal to bring indicted war criminals into custody.'' Mr. President, I will ask that copies of those portions of this correspondence that I feel my colleagues will find most useful be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. Finally, to provide additional tools to the administration in the apprehension of war criminals, in May of this year Senator Lautenberg, Lugar, Leahy, D'Amato, Mikulski, and myself introduced the War Crimes Prosecution Facilitation Act of 1997. This legislation, which has since been included in the committee-passed Senate Foreign Operation Appropriations bill, conditions United States financial assistance to the states and entities of the former Yugoslavia with their cooperation with the war crimes Tribunal. Mr. President, I do not know what humiliations and deprivations this woman whose picture I saw in the paper suffered. Perhaps she saw a loved one killed. Perhaps she was raped. All I know is that she could take no more. In the memory of this nameless young woman, and in the memory of the countless thousands of others who were killed, tortured, and raped, we must make sure that peace and justice are restored in Bosnia. And the bottom line is that there can be no peace and justice in Bosnia without the prosecution of those who committed crimes against humanity. What happened in Srebrenica was not unique to the war that tore the former Yugoslavia apart. In town after town, village after village, atrocities were committed by all sides in a brutal civil war. Unlike the countless other villages and towns wiped off the map in the campaigns of ethnic cleansing, however, the fall of Srebrenica--and the brutal atrocities carried on while the international community stood passively by--at long last galvanized the international community to end the war and bloodshed in Bosnia. What we saw in Srebrenica shamed the international community to action, and led to the negotiation of the Dayton accords. Today, 2 years after Srebrenica and a year-and-a-half since Dayton, should be a day to look back at our accomplishments of the past 2 years and say that we have upheld our vow of ``never again.'' Instead, it is a day when we must admit that we have not done enough to honor the memory of the young women whose photograph I referred to earlier, or the other victims of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. The horrors that tore Yugoslavia apart--the ethnic cleansing, the genocide, the rapes--have been well documented. The perpetrators of these horrors are well known. Yet only 9 of the 75 indicted war criminals in the former Yugoslavia have been apprehended and are in custody. The rest remain at liberty, their whereabouts known, and many working in jobs with the police, government, and leading businesses in the former Yugoslavia. Many live and work within minutes of NATO camps manned by U.S. troops. Despite its efforts to amass evidence, lead investigations, and issue indictments, at almost every turn the Tribunal has been stymied by the failure of the international community to apprehend indicted war criminals and bring them to justice. Estimates are that up to 20,000 women in Yugoslavia were systematically raped as part of a policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide. In Srebrenica, for example, one woman told of Serb soldiers, dressed as U.N. peacekeepers, who came in a factory where refugees were gathered and dragged away two girls aged 12 and 14 and a 23-year-old woman. After several hours the three returned. They were crying, naked, and bleeding. One said, ``We are not girls anymore.'' According to the U.N. Commission of Experts, the victims of rape in Bosnia included girls as young as 6 and women as old as 81. Many women and girls were subjected to gang rapes while being held in detention camps. And, tragically, for many of the women of ex-Yugoslavia rape was merely a prelude to further torture and then death. I believe the use of rape as an instrument of genocide and ethnic cleansing is a war crime of the highest order. And the failure to assure that those who have been indicted for rape as a war crime are apprehended, extradited, and made to stand trial, does a grave injustice not just to the women of Srebrenica, but to women around the world. The administration has asserted that rape as a war crime must not be allowed to stand and that the peace in this troubled area ``will not be complete until indicted war criminals are brought to justice.'' Ultimately, it would be a hollow and cynical gesture to claim outrage over rape as a war crime but then to act as if the issue is not important enough to merit the commitment or resources to see that those who committed these crimes are apprehend and prosecuted. Our commitment to Bosnia, after all, is not just about Bosnia. It is also about the principles that guide us and our conduct in the world. It is about what we, as Americans, value. Yesterday, with the arrest of one indicted war criminal by SFOR, and the death of another who resisted arrest, the international community took a long-delayed step in the right direction in seeing that the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity are brought to justice. I hope that the actions of SFOR in Prejidor yesterday sends a clear signal to those indicted war criminals who remain at large that today, on the anniversary of the fall of Srebrenica, the international community is serious about bringing them to justice. Although I believe that the capture of indicted war criminals is primarily the responsibility of the governments of the former Yugoslavia, yesterday's action illustrate the important role that SFOR has to play in this process as well. The SFOR mandate clearly states that if SFOR patrols, including U.S. troops, encounter indicted war criminals and the tactical situation permits they are to arrest them and extradite them to The Hague. But we have also heard stories of SFOR commanders telling their troops that if they encounter an indicted war criminal they should leave the area immediately and take no action. I can think of no better way to honor the memory of Srebrenica then if today SFOR turns over a new leaf, and vows to pursue its mandate vigorously and to the maximum degree possible. If indicted war criminals are not brought to justice, the international community will have betrayed the legacy of Nuremberg, the victims of the war that tore Yugoslavia apart, and women worldwide. This will also set a dangerous precedent that will give encouragement to others elsewhere in the world who may consider the use of rape and genocide as tools of war. In the aftermath of the Holocaust 50 years ago, the civilized world vowed that we would never again allow crimes against humanity to blacken our history. In the aftermath of the tragedy of Srebrenica 2 years ago, we vowed that we would bring peace and justice to Bosnia. Today, on the second anniversary of the fall of Srebrenica the international community must vow to redouble its commitment to take immediate strong action to see that the indicted war criminals are brought to justice. If not, as I stated in my letter to the President on April 21, 1997, we run the risk that future historians will look back on current U.S. policy and conclude that the ethnic cleansing and the use of rape as an instrument of war is acceptable--and that those who perpetrate this crime can do so with impunity. This would be a tragic betrayal of our history, our principles, and the people of Srebrenica. I ask that the correspondence to which I earlier referred be printed in the Record. The correspondence follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, March 3, 1997. Hon. William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, The White House, Washington,

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support Senator Murray's amendment to repeal the provision of current law that prohibits a woman in the armed services from using her own funds to pay for an abortion in an overseas U.S. military facility. I support this amendment for several reasons. First, under several Supreme Court decisions, a woman clearly has a right to choose. A woman does not give up that right or it is not obliterated because she serves in the U.S. military or is married to a U.S. servicemember. Second, women based in the United States and using a military facility in this country are not prohibited from using their own funds to pay for an abortion. Barring the use of U.S. military facilities overseas creates a double standard for military women and an undue hardship on women servicemembers stationed overseas. Third, women may not have ready access to private facilities in other countries. Abortion is illegal in some foreign countries, like the Philippines. A woman stationed in that country or the spouse of a servicemember would need to fly to the United States or to another country--at her own expense--to obtain an abortion. Most servicemembers cannot easily bear the expense of jetting off to Switzerland for medical treatment. Fourth, if women do not have access to military facilities or to private facilities in the country where they are stationed, they could endanger their own health by the time it takes to get to a facility in another country or by being forced to get treatment by someone other than a licensed physician. We know from personal experience in this country that when abortion is illegal, desperate women resort to unsafe and life-threatening methods. If it were your wife, or your daughter, would you want her in the hands of an untrained, unknown person on the back streets of Manila or Cordoba, Argentina? Or would you prefer that she be treated by a trained physician in a U.S. military facility? These women would have to put themselves at great risk by the obstacles involved, by the possibility of using an untrained, unlicensed person and sometimes by a lack of knowledge of the seriousness of their condition. People who serve our country agree to put their lives at risk to defend their country. They do not agree to put their health at risk with unknown medical facilities that may not meet U.S. standards. With this ban, we are asking these women to risk their lives doublefold. Current law does not force any military physician to perform an abortion against his or her will. All branches have a conscience clause that permits medical personnel to choose not to perform the procedure. What we are talking about today is providing equal access to U.S. military medical facilities, wherever they are located, for a legal procedure paid for with one's own money. Abortion is legal for American women. To deny American military women access to medical treatment they can trust is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President I rise today in opposition to the Cochran/Durbin amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. The amendment would bar the sale of many types of computers, denying export opportunities for American firms, shifting high-technology sales to international competitors and flooding the Commerce Department with export applications for routine computer sales. Rather than impose new restrictions, the Senate should adopt a substitute amendment, offered by Senator Rod Grams of Minnesota and my California colleague Barbara Boxer. The Grams/Boxer substitute would: Require the Commerce Department to improve its licensing process and provide more information to exporters, assisting exporters to identify suspicious potential purchasers and avoid questionable sales. Require the General Accounting Office to study the impact of proposed export restrictions and the impact of foreign availability of computers on U.S. exports. Rather than restrict a broad range of computer exports, the Grams/ Boxer substitute amendment will help the administration and exporters distinguish between the potentially damaging sales that place us at risk and the routine computer sales. Export Controls Must Apply to the Right Computers Since the 1940's, the United States has controlled the export of dual-use technology, advanced technology which has both defense and nondefense applications. These restrictions are appropriate, because we all want to keep critical military technology out of the hands of potentially hostile militaries. However, technology advances rapidly. What was called a supercomputer only a few years ago, represents only routine computing power today. We cannot lock up U.S. exports and deny the administration the necessary flexibility to respond to evolving technology and worldwide competition. In 1993, the administration conducted a thorough review, involving the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce, intelligence agencies and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. The resulting U.S. policy permits the export of computers capable of 2,000 to 7,000 million theoretical operations per second [MTOPS] for Tier 3 countries. Among the more than 50 tier 3 countries are the countries of the former Soviet Union, Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, and China. Export restrictions