Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished floor leader. I very much appreciate the 5 minutes. Madam President, I have watched this debate now for the last couple of hours from my office. I think it is an important debate. In a sense it is a bellwether debate. I think the case which the proponents for the Hatch-Kennedy legislation have made is very clear and a strong case. Probably no State would be more helped by the Hatch-Kennedy legislation than my own State, the State of California. I had the privilege of working with the Senator from Louisiana as our Democratic leader, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, as a Republican leader on the centrist coalition. Over a period of about a year and a half in that work I have come to the conclusion that the only way to balance the budget is in a bipartisan way; that if it is a Democratic budget, Republicans vote against it; and, if it is a Republican budget, Democrats vote against it. Therefore, it has always seemed to me that the only way you do this is to sit down and work the numbers out together and come up with a plan. What do you know, Madam President, that has happened. And it has happened because of the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee. It has happened because of the President. It has happened because of the majority and minority leaders of both sides of this great House giving their imprimatur to the process and participating. After 4 or 5 months of discussions there is an agreement. It is not everything that everybody wants, but if you believe, as I do, that the only way to balance this budget is to do this, then this becomes a very significant debate. I would like to vote for Hatch- Kennedy. It would help my State. We have--let me give you the exact figure--1.7 million uninsured children in California. This is a big deal. I would like to vote for it. If this bill is taken down, though, it is a major commitment and statement that this body cannot work together, that both sides of this body cannot solve what is a critical problem facing this Nation. Every week, I have a meeting of constituents, about 100, 125 people, who just happen to come by the office, and I show them a small pie of outlays in the year 2003, that if we do not do something, what happens. The result of the small pie is that you have almost 75 percent of the outlays of the Federal Government consumed by net interest on the debt and entitlements. And by then, you could eliminate all discretionary spending and you cannot solve the problem. Well, we have not gone the whole way, but this bill before this House goes a major way in solving the problem. I stood with the President in Baltimore. I said I would support this, as did a number of people on our side. The Senator from Louisiana was there. We stood and we remarked how close the numbers in this budget bill are to the numbers of the centrist coalition. So we felt in some way that our year and a half, or whatever it has been, I say to the Senator from Louisiana, has been worthwhile. I am very concerned. I am very concerned that this bill will be taken down if this amendment is successful. I would like to vote for this amendment. So I am looking for a way, and I hope that both the minority leader and the majority leader might in some way hear this, that there might be a time when we could have a separate vote agreed to on Hatch- Kennedy and move ahead with this budget reconciliation bill at this time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So I say to the leadership, please do something. Let us get another time to consider the Hatch-Kennedy bill so that we can move on and be very proud of this body. I thank the Chair for its indulgence.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Domenici, Lautenberg, Boxer, Chafee, DeWine, D'Amato, and Kennedy am offering the sense of the Senate that would require the Finance Committee to allow elderly legal immigrants to continue receiving SSI during their redetermination period. Under the current budget agreement, all elderly would be cut off of SSI as of October 1, 1997. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the bill managers on both sides for their recognition of the devastating impact this budget agreement has on over 400,000 elderly legal immigrants, and encouraging the Senate to provide an important interim provision. While I support the budget resolution's broad budget balancing framework, I have expressed over and over again, my deep concerns over its failure to restore SSI for over 400,000 elderly legal immigrants, 30 percent of which are over the age of 75 and who will be cut off from SSI as of October 1, 1997. The current budget agreement, falls short of what is needed to keep the elderly immigrants from losing their life supporting benefits. The Budget Agreement provides: SSI benefits for disabled legal immigrants who are disabled and were in the country as of August 22, 1996. SSI benefits for those who became disabled and got on the rolls between August 22, 1996 to June 1, 1997. The budget agreement bans: SSI for most elderly legal immigrants, even those elderly immigrants who rely on SSI for survival. Food Stamps for most legal immigrants. Although restoring SSI for the disabled is an important first step to a major flaw in the Welfare Reform bill passed by Congress last year, the elderly legal immigrants who depend on SSI will still lose their benefits under the agreement. Under the current agreement, an 83-year-old woman with no family, who speaks little or no English, will be just as homeless as one who is disabled when she loses her SSI benefits. What is she supposed to do, get a job? Under Welfare Reform, approximately 725,000 elderly, blind, and disabled legal immigrants could lose SSI benefits on August 22 of this year. Under the budget agreement: 42.5 percent or 307,630 disabled legal immigrants who were receiving SSI as of the date of enactment of the Welfare Bill would continue receiving SSI. However, for 417,360 or 57.5 percent of elderly legal immigrants who are currently receiving SSI would be cut off as of October 1, 1997. The President estimates that 66 percent of the elderly legal immigrants who will be cut off from SSI initially could be recertified under the disabled category. However, due to what I believe is an unintended mistake, even those elderly legal immigrants who are also disabled would be cut off from SSI on October 1, 1997. The elderly would become eligible for SSI only if they requalify after the cutoff. CBO estimates that it would take 6 months or longer to rectify all the elderly legal immigrants currently on the rolls. During the recertification period, no elderly legal immigrant would be receiving SSI. How will they survive for 6 months? They will mostly become homeless or fall onto County General Assistance rolls. The impact of the SSI ban for elderly legal immigrants will be devastating and