Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time is the Senator requesting?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 15 minutes to the Senator from California.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I see Senator Frist is to be recognized. I yield to him, and then I will wrap up, if that is agreeable.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to wrap up, if I might. Let me begin by saying that you have just heard on our side from four women Senators and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who is not lucky enough to be a woman, but from four women. All of us have been pregnant; all of us have given birth to a child; two of us are grandparents. And I think among the four of us there is an understanding of the vicissitudes and the problems that are inherent both in our physiology as well as in a pregnancy. It is my contention that the bill before us, H.R. 1122, is about much more than one procedure. Let me quote from the only Member among us who is a physician in his comments yesterday on this floor. I am reading from the Congressional Record. From the outset, I will admit that it has been difficult for me to imagine how a procedure that is not taught in residency programs where obstetricians are trained--it is not taught today; it is not referenced in our peer-reviewed journals, which is really the substance, the literature through which we teach each other and share information; it is not in peer-reviewed journals--it is a little bit hard for me to understand how people could argue that this is the best procedure available. Really until the recent controversy, many practitioners who you talk to had never heard of this particular procedure. In fact, that is the case. I would now like to quote from the AMA report of the board of trustees dated yesterday: From a medical perspective the language used in the proposed legislation--H.R. 1122--``partially vaginally deliver a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery'' does not refer to a specific obstetrical/surgical technique, nor does it refer to a specific stage of gestation (i.e., pre- or post-viability). In fact, the description in the proposed legislation could be interpreted to include many recognized abortion and obstetric techniques (such as those used during dilation and evacuation (D & E)) or other procedures used to induce abortion. This is exactly my concern about H.R. 1122. I think H.R. 1122, as I described earlier, is in fact a Trojan horse. It is not what it seems to be. Not one medical procedure is referenced in H.R. 1122. Rather, a vague definition of what is called partial-birth abortion. Partial- birth abortion is referred to nowhere in any of the medical literature. I believe the reason this bill is drafted that way is because it is much broader in what it intends to do. I believe what it intends to do is essentially stop second- and third-trimester abortions with no consideration for the woman's health. Now, you have heard here today, you have heard descriptions by my colleague, Senator Boxer, and by myself, and by the other women, of instances of malformed, seriously malformed, fetuses which cannot sustain life outside the womb. Yet, leaving a woman to have to deliver these babies could present a considerable risk to her health. Now, what we are struggling to do is find a way to say we agree there should not be third-trimester abortions, except--except when the life or the health of the mother is at risk. And then we are trying to set a definition of health that will meet the constitutional test of Roe versus Wade. What is clear to me is that restrictive definitions of health will not meet the constitutional test of Roe versus Wade. So we have taken the definition that we believe will stand the test of constitutionality, ``serious, adverse health consequences for the woman,'' and we, more fundamentally in the regulations we prescribe in section 4 of our bill, say, ``We are requiring an attending physician, described in section 2(b), to certify to the Department of Health and Human Services that, in the best medical judgment of the physician, the abortion described was medically necessary to preserve the life or to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman involved.'' And then--this is the important language--``and to describe the medical indications supporting the judgment.'' So that the physician who makes the decision that the life or health of the mother is dependent on an abortion must support that, must indicate what his medical judgments were, must indicate what the condition of the fetus was. One of the big problems in this debate--and I say this respectfully to the Senator from Pennsylvania, because reasonable people can differ--is that conditions of the health of the mother and conditions of the fetus can also vary. We all know there are medical diagnoses. We know that within these medical diagnoses the severity can differ. Conditions have different degrees of seriousness. Severe, serious abnormalities incompatible with life--that is also what we are talking about in this bill. I believe that within the confines of Roe versus Wade, we have developed a constitutional measure which prohibits third- trimester abortions, provides a health and life exception that is constitutional, provides that the medical doctor must give his reasons and his findings as to why, if he does perform a third-trimester abortion, he or she is performing it, and outline these conditions. And we also provide substantial penalties--$100,000 on the first offense plus referral to the State Board of Medical Examiners for possible suspension of the medical license; and on a second offense, up to $250,000 and referral to the State Board of Medical Examiners for possible revocation of licensing. These are very hefty sums. I believe they provide a sufficient deterrent to the practice of third-trimester abortions unless the most serious situation is present.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Can I finish my thought?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In the findings of this same AMA paper, the American Medical Association board goes on to make this statement: The partial-birth abortion is not a medical term. The American Medical Association will use the term, `intact dilation and extraction,' to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: And then they describe the elements: This procedure is distinct from dilation and evacuation procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester. Because partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, it will not be used by the American Medical Association. [And then it goes on.] According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. We have heard these concerns. The American Medical Association recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the women. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interests of the patient. I happen to believe that is a correct judgment. I happen to believe that the physician must retain the discretion. And I must tell you, it scares me when this body is prepared to write in the concrete of a law that every State in this Union must abide by their judgments, untrained, unskilled, never, for the most part, having given birth to a child, never, for the most part, being intimately familiar with the physiology of a woman, and, yet, has the gumption to say: We are going to write laws. We are not going to have a health exception. And everybody in the United States is going to have to comply with this. I find that somewhat scary, because conditions do vary. Health circumstances do vary. We all know we can have a certain condition, and for some people it will be benign; for others, it can be terminal. And it can be the same condition. In terms of abnormalities, hydrocephalus has been mentioned on this floor. I have visited, in the old days, institutions where children walked around with their head on a crib because the head was so big they could not lift it off the crib. Medical science is wonderful. Now hydrocephalus, in many cases--not all--can be handled. So you can't say all hydrocephalics have the same problem. But it is conceivable, and it does happen, that there are serious hydrocephalic implications in some fetuses which make it impossible for them to sustain life on the outside, past any amount of time, or to be delivered in a way that they will not irreparably damage the health of the mother. This is also true. But there are variations and there are gradations. This legislation, H.R. 1122, does not take that into consideration. Rather, it says that, wholesale, anything that can come under the rubric of partial-birth abortion is hitherto prohibited. And if you commit it--we do not know what it is, the medical literature does not know what it is--but if you commit it, doctor, M.D., you are guilty of a crime. Can you imagine what this is going to do throughout the United States of America? It is going to have a chilling effect. Not only that. In addition to that, everybody out there can sue. I am perplexed why, if one wants to outlaw a particular procedure, why that procedure is not written up. It has been spoken about. It has been described. It is contained in specificity in this Record. But it is not in the legislation. Instead, the legislation has a much more sweeping impact. All one has to do, in my view, is read that legislation. Senator Boxer, Senator Moseley-Braun, and I have tried to write a piece of legislation which is very strong, which prohibits as a matter of law third-trimester abortions except when the life and the health of the mother are at stake, and which defines health in a way that it will meet a constitutional test. I believe we have done it. And it provides civil penalties that will deter and also say to the physician, as an additional test, if you perform one of these third-trimester abortions, know that you have to put in writing, subject to investigation, and send to the Federal Department of Health and Human Services the conditions, the reasons to justify that abortion. I think that is a sound piece of legislation. I do not think we will win because I think, unfortunately, this debate has been so characterized by egregious situations that everything other than the egregious situation has suddenly been washed away. Yet everything other than the egregious situation is out there in America every single day. I submit that, if legislation does not cover what is the real life of people, and the many different things to which they are subjected, you are going to have a much higher rate of both morbidity, which is physical harm to women, and mortality, which is death to women. That is the way it was before, and that is the way it will be again if we set the clock back. So I must--I know my colleague from California would like to make some comments--I would like to yield the floor to her. But I must earnestly implore this body, I would be very hopeful that Members will vote for this amendment and vote no on H.R. 1122. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in decrying the stranglehold that has been placed on Federal judicial nominations by the Senate, including the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member. The numbers bear repeating, because they are simply appalling. Last year, the Republican Senate confirmed an abysmally low number of judges--only 17. And none of these was for the courts of appeals. Compare this to when the roles were reversed in 1992, the year a Republican President was running for reelection and the Democrats controlled the Senate. That year, the Democratic Senate confirmed 66 Federal judges, including 11 court of appeals judges. It was thought that, after the election was over, the Senate would return to the normal course of fulfilling its constitutionally-mandated role in the judicial nomination process. Unfortunately, however, that has not proven to be the case. It is now mid-way through May, and the Senate has confirmed just two Federal judges. The Judiciary Committee has only held two nominations hearings. California has been especially hard-hit by this slowdown on Federal judges. More than one-fourth of the judges whose nominations are languishing in the Senate are from California--7 out of 26. Five of these seven judges were nominated in the last Congress. Let me tell you a little bit about each of them, to put some faces on the nominees whose lives have been disrupted by the Senate's extended failure to act on their nominations: Richard Paez is already a respected Federal judge on the district court in Los Angeles. He was nominated by the President to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 25, 1996. The Judiciary Committee gave him a hearing on July 31, 1996. However, the committee has never taken any further action on his nomination. Tomorrow, Christina Snyder will have been before the Committee for 1 full year, as she was first nominated by the President to Federal district court in Los Angeles on May 15, 1996. Ms. Snyder is a graduate of one of the top law schools in the country, Stanford Law School, for which she has since gone on to serve on the board of visitors. She is a member of the prestigious American Law Institute, and her nomination has received bipartisan support, including endorsements from the Republican mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, and the Republican Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Sherman Block. I am not aware of one whit of substantive opposition to her nomination. And yet, Ms. Snyder has been unable to get even a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. Already this year, the committee has held hearings on the nominations