must be based on an objective review of a computer's computing power and the computing needs of the potential computer application. As Defense Secretary Cohen stated, ``we need to maintain a system that allows us to adjust our controls when technology advances and when technology becomes widely available. Putting specific control levels into state is not an appropriate means to meet these often fast-changing challenges.'' the cochran/durbin amendment is overbroad The Cochran/Durbin amendment would prohibit the export of computer of 2,000 to 7,000 MTOPS from being exported to any Tier 3 country without an export license. The amendment is overbroad and will deny sales for U.S. companies and undermine our long-term national security needs. The amendment will restrict the sale and export of ordinary work stations and computers, not just supercomputers. Many low-level work stations currently exceed the 2,000 MTOPS level, and are found in offices, ranging from law firms to auto dealerships, across the country. By 1998, personal computers will exceed the 2,000 MTOPS level and would be subject to the amendment's licensing requirement. At a time when many have urged the complete abolition of the Commerce Department, the Cochran amendment will trigger a flood of export applications for new categories of common computers. The Restrictions Will Not Increase National Security The proposed amendment will not enhance U.S. national security. In 1995, the administration's review concluded computers of 2,000 to 7,000 MTOPS were widely available throughout the world and no longer considered to be a critical choke point for technologies used in the design, testing, or production of weapons of mass destruction. However, if U.S. firms are denied the sales, manufacturers in other countries are prepared to fill the void. Computers in the 2,000 to 7,000 MTOPS range are manufactured in Japan, as well as 4 European companies. China reportedly produces a 13,000 MTOPS computer, while Russia and India also already produce computers more powerful than those the amendment would seek to control. The proposed restrictions will not keep technology out of the hands of countries posing national security concerns. The proposed restriction will be ineffective, denying many legitimate transactions for valid purposes, while allowing military testing proceeds through other means. Exporters Need More Information Under current law, the manufacturers of computers are caught because the Commerce Department cannot release the name or circumstances when an export license application is rejected. The notice of the rejection of a license is only provided to the individual exporting applicant. As a result, when a U.S. exporter's application is rejected, the suspicious purchaser is encouraged to pursue alternative sellers and provide false information to support the sale. If potential U.S. exporter could receive more information, potential sales to suspicious purchasers could be detected earlier. Conclusion I urge my colleagues to reject the Cochran amendment. The amendment will impose unnecessary restrictions on routine computer exports and undermine our national security in the long-run by shifting more sales to international competitors, many with weak or no export control laws at all. Rather than impose new restrictions, the administration should provide more information to potential exporters to assist in the identification of suspicious potential purchasers. The Grams/Boxer substitute will offer the appropriate incentives, while providing the administration with the authority to distinguish between sales that jeopardize national security and those that do not. While the administration needs flexibility to focus attention and resources on priority export applications, the Cochran amendment will divert attention and resources away from high-priority areas, truly placing our national security at risk. The Cochran amendment should be rejected.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. Privilege of the Floor

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Michigan, and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in my 4\1/2\ years in this body, I have not seen an effort as egregious, as badly flawed, as unfair as the base closure process. I happen to have great respect for the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Michigan, but I think to adopt this amendment at this time is really only to continue this kind of egregious pursuit. I hope, in the course of my remarks, to at least point out some of the areas where I find the base closure process very wanting. The Senator from Arizona spoke of States with big electoral clout, and I would have to plead guilty. No State has bigger electoral clout than California. I also hasten to point out that no State has suffered more base closures than California--29 bases cited for closure to date, and the largest number of jobs lost all across this Nation. In net jobs lost to date, California has lost 123,000 net jobs. The next State in net jobs lost is Pennsylvania at 35,000. So we are more than four times Pennsylvania's job loss. The next highest State in total number of bases closed to California is Texas, then Pennsylvania, then New York, then Illinois. If I really believed that this was going to end up being an important cost saving for the U.S. military, I would say, ``All right, Dianne, you may represent this State, but, by and large, this is for the best interest of the military.'' I don't believe it, and I have seen no evidence to date to corroborate that. I believe strongly that it is much too soon to begin another round without having some of this information. We don't know how much the four rounds cost. We don't know how much the four rounds have saved. And we haven't met our commitments to local communities impacted by these closures, despite the letter of the distinguished Secretary of Defense to the contrary. The CBO--even the CBO--the 1995 BRAC Commission, they both say wait. CBO recommends waiting until at least 2001 for another round. They say: The Congress should consider authorizing an additional round of base closures if the Department of Defense believes that there is a surplus of military capacity after-- And I stress the word ``after''-- all rounds of BRAC have been carried out. That consideration, however, should follow an interval during which DOD and independent analysts examine the actual impact of the measures that have been taken thus far. (Mr. HAGEL assumed the chair.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like this distinguished body to know that we cannot get a single figure from the U.S. Navy as to what the cost savings actually will be from the closures of the Navy bases in the State of California. Not a single figure. They will not give us estimates. And yet we are going to run ahead, pass another round and begin this same procedure again. It doesn't make any sense. Let me quote what the BRAC 1995 commission itself recommended: . . . the Commission recommends that the Congress authorize another Base Closure Commission for the year 2001 . . . [giving] military services time to complete the current closures in an orderly fashion-- Which has not happened, I might allude to-- while ensuring that the Defense Department has the opportunity in the future to make further reductions . . . In addition to these new BRAC rounds beginning too quickly, and contrary to what DOD and supporters of this amendment claim, the base reuse process has been cumbersome and has been fraught with bureaucratic nightmares. Secretary Cohen's letter of June 24 says that the DOD has assigned ``transition coordinators'' to each base to solve closure problems and to speed the process. Well, let me say, as one Senator from California, this approach has not worked well. I have had to intervene with DOD for communities in my State numerous times to fight for a community's needs in just this past year alone. Let me speak for a moment about environmental costs. I think every Member of this body knows that the costs of environmental remediation are grossly underestimated, grossly underbudgeted. DOD claims it is ``empowering communities'' by speeding base cleanup, and I would like to give you the results in California of what is termed ``speedy base cleanup.'' Environmental remediation--that is just remediation--is in place at only 29 percent of the Army BRAC sites; 14 percent of the Navy BRAC sites; and 18 percent of the Air Force BRAC sites in my State. Environmental remediation has not been completed at a single base closed in any of the four rounds in the State of California. This issue is important, because without clean property, transfers by deed cannot occur and individuals cannot get financing. Therefore, if they don't have the bases cleaned up, they can't be effectively and fully put to use. Let me take the four California instances that the Secretary of Defense raises in his letter. First, Castle Air Force Base. That is in California's Central Valley. It was closed by BRAC in 1991. To date, there have been 262 separate sites at this base identified for cleanup; 65 of these sites have not yet even been evaluated to determine what contaminants are in the soil or water; and none of the sites--none of the sites--on this base, held out as a model, have remediation efforts currently in place. Second base: Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento was closed by BRAC in 1988. To date, there have been 87 sites identified for cleanup; 15 have not yet been evaluated to determine what contaminants are in the soil or the water; and only 39 of the sites, or 44 percent, have remediation efforts in place. So 55 percent of the sites haven't even begun to be worked on yet. Another of these sterling examples, Norton Air Force Base in southern California, closed by BRAC in 1988. To date, 25 sites have been identified for cleanup; 6 have not yet been evaluated to determine what contaminants are in the soil or water; and only 10 of the sites, or 40 percent, have remediation efforts in place. None of the environmental cleanup has been completed at any of the bases anywhere in California. These were bases, Mather and Norton, that were closed nearly 10 years ago, and yet they are not close to being clean. No transfer by deed have yet occurred at Norton and a very limited number of these transfers by deed have occurred at Mather. Alameda Naval Air Station and Naval Aviation Depot was closed by BRAC in 1993. One of the real problems I had when this was closed was that Alameda had 7,600 units of housing that were going to be vacated. The fleet, the nuclear carriers were to be moved to Everett and San Diego. Everett had no housing for the wings. Housing had to be built. MilCon was not included in the cost of closing that base. To date at Alameda, there have been 30 sites identified for cleanup. Only one of these sites has not yet been evaluated to determine what contaminants are in the soil or water. But none of the sites have remediation in place. So at Alameda, they have done some identification; they have done no remediation. Sacramento Army Depot was closed by BRAC in 1991, and this is probably California's most successful reuse site to date. They have 16 sites identified for cleanup. All cleanup sites have been evaluated, and 12 sites, or 75 percent, have remediation efforts in place. It should also be pointed out, there is no deadline for the completion of environmental cleanup at BRAC sites. Let me, once again, make this point clear. Communities can't reuse a base when they don't know when it is going to be clean. The law has been liberalized to allow long-term, interim leases to be granted for dirty property, but these leases are limited in scope, and the potential buyer cannot obtain financing under these circumstances, and this has further delayed and deterred base reuse. DOD has given communities estimates as to when their bases will be clean, but DOD will not guarantee these completion dates, and every year, environmental cleanup is underfunded and every year it is delayed even more. The Air Force estimates that Castle Air Force Base should have environmental remediation in place by the year 2000 and that it should be complete by 2018. So the total base cannot be transferred into private reuse at Castle Air Force Base until the year 2018. The Air Force estimates that Mather should have environmental remediation in place by 1999 and that this should be complete by the year 2027. So it will take to 2027 for the process to be completed and the base to be transferred. The Air Force estimates that Norton Air Force Base should have environmental remediation in place by 1999, and that this should be complete by 2012. So, again, one has to wait for the base to be transferred. DOD is also far behind on the transfer of base closure property, due in large part to environmental contamination. In my State, and this is the largest State, only 4 percent of the acreage--4 percent of 79,618 acres--have been transferred by deed to new owners. So we are contemplating here a new BRAC