immediate, especially in the high immigrant States. In California, 163,900 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI. In New York, 65,340 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI. In Texas, 32,640 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI. In Florida, 44,310 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI. In Illinois, 13,360 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI. In Massachusetts, 13,410 elderly legal immigrants may lose their SSI. Come October 1, 1997, we will see hundreds of thousands of elderly legal immigrants, of which 30 percent are over 75 years old, and who may also be disabled, thrown out into the streets and homeless. Under the Budget Agreement, 137,728 or 34 percent of elderly legal immigrants nationwide will lose their SSI permanently because they will not be able to qualify as disabled; 55,726 elderly legal immigrants in California will lose their SSI; 22,215 elderly legal immigrants in New York will lose their SSI; 11,076 elderly legal immigrants in Texas will lose their SSI; 15,065 elderly legal immigrants in Florida will lose their SSI; 4,542 elderly legal immigrants in Illinois will lose their SSI; and 4,425 elderly legal immigrants in Massachusetts will lose their SSI. The alternatives for these elderly legal immigrants are bleak--if they do not have family who can care for them, they either end up in a homeless shelter or end up on County General Assistance rolls. Senator John Chafee and I have previously introduced a bill that would restore SSI benefits to all elderly, blind or disabled legal immigrants who were receiving SSI prior to the passage of the welfare reform bill. We propose that no current recipient should be thrown off from their SSI benefits. We agree that for those coming into the country after the enactment date, we ban SSI and require instead, the sponsors to be responsible for their family members. I believe that this is a responsible action that must be taken by Congress to correct a serious flaw in the welfare bill. Allowing the elderly to continue receiving their SSI until they can be recertified is the first step but not the final solution. The final solution is to provide for all elderly and disabled legal immigrants who were on SSI as of August 22, 1996, to continue receiving their SSI. As we go forward in the budget reconciliation process and final passage of the fiscal year 1998 budget, I urge my colleagues to support the Chafee-Feinstein provision that protects the elderly legal immigrants who were getting SSI at the date of enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an SSA table be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida for this opportunity. One of my great pleasures in the Senate has been to chair the Senate Cancer Coalition with Senator Mack, and in that capacity, we have had four hearings. We have listened and heard a great deal about cancer. I think, Mr. President, if you ask the American people two questions about Federal spending, in two areas, and if you asked, ``How much do we spend as a portion of our budget on foreign operations?'' the American people would think it is very high. If you ask them, ``What do you think we spend on research for health?'' I think they would say it is a great deal. In fact, it is less than one percent of our budget. Today, at the NIH only 28 percent of the grant applications are funded. That is down from 30 percent in 1992. We are doing less. Only 20 percent of new grants are funded. How would NIH use more funds? They would use the funds in areas that show scientific promise: Brain disorders: areas such as neural development, neural degeneration, with emphasis on Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. New Therapies: drugs to combat cancer and AIDS; bioengineering to repair damaged tissues; treatments to improve care at the end of life. Genetics: better identification of inherited mutations which contribute to cancer risk; better identification of environmental impact of genetic mutations. Now let's turn to the National Cancer Institute. The National Cancer Institute in fiscal year 1997 can only fund 26 percent of grant applications. NCI funded 32 percent in 1992. They are down in 4 years from funding 32 percent to 26 percent of grant applications. General Norman Schwarzkopf, a prostate cancer patient, said: ``During the past decade, Federal funding for cancer research has, after adjusting for inflation, increased only one percent.'' Mr. President, 7.4 million Americans have a history of cancer; 1.3 million cases will be diagnosed this year and 560,000 Americans will die. But we spend one tenth of one cent of every Federal dollar on cancer research. On May 7, NCI Director Dr. Klausner said NCI could use double its current funding. How would NCI use additional funds? First, experts say they could increase the testing and search for causes of cancer. Second, more people could participate in cancer trials. We could increase access of eligible adult cancer patients participating in clinical trials. Today, only 2 percent of eligible cancer patients can participate and we could increase that to 20 percent. NIH could increase the number of cancer centers from 55 to 75. Cancer researchers could improve earlier detection of cancer and expand studies of environmental risk factors for cancer, as was urged by experts at a recent hearing of our Senate Cancer Coalition. NCI could monitor more people to better understand the impact of treatment on cancer patients. Today, NCI can monitor only 10 percent of the American population with cancer, a sample that is too small. More monitoring can yield more information about the outcome of treatments. Mr. President, NCI has identified five important new research areas that could realize the large dividends that are described in NCI's ``bypass budget.'' What is the bypass budget? The Congress requested the National Cancer Institute to annually identify, in their professional judgment, their promising scientific unmet needs. Here is what they are: First, Cancer genetics: Within 5 years, the goal is to identify every major human gene predisposing to cancer. Second, NCI could increase animal models of human cancers that would allow testing in animals of early detection, prevention, and treatment strategies. Third, NCI could improve detection technologies, to sharpen the sensitivity of technologies and smaller numbers of tumor cells. Fourth, NCI could improve developmental diagnostics to better understand the difference in and the properties of tumors, how they change, how they respond to treatment and thereby improve the treatments. And fifth, NCI could increase what is called investigator- initiated research by 30 percent, to capitalize on new ideas and talent all across the country. This would increase research conducted in universities and labs. With our aging population growing, our research needs will grow. People are living