of four men who were nominated after Ms. Snyder, including one who was only nominated for the first time this year, in 1997. I am optimistic that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee will agree to place Ms. Snyder on the agenda for the committee's next nomination hearing, and again urge him to do so. Margaret Morrow actually was favorably reported by the committee last year, unanimously, but her nomination died on the floor. She was nominated over a year ago, on May 9, 1996. Morrow is a graduate of Harvard Law School, was the first woman president of the State Bar of California, and has received numerous awards for her work as a lawyer and her commitment to public service. The committee held a second hearing on her nomination this year. But while the three men who were heard along with her have all been favorably reported out of the committee, she has not even been brought up for a vote. Her nomination has been slowed while members of the committee from the other side of the aisle pose round after round of follow-up questions to her, including asking for her view on some of the most controversial issues that have been considered by Californians on the ballot over the last 10 years. This level of scrutiny previously has been reserved for Supreme Court nominees, who shape constitutional interpretation, rather than merely following precedent a district court judge does. In my time on the committee, I have never seen this level of scrutiny applied to a male district court nominee. Jeffrey Miller is a superior court judge in San Diego, who was appointed to that post by Republican Governor Deukmejian. An accomplished jurist and a veteran of the State attorney general's office, he has been complimented by numerous fellow judges. First nominated last July, his nomination is now on the floor of the Senate. I hope that the majority leader will call up his nomination for action by the Senate. William Fletcher's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been languishing for more than 2 years, having first been made on April 25, 1995. Fletcher is a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, where he has won the Distinguished Teacher Award. He is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard; he earned his law degree from Yale Law School; he is a Navy veteran, a Rhodes Scholar, and a former clerk on the U.S. Supreme Court. He was favorably reported by the committee almost a year ago, on May 16, 1996. However, the committee has taken no action on his nomination this year. This outstanding group of holdover nominees from the last Congress has been joined this year by two more nominees, Anthony Ishii and Lynn Lasry, who have been nominated to the Federal district courts for the Eastern District and Southern District of California, respectively. Mr. President, the time has come to act on these nominations. I'm not asking for a rubber stamp; let's hold hearings on those nominees who haven't had them, and vote on all of them, up or down, yes or no. California needs these judges. The chief judge of the ninth circuit, Procter Hug, Jr., has said, our federal courts here in the 9th Circuit, and particularly our court of appeals, are facing a vacancy crisis of serious proportions. We simply do not have enough active district and appellate judges to hear and decide cases in a prompt and timely manner. While filings in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have increased by over 60 percent since 1985, the court currently has 8 vacancies, more than any other circuit in the Nation. In the last 5 years, case filings in the Eastern District of California have skyrocketed by 49.7 percent. In the Southern District of California, case filings have increased by 94.7 percent since 1991--a pace that more than triples the national rate of increase of 27.5 percent. In an editorial last month, the Los Angeles Times put it well: [The Margaret Morrow] case is only one of many in a deplorable situation that has gone on far too long. Justice is not served by an empty bench. Nor is society. Whichever party holds the Congress and the White House, gamesmanship over judicial appointments produces no winners. It only leaves a void . . . [The Senate's] record of delay, attempts to kill funding for some appellate seats and its harassment of Morrow and other qualified nominees reveals a deeply troubling partisanship. Last we looked, the U.S. Constitution grants the President the power to nominate and directs the Senate to ``advise and consent,'' not stonewall. The 26 nominations now pending would be a good place to start. I urge my colleagues, let's end the gridlock on judges. Let's not hold the third branch of government hostage to partisan politics.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it has often been said that one is a product of one's life experiences. Because this is a bill about so-called partial-birth abortion, and because there is no medical definition of partial-birth abortion, and because most of us believe that what is being referred to is a procedure either called intact D&E or intact D&X--but that is not reflected in the bill--and because the bill affects more than just the third trimester of a pregnancy but also goes into the second trimester, and because it carries with it criminal penalties, I want to share with this body how I am a product of my life experiences with respect to abortion. I well remember my early days. In college during the 1950's, abortion was illegal, and I knew young women who were in trouble. I knew one who committed suicide. I knew others who passed the plate to those of us in a dormitory--and this was Stanford University--to go to Mexico for an abortion. Later in the 1960's, I spent 8 days a year for 5 years sentencing women in the State prison, and I sentenced abortionists because abortion was still illegal in California in the early 1960's. I remember these cases particularly well. I remember the crude instruments used. I remember women who were horribly damaged by some of these illegal abortions. I remember mortality as well. And I always thought maybe one day we will get past this and not have to go back to it. What concerns me about this debate is that I see it as the opening wedge of a long march to take us back 30 years, back to the passing of the plate at Stanford, back to the back-alley abortionists. I will never forget one woman because abortion carried with it a maximum sentence of 10 years in State prison at the time. I sentenced this woman--I remember her name, I am not going to say it here--to the maximum sentence because she had been in and out of the State institution. This was her third time. Every time she went out I asked her why she continued. She said, ``Because women were in such trouble and they had no other place to go, so they came to me because they knew I would take care of them.'' That was the reality of life from 1960 to at least 1966 in California. I do not want women, young women, to have to go back to those days again. So basically I am pro-choice. I am also a member of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, so I have been present at all of the hearings on this so-called partial birth abortion bill. Essentially, I believe that abortion should be a matter for a woman, for her doctor, for her faith, for medicine, and not for politicians. One of the most perplexing things in my life has always been why men are so desperate to control a woman's reproductive system. Nonetheless, about 4\1/2\ years ago, I became a grandmother of a little girl who is the light of my life. Her birth was not uncomplicated. My daughter had a pregnancy-related condition. It was a condition that women bleed to death from. You have, essentially, about 20 minutes from the time you begin to hemorrhage before your life is extinguished, and that of the child. This case of my daughter's is really only related to this whole debate in that it caused me to really think. I never thought that my daughter would be in a situation of this type. I began to think of the ``whens'' and ``ifs,'' and whether one could really predict all of the exigencies that a woman in pregnancy is subject to. I could not with my own daughter, because I never would have dreamt that this would have happened. For her, she was a lucky one. Although at home I am a block and a half from the hospital, they would not let her stay with me. She stayed in the hospital right next to an operating theater, so that for 2 months the baby grew in her womb, and then at 35 weeks she was able to have a C section. And we have a wonderful little granddaughter-- bright eyed, bushy tailed--and the story came out OK. But I came to a few conclusions. The conclusion is, no matter how all-seeing we think we are, no one can possibly know all of the circumstances one may find themselves in. So, if we are going to pass laws, laws need to be flexible enough to anticipate the circumstances and to provide for a worthy exception. I basically believe that this intact D&E, or intact D&X, whichever one chooses to call it, is a procedure that should not be used. That is my basic belief and I think the AMA is beginning to come to grips with this and set down some precepts, as to when one should consider a late-term abortion. I believe that abortions post-viability should not take place except in the rarest of circumstances. And that the only case for a post- viability abortion is either to protect the life and health of the mother or in cases where there is such a serious, severe fetal abnormality that the abnormality is inconsistent with life. In other words, the child could not survive outside of the womb for any period of time. So, with my colleagues, Senator Boxer and Senator Moseley-Braun, we will offer a substitute at the appropriate time to the Santorum bill and one that will also be a substitute to the Daschle bill. Our bill will have the following provisions: It will prohibit all abortions after viability in a way that will meet the test of constitutionality. The provision for life and health of the mother does just that. The health requirement is drawn to correspond with the mandate of Roe versus Wade, to prevent serious adverse health consequences to the mother and not to restrict the judgment of the physician. Additionally, the goal is to provide for post-viability abortions only in cases of serious fetal anomalies--or abnormalities incompatible with life. The penalties of the bill will be civil but substantial. They will be limited to the physician. The penalty for the first violation will be up to $100,000, along with referral to a State licensing board for possible suspension of the license. For a second offense, a fine up to $250,000 and referral to a State licensing board for possible revocation of the license. Unlike the Daschle substitute, we would not withhold Medicaid funds. But we would allow the State to, essentially, register its will. I am very much persuaded by the fact that some 41 States have already passed legislation limiting late-term abortions. In Arizona, no abortion may be performed after viability; in Arkansas, same thing; in Connecticut, no abortion may be performed after viability; and on and on. So I, for one, have a very hard time understanding why it is necessary for the Federal Government to get involved in this area at this time. But, if we do, I think we ought to do it in a way that does not limit the doctor, that prohibits post-viability abortions, and contains an exception that accounts for those rare cases when the fetus has a severe abnormality that is not consistent with human life. So, we would offer this as a substitute for that offered by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, and as a substitute to the Daschle legislation as well. I would like to illustrate the ways in which this bill that the three of us would offer would differ from that of the Senator from Pennsylvania. Most profoundly, our legislation would fully comport with the Supreme Court's landmark decision, Roe versus Wade, which affirms a woman's constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. According to Roe, in the first 12 to 15 weeks of pregnancy, when 95.5 percent of all abortions occur, that procedure is medically the safest. The Government cannot, under Roe, place an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion. In the second trimester, when the procedure in some situations provides a greater health risk, abortion may be regulated but only to protect the health of the mother. This might mean, for example, requiring that an abortion be performed in a hospital or performed by a licensed physician. In the later stages of pregnancy, at the point the fetus becomes viable and able to live independently from the mother, Roe recognizes the strong interest in protecting potential human life. On that basis, abortions can be prohibited, except in cases where the abortion is necessary to protect the life and health of the woman. The life or the health of the woman. Thus, Roe strikes a delicate balance in protecting the fetus as well as the mother. Our bill will fully comport with Roe. It applies only to post- viability abortions, not pre-viability abortions. And it contains exceptions to protect the health as well as life of the mother. In my humble opinion, the bill before us now, presented by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, is unconstitutional and it represents a direct challenge to Roe. It provides no exception for cases where the banned procedure may be necessary to protect a woman's health. It ignores the viability line established in Roe and reaffirmed in Casey. Although the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is not a medically recognized term, the bill's focus on