closure round when only 4 percent of the land covered in California has been deeded to new owners. It does not make sense. If one is thinking about the communities and really means that reuse should work, how can you go ahead with a new round where you have 80,000 acres of land and only 4 percent of them at this stage have been deeded to a local entity? Only 19 percent of these acres have been transferred by long-term lease, and a whopping 49 percent are still sitting there with no action on any kind of transfer having taken place. So one-half of the acreage that has been closed in California has no plan for a transfer at this stage, and we are still contemplating a new round. Many of these base closure communities are working hard to make the best of their misfortune and many are optimistic about the prospects of base reuse. But before we pile on these additional rounds, let us look candidly at some of the difficulties they are facing. In Tustin, CA, the community is trying to reuse the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. After 14 months of negotiations for an interim lease for one of the large blimp hangars and the loss of nine potential film tenants, a lease was approved by the city of Tustin and the Navy's Southwest Engineering Division. When the Pentagon subsequently rejected this lease, the prospective tenant, Walt Disney Productions, simply got fed up and left to lease space elsewhere. So here you had a base with a prime potential tenant, and the bureaucratic nightmare that has ensued caused it to be rejected, and Disney walked off and went somewhere else. So that was the 10th one they lost. At Norton Air Force Base, the Worldpointe Trade Center project that Secretary Cohen lauds in his June 24 letter will not happen due to a lack of financing. The community has regrouped, though, and now this project will be replaced by an industrial park that will take 5 years to build and yield only 40 percent of the jobs hoped for with the trade center development. At Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento, the Air Force and Sacramento County have finally reached agreement on the sale of 1,200 housing units. It took four separate appraisals and 5 years of negotiations to finally reach the price of $4.25 million--the same price as the county's 1993 appraisal. At George Air Force Base in southern California, it took 20 months to get a signed economic development conveyance. It was submitted by the community in February 1995 and finally signed in 1996. Another EDC at Mare Island Naval Shipyard was submitted in January of 1996--of 1996--and a year and a half later is still pending. They are still waiting for a decision. The city of Long Beach just completed a negotiated sale with the former Long Beach Naval Hospital. After 18 months of negotiations, the city will have to pay the Navy $8.6 million to buy back this 30-acre site that the city sold to the Navy in 1964 for 10 dollars. So they sold it to the Navy for 10 dollars and now they buy it back at $8.6 million. To make matters worse, the Navy required that the city provide the Navy with a letter of credit to secure two promissory notes to buy back the property. This cost the city of Long Beach an additional $50,000. Finally, the goal of base closures was to save DOD money so that we could modernize our force. If anybody could come in here and say, look, the Navy has saved x dollars in California by closing bases, I would say, OK, now we know either it was cost efficient or it was not cost efficient and we have a sound basis on which to make another judgment. But as I said before, the Navy will not give my office a single figure as to what cost savings can be anticipated from closure of major Navy bases in the State of California. Yet, we are going to go about another round today. The GAO and the CBO both say that DOD's estimated savings cannot be quantified. GAO and CBO cannot quantify what the military says the savings estimates are. DOD has not included the total cost of environmental cleanup in its net savings figures. By 2001, DOD claims that it will have saved nearly $14 billion from BRAC. To their credit, they did include the cost of environmental cleanup through 2001. That was $7.3 billion. But they did not include the cost of BRAC cleanup for these sites after 2001. In California alone this will cost another $1.56 billion. So, in the costs that have been provided by the military to this body, with California alone it is $1.56 billion shy, short, lacking, not defined, not there; and yet we would go ahead with another round regardless of knowing what the true costs and true savings actually are. Let us look at how much additional cleanup funding four of five California success stories will need past the year 2001. Castle will require an additional $53.1 million. Mather will require an additional $73.8 million. Norton will require an additional $1.25 million. Alameda Naval Air Station and Naval Aviation Depot will require an additional $73.4 million. None of this is counted before we make the decision. And I am just giving you four bases here--not 29. The true costs of BRAC should include all of these costs related to closure, not just those funded directly by the BRAC account. Until they do, frankly, I will not vote ever for another round. Just because these costs are funded from other Federal accounts does not mean that they are any less real. So what is happening, Mr. President, is that they fund some of this from other accounts and they do not cost them in. So that way the military costs look less, but the Federal costs--it is all the same, it all comes from the same taxpayer, all goes into the same budget, but it is not counted here. DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment grants to base closure communities for base reuse planning, $125 million. It is not counted here, not counted as a cost. It is a cost? Of course it is a cost. The Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration grants to base closure communities, $371 million. It is not counted here as a cost. FAA grants to establish airports at closed bases, $182 million. It is not counted here. It is like MilCon, except MilCon is in the defense budget. These are not in the defense budget. They are necessary, but not counted. Department of Labor job retraining grants, $103 million. It is not counted in the cost of base closure. So without at least a firm accounting of how much the first four rounds of BRAC cost and how much was saved, I cannot and I do not believe any Member of this body should support a new round. We have moved too fast in closing these bases. We need to look at the bottom line. What are these closures costing, not only the Defense Department, but the FAA, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Labor in retraining grants, the Office of Economic Adjustment? What are the costs? And factor those costs in. What are the costs of MilCon for all of the rounds? Factor those costs in as well. Later this afternoon it is my understanding that Senator Dorgan will be offering an amendment to propose a study to come up with just this very information. I think to proceed with another round until the study is done and until we have the specific information would really be a major, major mistake. We need to look at operations and maintenance. We need to look at military construction, environmental cleanup costs, base reuse costs and economic redevelopment costs also funded by the Federal Government, unemployment compensation costs, military health care costs and force structure costs. All of this should be looked at, I believe, by an independent agency, figures ascertained on which responsible people can depend, and then another decision can be made on another day about another round. I think this is ill-advised. It is too fast. And it will simply complicate one flawed procedure with another flawed round. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support legislation introduced by Senator Byron Dorgan and myself--the Safer Schools Act of 1997--which will ensure that students who bring guns to school can be suspended. This legislation was originally introduced late last session in reaction to a startling ruling by an appellate court in New York that said a student should not have been suspended from school because the weapon he was carrying was uncovered during a search without a warrant. We have reached a crisis in this country--a crisis which makes it difficult for parents to see their children off to school in the morning, for fear they will never see them again. Each day in America, it is estimated that 100,000 guns are brought into American schools. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 2 in 25 high school students, or 7.9 percent, report having carried a gun in the last 30 days. In Los Angeles, according to an ACLU survey conducted earlier this year, 49 percent of high school students said they have seen a weapon in school, many of them guns. In response to these types of alarming figures, Senator Dorgan and I introduced the Gun Free Schools Act in 1994 to set a zero-tolerance policy to keep America's schools gun-free. The goal of this legislation was to remove firearms from all public schools in the United States. Although we still have a way to go to make all schools gun-free, this zero-tolerance policy is working to make our schools safer. A preliminary report recently released from the U.S. Department of Education provides irrefutable proof that this law is well on its way toward meeting this important goal. I am told that a full report on all the States will be due out sometime later this summer. The Gun Free Schools Act has been responsible for the expulsions of more than 6,276 students in 29 States caught during the 1995-96 school year for trying to carry guns to school. This means there were 6,276 fewer opportunities for a child to be killed or injured by gunfire at school in the United States. According to the California Department of Education, there were 1,039 firearms-related expulsions in public schools in California during this same period. The entire State of California has 1,043 school districts. Amazingly, this translates into an average of one expulsion for every district in my State. Today, each and every one of the 50 States and the District of Columbia have complied with the Gun Free Schools Act by passing laws requiring schools to expel--for at least 1 year --students who are caught carrying a gun. But the ruling of an appellate court in New York threatens to undermine the progress we have made in setting a zero-tolerance policy for guns in schools. The appellate court in this particular case applied the same evidentiary standards that apply to criminal proceedings in what was a school disciplinary action. The school, however, refused to lift the student's suspension and as a result, their action was upheld by the State Court of Appeals. Mr. President, I believe that common sense was cast aside with the appellate court ruling. Incredibly, what the appellate court's decision said was that this student should not have been expelled from school and that his record should be expunged from any wrongdoing in the case. Our legislation states very clearly that the exclusionary rule should not be applied in school disciplinary proceedings. What the legislation says is that you cannot exclude a gun as evidence in a disciplinary action in school. This common-sense legislation does not violate the constitutional rights of children. This bill does not exonerate school officials who conduct unreasonable or unlawful searches and persons who have been aggrieved will have every right to pursue judicial or statutory remedies available. The Safer Schools Act of 1997 will prevent kids who do bring a gun to school from slipping through a school's reasonable disciplinary process. Fortunately, last September's court ruling that a gun can be excluded from use as evidence in an internal school disciplinary proceeding was ultimately reversed. But a similar ruling could be made in another State. This legislation would send a clear signal that guns have no place in the hands of our children or in the hallways and classrooms of their schools. All children should be able to go to school without fearing for their safety. This legislation also would say to school administrators throughout the Nation that it is perfectly legitimate to conduct a disciplinary proceeding in cases where a student has brought a gun to school. The schools can conduct a fair and reasonable proceeding that allows them to ensure the safety of their school grounds. The bottom line is that the Gun Free Schools Act has helped reduce the threat of guns from our Nation's schools. With the Safer Schools Act of 1997, we give school officials and teachers much needed flexibility to ensure that America's schools are safe havens so that children can escape the violence that engulfs so many of their lives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman for clarifying the provision and thank the committee for its work on this issues. computer access incentive