longer. By the year 2000, the number of people aged 75 to 84 will increase by one-third, to 12.3 million people. People over 85, the fastest growing segment of our population, will grow 70 percent, to 4.9 million. One-third of U.S. health care spending today goes to people over age 65. These costs, left unabated, will grow exponentially. The rising aged population will tax Medicare, Medicaid and the health system overall. NIH is working on research to delay the diseases and disabilities of aging. Let me give some examples. Mr. President, 4 million Americans today have Alzheimer's disease, a degenerative disorder that can leave people unable to function on their own. By delaying the onset of Alzheimer's for 5 years, we can save $50 billion annually. Half of all people over age 65 have symptoms of arthritis. Osteoarthritis costs $8 billion annually. By delaying the onset by 5 years, we can save $4 billion. Hearing loss: 30 percent of adults age 65 to 75, and 40 percent of those over 75, have some degree of hearing impairment. Delaying the onset by just 5 years could save $15 billion annually. What is my point? Research is cost effective. We need more health research because we have diseases and disorders for which there is no cure. AIDS has surpassed accidents as the leading killer of young adults. It is now the leading cause of death among Americans age 25 to 44. The prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased over the past 35 years. Just pick up Time magazine and you see that asthma rates jumped 58 percent, from 1982 to 1992 for children, and asthma is the leading cause of school absences from chronic conditions. 40,000 infants die each year from devastating diseases, and 20 million Americans have rare diseases for which there are few effective treatments. Seven to ten percent of children are learning disabled. The rate of low birth-weight among African-American children is 13 percent, compared to 6.2 percent for white Americans. One condition that increases the risk of premature delivery is bacterial vaginosis, and African Americans have a higher rate. So we can alleviate suffering, find treatments, cure diseases, if we have the research, if we devote the resources to it. The irony is that most people, 75 percent of the people in America, would pay higher taxes for this kind of research. I contend that increased research will reduce health care costs. Let me give some examples of annual economic costs. Cancer, $104 billion annually; heart disease, $128 billion; Alzheimer's, $100 billion; diabetes, $138 billion; mental disorders, $148 billion; stroke, $30 billion. A 5-year delay in Alzheimer's--again, $50 million savings. Savings in delaying the onset of stroke would be $15 billion. And a delay in the onset of Parkinson's disease would save $3 billion annually. For every $1 spent on measles/mumps/rubella vaccine, $21 is saved. For diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine, $29 is saved. This is prevention. And research can bring us prevention. Hip fractures, common among the elderly, are a leading cause of nursing home admissions. They account for one in every 5 admissions. NIH research found that estrogen therapy reduces osteoporosis and hip fractures. In 1991, 1 year alone, the reduction in fractures in women taking estrogen replacement saved $333 million in these nursing home admission costs. Medicaid and Medicare: 56 percent of nursing home costs are paid by these programs. They total over $44 billion annually. These costs are rising. We all know this from our budget deficit debate. By delaying the onset of chronic aging-related illnesses, spending for nursing home care could be cut by $35 billion. What is my point? My point is health research makes sense for many reasons, but we are not doing as well as we could. The scientific community has repeatedly pointed out that we are neglecting research. The Institute of Medicine has described U.S. clinical health research as, ``in a state of crisis.'' Without adequate support, we will see a serious deficiency of clinical expertise, a reduction in effective clinical interventions, increases in human suffering and disability, and increases in the costs of health care. A June 1995 national survey by Research America found, as I said, that 75 percent of the public would pay more for medical research. This is one of the reasons why Senator Mack, Senator D'Amato, Senator Reid, Senator Johnson and I will be proposing a tax checkoff for the IRS form, giving Americans the opportunity to use a checkoff to contribute to cancer research. This could be an effective public-private partnership. It is one of the reasons why we are also for a breast cancer stamp, which would have 1 additional cent, and that 1 cent would go to breast cancer research. Mr. President, 94 percent of Americans believe it is important for the United States to maintain its role as a world leader in medical research. We cannot do it if health research is less than 1 percent of our budget. We cannot do it when good grants are turned down because the funding isn't there. Only 3 cents of every health care dollar spent in this country is used for research--3 cents. NIH's budget is less than 1 percent. I made my case. Medical science is on the cutting edge of many important discoveries. It is a time when we should be nourishing research. This is not the time to backslide. I urge my colleagues to support the Mack-Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor and I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that I be allotted such time as I may consume in the remaining time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This bill, the bill before us, says the woman's health doesn't matter, it is of no consideration. I must tell you, to me a woman's health matters. It should be of direct consideration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. So I will vote no on this bill, and I really regret that this day is upon us. I thank the Chair. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe the California Medical Association still represents the largest group of physicians anywhere in this Nation. No one seems to care about the Constitution, that this bill constitutes a direct challenge to the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court held that in Roe, a woman has a constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It set for the different trimesters, some specific limitations on that right, that before viability, abortion cannot be banned; after viability, the Government can prohibit abortion, except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I myself find this a sad day. In a sense, it is a watershed debate, and I very much fear it is the first major legislative thrust to set this Nation back 30 years with respect to freedom of choice. I am going to speak about what freedom of choice really means. Essentially, to me it means that Government will not become involved in these most intimate decisions that a woman has to make, not become involved in legislating a woman's reproductive system, what she must do, when she must do it, and how she must do it, but that government will essentially leave those intimate decisions to the physician, to a woman, to her faith, and to medicine. And here we have the Congress of the United States essentially saying that every woman in this country who may find out in her third trimester that she has a horribly, severely deformed child with anomalies incompatible with life, and if that child can be born, even if it is a major threat to her health, she must deliver that child. Unfortunately, no Member of this body is going to be present, no Member of this body is going to hold that mother's hand and tell her that it is OK if she jeopardizes her health perhaps for the rest of her life. No Member of this Congress is going to be present in that delivery room and see a child who is incompatible with life, a baby that may not have a brain, a baby that may have a brain outside the head or other major physical anomalies. No Member of this Congress will be there to see that child delivered to live an hour, 6 hours, a day, 4 days and then die, and the woman's health may be seriously, adversely harmed in a major way for the rest of her life. No one will be there. No one will say, ``I'm so sorry, I didn't know about you when I cast this vote.'' We are all accustomed to legislating, and when we legislate, we legislate for a majority, not for the exception. We legislate with some knowledge, or should, of what we are doing. But I think in this case, it is a very skewed knowledge. It is based on a case that the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania put forward of a young woman who I believe could have and would have been born in any event and saying that this one case typifies all mothers that we are talking about. In fact, it doesn't. I must express my profound dismay. My father was chief of surgery at the University of California Medical Center. My husband, Bert Feinstein, was a distinguished neurosurgeon. And all my life, I have lived in a medical family. As I read the AMA's letter, essentially what they are doing is providing some protection for doctors, but they are doing nothing to see that a woman's health is protected, and I feel very badly about that. Both my husband and my father were members of the American Medical Association. I take some heart in letters from the California Medical Association which indicate their opposition to this legislation and clearly state that they believe the amended legislation before us today falls very short of the mark. They indicate their strong opposition to this bill. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record two letters I received from the California Medical Association.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, a resolution expressing concern over the continuing deterioration of the human rights situation in Afghanistan and calling on the United States and the international community to redouble efforts to bring peace to that war-torn land. Indeed, with yesterday's announcement that the Taliban militia have apparently seized power in the northwestern province of Faryab, it is especially fitting that we consider this resolution today. I am particularly concerned about the situation in Afghanistan because, with the seizure of power by the Taliban militia, it appears that another tragic chapter in the story of the suppression of women's rights is being written. Worse still, this situation has unfolded with scant international attention, let alone condemnation. Afghanistan has been embroiled in an almost constant state of war for close to two decades. From 1979 to 1989 the Mujahedeen fought and finally outlasted the invading army of the Soviet Union. Then the Muslim warriors turned on each other. Since 1979 more than 1 million of Afghanistan's 16 million inhabitants have been killed, and millions more have become refugees. The capitol city of Kabul has been obliterated by the factional fighting, with over 45,000 civilians killed, and almost every prominent building damaged or destroyed. In the last 2 years of the seemingly endless Afghan civil war the Taliban--who grew from a movement of former religious students and Islamic clerics along the Afghan-Pakistani border --have emerged as the strongest of the five major factions. After beating back its rivals, the Taliban movement now control more than two-thirds of Afghanistan, including Kabul, which they captured last September. With the ascendency of the Taliban, Afghanistan is experiencing a new conflict: What some warriors call true Islam, others, including the U.N. General Assembly, say is an abuse of human rights. Although the peculiar version of Islamic religious Sharia law espoused by the Taliban has fallen harshly on many in Afghanistan--in Kandahar this past July a man and woman accused of adultery were stoned in public, men have been forced to grow beards, and Taliban militia members harass men in the streets if they do not rush to the mosques for prayers--women, in particular, have come to feel the full brunt of the new extremism. Afghani women have been banned from work. Women have been banished from school. Reportedly, Taliban soldiers have been so threatening that some women have not left their homes for months. But there is nothing in Afghan tradition that can account for the Taliban phenomenon. The type of secret-police state that they are fostering and the widespread denial of women's basic human rights has little precedent in Afghan culture or history. The new brand of extremism fostered by the Taliban and their gross violations of women's basic human rights have pushed an already war- torn and war-weary Afghanistan to the brink of disaster. It is estimated, for example, that close to 500,000 to 800,000 war widows have been forced out of their jobs and have no opportunity to earn money for food, clothing, or shelter for either themselves or their children. In Kabul's stark ruins hordes of children--12,000 according to one estimate--paw each day through the shattered bricks and masonry in search of scrap metal that can be sold. And their mothers, many who previously worked in professional jobs, have been reduced to begging in the hopes of being able to feed their children. The ban on women in the workplace has also compounded the already precarious food situation. With the war having killed more than 9 million head of cattle and sheep and destroyed much of Afghanistan's croplands, irrigation systems, and roads, the average Afghan has a caloric intake equal to less than a pound of bread a day. Relief needs are so critical that the United Nations expects to have to feed one in five Kabul residents this year. Ironically, many of the relief and other local humanitarian agencies find that they can no