a particular procedure means that this procedure will be banned even if performed pre- viability, during the second trimester. Roe does not permit abortions to be banned prior to viability. That is the constitutional framework here. I think the proponents of this bill know well the challenges to Roe that this legislation presents. The magnitude of this bill is enormous for the long-term preservation of safe and legal abortion in this country. The Santorum bill would have an immediate and direct effect on the lives of women facing tragic and health-threatening circumstances, even in the second trimester of pregnancy. The bill also holds a doctor criminally liable unless he or she can prove that the banned procedure was the only one that would have saved the woman's life. Not the woman's health, but the woman's life. The vagueness of the term ``partial-birth abortion'' makes the use of criminal penalties particularly troublesome. Doctors will not necessarily know when they are violating the law, since no precise procedure is referred to in the law. During last year's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, none of our medical experts who testified had heard of the term partial-birth abortion. Since then, of course, times have changed. But none could point to a medical text that used the term. Georgetown law professor, Michael Seidman, stated in hearings last year: If I were a lawyer advising a physician who performed abortions, I would tell him to stop because there is just no way to tell whether the procedure will eventuate in some portion of the fetus entering the birth canal before the fetus is technically dead, much less being able to demonstrate that after the fact. This is the catch-22 in the bill of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. It can be applied to much more than just the procedure we think is at hand. The use of criminal penalties in conjunction with a vague term such as ``partial-birth abortion'' is likely to make the Santorum bill unconstitutionally vague and, therefore, unenforceable. Our bill, instead, provides civil penalties for any post-viability abortion performed without sufficient medical justification. I believe that these civil penalties will effectively deter any physician who would perform a post-viability abortion for anything other than the most serious reasons. Women's health, I think, should be of great importance to this body, and I would also hope that every woman in the United States would want a Congress to legislate based on what we thought would help their health, rather than create situations which would deny them the opportunity prevent long-term damage to their physical health. Late in certain types of highly troubled pregnancies, there are only limited options available to physicians, and I would like to give some examples of rare medical conditions that could necessitate a post- viability procedure for which there are no other alternatives available. One example would be a fetus that has a greatly enlarged hydrocephalic head, three times the normal size, the cranium filled with fluid. The head is so large the woman physically cannot deliver it. Labor is impossible because the fetus cannot get through the birth canal. A caesarean may well be impossible for medical reasons. Let me give you an actual case, the case of Viki Wilson. She stated: Then I had a final ultrasound at 36 weeks, just 4 weeks from my due date, and the world came crashing down around us. Our child was diagnosed with encephalocoele. Most of her brain had grown outside her head, and what did form was abnormal. Abigail could not survive outside the womb, and she was already suffering from seizures. At first I said, let's do a C-section, let's get her out of there! My doctor said, sadly, ``Viki, we do C-sections to save babies. I can't save Abigail, and I can't justify the risks of a C-section to your health when you are going to lose your daughter no matter what.'' So even though my medical training-- And this woman was a nurse-- told us that there was no hope, my husband and I went to several specialists in the desperate belief that there was someone out there with a magic wand who would say, ``I can help save your daughter.'' No one did, no one could. Finally, we made a decision, based entirely on love, to end the pregnancy. This is one of those situations that no one knows beforehand that they may be in. There is also a case of a rigid fetus caused by arthrogryposis. This kind of fetus cannot move through the birth canal. It risks rupturing the woman's cervix. With prolonged intense pushing, the mother's heart is placed at risk. Other health conditions can prevent a woman from being able to tolerate the stress of labor or surgery. They include cardiac problems like congestive heart failure, severe kidney disease, renal shutdown, severe hypertension, and so on. In fact, it is certain health-related concerns that has caused me to part ways with Senator Daschle's approach. In many regards, the bill which we are introducing is similar to Senator Daschle's in several respects, but in one it is different. We are alike in that both bills would limit all forms of post- viability abortions. The principal difference is the health exception. Our bill would allow third trimester abortions only in cases where the life of the mother is at issue or where an abortion is necessary to avert serious adverse health consequences to the mother. The Daschle bill, as I understand it, would allow an exception only in cases where continuation of the pregnancy would risk grievous injury to the mother's physical health. Grievous injury is defined as a seriously debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused by the pregnancy or an inability to provide necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition. I believe that the Daschle substitute would not allow the abortion procedure for certain serious conditions that, although they are not caused by the pregnancy, are exacerbated by the pregnancy. I believe the limiting language of this bill could foreclose a doctor's option in certain situations that cannot be anticipated, and that is my concern. Who knows what situation one may be in or if the situation may not arise until labor or delivery? For example, one House witness testified that her baby had a brain improperly formed, pressured by a backup of fluid, a greatly enlarged head, a malformed and failing heart, a malfunctioning liver, and a dangerously low amount of amniotic fluid. A physician, we believe, needs the latitude to deal with these complex emergency situations as they are trained to do. I also believe it is important to understand, and I hope if I am wrong that the Senator will correct me, that the Daschle substitute makes no provision for a severely malformed fetus incompatible with life, if that baby can be delivered in a live condition even for a matter of minutes or days. Roe simply states if the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. I think that is a very important constitutional mandate, that any bill passed here in the next day or so must meet the test of constitutionality. So we will, at an appropriate time, present a bill that we hope will meet this test. Let me just end by saying that everything that I have read, everything that I have seen indicates that post-viability abortions are extremely rare, and that the vast majority, over 99 percent of abortions, are performed very early in pregnancy. The latest data that we have from the Guttmacher Institute, whose figures are relied upon by the Centers for Disease Control, indicates that 99 percent of all abortions are performed before 20 weeks of gestation; 90 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks; and less than 1 percent are performed after 20 weeks. Only four-hundredths of 1 percent performed after 20 weeks are performed during the third trimester. So this means there is a total of about 400 to 600 abortions performed annually during the third trimester of pregnancy. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 98.9 percent of all abortions are performed by the simple curettage procedure, which simply involves the scraping of the interior of the uterus. So any way you view it, we are looking at a very small number of cases. I guess my plea is for those circumstances which cannot be anticipated, for circumstances where the mother's life and health truly are at risk and--as I learned firsthand with my own daughter--nobody really understands or can have a looking glass to indicate what those circumstances may be. As I said, I basically believe that the intact D&E or intact D&X, whatever one may choose, should not be used. I am hopeful that the medical profession will take that view, and I believe that there are ongoing discussions on that subject. But I believe that when we pass legislation that affects every single woman in the United States who can possibly be at issue in this case, that to pass a piece of legislation which would mandate that a seriously abnormal fetus, unable over time to sustain life outside the womb, would have to be delivered regardless of the health impacts on the mother, is not a piece of legislation that I, in good conscience, can support. So, Madam President, at the appropriate time, Senators Boxer, Moseley-Braun, and I will present a substitute amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address Senate consideration of the CFE Flank Agreement. The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty [CFE] entered into in 1990 is an outstanding arms control achievement, requiring the destruction of over 50,000 items of heavy weaponry, including tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery pieces, and attack helicopters. The CFE has helped to make the Europe of 1997 a far safer place than the Europe of even just a few years ago, and in doing so has served American national security interests well. The implementation of CFE helps guarantee that a destabilizing concentration of military equipment--or a massed military attack in central Europe of the kind that has dominated strategic thinking in Europe through two World Wars and a cold war--will now be next to impossible for any nation or group of nations to achieve. But, as the flank agreement underscores, the treaty negotiated between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in 1990 is not adequate to the realities of the new European security environment. To begin with, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact no longer exist. There are now Soviet successor states in the Baltics and the Transcaucasus--the flank zones--with very different security and political concerns. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Transcaucasus have been a region of almost singular instability. Russia and the Ukraine, likewise, have different security orientations than did the Soviet Union, as do the states of both central and western Europe. NATO is undergoing a searching debate about the possibility of enlargement. The Europe that the CFE must be relevant to in 1997 is radically different than the Europe of 1990. Thus, in ways unanticipated by its original negotiators, the issues raised by the flank agreement touch on some of the most central and the most sensitive security issues of the new European security environment. The history of the Transcaucasus since the breakup of the Soviet Union have served as a grim reminder of the deadly subtleties of rapidly changing regional geography. Civil war and ethnic strife has been the rule, not the exception, in Nagorno-Karabagh, Osettia, Abkhazia, Georgia, and, of course, Chechnya. Stabilizing the military balance in the Transcaucasus and inculcating confidence and security building measures, as the CFE Treaty does, is critical for peace in the region. Although not racked with the violence that has characterized the Transcaucasus, the security concerns of the Baltic States in the northern flank zone will prove to be central to future stability in Europe, and the limits placed on threatening conventional weapons by the CFE Treaty is a critical part of the security architecture of the Baltics. Likewise, the flank agreement also touches upon the sensitive topic of Russian-Ukrainian ties, and the political and security relationship between the two, and it addresses the role of Turkey between Europe, the Middle East, and central Asia. Last, the flank agreement has profound implications for Russian nationalist sentiment, and may well have an impact on the future of Russian domestic political development, and the dynamics of those domestic factors which may influence either a cooperative or confrontational Russian foreign policy. In this sense, the flank agreement is also critical issue for the debate over NATO enlargement that is just now beginning to come to a simmer. In structuring the balance of forces between NATO and Russia, the CFE and the flank agreement--what it says as well as how it is implemented--will be at the heart of Russian perceptions and assessments regarding the potential of an enlarged NATO. In short, the CFE will play a central role in determining the future course of peace and stability in Europe. Notwithstanding the positive contributions of the CFE to U.S. national security interests--and it is a treaty which I will be voting for--I feel that I would be remiss in my duty as a Senator if I did not also point out some general concerns that I have with the flank agreement, as well as some specific concerns I have with the resolution of ratification for this treaty as it was voted out of the Foreign Relations Committee last week. As I made clear in the Foreign Relations Committee hearing, I found the way in which the flank agreement was negotiated--opening