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to ask if the chairman can clarify for me whether this bill includes a provision that provides the ``brownfields'' benefits for supplemental empowerment zones. As a former mayor, I am very committed to promoting economic growth in our urban area. The ``brownfields'' provision will be significant in the City of Los Angeles' effort to turn abandoned, vacant or underutilized industrial or commercial properties back into productive use. Can the chairman confirm that, under the Senate tax bill, brownfields remediation incentives are also extended to supplemental empowerment zones? Mr. Roth. Yes, the committee bill extends the brownfields benefits to supplemental zones as well. Section 768(c)(2) of the bill, entitled ``Expensing of Environmental Remediation Costs,'' extends the brownfields benefits to supplemental zones designated after December 21, 1994, which confers the benefits to the supplemental zones of Los Angeles and Cleveland, OH.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, during the 104th Congress, I was privileged to serve as ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. In that time, while visiting and monitoring events in the South Asia region-- which includes India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh--I had the honor of working with a talented and dedicated group of diplomats. I wish to pay tribute to some of them today. The South Asia Bureau is the smallest and youngest of the State Department's regional bureaus, having been created by congressional mandate in 1992. Despite its size, it has ably represented American interests in this critical part of the world. This summer, it will undergo its first major transition, as nearly all the ranking diplomats in the bureau will rotate on to other assignments. Before they do, I wanted to take an opportunity to commend them for their service. At the top, of course, is Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Robin L. Raphel, the first person to ever hold the position. During the past 4 years, Assistant Secretary Raphel has deftly managed the complex web of issues that encompass South Asia-- from Indo-Pakistani tensions to nonproliferation, from human rights to the environment, and from counterterrorism and narcotics to the deadly conflict in Afghanistan. She has also been a trusted and valuable interlocuter with Congress, making the administration's case fairly and straightforwardly to those on all sides of every issue under her purview. Assistant Secretary Raphel has been assisted in her efforts by an outstanding team of ambassadors in the field: Ambassador Frank Wisner in New Delhi, Ambassador Tom Simons in Islamabad, Ambassador Peter Burleigh in Sri Lanka, Ambassador David Merrill in Dhaka, and Ambassador Vogelgesang in Kathmandu. Due to a quirk of timing, with the exception of Tom Simons, all of these ambassadors either have or are expected to vacate their posts this summer. I want to commend each of these fine diplomats: Frank Wisner, one of the most senior and well-regarded members of the entire Foreign Service, and David Merrill, both of whom have announced their retirements from Federal service: Peter Burleigh, a native of my home State of California and a first-rate linguist, who will next be furthering United States interests as Deputy Permanent Representative at the United Nations; and Sandy Vogelgesang, for whom I have a special, personal regard. Last November, when I traveled to Nepal to view United States assistance projects, I was highly impressed by Ambassador Vogelgesang's knowledge of Nepal and her depth of caring for its people, the high degree of respect she enjoyed throughout the country, and the way these traits enabled her to be an effective advocate and promoter of U.S. interests. She is, in short, one of the finest Ambassadors I have ever had the privilege of working with. I hope and expect that our Nation will enjoy the benefit of her service in future posts in the years to come. Mr. President, during my tenure on the Foreign Relations Committee, I have developed a high regard for the work of our talented and dedicated Foreign Service personnel. Almost without exception, I have found the people representing our Nation in embassies overseas to be infused with seriousness, patriotism, and professionalism. Sadly, they are too often underappreciated, and occasionally even criticized. As Senators, who are called upon to approve the highly competitive selection and promotion processes, and to confirm appointments to the Foreign Service's most senior levels, it behooves us to take the time to recognize some of our most accomplished diplomats. On behalf of my colleagues, I express appreciation and admiration for a job well done to Assistant Secretary Raphel and Ambassadors Wisner, Simons, Burleigh, Merrill, and Vogelgesang. Our country owes them thanks for their able service, and we are grateful for their significant contributions to improving and expanding our relationships with the countries of South Asia.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I conclude my statement simply with this. This amendment has been put into this bill once before. It has been put into the terrorism bill once. It has been passed by this body twice. It has been reworked to withstand a first amendment challenge. I am hopeful, with the history of what is happening in this country, that Americans all across this land will say there is no first amendment right to be a conspirator and teach someone how to make a bomb to blow someone else up. So I am hopeful that this year it might survive a conference. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their comments, and I thank all the Members for their support of this amendment. Essentially, this is the third year that I have submitted this amendment. It has been put on the terrorism bill and on this bill in prior times. It was removed in conference. Part of the terrorism bill asks the Department of Justice to take a look at the situation that exists out there with respect to the teaching of bombmaking and the knowledge and intent that such teaching will be used for a criminal purpose. In fact, the Department of Justice has submitted a report indicating that they believe that the amendment is necessary and will stand a constitutional test, and they have, in fact, approved the drafting of this amendment. I believe it is important and timely. I believe it will stand a constitutional test. I am just delighted that it has been cleared on both sides. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator. My answer is I believe it would if the individual had the knowledge that any attempt would be used for criminal purpose, which this would be. The answer to the question is yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Utah very much. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Biden and myself. For 3 years, Senator Biden and I have sent an amendment to the desk which would prohibit the teaching of bomb making. Twice it passed this body by unanimous consent, and twice in conference the amendment was taken out. Last year, when we made this amendment and this body graciously and, I believe, wisely accepted it, it was replaced in conference with the proviso that the Department of Justice would do a report to see whether this amendment was well advised and would stand a constitutional test. On April 29 of this year, the Department of Justice published a report, and that report was entitled, ``Report on the Availability of Bomb Making Information, The Extent to Which Its Dissemination is Controlled by Federal Law, and the Extent to Which Such Dissemination May be Subject to Regulation Consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.'' The bottom line of the report is that the Department of Justice agrees that it would be appropriate and beneficial to adopt further legislation to address the problem of teaching bomb making directly, if that can be accomplished in a manner that does not impermissibly restrict the wholly legitimate publication and teaching of such information or otherwise violate the first amendment. In other words, the question presented by this is, when does the first amendment end and when does conspiracy to commit a felony begin? So the language in the amendment that we submit to this body today has been reworked, strengthened and approved by the Department of Justice. I would like to briefly read it. The language is as follows: It shall be unlawful for any person-- (A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intention that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a State or local criminal offense affecting interstate commerce . . . Then there is an alternative: or (b) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction . . . knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal criminal offense or a State or local criminal offense affecting interstate commerce. The penalty for violating this law would be a fine of $250,000 or a maximum of 20 years in prison, or both. Mr. President, according to terrorism expert, Neil Livingston, there are more than 1,600 so-called mayhem-manuals in circulation. I outlined some examples of what I am talking about. I will never forget, Mr. President, and you are a member of the Judiciary Committee--I don't believe you were on the committee at the time--but when a document entitled ``The Terrorist's Handbook'' was circulated, I believe at that time Senator Kennedy and I couldn't believe it. So I went back to my office and asked my staff to download what is called ``The Terrorist's Handbook.'' The cover of ``The Terrorist's Handbook'' reads something like this: Stuff you are not supposed to know about. Whether you are planning to blow up the World Trade Center, or merely explode a few small devices on the White House lawn, the Terrorist's Handbook is an invaluable guide to having a good time. Where else can you get such wonderful ideas about how to use up all that extra ammonium triiodide left over from last year's revolution? And then this handbook, which I have in my hand, goes on to tell people how to break into a building, how to pick a lock, how to break into a chem lab in a college, how to look like a student. It produces techniques for picking locks. It goes on and tells you what useful household chemicals you should use. And then it goes on to explain, with specificity, how to make a light-bulb bomb, a book bomb, a phone bomb, and it goes on and on and on. Mr. President, there is no legal, legitimate use for a phone bomb, for a book bomb, for a baby-food bomb, all of which are described in this handbook. When it is put in this context, the context of criminality, it is my belief that the person who puts this up on the Internet becomes a conspirator in the ability to commit a major crime in the United States. An interesting thing that we have found is that individuals who have committed these crimes have actually had at least some of these publications in their home when they were arrested. According to the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the following publications were found among Timothy McVeigh's possessions: ``Homemade C-4, A Recipe for Survival.'' My staff just went over to the Library of Congress and tried to take out a copy of this. Incidentally, it is missing from the library. ``Ragnar's Big Book of Homemade Weapons and Improvised Explosives.'' So we know that materials on the Internet are used by terrorists to commit terrorist acts. We also know that the number of explosive devices now being found are increasing. Authorities have stated that the rise is attributable to a rise in Internet use. This is certainly true in Los Angeles County. During the first half of 1996, these numbers of explosive devices have increased dramatically; 178 were found compared to 86 total in 1995. Responses by the Los Angeles Police Department to reports of suspected bombs have shot up more than 35 percent from 1994 to 1995. The LAPD found 41 explosives in 1995, more than double the number 3 years ago. And it goes on and on and on. One thing is also very interesting. Not only are terrorists using this, but children are using this. Not too long ago there was a cartoon in a newspaper. It really describes what is happening. A mother is on the telephone saying to a friend, ``* * * history, astronomy, science, Bobby is learning so much on the Internet * * *'' And there is Bobby sitting by his computer, and what Bobby is doing here is putting a timer on six sticks of dynamite looking at the Internet and following the recipe. Of course what that leads to is something like this: Three Boys used Internet to Plot School Bombing, Police Say. That is the New York Times. Something like this: Internet Cited for Surge in Bomb Reports. Police and sheriffs officials say Web sites provide youngsters with information on making explosives. Yesterday, June 18, the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel reported on the pending trial of 15-year-olds Burke DeCesare and Adam Walker, who were charged with planting a bomb in their Catholic school. They are eighth graders. They live in the Bayview neighborhood. They broke into Saint Coleman Catholic School in Pompano Beach around 2 a.m. on February 24, 1996. They planted a gasoline bomb in the ceiling of classroom 116. Bomb experts from the Broward Sheriff's Office said the device, made with gasoline, was wired to explode at the flick of a light switch. This is taught--the recipe for this is in one of these manuals. The boys told police they got the instructions to build the bomb from the Internet. Nine days ago, on June 10, 1997, the Cleveland Dispatch reported the arrest of a North Side 15-year-old who built a homemade bomb with information he gathered from the Internet. The Columbus Fire Division bomb squad was required to remove devices from the kitchen and the basement of the parents' homes. Neighbors, who lived within 500 feet of the home, were evacuated for 2 hours. Columbus police reported that one device consisted of a quart Mason jar containing lighter fluid and Styrofoam, with an M-90 inserted into the Mason jar cap which served as an igniter. This young man told his parents he learned to make the bomb on the Internet. Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported that two 14-year-old boys were arrested in Yorba Linda, CA, after crafting eight pipe bombs and detonating one of them. The bomb caused a fire, charring 400 feet of land behind a home on Grandview Avenue. After admitting they sparked the fire with the bomb, the boys told investigators they had seven more bombs inside the house. The bombs were fashioned with information from the Internet. In May of this year, the Baltimore Sun reported that two teenagers in Finland face charges over an explosion from Finland's second ``Internet bomb'' in a week. Sixty people were evacuated. And it goes on and on and on. In Orange County, police say teenagers may have used the Internet to help construct acid-filled bottle bombs in Mission Viejo and Huntington Beach, one of which burned a 5-year-old boy when he found it on a school playground. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, between 1992 and 1995, 15 juveniles were killed and 366 injured in the United States while making explosive devices. Most of this comes right off of the Internet. The Justice Department, on a single Web site, obtained the titles to over 110 different bombmaking texts. The point here is that this material is now so easy to get. When it is put in something like a terrorist handbook and you are told what to use, how to steal it, how to dress like a college student, how to break into a chem lab, how to use cardboard to stuff in the lock so you can come back at night, how to go home and how to go into your kitchen and make one of these bombs, and then how to go out and explode it wherever you want--there is no legitimate legal use for this information. There is only a criminal purpose for this information. There is no legal use for a baby food bomb, for a phone bomb, for a book bomb. You do not blow up a tree stump if you are a farmer in the field with one of these. There is no legal use. So I am hopeful--I know that we are into the third year of this amendment--that it will in fact survive a conference committee. I understand that both sides are willing to accept the amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the Department of Justice report be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be most happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California and the two Senators from Texas for joining me in this coalition. I certainly do object to the motion to proceed to the bill. I want to explain why in some detail. These provisions that the Depot Caucus put in not only halts the public-private competitions for depot workload currently underway at both McClellan and Kelly Air Force Bases, but it essentially undermines any effort to do this work in the private sector in a more cost-effective way. The option to privatize certain depot workloads was explicitly made available by the BRAC Commission and was a part of the base closure decision. Yes, let their be no doubt, these bases will be closed. We know that. But an effort was guaranteed to be put underway to see if an amount of this workload could, in fact, be privatized. In its report to the President, the BRAC 95 Commission specifically recommended that the department ``consolidate the remaining workloads to other DOD depots or to private-sector commercial activities as determined by the Defense Depot Maintenance Council.'' The President strongly supported the Commission's decision, specifically reinforcing the option of privatization. In his letter to the chairman of the BRAC 95 Commission, the President stated, ``I was pleased to learn that * * * you confirmed that the Commission's recommendations permit the Department of Defense to privatize the work loads of the McClellan and Kelly facilities in place or elsewhere in their respective communities. * * * In my communication with Congress, I have made clear that the Commission's agreement that the Secretary enjoys full authority and discretion to transfer workload from these two installations to the private sector, in place, locally or otherwise, is an integral part of the overall BRAC 95 package it will be considering.'' The President goes on to say, without ambiguity, ``Moreover, should the Congress approve this package but then subsequently take action in other legislation to restrict privatization options at McClellan or Kelly, I will regard this as a breach of Public Law 101-510 (the base closure law) in the same manner as if the Congress were to attempt to reverse by legislation any other material direction of this or any other BRAC.'' I think that's pretty clear. Let me say that I firmly believe if this bill goes forward with the depot language in it, the President of the United States should veto the bill. Not to veto the bill is to say that the BRAC decisions and the decisions made surrounding the 1995 base closure decision are no longer valid. Their integrity is clearly punctuated by this kind of special interest drive. Let me go on to say that some have alleged that this privatization process is an attempt to keep McClellan and Kelly open. Let me disabuse my colleagues of that. I want to be very clear. McClellan and Kelly will both be closed in the year 2001. That decision has been made. The property and buildings at McClellan will be transferred by the Air Force to recipients in the local community according to the base reuse plan. Two private companies, Boeing and a group led by AAI Corp. and one Air Force depot, Hill Air Force Depot in Utah, have each been awarded $750,000 in Air Force contracts to formulate their bids for the workload package at McClellan. Final bids from these competitors for this workload are due in September of this year. The contract is scheduled to be awarded in January 1998. This aspect of privatization is now underway, Mr. President, and essentially what we have in this bill is a special provision which would halt the contracts currently proceeding. It is to this that we strongly object. The workload package, currently under development by the Air Force, will be worth approximately $220 million and will affect only 2,300 McClellan Air Force Base employees. McClellan ALC, Air Logistics Center, employed over 8,000 people before the BRAC 1995 round, and currently employs less than 7,800 people. So you can see the workload package we are talking about affects about one-third of the employees that used to work at McClellan Air Logistics Center. The Air Force's planned workload package at McClellan will include maintenance and repair of the KC-135 refueler aircraft and A-10 close- air support aircraft. It will also include repair work and maintenance on hydraulics systems, instruments and electronic components and electronic accessories for numerous aircraft systems. Finally, the workload package will include software support activities, parts repair and assembly for the KC-135 and A-10, and the packaging and movement of parts to military customers. The public/private competition for this work can save taxpayer dollars. If the competition for this work is 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 Hill Air Force Base. Additional savings can come from taking advantage of any potential efficiencies in private industry. Let me make another point. Past Federal investments at McClellan should not be ignored. Since 1987, the Department has spent $150 million on military construction projects at McClellan. Outright closure of these facilities before the year 2001 means the U.S. taxpayer not only forfeits this expenditure but also must pay for new military construction at another Air Force base so this workload can be moved. The Defense Department will have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to duplicate the facilities now in operation at McClellan. As the Defense Department phases out its operations at McClellan and Kelly Air Force Bases, privatization provides a means to reduce overhead costs by bringing defense and commercial work together. If private industry wins the competition for this workload package, they will be able to add commercial products along with their Defense Department workload. This innovative approach will expand employment opportunities at these closing facilities and increase savings to the Department through decreased overhead costs and enhanced efficiency. The Depot Caucus' language takes none of these potential savings into account and violates every proven principle that competition reduces costs. The Depot Caucus provision would sole-source billions of dollars of depot maintenance work to government facilities regardless of the cost or the impact this noncompetitive practice would have on DOD's management plans and strategies. In addition, the Depot Caucus' unqualified opposition to privatization goes against a clear national trend. The language ignores not only the lessons learned by industry, but also the guidance of DOD's most respected advisory reports. This spring's Quadrennial Defense Review stated that DOD should, ``Conduct public-private competitions for depot maintenance work that does not contribute to core capability when other appropriate outsourcing criteria are met. In addition, [DOD] will partner in-house facilities with industry to preserve depot-level skills and utilize excess capacity. Savings will be achieved as a result of these competitions and the reductions in excess capacity.'' The May 1995 Commission on Roles and Missions [CORM] of the Armed Forces strongly urged increasing privatization. CORM recommended ``that the Department make the transition to a depot maintenance system relying mostly on the private sector.'' In fact, the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC] Commission Report strongly supported depot privatization, writing, ``The Commission believes reducing infrastructure by expanding privatization to * * * DOD industrial and commercial activities will reduce the cost of maintaining and operating a ready military force.'' The vast majority of private firms are also moving toward increased reliance on outsourcing to become more efficient and remain competitive. The DOD can learn and benefit from the private sector's experience. We have an opportunity to save money by allowing the competitions for workload at McClellan AFB to go forward. If the bids made by private industry are not financially feasible, then the contract will be awarded to the public bidder, Hill AFB. But, if a private bidder does win, then we will have our first opportunity to reduce the cost of depot maintenance activities through careful use of private enterprise. The General Accounting Office's study of depot workload privatization never considered the question of how much could be saved if this workload was privatized. It only considered the costs of maintaining that workload at Kelly and McClellan as compared to consolidating it into the remaining air logistics centers. The privatization of this workload will not be business as usual. Finally, many of my colleagues are concerned that readiness will suffer at the hands of greater outsourcing and privatization. DOD, however, has entrusted our military's readiness to private contractors for years. Currently, several weapons systems, including the KC-10 refueling aircraft, the F-117 stealth fighter, the B-1B bomber, and the software maintenance for the B-2 bomber are completed by private contractors. I believe that the leadership of our armed services will continue to ensure that any DOD depot maintenance workload that is outsourced will be maintained appropriately, to DOD's own high standard. Allowing noncore depot workload to privatize simply permits DOD to award work to the most qualified, most reliable contractor, whether that contractor is a public facility or a private company. In supporting the defense industrial base, DOD's policy calls for greater reliance on the private sector for