longer hire local women--many of whom are highly skilled. An orphanage in Kabul has reportedly lost all but 100 of its 450 employees, decimating its ability to provide food, education, and medical care to thousands of children. In fact, in light of the continuing conflict, U.N. development agencies in Afghanistan have recently put operations on hold until an assessment of the situation is complete. It is little surprise that a recent U.N. report on human rights in Afghanistan concluded that ``deprivation of basic rights and freedoms'' are coupled with ``newly emerging threats to basic rights,'' especially women's. The silence from the world's capitols in light of these systematic abuses has been deafening. Former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali warned the Taliban that the United Nations objects to the extreme discrimination practiced against women. The European Union's Minister to the U.N. Food Conference expressed ``deep concern'' over the situation. Theresa Loar, the State Department's senior coordinator for women's issues has assured us that the situation in Afghanistan is ``very high on the United States agenda.'' In the nuanced language of diplomacy, these milquetoast statements are the equivalent of an international shrug of the shoulders. Where is the world's outrage? Fully half of Afghanistan's population cannot work for a living or be educated. The world has responded by issuing mild denunciations and turning away. This is unacceptable. In calling for the President to monitor the human rights situation in Afghanistan, and the situation of women in particular, this resolution calls on the United States to play a leading role in the international community in raising the salience of respect for women's rights. For too long and in too many other tragic circumstances we have remained silent, placing women's rights on a second tier of concerns in our conduct of international affairs. Other Muslim nations with which the United States enjoys good relations and which respect women's rights, such as Turkey and Indonesia, can provide much needed leadership in this area, and assist the United States in our diplomatic efforts. It is incumbent upon us to call upon the nations of the international community --regardless of religious persuasion or cultural heritage--to take a strong stand in recognition of fundamental rights of women. Because the United States lacks significant influence in Afghanistan, this resolution calls on the administration to urge the other states in the region who do have influence to bring pressure to bear on the Taliban. In particular Pakistan--which has both elected the first female Prime Minister in the Islamic world and provided assistance to the Taliban-- should cease to provide patronage to the Taliban and take a position at the forefront of international efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. This resolution also recognizes that the only long-term solution to the plight of the Afghani people is to help bring an end to the conflict that has created the Taliban, and to begin the long process of rebuilding a stable and prosperous Afghanistan. Food security, let alone the sort of long-term economic redevelopment that will be necessary to repair Afghanistan's battered infrastructure will not be possible unless both men and women are able to take up gainful employment and have equal access to educational opportunities. To this end, this resolution calls for the members of the international community to cease activities, such as supplying weapons or financial assistance, to any of the warring factions in Afghanistan and encourages international efforts, especially that of the U.N. Special Mission, in procuring a durable and lasting peace in Afghanistan. The treatment of Afghanistan's women should not be ignored. To continue to do so will send a dangerous message to others around the world who might violate the human rights of ethnic or religious minorities, or their own female populations. I urge my colleagues to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, and send an important message to the Taliban and the entire international community regarding women's rights.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. When drug cartels are brazen enough to kill Government officials and church leaders in cold blood, the drug problem is not our problem alone. When the cartels are operating with such impunity that they do not hesitate to bribe officials on both sides of the border and, as ``Nightline'' has just pointed out, to buy up businesses along the border, the drug problem is not our problem alone. So the drug problem is a problem for both sides. What we need is a cooperative effort of both nations acting as full partners. Neither the United States nor Mexico can win this battle alone. The report that the President has now committed to provide to the Congress on September 1 will be an important indicator of whether or not Mexico has taken the decision to approach this terrible problem in a cooperative partnership and in a fully committed way. Unless the report can cite significant and demonstrable progress in cooperation, the answer, very sadly, will be that Mexico has not yet taken such a decision. I hope that is not the case on September 1. To me, this report is very meaningful. The point I want to make is that I believe the expectation of a majority of this body is that there be tangible and substantial steps taken that are visible, discernible, and real to combat the cartels and to stop the corruption, the bribing, and the sort of total disregard for law which is now characteristic of the situation. I, for one, will watch the extradition picture especially carefully. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the May 14 letter from the President be printed in the Record, I thank the Presiding Officer for his forbearance, and I yield the floor. The White House, Washington, DC, May 14, 1997. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Dianne: Thank you for your letter regarding counterdrug cooperation between the United States and Mexico. I want to take this opportunity to tell you about my visit to Mexico and the efforts my Administration is making to advance our counternarcotics strategy in a bipartisan spirit. President Zedillo and I had a full and frank discussion on ways we can achieve greater progress toward attacking the abuse and trafficking of illegal drugs. The Binational Drug Threat Assessment Report that General McCaffrey and Attorney General Madrazo presented to us sets forth in plain terms a common view of all aspects of the drug phenomena striking at our societies. On that basis, President Zedillo and I agreed to form an Alliance Against Drugs, which commits our two governments to prepare a common counterdrug strategy this year to achieve 16 specific objectives. These objectives, which reflect your own thoughtful contributions, include reducing demand through anti-drug information campaigns directed at our youth, bringing the leaders of criminal organizations to justice through strengthened law enforcement cooperation, attacking corruption, fully implementing laws to combat money laundering and increasing interdiction and eradication. Achieving all these objectives in the short term is unrealistic, but I believe we can make progress and that President Zedillo's effort to restructure Mexico's anti-drug forces is an essential starting point. I want to keep the Congress informed of the progress we are making toward achieving the objectives set forth in my 1997 National Drug Control Strategy and the U.S.