up an already negotiated treaty for revision because of the reticence of one party to live up to its commitments--deeply troubling. Although I would agree with those who argue that it is necessary to revisit international agreements when there has been a material change in circumstances--and few would argue that the breakup of the Soviet Union does not count on this score--treaties, by their very nature, are only worthwhile if they are binding the minute they are signed. The post-cold-war world may very well be more turbulent and fluid than the world which we are used to, but I hope that the way in which the flank agreement was opened for renegotiation--with one party not in compliance with a treaty which they had signed--does not set a precedent which will call into question other treaties which, after the fact, a state may wish to change. I think that it is important for the Senate to go on the record in support of the binding nature of the treaty obligations which we and other states enter into--obligations which should be opened for renegotiation in only the most extreme of cases--even as we give our support to this agreement. Second, in changing the CFE flank equipment ceilings to meet Russian security concerns, we must be careful to make sure that we have not increased the insecurity felt by other states in or bordering the flank zone. In its original conception, the CFE Treaty was intended to make Europe safe from the dangers of a big war between East and West. I think that there is general agreement that CFE has been and will continue to be effective in this respect. But the CFE Treaty, as revised, must not become part of a European security architecture in which Europe is made safe for little wars, between the large and the small, or as a tool for intimidation used by the strong against the weak. If such a situation were to result from the flank agreement revisions, Europe would be less stable and secure, not more. Third, as several of my colleagues have already pointed out, the inclusion of condition 9 regarding Senate advice and consent for the multilateralization of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is, I think, unwarranted and unwise. It is unwarranted because the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is not connected in any way with the CFE. It is unwise because it calls into question whether the United States may attempt to reopen or substantively change a treaty because some now perceive that it is in our interests to do so. There was an attempt to get this same language regarding the ABM inserted into last year's defense authorization bill. That effort failed. On its own, the Senate has already rejected this language. Now there is an attempt to resurrect this language and attach it to this treaty. The consideration of treaties is one of the highest responsibilities of the Senate, and I am disappointed that some of my colleagues have chosen to place petty politics above the interests of U.S. national security. The ABM Treaty is the diplomatic foundation of our intercontinental ballistic missile reduction strategy. It was possible to negotiate and ratify the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, and negotiate START II because of the strategic groundwork laid in the ABM Treaty. Abandoning or violating the ABM Treaty would threaten the strategic ballistic missile reductions under these two treaties, which, when implemented, would verifiably eliminate the intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying two-thirds of Russia's nuclear warheads. I would have preferred to have had the opportunity to eliminate this condition from the final resolution of ratification, but, unfortunately, it does not appear that we will have this opportunity. In addition to these general concerns, I also have one specific concern with the resolution of ratification for this treaty as it was voted out of committee last week, which I hope that we will have an opportunity to change. I am concerned that condition 5 (F) of section 2 unfairly singles out Armenia for a report on compliance with the CFE Treaty. In so doing, this condition makes the treaty weaker, and less effective in guaranteeing U.S. security interests in Europe, not more. Although some of my Armenian friends might not want me to say this, I do believe that there should be a report on Armenia's compliance with the treaty. There have been some troubling questions raised in the press and in our committee discussions regarding Armenian transshipments of arms from Russia, and whether Armenia is in violation of certain provisions of the CFE. As I noted previously, this is a very sensitive part of the globe, and one in which even a relatively small amount of heavy weaponry can have tremendous impact on the balance of power. If Armenia is in violation of the treaty, then appropriate measures should be taken. However, it is precisely the volatile nature of this region that dictates that U.S. national security interests demand that we seek compliance reports on the other states in the region as well. There are questions regarding Azerbaijan's compliance with the CFE's Treaty Limited Equipment (TLE) limits, for example, and recent experience with civil war and ethnic strife in Georgia, Osettia, Chechnya, Abkhazia, and elsewhere in the region all suggest that a condition calling for region-wide compliance reports would be in order. Indeed stigmatizing and isolating Armenia in this fashion may well prove to be counterproductive. If the CFE Treaty is perceived as a tool of one side or another in an already tense and volatile region, it will have the effect of destroying confidence, not building it, and will contribute to an atmosphere where the states of the region may seek to build their armed forces, not lessen them. This would be a grave mistake, and that is why I believe that condition 5 (F) must be changed to call for compliance reports for the other countries in the Transcaucasus as well. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered to make just these changes when we vote on this issue. Even with these reservations, however, I find that the treaty merits support. The CFE, with the revised flank agreement, provides an invaluable tool for stabilizing European security and lessening regional tension. I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this treaty.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Reid amendment and really on the subject in general, particularly from a California perspective. California has over 6,000 miles of flood control levees. In the last decade, we have had three 100-year storms, in 1986, 1995, and 1997. In 1986, four levees failed, three in the delta, one in Yuba County. In 1995, 25 levees failed. In 1997, there were 62 significant levee breaks, according to the Corps of Engineers. Of these, 40 were federally maintained levees, and the rest were non-Federal. On January 2, the Feather River broke through the levee at Star Bend, flooding 15 square miles of farmland and the community of Olivehurst. The breach was 1,500 feet long. This flood damage is relevant to the amount of money that is going to California in emergency assistance right now--$3.3 billion. On January 4, a Sutter bypass levee failed at Meridian, flooding a 35,000 acre basin with more than 60 homes and businesses. The breach at Meridian was 1,100 feet long. On January 4, the San Joaquin River plunged through levees in 14 places near the town of Mendota, flooding about 10,000 acres of farmland on both sides of the river in Madera and Fresno Counties. The biggest levee break, at Firebaugh, was 2,500 feet long. On January 5, more levees broke along the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and San Joaquin Rivers, causing flooding near Modesto. Now, the levees are a critical part of California's infrastructure and, in my view, they are the most troubled part of our infrastructure. In an earthquake, in a flood, when these levees go, two things happen. One, the water in these rivers is the drinking water for 20 million people. The soil behind the levees is peat. As the levees break, and the peat land is flooded and then drains, the peat soil drains back into the river. When this water is treated with chlorine for drinking water, it throws off carcinogens. So that has necessitated a change in the water treatment. Additionally, salt water intrusion also contaminates the drinking water supply. So, not only do the levees protect farm land, the levees also protect our major source of drinking water. Now, the problem here is maintenance of these levees. I spent 3 days talking to farmers. What farmers tell me increasingly is they are not going to maintain the levees because the bureaucratic hassle is so great. To pull out a bush on a levy, they have to go and get a permit. They have to mitigate. They do not have the money to mitigate. Therefore, more and more of the levees are not maintained. If the levees are not maintained and the levees break, the amount of Federal money that goes to California is just going to increase. In addition, damage is done to cattle, to dairy cows, to farms, to orchards; homes are under water; and people's businesses are being wiped out. Why? Because in places, levees are not properly maintained because of the Endangered Species Act. I am not saying that these levee breaks are related to the Endangered Species Act, because I do not know. However, I do know from firsthand testimony to me that there are people that are not maintaining the levees because of the bureaucratic hassle they have to go through. For example, the slopes of the levees along the Feather River in Sutter County have become overgrown in recent years with trees and vegetation, including elderberry shrubs. This vegetation hides rodent holes and beaver dams which undermine the integrity of the levees. These shrubs on the Feather River levees are habitat for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle which is listed as a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act and the State act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife has indicated that if Sutter County tries to eliminate this habitat and maintain the levees, they would require mitigation. Elderberry bushes could only be removed from levees if replacement bushes were planted elsewhere. Sutter County cannot pay for this mitigation and take farmland out of production for habitat. The Central Delta Water Agency says the prohibition of dredging and placement of fill for levee maintenance and the creation of shaded riverside aquatic or marsh habitat in areas designated as critical habitat for Delta smelt has been a problem. The agency has been required to spend money on habitat assessments, consultations, inspection, mitigation, and emergency removal--money which the agency believes would be better spent on reducing the flood risks. Now, this is the point I want to make and it is important. In 1996, when Yuba County tried to move forward with a Corps of Engineers project to upgrade levees south of Marysville, the Fish and Wildlife Service would not let them proceed with the repair work after October 1 because the garter snake was dormant. If they repaired the levees after October 1, they might disturb a sleeping garter snake. They had to do costly mitigation before they could make these repairs. So the work was not done, and on January 2, a levee broke at Olivehurst, killing three people and flooding 500 homes. I am delighted, Mr. President, that the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Kempthorne, is in the chair and he is hearing these comments because, for this Senator, the Endangered Species Act--when it comes to the protection of life and property--really needs a second look. I heard this over and over and over again when I went to Yuba County. As a matter of fact, one family was standing there sobbing and had no place for their children. Their children were taken from them, when their property was flooded, and put in foster homes. When it comes to a garter snake versus somebody's home and property and life and limb, I really think we need to get our priorities straight. That is why I believe these levees should not be included in the ESA, that maintenance should be ongoing, and that repair and rebuilding should be permitted without a major bureaucratic hassle. I thank the Senator for his indulgence. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is it possible to have between 5 and 10 minutes?