appropriate depot maintenance workload. Outsourcing helps preserve private sector capabilities and enhances DOD's ability to capture new technologies that are constantly being developed in the private sector. By introducing greater competition into the mix, outsourcing lowers the cost of depot-level maintenance activities. I firmly believe that the Nation will always require a public sector depot capability for certain mission-essential workloads and skills. Unfortunately, the depot language included in the DOD authorization bill will squander essential readiness and modernization funds. The Defense Department has defined public depot maintenance policy for the 21st century. It is time that we move beyond the arbitrary laws defining the policy of the past, and allow public/private competition to move us forward. These are the points that I wanted to make today. But, let me emphasize, the Depot Caucus' amendment will eventually cost the taxpayers much more money by duplicating existing facilities. In addition, the contractual process, including the request for proposals has already begun and, at McClellan, two companies--Boeing, AAI Corp., and one Air Force depot, Hill Air Force Depot--have already been awarded $750,000 in Air Force contracts to formulate their bids for this workload. Now the Congress is trying to step in and say, ``We are going to stop these competitions midstream.'' I think that makes no sense for the taxpayers and it makes no sense for the credibility of the BRAC process. I, for one, am delighted to join with my colleagues both in my own State and in Texas to work to see if we cannot come up with some compromise. Absent that compromise, I firmly believe the President should veto this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have lent my support to H.R. 1757, the 1998-99 State Department authorization bill, which passed last night. There is much that I support in this bill, and I wanted to take a few minutes today to discuss this bill and my vote. With its provisions to reorganize America's foreign policy institutions and to press for reform at the United Nations I think it is fair to say that this bill is one of the most far-reaching and important bills that we will consider this Congress. For well over a decade the United States has been steadily reducing the amount of money it devotes to international affairs agencies and programs. When current figures are adjusted for inflation, the cuts in recent years have been significant--50 percent since 1984. I was pleased when the administration requested a much-needed increase in funds for international affairs in the 1998 budget request. And I am pleased that this bill has, on the whole, preserved those funds. The international affairs budget authorized in this bill will go a long way toward righting the inequities of American international affairs spending of the past decade, and toward creating an efficient framework to support America's global leadership in the millennium to come. Just as important as authorizing funds for the conduct of American foreign policy, this bill also takes an historic step in working with President Clinton and Secretary Albright to create a new foreign affairs structure for the 21st century. Many of our current foreign policy institutions were created during the cold war, with specific missions and goals in mind. The reorganization plan put forward by the administration and supported by this bill reflects the need to preserve the unique skills and capabilities of each of the current agencies with the requirement that our institutional arrangements reflect the new demands guiding the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. By the end of 1999 the result of this bill will be a new streamlined foreign policy structure, drawing on the best people and practices of the old agencies, and fully capable of meeting the new challenges of the 21st century. Most importantly, from my perspective, this bill preserves some flexibility for the administration in its implementation of the President's plan. I opposed the reorganization plan we considered in the last Congress, because it denied the President the flexibility he needs to carry out our foreign affairs. This reorganization plan suffers from no such flaw. I would also like to take a little time to express my support for the plan to repay the United Nations the arrears our Nation owes it and for reform of the United Nations that is contained in the bill before us, S. 903. I support this package of repayment of arrears and reform benchmarks for one simple reason: because I believe a strong and effective United Nations is fundamentally important to the national interest of the United States. I am an unabashed supporter of the United Nations. Now that our colleague, Senator Claiborne Pell, has retired, I believe I am the only Member of this body to be in attendance at the founding of the United Nations in my hometown of San Francisco 52 years ago. I was not a delegate, as was Senator Pell--I was a bit younger then--but I am proud that I was able to help the host city celebrate that important occasion. As mayor of San Francisco, I had the honor and privilege of presiding over the 40th anniversary celebrations in 1985, and 2 years ago, I traveled with many of my colleagues to San Francisco for the 50th anniversary celebrations. These milestones mean a great deal to me, not because of their historical interest so much as because of their significance in the life of the United States. My own belief is that if the United Nations did not exist, we would have to invent it. I am not among the United Nations' major detractors. I do not believe for 1 minute that the United Nations is somehow out to impose its will on the United States, or to intrude on our sovereignty. I reject outright the paranoid fantasies of those who warn of the specter of U.N. taxation or a U.N. army, or the U.N. leading inexorably toward world government. The United Nations serves American interests each and every day. Through the U.N. High Commission for Refugees, it feeds and clothes homeless refugees in time of war. Through U.N. development programs, it helps the poorer nations of the world develop their infrastructures. It provides a forum for negotiating multilateral agreements on arms control, protecting the environment, and other matters that affect all nations. The U.N. specialized agencies also address problems that know no political borders. The World Health Organization fights diseases like AIDS that destroy the lives of those they afflict, and, if left unchecked, threaten countless others. The International Labor Organization helps keep track of forced labor and child labor, leading to multilateral efforts to improve working conditions around the world. Perhaps most importantly, the United Nations helps promote peace and security in trouble spots around the world. The United Nations is probably best known for peacekeeping. While Americans often remember the debacles of Bosnia and Somalia, few realize that U.N. peacekeepers are helping maintain peaceful borders and facilitate peaceful transitions in such places as the Golan Heights, Macedonia, Angola, and Kuwait. The United Nations also enables the United States to cooperate with our allies to carry out missions that are important to U.S. and international security. With U.N. approval, the United States led the nations of the world to expel Saddam from Iraq in Operation Desert Storm. The United Nations continues to enforce sanctions on Iraq and monitor Iraqi weapons programs. Because all of these operations require the approval of the U.N. Security Council, the United States, which has a veto on that Council, must approve them. These operations are never forced down our throats. To the contrary, our leadership role and our veto allow us to leverage the United Nations to conduct operations that are in our interests, but with the burden shared among our allies. For all of these reasons, I value the United Nations and believe it is imperative that we help it regain a sound financial footing. The United Nations' current financial difficulties are threatening to render it unable to implement many of its most important programs. And the biggest portion of the United Nations' shortfall is directly attributable to the United States' failure to pay its arrears. So the payment of these arrears is no trivial matter. It is the best--perhaps the only--way to ensure the United Nations' survival as a force for international peace and security in the post-cold-war era. Now, I share the view of the Senator from Indiana, who rightly pointed out that our payment of these arrears is not voluntary. It is an obligation under treaty commitments, signed and ratified according to our Constitution. But I also recognize something else. The political reality dictates that if we are to pay any arrears to the United Nations, they must be accompanied by a package of reform benchmarks. Over 4 months ago, the majority leader convened a working group of House and Senate authorizers and appropriators, Republicans and Democrats, to work with the administration on resolving the arrears question. As the ranking member of the International Operations Subcommittee, I was involved in this task force from the beginning, and my staff attended virtually all of the subsequent meetings, until Senator Helms and Senator Biden began the detailed endgame negotiations. In the very first meeting of this task force, Secretary of State Albright came to discuss the administration's proposal, which was essentially for Congress to appropriate all of the arrears--$1.021 billion--up front, and to attach no conditions to their payment. In the room were a number of leading Republican authorizers and appropriators, as well as the majority leader. As I recall, the only Democrats in the room for much of the meeting were the distinguished ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, Lee Hamilton of Indiana, and myself. Even then, Mr. Hamilton and I--two strong supporters of the U.S. role in the United Nations--told the Secretary of State that, as sympathetic as we were to the need to pay these arrears, the administration's proposal did not stand a chance. We said it then, and I say it here today: The votes are not there for repaying our arrears without reform benchmarks. So the negotiations commenced, and they continued through literally hundreds of hours. Both sides have made significant concessions. The administration, which wanted to pay all the arrears up front, certainly has. Anyone who saw the early Republican proposals, which called for payment of only a portion of the arrears, over 5 years, and with many more, potentially unachievable benchmarks, knows that the distinguished Senator from North Carolina has given a lot. But the final result of these talks is a package that calls for a tough, but achievable, series of reforms to be implemented by the United Nations over the next 3 years, while the United States pays off $819 million in U.N. arrears, a figure that is the Administration's bottom line. These reforms include greater oversight of budgets and personnel, phasing out obsolete programs, and, perhaps most importantly, a reduction in the U.S. share of the assessed budget from 25 to 20 percent. From the beginning, I felt that 3 years was about the right length of time for this package, and I argued that in the task force. It is long enough to give us some leverage to ensure the reforms are enacted, but not so long that the other member States do not believe it is credible that we will pay our debts. Make no mistake, achieving these reforms will take a great deal of work. Some of them, such as the reduction of the U.S. share of the budget, which the other member States must agree to, will require our U.N. Ambassador to employ all of his negotiating skills. Others will require the committed effort of the Secretary General, Kofi Annan--a man I believe is genuine in his desire for real reform. I acknowledge that this process is not perfect, and that there will be resentment among other nations who feel that Congress is unilaterally dictating what should be multilateral decisions. I understand that. But these arrears must be paid. And the political reality is that our choice is either to pay these bills in this fashion, over 3 years, while working with the United Nations for reforms, or not to pay them at all. That, to me, is an easy choice. I want to pay our arrears and strengthen the United Nations. In addition to the two major achievements of U.N. reform and State Department reorganization, this bill also contributes to furthering American interests in the world in a myriad of smaller, though not less significant, ways. Let me provide three such examples. This bill authorizes funds which will go to the International War Crimes Tribunal, and which will help assure that those who committed genocide and rape in Rwanda and Bosnia are brought to justice. It lends our support to the work of the Asia Foundation, which, through innovative public-private partnerships is able to leverage