-Mexico Alliance Against Drugs. ONDCP Director McCaffrey will provide further details on these issues to Members of both Houses in the near future. My Administration will also provide the Congress by September 1, 1997, a report covering each of the issues contained in the Senate resolution passed in March as elaborated in your recent letter and discussions with my Administration. In addition, we will provide reports, as you have requested, commenting on prospects for multilateral hemispheric cooperation and on the feasibility of enhancing truck inspections at the border. I appreciate your continued efforts to work with my Administration to ensure that our children face a future free of drugs and the crime they breed. Sincerely, Bill Clinton.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I ask for 1 minute to wrap up, please?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the senior Senator from Georgia for his leadership in this matter. This has been a difficult area, I think, for both of us, because I believe we both respect Mexico. We know that Mexico is an ally, a friend, a neighbor, and we want to see relations become much better and much more fully developed. We do not want to see a rift continuing to develop, so, we have worked with that spirit in mind. Yet, one can want this equal partnership but also continue to point out the facts of what is happening in our States and our region, and particularly along the southwest border. So I thank the Senator from Georgia for his leadership. It has been, as he knows, a great pleasure for me to be able to work with him. It has been a wonderful experience. We will keep it going. I also want to extend my thanks to the President and to the National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger. Both Senator Coverdell, as he indicated, and I--we have met separately with the administration. We have both made the same request that this report, described by our Senate resolution, be rendered by the administration to this body. Let me begin by saying the administration could easily have said no. There is no legislative vehicle that accompanies this request. But they did agree, in our negotiations, to honor this request, and they have kept that commitment and, in effect, will produce the report on September 1. I am heartened by that. As my colleague just spoke, we are heartened because we hope it will be a new day of cooperation between the executive and the legislative branches in what is rapidly becoming the soft underbelly of this Nation as well as the Mexican nation, and that of course is drugs. As many know, I have a bill which is now in the Judiciary Committee's bill called the Gang Violence Act. What we have discovered is that drugs are fueling a new extension of gangs working across the States. One of the steps I am hopeful this body will be taking is passage of that bill and, in essence, applying to street gangs, who are organized and moving across State lines, the same racketeering statutes that we would apply to Mafia-type organized crime--expanding the Travel Act, putting in asset seizures and forfeitures, effectively doubling Federal penalties for Americans who participate in major drug trafficking, gun running, and other criminal activity, across State lines. So, we will take major steps in this Nation to combat our problem, which is one of demand for drugs. The report that we have asked the administration to produce will deal with Mexico's progress in the following areas: Efforts to combat drug cartels--four big Mexican drug cartels are operating with impunity beyond our border; bilateral law enforcement cooperation--we are very interested in a partnership between our Drug Enforcement Administration and Mexican drug authorities, but to have our agents in Mexico unable to arm themselves makes no sense, particularly with the record of assassination that the cartels have established; improved border enforcement--obvious; extradition of Mexican nationals wanted in the United States on drug charges; implementation of money-laundering laws; increased crop eradication; rooting out corruption; and improved air and maritime cooperation. All of these points are elucidated in our Senate resolution requesting this report, and the administration has agreed, unilaterally, to provide it. For that I am very thankful. Let me talk about one area, and that area is extradition. This is an area which for me is a litmus test as to whether there is cooperation. I want to give one case that was just written up in the May 13, 1997 Los Angeles Times by Anne-Marie O'Connor. It is not a traditional case, in terms of names like Amado Carillo-Fuentes--well-known cartel names. This case deals with a family by the name of Reynoso: Antonio Reynoso and two brothers, Jose and Jesus Reynoso. They were indicted among 22 alleged members of a vast ring that transported cocaine from Mexico to Los Angeles to Chicago and to New Jersey, using Lear jets, boilers, and canned vegetables. They are named in an extradition request presented by this country to the Mexican Government. Last September, Jose Reynoso pled guilty on a drug-smuggling charge. Both Antonio and Jesus are under indictment for conspiracy to import and possess cocaine with intent to distribute, as well as for money laundering. In the last 2 years, they have built a magnificent home within a stone's throw of the border between San Diego and Tijuana. There is a small picture in the Los Angeles Times, which shows the border fence and then this drug lord's home right across the border fence. I want to describe it to you for a moment. I am quoting from the Los Angeles Times. To their profound annoyance, Justice Department officials say, Reynoso, 53, is putting the finishing touches on an ostentatious walled residence that backs right up to the U.S. border. If he wanted to, he could hit a tennis ball into San Diego County. The article goes on to describe the mansion: Encircled by a forbidding wall that ascends 35 feet, chateau Reynoso rises like a ship over San Diego County, not far from a binational gulch called ``Smuggler's Canyon.'' [Where I have been.] With its turret, a glass pool atrium and a dazzling green roof worthy of Oz, it is so conspicuous that Border Patrol agents