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I rise to support the Byrd position. I believe that to take an automatic cut of an additional $25 billion in real terms with the constraints of this budget would be extraordinarily difficult. Mr. President, I have just in the last few days participated in several initiatives with respect to cancer, and appeared before Senator Specter's subcommittee on cancer and heard members on both sides of the aisle speak to the goal of doubling cancer research over the next 5 years. I think if this CR remains, any additional dollars for critical health research is really condemned. Additionally, many of us believe that the bipartisan White House- Congress concordat bringing to this body a bipartisan plan to balance the budget was to be without the CR attached. So just a week ago both sides were cheering about this budget deal. Given the optimism surrounding the announcement, I think it is somewhat disingenuous to include the automatic CR in this legislation. I think all of us want to avoid another Government shutdown and are willing to do almost anything to prevent a repeat of 2 years ago. But the way to do that is simple. Do what is necessary to pass an appropriations bill on time. And that means compromise. No one wants a Government shutdown. And the fact that a year-long CR was eventually passed following the last shutdown shows that reasonable minds are capable of reaching compromise when there is a will. The automatic CR essentially means that we do not have to pass another appropriations bill this year. Conceivably we could all pack up and go home. However, the budget deal struck is going to require some very tough decisions, difficult negotiations, some forced compromises. Not everyone is going to get what they want, but I think we all recognize that in the interest of getting the job done we are prepared to sublimate some of our priorities. The President said he would veto this bill if the automatic CR provision is included when it hits his desk. I cannot think of any clearer reason to drop this then from the bill. The emergency funding carried in this bill is simply too important. This is a big bill. About $3.4 billion of it goes to California. Additionally, it goes really to people who are just destitute. And we have about 9,000 miles of delta levees, and we have had almost 100 levee breaks, 62 of them substantial. You had areas, 15 square miles, flooded, homes up to their rooftops, orchards of 14,000, 15,000, 16,000 trees at a crack just lost, people losing their homes and their livelihoods. I really earnestly implore this body not to complicate this bill by attaching the CR. If the CR is added, there are other things that happen as well. We have a proposal for 500 additional border guards in 1998. That is on hold; 544 FBI agents delayed; the FAA unable to hire 500 air traffic controllers and 173 security personnel; Pell grants cut by $1.2 billion; funding of Goals 2000 cut by $97 million; Title 1 education, which goes to educate the poorest of youngsters at a time when everybody believes education is a top priority, cut by $320 million; and NIH, cancer research or death-inducing disease research could be cut by $414 million. So, from the California perspective--I know my colleague and friend, Senator Boxer spoke to this earlier: 48 out of our 58 counties were declared disaster areas--this money is important. It should go. So I am hopeful that the majority will remove the request for the CR. I am happy to rise to support the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Boxer, Graham, Snowe, Moseley-Braun, Landrieu, Harkin, Specter, D'Amato, Mack, Johnson, Reid, and Murray would like to introduce the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act. In a time of shrinking budgets and resources for breast cancer research, this legislation would provide an innovative way to provide additional funding for breast cancer research. This bill would: authorize the U.S. Postal Service to issue an optional special first class stamp to be priced at 1 cent above the cost of normal first-class postage; earmark a penny of every stamp for breast cancer research; provide administrative costs from the revenues for post office expenses; allow 100 percent of the proceeds from the stamp to fund HHS breast cancer research projects; clarify current law, in that any similar stamp would require an act of Congress to be issued in the future. If only 10 percent of all first class mail used this optional 33 cent stamp, $60 million could be raised for breast cancer research annually. There is wide support for this legislation. Congressman Fazio, along with over 100 cosponsors have already introduced the companion bill (H.R. 407) in the House. The breast cancer epidemic has been called this Nation's best kept secret. There are 2.6 million women in America today with breast cancer, one million of whom have yet to be diagnosed with the disease. In 1996, an estimated 184,000 were diagnosed with breast cancer. It is the number one killer of women ages 40 to 44 and the leading cause of cancer death in women ages 15 to 54, claiming a woman's life every 12 minutes in this country (source: National Breast Cancer Coalition). For California, 17,100 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 4,100 women will die from the disease (source: American Cancer Society cancer facts and figures, 1996). In addition to the cost of women's lives, the annual cost of treatment of breast cancer in the United States is approximately $10 billion. Over the last 25 years, the National Institutes of Health has spent over $31.5 billion on cancer research--$2 billion of that on breast cancer. In the last 6 years alone, appropriations for breast cancer research have risen from $90 million in 1990 to $600 million today. That's the good news. But, the bad news is that the national commitment to cancer research overall has been hamstrung since 1980. Currently, NIH is able to fund only 23 percent of applications received by all the institutes. For the Cancer Institute, only 23 percent can be funded--a significant drop from the 60 percent of applications funded in the 1970's. Most alarming is the rapidly diminishing grant funding available for new researcher applicants. In real numbers, the National Cancer Institute will fund approximately 3,600 research projects, of which about 1,000 are new, previously unfunded activities. For investigator-initiated research, only 600 out of 1,900 research projects will be new. The United States is privileged to have some of the most talented scientists and many of the leading cancer research centers in the world such as UCLA, UC San Francisco, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, and the M.D. Anderson. This lack of increase in funding is starving some of the most important research, because scientists will have to look elsewhere for their livelihood. The U.S. must increase the research funds if these scientists and institutions are to continue to contribute their vast talents to the war on cancer and finding a cure. What is clear is that there is a direct correlation between increase in research funding and the likelihood of finding a cure. Cancer mortality has declined by 15 percent from 1950 to 1992 due to increases in cancer research funding. In fact, federally-funded cancer research has yielded vast amounts of knowledge about the disease-- information which is guiding our efforts to improve treatment and search for a cure. We have more knowledge and improvements in prevention through: identification of a ``cancer gene'', use of mammographies, clinical exams, and encouragement of self breast exams. Yet there is still no cure. The Bay Area has one of the highest rates of breast cancer incidence and mortality in the world. According to data given to my staff by the Northern California Cancer Center, Bay Area white women have the highest reported breast cancer rate in the world, 104 per 100,000 population. Bay Area African-American women have the fourth highest reported rate in the world at 82 per 100,000 (source: Northern California Cancer Center). I want to recognize Dr. Balazs (Ernie) Bodai who suggested this innovative funding approach. Dr. Bodai is the Chief of the Surgery Department at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in Sacramento, California. He is the founder of Cure Cancer Now, which is a nonprofit organization committed to developing a funding source for breast cancer research. This legislation is supported by the American Cancer Society, American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, Association of Operating Room Nurses, California Health Collaborative Foundations, YWCA-Encore Plus, the Sacramento City Council and Mayor Joe Serna, Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, Sutter County Board of Supervisors, Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Yuba City Council, California State Senator Diane Watson and California State Assemblywoman Dede Alpert as well as the Public Employees Union, San Joaquin Public Employees Association, and Sutter and Yuba County Employees Association and many more on the attached list. Given the intense competition for Federal research funds in a climate of shrinking budgets, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act would allow anyone who uses the postal service to contribute in finding a cure for the breast cancer epidemic. In a sense, this particular proposal is a pilot. I recognize that the postal service may oppose this since it hasn't been done before. I also recognize that in a day of diminishing federal resources, this innovation is an idea whose time has come. It will make money for the post office and for breast cancer research. No one is forced to buy it, but women's organizations may even wish to sell the stamps in a fundraising effort. The administrative costs can be handled with the 1 cent added on to the cost of a first class stamp and conservatively it can make from $60 million per year for breast cancer research. We need to find a cure for breast cancer and I believe the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act is an innovative response to the hidden epidemic among women. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Mack, D'Amato, Reid, and I are introducing a bill to give citizens two ways to contribute to the Nation's cancer research program. In connection with their annual tax return, taxpayers could make a tax deductible contribution for cancer research of not less than $1 and could check off or designate a contribution of not less than $1 from their tax refund owed them by the Government. The bill establishes a Cancer Research Trust Fund and directs the National Institutes of Health to use the funds for research on cancer. It prohibits expenditures from the fund if appropriations in any year for the NIH are less than the previous year so that these funds do not supplant appropriated funds. In fiscal 1997, the National Cancer Institute could only fund 26 percent of grants received with appropriated funds. This approval rate dropped from 29 percent in 1996 and 32 percent in 1992. Under the President's budget request for fiscal 1998, the success rate is estimated to drop again, to 25 percent. While we do not have a specific estimate for how much our bill for cancer research would raise, a Federal tax checkoff for health research could raise $35 million in revenues for health research, if the average contribution were $2, according to Research America. If taxpayers gave $10, it would raise $410 million. Their study shows that the average contribution would be $23 and at that rate, $1.1 billion could be raised. In 1994, U.S. taxpayers contributed $25.7 million through State checkoffs. I believe Americans would be very willing to make a contribution to health research and using the tax return is a very easy way. Sixty percent of Americans say they would check off a box on the tax return for medical research. The median amount people are willing to designate is $23. Virtually everyone is touched by disease and has had some experience with incurable diseases. We all fear dreaded diseases. A May 1996 California poll found that 59 percent of my constituents would pay an extra dollar a week in taxes to support medical research. An overwhelming 94 percent of Americans believe it is important that the United States maintains its role as a world leader in medical research and medical research takes second place only to national defense for tax dollar value. Cancer mortality has risen in the past half-century. By the year 2000, cancer will overtake heart disease as the leading cause of death of Americans. Over 40 percent of Americans will develop cancer and over 20 percent of us will die from cancers. Cancer is causing twice as many deaths as in 1971. Cancer's total economic costs in 1995, according to the National Institutes of Health, came to $104 billion. In my own State of California, in 1996, 125,800 new cases of cancer were diagnosed and 51,200 people died. The incidence of certain cancers, specifically cervical, stomach, and liver, is higher than national rates. The San Francisco area has some of the highest rates of breast cancer in the world. There are areas in my State, such as Alameda County, where prostate cancer incidence exceeds the national rate. In my State, African-American women have a 60-percent higher risk of developing cervical cancer than white women. Hispanic women have the highest risk of cervical cancer in my State. Asian-Americans in California are twice as likely to develop stomach cancer and five times more likely to develop liver cancer than whites. We have made great strides in understanding cancer, particularly the genetics of cancer and what makes a normal cell become a cancer cell. Because of research, cancer survival rates have increased for some cancers. But we cannot rest until we find a cure. The National Cancer Institute's bypass budget identifies five promising areas of research and with 74 percent of grants going unapproved, the scientific talent is there. As the National Cancer Advisory Board said in its 1994 report to Congress, ``Current investment is insufficient to capitalize on unprecedented opportunities in basic science research.'' Clearly additional funds can be well used by some of the world's leading cancer researchers. By introducing this bill, I do not believe giving taxpayers an opportunity to contribute to cancer research will or should be the mainstay of funding for our national war on cancer. Congress needs to continue increasing appropriations and I am disappointed that the President's fiscal year 1998 budget for the National Cancer Institute represents only a 2.5-percent increase over fiscal 1997. I hope we can do better and I pledge my help in doing that. To insure that these taxpayer contributions generated by this bill do not supplant Congressionally appropriated funds, the bill includes a provision that prohibits expenditures from the cancer research fund if appropriations in any year for the NIH are less than the previous year. Twenty-six years of research since the 1971 passage of the National Cancer Act has brought great progress, but some say that the war on cancer has really only been a skirmish. We must escalate that war, we must launch an armada of scientists, we must push vigorously ahead, we must find a cure for cancer. I hope this bill will help to escalate that battle.