Federal resources to effectively promote U.S. political, economic, cultural, and security interests throughout the Pacific rim. And this bill authorizes funds which will go to support vitally needed infrastructure and new information technology at our embassies and missions. I have been to many of the crumbling and inadequate State Department facilities throughout the world, and can attest from first-hand experience the importance of these efforts. As I stated earlier, it is my belief that this bill, with its United Nations and reorganization provisions, takes a significant step in the right direction on several critical issues which Congress has been wrestling with for the past several years. Moreover, the cooperation and hard work of the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee on this bill, also marks, I believe, a return to a spirit of bipartisan cooperation on foreign policy. I am proud to have been able to cast my vote in support of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with my colleagues and the administration to perfect section 1166 of this bill, relating to the inadmissibility of persons supporting international child abductors. This section of the bill, which was included at my request in the chairman's mark considered last week by the Foreign Relations Committee, was inspired by the case of Patricia Roush, a constituent of mine whose two daughters were abducted by her ex-husband and taken to his home country of Saudi Arabia 11 years ago in direct violation of the custody order of an Illinois court. Since then, she has seen the girls only once for 2 hours. All efforts to negotiate a resolution have been rebuffed by the father. This section attempts to address tragic situations like Ms. Roush's. Current law, section 212(a)(10)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, says that any alien who holds a child overseas in violation of a custody order of a U.S. court may not receive a visa to come to the United States until the child has been returned to the parent with rightful custody. This new section would expand the visa restriction to three categories of people: Anyone who helped carry out the abduction of the child; anyone providing material support or safe haven to the abducting parent; and immediate family members of the abducting parent. Any of these people already in the United States would also be deportable. This law would not apply if the child is located in a country which is a signatory to the Hague Convention, which is an international agreement designed to resolve international child abduction cases. The goal of this legislation is to expand the circle of people affected when an American child is abducted. There can be no doubt that persons who assist in the abduction of such a child should be subject to the same restrictions as the abductor him or herself. The same goes for those who support and protect the abductor subsequent to the abduction. The only area that has raised questions is the provision applying the restriction to immediate family members of the abductor. We decided to proceed in this fashion because of Ms. Roush's experience during the tenure of the previous United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Ray Mabus. After years without any progress toward a resolution, Ambassador Mabus implied to relatives of Ms. Roush's ex-husband that he might withhold their visas to the United States unless the case was solved. He never actually threatened to withhold the visas, which he lacked the authority to do, but he hoped to at least get information about the girls' condition and the father's thinking throught this tactic. Ambassador Mabus discovered that even the implied threat of withholding visas from family members produced a new spirit of flexibility on the part of the father. By the time he returned to the United States, they had come close to negotiating a resolution, but that fell through after Mabus left. But this experience suggests that withholding visas from family members and other associates of the abducting parent is an effective way to put pressure on that parent to negotiate a resolution. There is a precedent for withholding visas from family members. In the Helms-Burton law on Cuba passed in 1996--Public Law 104-114, spouses and minor children of officers of corporations doing prohibited business with Cuba were made excludable. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senator from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, for their cooperation and for helping perfect this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. President, I very much agree with the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from West Virginia, my colleague from California, and all who have really very sincerely expressed their dismay on the way this bill has been handled. I would like to just take a few minutes and remind my colleagues that this started with a flood in California in January, and it is now June. According to the California Office of Emergency Services, California sustained $1.8 billion in damages during last winter's flooding. In California alone, 9 people died and 100,000 people lost their homes. They were forced to flee from their homes. This was the third 100-year flood in the last 10 years. It gives you the idea of the impact on part of the State. Mr. President, 48 out of 58 counties in California were declared Federal disaster areas. Damage to levees, to roads, and other infrastructure was severe. There were over 60 levee breaks in the delta area of California. Many of those breaks have yet to be repaired. These levees do two things. Because the land behind the levee is below sea level, the levees protect homes and agricultural land from the rivers. Now, when the levees break, the land behind the levee is peat, and the peat comes out into the water. That water is the drinking water for two-thirds of the people of the State; that is 20 million people. And when you treat the water for drinking and it has been infested by peat soil, the chlorine throws off carcinogens. So the longer you leave these levees unattended and the longer you have the intrusion of the peat-infested water into the drinking water, you increase problems in California. So far, out of this more than $1.8 billion, California has only received $27 million for FEMA, for flood fighting, for debris removal, and for infrastructure repair. Fully repairing the damage to public facilities will take months, if not years. I spent 3 days in these areas. I have flown over most of the levee breaks. I saw the extent of the damage. In places where I flew in a helicopter, let's say maybe 300, 400 feet above the ground, you could not see anything that was not flood-affected on either side. As far as your vision could go, flat land, from 300 to 500 feet above the ground, it was all water. You only saw rooftops. I talked with people who lost as many as 14,000 trees in their orchard, who were wiped out of their dairy farms, wiped out of their homes. I went into the homes of people who were not farmers. I saw water halfway up the ceiling, everything ruined. Wiring, everything was ruined in the house. If only everyone could see this, I don't think they would want to play these games with this vital piece of legislation. Let me remind my colleagues of the emergency relief provision and exactly what is in the bill: $5.6 million, 22 States. According to OMB, the bill allocates $3.3 billion out of new money and existing FEMA funds for disaster aid to California. Additionally, the bill provides another $780 million for disaster-related work in California. This is $200 million for Federal highway work, $176 million for repairs at Yosemite, $300 million for the Army Corps of Engineers, and $47 million for the Department of Agriculture. I want, just for a moment, to try to debunk the implication that no family has been denied assistance due to delays in the bill. This might be true for agencies like FEMA, which has the disaster trust fund to draw from. But other Federal agencies responding to the disasters are depending on this funding. HUD currently has no CDBG funds to dedicate to disaster recovery efforts, and both the House and Senate bills contained a half a billion dollars for CDBG disaster recovery efforts. So without this bill, there is no money for these efforts. Other Federal programs are also waiting for this funding: the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Conservation Program, which assists farmers in rehabilitating flooded farmland and clearing debris from the fields. Without this bill, farmers in the upper Midwest have to delay planting and will see their costs driven up. The Watershed and Flood Prevention Program, the Tree Assistance Program--now, this is important. I mentioned losing 14,000 trees. Crops that are permanent, like vines and trees, are eligible for grants through the Tree Assistance Program for replanting. There are no moneys for that without this bill. So it is necessary, if you are going to get the tree in the ground, to get it done as fast as possible. Let me talk about one of our Nation's jewels--Yosemite National Park. Delaying this bill closes off parts of this park for millions of visitors, no question. The Park Service is proceeding with the most pressing needs, but funds in this bill are now going to arrive too late to affect this summer. That means that contracts to begin the permanent road widening and the permanent utility repairs need to be let as soon as possible to minimize the impact on the park. If it can't be done soon, we are into winter again and then it is not going to be for another year. The President has made no secret about the fact that he will veto this bill when it hits his desk. We all know the problems with the automatic CR. I, for one, believe that this killer provision is really not necessary. We have shown that when we want to work together in a bipartisan way and make the necessary compromises that we can do it. All we have to do is pass appropriations bills on time. Two weeks ago we voted for a balanced budget. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to include the automatic CR in this legislation. Let me spend a few moments on another killer issue, because I have spoken to a few Members on the other side about it, and that is the census sampling. I had hoped the conferees would have been able to accept the Senate compromise. The conference report prohibits the use of statistical sampling. This impacts every high-growth State in the United States. I know there is politics in it, let's face it, because lower-income people, minorities, are the most affected if you don't sample. So, if you don't sample, you cut down your numbers in that category. That might be one thing in elections, but let me tell you it is also another thing in funding formula. So by not accepting the sampling, the high-growth States are essentially deprived of vital formula. Without sampling, the 2,000 census undercount would reach more than 18 million households, it would miss about 1 million people in California; it would miss 5 to 6 million in other States. Let me give you one example. California's share of Federal vocational rehabilitation funds total about 8 to 9 percent of the Federal funds in the program. These funds would be 11 percent going to California if based on an accurate census. If we don't do the sampling, the cost to the State is $70 to $100 million in just this one program alone. You can multiply that all across the board in title I moneys for schools, for poor children, and so every State that has a growth in these numbers, if you don't use the sampling, for political reasons you are sacrificing formula dollars for your State. I might tell you, I find that very hard to do. I intend to vote for this bill because the bulk of this bill is money for California. I recognize that the President will veto it. I will also vote to sustain his veto when this comes back. I am hopeful that the rumors I hear about the House are correct, that there will be another bill and it will be a basic disaster relief emergency supplemental so we can get on with other things. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the compromise reached on S. 610, the legislation to implement the Chemical Weapons Convention. I believe it is very much in our national interests to pass this implementation legislation just as we ratified the CWC. Let me first express my respect and appreciation for the distinguished Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden and the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. They and their staff have really done the heavy lifting in getting this implementing language to the floor. I also want to express my respect for the opponents of this treaty, including the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl. I have worked well with Senator Kyl on many issues, including, at the moment, our strong effort to pass a Crime Victims' Rights Amendment to the Constitution. I know that in this debate these Senators are motivated by their genuine and deeply felt concern for America's national security. However, I must disagree with the view that we would be better off without this treaty, or by passing implementation language that renders the treaty meaningless. Mr. President, the threat of chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, or being used as a weapon of war by a rogue state, has increased dramatically in recent years. One need only reflect on the dangers faced by our military by Iraq's incipient chemical weapons program during the gulf war, or the tragedies our nation has suffered with the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Federal building in Oklahoma City, and the Olympic Park in Atlanta, to fully appreciate the dangers posed by the proliferation of chemical weapons. In each of these cases, the tragedy and loss of life could have been magnified significantly had chemical weapons been used. Chemical weapons are among the most barbaric of mankind's inventions. They are so awful, that the United States, by act of Congress, has decided to eliminate our own stocks of these weapons by 2004. They are designed to kill and incapacitate by causing such effects as skin blistering, blindness, lung damage, choking, nervous system disruption, paralysis, or oxygen starvation. Because of the ease of their dispersal over a wide area, chemical weapons are especially useful for targeting civilian populations. The Chemical Weapons Convention is the most far-reaching attempt ever by the international community to control the spread of chemical weapons. It bans for the first time the development, production, and possession of chemical weapons and reinforces the international norm against their use. Since we are destroying our own chemical weapons, it only makes sense that we should want other nations to do so as well. The convention requires all signatory states to declare and destroy any chemical weapons and the facilities used to produce them. It requires member states to submit annual reports on the production and use of certain sensitive chemicals. This information, combined with our own intelligence resources, will significantly improve our ability to monitor and prevent illegal transfers and uses of such chemicals. Once the CWC takes effect, it will make it much harder and more costly for proliferators and terrorists to acquire chemical weapons. An intrusive verification system will be set up to detect violations. Sanctions will be imposed against nations that refuse to participate, making it more difficult for them to acquire precursor chemicals for poison gas and easier to monitor their efforts to do so. The intelligence-sharing and global verification network that will result from this treaty will increase the chances that terrorist attacks involving chemical weapons can be prevented before they ever occur--a net gain in the security of our troops and our citizens. We must start with the proposition that no arms control agreement is 100 percent verifiable. But with the CWC, we will know far more about who is trying to develop chemical weapons, where, and how than we would without the treaty. That is why the intelligence community has consistently testified that, while the treaty is not completely verifiable, they regard it as a highly desirable tool that will enhance our knowledge of chemical weapons programs and our ability to stop them. The CWC's verification regime requires routine inspections of all declared facilities working with significant amounts of chemicals listed by the treaty. In addition, any site, declared or not, may be subject to short-notice challenge inspections if there are suspicions that it is being used to produce or store banned chemicals. The CWC also establishes significant trade restrictions on precursor chemicals. These restrictions will make it more difficult for nations who are not parties to the treaty to acquire these chemicals, and will provide us with much more information than we currently have about who is seeking to import such chemicals, and in what amounts. So the concern about verification, while valid, I believe has been more than adequately addressed. We must go into this treaty with our eyes open, aware that it will not detect every violation. But why would we deprive ourselves of the extremely useful tools and information this treaty would provide on the grounds that they are not fool-proof? It would be incredibly short-sighted to do so. Another concern that has been raised involves the potential theft of commercial or trade secrets. Nothing in the CWC or its implementation language require the United States, or any U.S. company, to provide any confidential business information to any foreign party. I am concerned about how this issue has been addressed in this implementation legislation. Under this bill, the American taxpayer must pay for the theft of confidential business information by foreign industrial spies. I think the better course is for the injured business to first take reasonable steps to seek compensation from the spy who stole the information or from the foreign company which used the stolen information to gain a competitive advantage, before going after the U.S. Treasury. I am hopeful that this issue can be addressed in the conference on this legislation, and I appreciate the commitment of the Senator from Arizona to continue to work with me on this. Mr. President, I think this debate really comes down to whether or not one supports international arms control agreements. Many of the criticisms of the CWC and implementation legislation were levied against all previous successful arms control treaties, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the START Treaty. Those who worry that the United States will weaken its vigilance in our efforts to guard against the threat of chemical weapons have actually done us a service. I believe the intensity of this debate has helped to ensure that we will never allow ourselves to believe that the treaty by itself is enough. We will follow the course that President Reagan did--a strong national defense and arms control agreements with verification. The CWC is not a panacea, and none of its proponents believes it is. It will not by itself banish chemical weapons from the earth, but it would result in the destruction of much of the world's chemical weapons stocks, and provide us with a valuable set of tools that would significantly strengthen our ability to monitor and defend against the threat of chemical weapons. I am very pleased that both sides of this debate were able to work together and come to what I feel is, overall, a good agreement. I urge my colleagues to vote for the CWC Implementation Legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the majority leader for calling up these judicial nominations for votes by the Senate, and in particular for calling up Judge Jeffrey Miller, who has been nominated to the U.S. district court for the southern district of California in San Diego. It was my distinct pleasure to recommend Judge Jeffrey Miller to the President. I feel strongly he is extremely well qualified for the position. Judge Miller has been serving for 10 years as a superior court judge in San Diego, having been appointed by a Republican Governor, George Deukmejian, in 1987. Judge Miller previously spent 19 years with the State attorney general's office. He earned both his undergraduate and law degree from the University of California at Los Angeles in the 1960's. He first devoted himself to public service by working in the Peace Corps for a year. During his experience in the Los Angeles attorney general's office from 1968 to 1974, he briefed approximately 60 cases on behalf of the people, urging affirmation of trial court convictions before the court of appeals in more than half of those cases. Of those cases, published opinions were issued in 13, all but 1 affirming trial court convictions. From 1974 to 1987, Judge Miller supervised attorneys and carried his own caseload in the tort and condemnation section of the attorney general's office, which oversaw the San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside areas. Here he represented the State in matters ranging from class action lawsuits to California Highway Patrol officers sued for false arrest. Judge Miller has argued two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases were argued successfully on behalf of the State. His lengthy and distinguished experience as a prosecutor prepared him well for his appointment in 1987 as a superior court judge. Since then, he has handled many sensitive high-profile criminal and civil cases including two murder cases where the juries rendered convictions with full sentences. This has prepared him extremely well for the criminal and civil caseload facing the southern district judges. Simply put, Judge Miller is one of the most respected and trusted judicial figures in the San Diego area. He is both fair minded and thoughtful, yet remains tough and decisive. His bipartisan support and solid judicial background make him a strong nominee for confirmation. Among those who have endorsed Judge Miller's nomination are those who know the judge's work best: Presiding Judge James R. Milliken of the superior court described Judge Miller as ``a superb judge'' and ``a fine, insightful person. He understands legal issues and problems and does an absolutely wonderful job in the courtroom.'' Judge Anthony Joseph, a colleague on the San Diego Superior Court, wrote: ``His positive outlook and pragmatic approach are essential in this era.'' Judge Daniel Kremer of the U.S. court of appeals noted that Judge Miller ``is particularly well known for his ability to handle complex cases efficiently and fairly.'' Retired Justice Charles Froehlich, Jr., of the court of appeals said: ``He is a person of very high ethical standards. He would indeed be a credit to the local district court bench.'' Judge Judith Haller of the court of appeals wrote: ``Judge Miller would be an outstanding selection and one which would be extremely well received by members of our legal community. He is one of those rare individuals who receives unanimous praise from all who have worked with him professionally or who know him personally.'' Judge Miller is an active member of the California Judges Association. He has been elected to the executive committee and served on that committee as supervising judge of the north county branch of the San Diego Superior Court. He has also chaired the joint jury committee and the rules committee. Let me conclude by saying how important it is to fill the vacancies on the southern district bench. Presiding Judge Judith Keep has provided some startling information about workload in the southern district, which I would like to submit for the Record. There are currently two vacancies on the southern district bench. The six judges now serving in the southern district faced a caseload of 5,674 cases in 1996. Five years earlier, the total filings in this district were 2,914. That represents a 95-percent increase in the workload from 1991 to 1996 for the southern district judges. In addition, the vacancy Judge Miller would fill has been vacant since December 28, 1994--more than 26 months. Judge Gordon Thompson took senior status on December 28, 1994. This vacancy has only made the workload on the southern district more intense. So I urge my colleagues to address the workload problem by confirming this eminently qualified candidate, Judge Jeffrey Miller. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Louisiana very much. It has been a very special privilege for me to work with the Senator on the centrist coalition. I am not in the leadership of this body, but I would be hopeful that the leadership would hear this. I think this budget agreement--on our side, we have said every time we have had the debate on the balanced budget amendment, we do not need an amendment to the Constitution. Let us just sit down and do it. Well, we make a mockery of our own statements if we do not sit down and do it right now. And we have that opportunity to do it in this agreed-upon compromise. So I would be hopeful that it might be possible to put together some guarantee both for the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Massachusetts, who have worked so hard, both of them. I have never seen the chairman of the Judiciary Committee as passionate as he has been in the Chamber in the last 2 hours. He obviously believes. The Senator from Massachusetts has a long history--the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, other bills, his chairmanship and his ranking status on the Labor Committee. I think we know his commitment and we know he will be there for working families and for children at any time. I hope there can be some appreciation in this body for the need to have an agreement to honor the agreement that was made and to once and for all say to the American public we have come together as two political parties. We have balanced this budget by the end of 5 years, and we can all be proud of working together.