sometimes point it out to visitors. U.S. law enforcement officers note its fortress architecture and its protected position at the end of a narrow cul-de-sac. So close to the United States, they complain, yet so far from a San Diego courtroom. ``I wish we could just tunnel back and grab him,'' a Justice Department attorney said. Then it goes on to say: . . . Reynoso's name has appeared on lists of traffickers given to Mexican authorities by United States Attorney General Janet Reno. But no discernible action has been taken. U.S. officials have no indications that Reynoso is even a wanted man in Mexico. This same family was the mastermind behind a huge tunnel, 60 feet below the ground, between Otay Mesa and San Diego. This tunnel had electricity, it had air conditioning, and it was used by this family to smuggle drugs under the border into the United States. It was one of the most sophisticated tunnels, really, ever known. This family spent $1.1 million buying the lot in Otay Mesa where the passage's exit was to be located. This is a clear indication, I believe, of what Senator Coverdell and I will be looking for in terms of actions taken by the Mexican Government. We will have another round on certification. It is important to both of us, as well as, I believe, to a majority of this body, that there be actions taken in this equal partnership between the United States and Mexico. Let me just summarize. The response from a good friend, a neighbor, and an ally that drugs are exclusively a U.S. problem is simply not adequate. We admit that we have a demand problem. We have taken steps to strengthen our laws, to allocate funds for prevention programs. Still, we know we must do more and we are willing to say we will and do it. But when Mexican nationals run meth labs throughout California--and over 700 meth labs have been seized by the State Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement in California alone in the last year, 700 of them--and Mexico refuses to enforce its border, the drug problem is not our problem alone.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, consistent with my remarks made both on the 14th and today, it will be my intention to vote against the Daschle substitute amendment to H.R. 1122. I made the argument that I believe both H.R. 1122 as well as the Daschle substitute are unconstitutional. With respect to the Daschle amendment, my reading of it indicates that, even if a severely, horribly deformed fetus were capable of only 1 hour of life outside the womb, a woman would be forced to carry that pregnancy to full term and deliver that child, without consideration of what may be severely debilitating consequences to her health. For me that is not enlightened public policy, and I cannot support it. Additionally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to me from Laurence Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard University, which more definitively spells out the constitutional vulnerability of the Daschle amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I see the Senator on his feet. Perhaps I will yield at this time and reserve the remainder of my time for a wrap-up comment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And how much time resides with the other side?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time remains on our side?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe Senator Dorgan would like to be recognized for the purpose of a unanimous-consent agreement. I have no objection, if there is no objection.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senator from Illinois will consume.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor. Privilege of the Floor

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a substitute amendment to H.R. 1122, which, as I said, is cosponsored by Senators Boxer and Moseley-Braun. The amendment we offer is presented as an alternative to the House-passed bill on so-called partial-birth abortions and as an alternative to the Daschle substitute as well. My colleagues and I offer this amendment for one reason: We very much believe that any legislation put forward by Congress that restricts access to abortions or to a particular medical procedure must be constitutional and must contain sufficient protections for a woman's health. The Feinstein-Boxer-Moseley-Braun bill provides that protection while instituting a ban on post-viability abortions similar to that in the Daschle bill. Our bill does three things. First, it prohibits all abortions after a fetus has become viable or able to live independently outside of the mother's womb. Second, it provides an exception for cases where, in the medical judgment of a physician, an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother or to prevent serious adverse health consequences to the mother. And third, it provides stringent civil penalties for physicians performing post-viability abortions in the absence of compelling medical reasons. The penalties are limited to the physician and include for the first offense a fine of $100,000, and referral to a State licensing board for possible suspension of the medical license. For the second offense, the fine would be up to $250,000, with referral to the State licensing board for possible revocation of license. There is no health exception in H.R. 1122, known as the Santorum bill. And we do not believe that the health exception provided in the Daschle bill is sufficient, nor do we believe that it will meet the constitutional test. Let me begin by speaking of my opposition to the House bill. And let me begin by pleading with anyone listening to this debate to read the bill--read H.R. 1122. It is short. It is easy to read. I want to quote from page 2 of that bill to illustrate what this bill does. Let me begin on line 9: Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. The bill refers to a ``partial-birth abortion,'' which is a term not existing in medical literature or medical texts. So let us find out what a partial-birth abortion is. And we turn to line 19 of page 2 for that description: As used in this section, the term ``partial-birth abortion'' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery. The issue here is clear. We heard yesterday on this floor a vivid description of a procedure, a procedure known as ``intact D&E.'' Nowhere in House Resolution 1122 are ``intact D&E'' or ``intact D&X'' or any medical procedure referred to. Instead, we have a term not existent in medical science anywhere called ``partial-birth abortion.'' Now, anyone who is familiar with a woman's physiology knows that this term can be used to deny second-trimester and third-trimester abortions--virtually, I believe, all of them. If the concern of the authors of this legislation were truly in fact to prohibit or ban one specific procedure, why would they not spell out what the procedure is in legislative language just as they have graphically spelled out the procedure on the Senate floor? Why? Why not do that? I believe there is a reason why they did not do that. And the reason is, that I sincerely believe that this bill is meant to do much more, much more than simply ban a procedure known as intact D&X or intact D&E. I believe that this bill is essentially a Trojan horse, a Trojan horse in the sense that it is not at all what it seems to be on the outside. If you look on the inside, which means opening the page of the bill, you will see that this bill is the first major legislative thrust to make abortion in the United States of America illegal. I stated yesterday on the floor that we are really a product of our live's experiences. And my life's experiences that have caused me to be essentially pro-choice are essentially threefold. The first, my days in college at Stanford University, days when I remember a bright young woman who committed suicide because she was pregnant and abortion was illegal in the United States. And I also remember the passing of a plate in a college dormitory so that another friend could go to Mexico for an abortion. I remember that well. My second life experience was in the early 1960's at the California Institution for Women, the women's prison in California for women convicted of felonies, where I set sentences and granted paroles to women convicted of providing abortions. I remember this well because the only way a case really came to the attention of the authorities was either through the morbidity or the mortality of the patient. And I remember the graphic stories in those cumulative summaries that were given to us prior to term setting, of what happened to women who were victims of illegal abortions. And I remember that the women who provided the abortions would leave and come back and commit the same crime again because of the importunings of other women. And the third graphic experience for me was becoming a grandmother and finding out that my daughter in her pregnancy had an unexpected, very serious, potentially life-threatening problem, and realizing how surprised I was not to know that this could happen in this day and age. But it did happen. My story--my daughter's story--came out fine because today I have a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and wonderful, light of my life, in the form of a 4\1/2\-year-old granddaughter by the name of Eileen. But I learned that there can be unpredictable occurrences, and that when we legislate--in a piece of paper that becomes an abiding law enforced everywhere throughout the United States of America--we ought to legislate with the knowledge that human life and human experience has many permutations that are unexpected and unanticipated. I view H.R. 1122 as doing much, much more than banning a simple procedure. That procedure is not mentioned anywhere in this piece of legislation. But it does set up the basis for lawsuit after lawsuit against any physician that might practice and might perform a second- trimester abortion. Every other type of abortion in some way has the head of the fetus coming through the birth canal. And then the case is, at what point is that fetus still living or not living? And so I think it is a potentially very dangerous piece of legislation in that regard. I mentioned yesterday that I basically do not believe that intact D&E or intact D&X should be used, that there are other forms of abortion. That is my personal belief. And I believe that the AMA is on its way in a medical venue of taking some steps to limit it. We all know we are talking about less than 1 percent of all of the abortions that take place in this country, in any event. So the question is, what do we do? What kind of legislation do we present that recognizes the exigencies, the human trials, the difficulties that a woman can have? Yesterday, I mentioned a young nurse; her name is Viki Wilson. When I was a county supervisor and mayor, I worked with her mother, Susan Wilson, who was a supervisor from Santa Clara County. Viki Wilson is a nurse, married to a doctor. In her 36th week she had a sonogram and she found out she had a severely deformed baby with its brain outside its skull. She learned that the contractions she was having were actually seizures that the child was having and that the child was incompatible of sustaining life outside of the womb. She went to a doctor and her doctor recommended the particular procedure that is under siege here today, as the procedure, at that stage of her pregnancy, that would be most protective of her health. I cannot tell you whether it was or not. I am not a physician. There is only one physician in this body who might know. Yet, we are going to legislate, in a bill that is drafted to be so broad, that it can impact much more than one procedure. The amendment that the three of us present to this body today, we believe, comports with Roe versus Wade. We believe it would not put in jeopardy every second- and third-trimester abortion. We believe it would prohibit every third-trimester abortion unless the life and the health, as defined by serious adverse health consequences to the mother, were at risk, and that this decision would be made by the physician and the woman, which I think is the appropriate remedy for this issue. I think this is a very difficult debate because most people have not read the bill before the Senate, H.R. 1122. Most people really do not understand the whole panoply of human ills that can take place in a pregnancy. I believe the AMA, in the recent paper they have put forward, very clearly indicates they believe that, with few exceptions, this procedure that is at question should not be used. However, they are not--and I think rightly so--not ready to sacrifice the integrity of the medical profession to say that no doctor, no matter what the situation is, no matter what the physiology of the woman may be, no matter that she may not be able to have another procedure, that she might be adversely impacted healthwise, cannot, no matter what the situation is, have this procedure as a remedy. Mr. President, we present to you a bill that we believe is constitutional, a bill that would ban all third-trimester abortions, unless the life and health of the woman, as defined as serious adverse health consequences, were threatened. The bill includes very strong civil penalties, which we believe would be a substantial deterrent to the performance of any third-trimester abortions unless there is a very serious medical need. Mr. President, I notice my distinguished colleague, and I ask the Senator from Massachusetts how much time he desires.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to begin this debate by sending an amendment to the desk. This amendment is sent on behalf of myself, Senator Boxer, and Senator Moseley-Braun.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 288 (Purpose: To prohibit certain abortions)