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Boxer, Graham, Snowe, Moseley-Braun, Landrieu, Harkin, Specter, D'Amato, Mack, Johnson, Reid, and Murray would like to introduce the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act. In a time of shrinking budgets and resources for breast cancer research, this legislation would provide an innovative way to provide additional funding for breast cancer research. This bill would: authorize the U.S. Postal Service to issue an optional special first class stamp to be priced at 1 cent above the cost of normal first-class postage; earmark a penny of every stamp for breast cancer research; provide administrative costs from the revenues for post office expenses; allow 100 percent of the proceeds from the stamp to fund HHS breast cancer research projects; clarify current law, in that any similar stamp would require an act of Congress to be issued in the future. If only 10 percent of all first class mail used this optional 33 cent stamp, $60 million could be raised for breast cancer research annually. There is wide support for this legislation. Congressman Fazio, along with over 100 cosponsors have already introduced the companion bill (H.R. 407) in the House. The breast cancer epidemic has been called this Nation's best kept secret. There are 2.6 million women in America today with breast cancer, one million of whom have yet to be diagnosed with the disease. In 1996, an estimated 184,000 were diagnosed with breast cancer. It is the number one killer of women ages 40 to 44 and the leading cause of cancer death in women ages 15 to 54, claiming a woman's life every 12 minutes in this country (source: National Breast Cancer Coalition). For California, 17,100 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 4,100 women will die from the disease (source: American Cancer Society cancer facts and figures, 1996). In addition to the cost of women's lives, the annual cost of treatment of breast cancer in the United States is approximately $10 billion. Over the last 25 years, the National Institutes of Health has spent over $31.5 billion on cancer research--$2 billion of that on breast cancer. In the last 6 years alone, appropriations for breast cancer research have risen from $90 million in 1990 to $600 million today. That's the good news. But, the bad news is that the national commitment to cancer research overall has been hamstrung since 1980. Currently, NIH is able to fund only 23 percent of applications received by all the institutes. For the Cancer Institute, only 23 percent can be funded--a significant drop from the 60 percent of applications funded in the 1970's. Most alarming is the rapidly diminishing grant funding available for new researcher applicants. In real numbers, the National Cancer Institute will fund approximately 3,600 research projects, of which about 1,000 are new, previously unfunded activities. For investigator-initiated research, only 600 out of 1,900 research projects will be new. The United States is privileged to have some of the most talented scientists and many of the leading cancer research centers in the world such as UCLA, UC San Francisco, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, and the M.D. Anderson. This lack of increase in funding is starving some of the most important research, because scientists will have to look elsewhere for their livelihood. The U.S. must increase the research funds if these scientists and institutions are to continue to contribute their vast talents to the war on cancer and finding a cure. What is clear is that there is a direct correlation between increase in research funding and the likelihood of finding a cure. Cancer mortality has declined by 15 percent from 1950 to 1992 due to increases in cancer research funding. In fact, federally-funded cancer research has yielded vast amounts of knowledge about the disease-- information which is guiding our efforts to improve treatment and search for a cure. We have more knowledge and improvements in prevention through: identification of a ``cancer gene'', use of mammographies, clinical exams, and encouragement of self breast exams. Yet there is still no cure. The Bay Area has one of the highest rates of breast cancer incidence and mortality in the world. According to data given to my staff by the Northern California Cancer Center, Bay Area white women have the highest reported breast cancer rate in the world, 104 per 100,000 population. Bay Area African-American women have the fourth highest reported rate in the world at 82 per 100,000 (source: Northern California Cancer Center). I want to recognize Dr. Balazs (Ernie) Bodai who suggested this innovative funding approach. Dr. Bodai is the Chief of the Surgery Department at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in Sacramento, California. He is the founder of Cure Cancer Now, which is a nonprofit organization committed to developing a funding source for breast cancer research. This legislation is supported by the American Cancer Society, American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, Association of Operating Room Nurses, California Health Collaborative Foundations, YWCA-Encore Plus, the Sacramento City Council and Mayor Joe Serna, Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, Sutter County Board of Supervisors, Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Yuba City Council, California State Senator Diane Watson and California State Assemblywoman Dede Alpert as well as the Public Employees Union, San Joaquin Public Employees Association, and Sutter and Yuba County Employees Association and many more on the attached list. Given the intense competition for Federal research funds in a climate of shrinking budgets, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act would allow anyone who uses the postal service to contribute in finding a cure for the breast cancer epidemic. In a sense, this particular proposal is a pilot. I recognize that the postal service may oppose this since it hasn't been done before. I also recognize that in a day of diminishing federal resources, this innovation is an idea whose time has come. It will make money for the post office and for breast cancer research. No one is forced to buy it, but women's organizations may even wish to sell the stamps in a fundraising effort. The administrative costs can be handled with the 1 cent added on to the cost of a first class stamp and conservatively it can make from $60 million per year for breast cancer research. We need to find a cure for breast cancer and I believe the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act is an innovative response to the hidden epidemic among women. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Mack, D'Amato, Reid, and I are introducing a bill to give citizens two ways to contribute to the Nation's cancer research program. In connection with their annual tax return, taxpayers could make a tax deductible contribution for cancer research of not less than $1 and could check off or designate a contribution of not less than $1 from their tax refund owed them by the Government. The bill establishes a Cancer Research Trust Fund and directs the National Institutes of Health to use the funds for research on cancer. It prohibits expenditures from the fund if appropriations in any year for the NIH are less than the previous year so that these funds do not supplant appropriated funds. In fiscal 1997, the National Cancer Institute could only fund 26 percent of grants received with appropriated funds. This approval rate dropped from 29 percent in 1996 and 32 percent in 1992. Under the President's budget request for fiscal 1998, the success rate is estimated to drop again, to 25 percent. While we do not have a specific estimate for how much our bill for cancer research would raise, a Federal tax checkoff for health research could raise $35 million in revenues for health research, if the average contribution were $2, according to Research America. If taxpayers gave $10, it would raise $410 million. Their study shows that the average contribution would be $23 and at that rate, $1.1 billion could be raised. In 1994, U.S. taxpayers contributed $25.7 million through State checkoffs. I believe Americans would be very willing to make a contribution to health research and using the tax return is a very easy way. Sixty percent of Americans say they would check off a box on the tax return for medical research. The median amount people are willing to designate is $23. Virtually everyone is touched by disease and has had some experience with incurable diseases. We all fear dreaded diseases. A May 1996 California poll found that 59 percent of my constituents would pay an extra dollar a week in taxes to support medical research. An overwhelming 94 percent of Americans believe it is important that the United States maintains its role as a world leader in medical research and medical research takes second place only to national defense for tax dollar value. Cancer mortality has risen in the past half-century. By the year 2000, cancer will overtake heart disease as the leading cause of death of Americans. Over 40 percent of Americans will develop cancer and over 20 percent of us will die from cancers. Cancer is causing twice as many deaths as in 1971. Cancer's total economic costs in 1995, according to the National Institutes of Health, came to $104 billion. In my own State of California, in 1996, 125,800 new cases of cancer were diagnosed and 51,200 people died. The incidence of certain cancers, specifically cervical, stomach, and liver, is higher than national rates. The San Francisco area has some of the highest rates of breast cancer in the world. There are areas in my State, such as Alameda County, where prostate cancer incidence exceeds the national rate. In my State, African-American women have a 60-percent higher risk of developing cervical cancer than white women. Hispanic women have the highest risk of cervical cancer in my State. Asian-Americans in California are twice as likely to develop stomach cancer and five times more likely to develop liver cancer than whites. We have made great strides in understanding cancer, particularly the genetics of cancer and what makes a normal cell become a cancer cell. Because of research, cancer survival rates have increased for some cancers. But we cannot rest until we find a cure. The National Cancer Institute's bypass budget identifies five promising areas of research and with 74 percent of grants going unapproved, the scientific talent is there. As the National Cancer Advisory Board said in its 1994 report to Congress, ``Current investment is insufficient to capitalize on unprecedented opportunities in basic science research.'' Clearly additional funds can be well used by some of the world's leading cancer researchers. By introducing this bill, I do not believe giving taxpayers an opportunity to contribute to cancer research will or should be the mainstay of funding for our national war on cancer. Congress needs to continue increasing appropriations and I am disappointed that the President's fiscal year 1998 budget for the National Cancer Institute represents only a 2.5-percent increase over fiscal 1997. I hope we can do better and I pledge my help in doing that. To insure that these taxpayer contributions generated by this bill do not supplant Congressionally appropriated funds, the bill includes a provision that prohibits expenditures from the cancer research fund if appropriations in any year for the NIH are less than the previous year. Twenty-six years of research since the 1971 passage of the National Cancer Act has brought great progress, but some say that the war on cancer has really only been a skirmish. We must escalate that war, we must launch an armada of scientists, we must push vigorously ahead, we must find a cure for cancer. I hope this bill will help to escalate that battle.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I would just like to add to my earlier comments with some of the specific numbers from each of the big States of people that would not be covered by the bipartisan budget agreement. These are elderly people. In California it is 163,900. In Florida it would be 44,310. In Illinois 13,360; in Massachusetts 13,410; in New York 65,340; and in Texas, 32,640. These are people who are above the age of 65. It is my understanding that the administration, with Members in the other House, may have reached an agreement whereby they would agree to try to certify some of these people as disabled. But, nonetheless, these are the people, at least in the statistics of the Social Security Administration, who would be dropped off come August 22 for sure right now. I think this is living testimony, in terms of numbers of people, to the argument that Senator D'Amato, Senator Chafee, and I are making that: Let us extend this by 2 months and see what we can do to effect a reasonable system where people will not become homeless or a major transfer onto county general assistance rolls. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to support the D'Amato-Chafee resolution. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor. I want to point out that two cities in this Nation are impacted more than any other, and that is the city of Los Angeles and the city of New York. In California alone, there are 310,000 legal immigrants currently receiving SSI benefits. Under the present law, they all go off on August 22, regardless of need. I want to clear the air somewhat, because the administration proposal, accepted by the Budget Committee, does not cover elderly legal immigrants. In other words, if you are 85 years old and monolingual in another language, you cannot get a job, but come August 22, under the agreement, you would be out on the streets. Either you are homeless or else it is a transfer to the local government to be picked up by the counties' general assistance grant. This proposal of Senator D'Amato's essentially takes that August 22 deadline and extends it to October 1, giving us time to work with the administration, work with the Appropriations Committee and try to see if there is not a better solution. If only disabled are covered, which is currently the case under the proposed bipartisan agreement, this means that only refugees and asylees who have exhausted the 7 years would be eligible for SSI only if they are disabled. This impacts 61,360 people in California; 60 percent of those who are disabled and 40 percent of the elderly would not be affected by this legislation. So we have a ways to go in reconciling what is really out there in terms of problems of people who are elderly and the proposal that is part of the bipartisan agreement. The D'Amato proposal extends that deadline by 2 months and gives us an opportunity to work this out. I think it is extraordinarily important that that happen. Additionally, I pay my compliments to the Senator from Rhode Island. Senator Chafee and I have a bill which would extend SSI for all of those who are presently covered by SSI, not prospectively, not for newcomers, but for those people already in this country for whom we have certain responsibilities who are unable to have any other source of income to support themselves. Our bill, I think, is the long-term solution that is the most viable. So I thank Senator D'Amato--he is also a cosponsor of the Chafee- Feinstein bill--for offering this, and I am very hopeful that a dominant majority of this body will see the wisdom in adopting it. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I commend Dr. Rolland C. Lowe, the new president of the California Medical Association. Dr. Lowe is the first Asian-American elected president in the organization's 147-year history. Dr. Lowe started his distinguished career at the University of California at Berkeley, where he attended undergraduate school. After completing his undergraduate work, he studied medicine at the University of California at San Francisco. He completed a medical internship at San Francisco General Hospital and a surgical residency at UCSF. Dr. Lowe has been a trailblazer for many years. In 1982, he was elected the first Asian-American president of the San Francisco Medical Society. For the past three decades, Dr. Lowe has been a distinguished member of the medical community. Since 1965, Dr. Lowe has served on the clinical faculty at UCSF and has practiced medicine in San Francisco's Chinatown. Dr. Lowe is a former chair of the board of trustees at Chinese Hospital in San Francisco and he continues to participate as an active board member. At Chinese Hospital, Dr. Lowe also served as the chief of surgery and the chief of staff. He has worked hard to provide low-income immigrants with high quality health care. Dr. Lowe has a long history with not only the medical community, but with the California Medical Association as well. He has been active in the CMA for many years, and has served on the board of trustees of the CMA since 1987, chairing it from 1994 to his election. He has been a tireless advocate of better health care for the Chinese American community. Dr. Lowe's goal as president of the California Medical Association is to get physicians more involved in their communities. He has said, ``In able to be good patient advocates, doctors need to understand their community.'' In this era of managed care, Dr. Lowe's commitment to re- establishing a personal relationship between doctor and patient is especially commendable. Looking at Dr. Lowe's history of service tells us that he is the right man to accomplish this goal. He has devoted his energies not just to medicine, but more broadly to his community. He has worked to provide decent housing for the elderly in San Francisco, through redevelopment of the old International Hotel for use as a senior housing and community center. Dr. Lowe is the founder and Chair of the Lawrence Choy Lowe Memorial Fund, which is a charitable and civic foundation in Chinatown. He has also served in many community organizations and foundations. My fellow colleagues, please join me today in honoring my long standing friend, Dr. Lowe. He is a valuable asset to his community and to the State of California. His example of providing high quality health care and his dedication to his community deserve our admiration and our respect.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the motion to strike condition 32 from the resolution of ratification. I strongly support the Chemical Weapons Convention. I believe it is very much in our national interests to ratify this treaty. The pending motion is to strike condition 32 from resolution of ratification of the CWC. It is essential that this motion pass, because if it does not, our decision to ratify the treaty will be meaningless. During the debate over this treaty, a number of serious concerns have been raised over Articles X and XI. I myself have shared some of these concerns. But I want to address these criticisms of the CWC now, because I believe that very solid answers have been provided to virtually all of them. I met at the White House last Friday with National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Arms Control Robert Bell, who explained these answers to me in detail, and I found their explanations persuasive. Sharing Defense Technologies: During the April 9, 1997 hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the concern was raised by several witnesses that Article X of the CWC would require the United States to share advanced chemical defense technologies with rogue nations like Iran, who may sign and ratify the treaty. If indeed the treaty required that, there would be significant grounds for concern. But I believe the concern is unwarranted and unfounded. In an April 22 letter to me, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger makes it very clear that Article X of the CWC would impose no obligation on the United States to assist Iran with its chemical weapons defense capabilities. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Berger's letter be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. Berger makes clear that paragraph 7 of Article X, which spells out the obligations of States Parties to assist others threatened by chemical weapons, would require the United States to provide nothing more than medical antidotes and treatments to any state we deemed unreliable. We have the option to provide more advanced assistance to those nations we trust, but no obligation. The Administration is so comfortable with this reading of the treaty, that, in their negotiations with Senator Helms and with the Majority Leader's task force on the CWC, they have agreed to a binding condition (number 15) that would ensure that the United States will not provide any assistance other than medical assistance to any rogue nation that becomes a party to the treaty. Another concern about Article X is that paragraph 3, which calls for parties to ``facilitate * * * the fullest possible exchange'' of information and technology on protection against chemical weapons, which some here have said would require the United States to share such equipment with rogue nations who sign and ratify the treaty. The Administration has made clear that the use of the words ``facilitate'' and ``possible'' in this paragraph mean that the United States will determine whether any specific exchange is appropriate, and we will not pursue those we deem inappropriate. In making these decisions, we will do nothing to undermine our national export controls. With these assertions in hand, I am satisfied that the United States will in no way be obligated to provide chemical weapons technology to any nation we deem to be untrustworthy. Some have also raised the concern that Article X might induce other, less conscientious nations, to supply rogue states with defense technologies. But there is nothing that prevents those sales from taking place today, with no CWC in effect. Within the CWC, the countries who make exchanges allowed in Article X are legally bound by the treaty's overriding principle, stated in Article I, that they can do nothing to ``assist, encourage, or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.'' Any country's failure to uphold this obligation would enable the full force of over 160 nations to coalesce in support of sanctions, and possibly military action. In addition, the CWC would provide us with far more ability to scrutinize any exchanges of chemical defense equipment than we have today. The result is a net increase, not decrease, in our knowledge of defense exchanges with rogue nations, and our ability to address any compliance concerns that may arise from these exchanges. Cooperation on Chemical Technology: Another concern that has been raised involves Article XI. Some have suggested that Article XI, which deals with cooperation in chemical activities not prohibited by the treaty, would require the United States to provide other nations with access to our dual-use technologies and manufacturing secrets. Here again, the concern is unwarranted. Article XI does aim to ensure that parties to the treaty can conduct legitimate chemical commerce, which is reasonable. But in his April 22 letter, Mr. Berger explains that this Article does not require the United States, or any U.S. company, to provide confidential business information to any foreign party. As to the concern that Article XI will undercut export controls, indeed, the reverse is true. Mr. Berger makes clear that all U.S. export controls now in effect are fully consistent with the CWC. In addition, our allies in the Australia Group, all 28 of them, have pledged to maintain all existing multilateral export controls, which they agree are fully consistent with the CWC. Here again, the problem identified by critics of the CWC would actually be worse without the treaty. The CWC will allow us to better monitor chemical commerce that occurs today without our knowledge. It will also provide the basis for further multilateral efforts to control exports, above and beyond our own existing export controls and those of the Australia Group. Furthermore, with the CWC, the countries undertaking exchanges are legally bound by the fundamental obligations in Article I--the overriding Article of the treaty--never ``to assist, encourage or induce in any way anyone to engage in any activity prohibited'' under the convention. It must be remembered that Article I supersedes all subsequent articles of the Convention. It is disingenuous to suggest that the treaty would undercut its central prohibition so blatantly. To address the concerns raised about Article XI, the Administration has agreed to a binding condition (number 7) that the President must certify now and on an annual basis that the Australia Group of 30 nations is continuing to control chemical exports effectively and remains a viable mechanism for doing so. According to this condition, the President must also certify that nothing in the CWC obligates the United States to weaken our own export controls, and that each member of the Australia Group remains committed to maintaining current export controls. With this condition added to the resolution of ratification, I believe concerns about Article XI can be laid aside. In fact, the negotiations between the Administration and Sen. Biden on the one hand, and Sen. Helms and Sen. Lott's task force on the other, have been remarkably successful in addressing the concerns that have been raised about the treaty. If the Administration is willing to meet the concerns of the critics of Articles X and XI, as it has, and those critics still insist on the removal of those articles as their price for ratifying the treaty, it is clear that the intent is to kill the treaty altogether. It is completely unrealistic to suggest that we try to drop Article X and amend Article XI of the CWC at this point. These two articles were included to reassure countries who signed the treaty that they would not be prevented from developing chemical weapons defenses or engaging in legitimate chemical commerce. None of the 160 nations who have signed or 74 nations that have ratified the treaty will agree to renegotiate these provisions at the eleventh hour. It will simply result in our exclusion from the CWC-- which is clearly the intent. As Gen. Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to President Bush, testified before the Foreign Relations Committee on April 9, 1997: Starting over * * * is pure fantasy. If we reject this treaty, we will incur the bitterness of all our friends and allies who followed us for 10 years in putting this thing together * * *. The idea that we can lead out again down a different path I think is just not in the cards. We have got to deal with the situation we face now, not an ideal one out in the future. The concerns raised about Articles X and XI--which I shared--have been more than adequately addressed by the agreed conditions. Failing to strike this condition would be tantamount to killing the treaty. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to strike. Those who do not are essentially voting against ratification of the entire CWC. 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. So, reiterating, Mr. President, during the April 9 hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the concern was raised by several witnesses that Article X would require the United States to share advanced chemical defense technologies with rogue nations like Iran, who may sign and ratify the treaty. If indeed the treaty required that, there would be significant grounds for concern. But I believe the concern is unwarranted. In an April 22 letter to me, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger makes it very clear that Article X of the CWC would impose no obligation on the United States to assist Iran with its chemical weapons defense capabilities. Mr. Berger makes clear that paragraph 7 of Article X, which spells out the obligations of States Parties to assist others threatened by chemical weapons would require the United States to provide nothing more than medical antidotes and treatments to any state we deem unreliable. We have the option to provide more advanced assistance to those states we trust, but no obligation. Another concern about Article X is that paragraph 3, which calls for parties to * * * ``facilitate * * * the fullest possible exchange'' of information and technology on protection against chemical weapons. Now, I understand the concern there. But the administration has made it clear that the use of the words ``facilitate'' and ``possible'' in this paragraph mean that the United States will determine whether any specific exchange is appropriate, and we will not pursue those we deem inappropriate. In making these decisions we will do nothing to undermine our national export controls. With these assertions in hand, I am satisfied that the United States will in no way be obligated to provide chemical weapons defense technology to any nation we deem untrustworthy. And the President's point A in his letter to the majority leader points this out as one of the three conditions under which the United States would withdraw from the treaty if it turns out any other way. Some have also raised the concern that Article X might induce other, less conscientious, nations to supply rogue states with defense technologies. But there is nothing that prevents these sales from taking place today, with no CWC in effect. With the CWC, the countries who make exchanges allowed in Article X are legally bound, as Senator McCain pointed out, to the treaty's overriding and superseding principle, stated in Article I, that they can do nothing to ``assist, encourage, or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.'' Any country's failure to uphold this obligation would enable the full force of 160 nations to coalesce in support of sanctions, and possibly military action. In addition, the CWC would provide us with far more ability to scrutinize any exchanges of chemical defense equipment than we have today. So the result is a net increase, not a decrease, in our knowledge of defense exchanges with rogue nations and our ability to address any compliance concerns that may arise from these exchanges. For me, it was very helpful to be present in the closed session of this Senate. I very much appreciate the information shared. But I think the bottom line is really this point. Let me turn to article XI, which deals with cooperation in chemical technology. Another concern that has been raised involves the article XI provisions on cooperation in chemical activity not prohibited by the treaty. Some fear that these provisions would require the United States to provide other nations with access to our dual-use technologies and manufacturing secrets. Here again, I truly believe the concern is unwarranted. Article XI aims to ensure that parties to the treaty can conduct legitimate chemical commerce. It is reasonable. In his April 22 letter to me, Mr. Berger explains that this article does not require the United States nor any U.S. company to provide confidential business information to any foreign party. As to the concern that article XI will undercut export controls, indeed, the reverse is true. Mr. Berger makes clear that all U.S. export controls now in effect are fully consistent with the CWC. In addition, our allies in the Australia Group--all 29 of them--have pledged to maintain all existing multilateral export controls, which they agree are fully consistent with the CWC. Here again the problem identified by critics, I think, would be worse without the treaty. The CWC allows us to better monitor chemical commerce that occurs today without our knowledge. It will also provide the basis for further multilateral efforts to control exports, above and beyond our own existing export controls and those of the Australia Group. And, once again, Article I supersedes this article with the overriding obligation never ``to assist, encourage or induce in any way anyone to engage in any activity prohibited'' under the convention. To address the concerns raised about article XI, the administration has agreed to a binding condition No. 7 that the President must certify now and on an annual basis that the Australia Group of nations is continuing to control chemical exports effectively and remains a viable mechanism for doing so. The President must also certify that nothing in the CWC obligates the United States to weaken its own export controls. The President, in his point B on page 2 in his letter to the majority leader, clearly points out that, if that happens, we would withdraw from the treaty. The negotiations between the administration and Senator Biden on the one hand, and Senator Helms and Senator Lott's task force on the other, I think have been remarkably successful in addressing concerns raised by the treaty. So we see here that the administration has been willing to meet the concerns of critics of articles X and XI, and it has. It seems to me completely unrealistic to suggest that we try to drop articles X and XI at this late stage. These two articles were included to reassure countries who sign the treaty that they would not be prevented from developing chemical weapons defenses or engaging in legitimate chemical commerce. None of the 160 nations who have signed, nor the 74 nations who have ratified this treaty will agree to renegotiate these provisions at the eleventh hour. It will simply result in our exclusion from the CWC. And that would truly be too high a price to pay. I urge all my colleagues to support this motion to strike condition 32 from the resolution of ratification. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. Berger makes clear that paragraph 7 of Article X, which spells out the obligations of States Parties to assist others threatened by chemical weapons, would require the United States to provide nothing more than medical antidotes and treatments to any state we deemed unreliable. We have the option to provide more advanced assistance to those nations we trust, but no obligation. The administration is so comfortable with this reading of the treaty, that, in their negotiations with Senator Helms and with the Majority Leader's task force on the CWC, they have agreed to a binding condition (number 15) that would ensure that the United States will not provide any assistance other than medical assistance to any rogue nation that becomes a party to the treaty. Another concern about Article X is that paragraph 3, which calls for parties to ``facilitate . . . the fullest possible exchange'' of information and technology on protection against chemical weapons, would require the United States to share such equipment with rogue nations who sign and ratify the treaty. The administration has made clear that the use of the words ``facilitate'' and ``possible'' in this paragraph mean that we will determine whether any specific exchange is appropriate, and we will not pursue those we deem inappropriate. In making these decisions, we will do nothing to undermine our national export controls. With these assertions in hand, I am satisfied that the United States will in no way be obligated to provide chemical weapons technology to any nation we deem to be untrustworthy. Some have also raised the concern that Article X might induce other, less conscientious nations, to supply rogue states with defense technologies. But there is nothing that prevents those sales from taking place today, with no CWC in effect. With the CWC, the countries who make exchanges allowed in Article X are legally bound by the treaty's overriding principle, stated in Article I, that they can do nothing to ``assist, encourage, or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.'' In addition, the CWC would provide us with far more ability to scrutinize any exchanges than we have today. The result is a net increase, not decrease, in our knowledge of defense exchanges with rogue nations, and our ability to address any compliance concerns that may arise from these exchanges. Cooperation on Chemical Technology: Another concern that has been raised involves Article XI. Some have suggested that Article XI, which deals with cooperation in chemical activities not prohibited by the treaty, would require the United States to provide other nations with access to our dual-use technologies and manufacturing secrets. Here again, the concern is unwarranted. Article XI does aim to ensure that parties to the treaty can conduct legitimate chemical commerce, which is reasonable. But in his April 22 letter, Mr. Berger explains that this article does not require the United States, or any U.S. company, to provide any confidential business information to any foreign party. As to the concern that Article XI will undercut export controls, indeed, the reverse is true. Mr. Berger makes clear that the all U.S. export controls now in effect are fully consistent with the CWC. In addition, our allies in the Australia Group, all 28 of them, have pledged to maintain all existing multilateral export controls, which they agree are fully consistent with the CWC. Here again, the problem identified by critics of the CWC would actually be worse without the treaty. The CWC will allow us to better monitor chemical commerce that occurs today without our knowledge. It will also provide the basis for further multilateral efforts to control exports, above and beyond our own existing export controls and those of the Australia Group. To address the concerns raised about Article XI, the Administration has agreed to a binding condition (number 7) that the President must certify now and on an annual basis that the Australia Group is continuing to effectively control chemical exports and remains a viable mechanism for doing so. According to this condition, the President must also certify that nothing in the CWC obligates the United States to weaken our own export controls, and that each member of the Australia Group remains committed to maintaining current export controls. With this condition added to the resolution of ratification, I believe concerns about Article XI can be laid aside. In fact, the negotiations between the Administration and Senator Biden on the one hand, and Senator Helms and the Lott task force on the other, have been remarkably successful in addressing the concerns that have been raised about the treaty. In all, 28 conditions have been agreed to in these negotiations, on subjects ranging from verification and Articles X and XI, to Congressional prerogatives in providing funding for the OPCW; the establishment of an inspector general at the OPCW; safeguards on intelligence sharing; the Senate's role in reviewing future treaty amendments; constitutional protections in the inspection of U.S. facilities; our armed forces' continued ability to use non-lethal riot control agents, such as tear gas; and maintaining robust U.S. chemical defense capabilities. With all of these conditions agreed to, there are only five areas remaining in dispute. One would think we were near the point of a virtually unanimous vote to ratify the CWC. And yet, we still hear charges that the administration is ``stonewalling.'' That is simply not the case. Far from stonewalling, the administration has worked very hard to address the Senate's concerns. But it appears that some people simply do not to want to take yes for an answer. And so, we have five conditions in this resolution of ratification which the Administration has identified as ``killer'' conditions. These conditions would make our ratification of this treaty meaningless, because they would either gut central provisions of the treaty, or set up unachievable goals that must be met for us to deposit our instruments of ratification. They should all be defeated. Let me briefly address each of these killer conditions: Condition 29 would prohibit the United States from ratifying the CWC until Russia ratifies it and takes a series of other actions to comply with past agreements. Besides holding United States foreign policy hostage to a group of hardliners in the Russian Duma, this condition ignores the fact that the CWC provides precisely the tools that would be helpful in detecting Russian violations of this and past treaties. It also gives Russia an easy excuse to delay ratification itself. On the grounds of self- interest, this condition shoots ourselves in the foot. Condition 30 would prohibit the United States from ratifying the CWC until rogue states such as North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and Iraq have ratified it. By accepting this treaty, we allow these rogue regimes to set the standards of international conduct. It is the equivalent of saying that we should not outlaw drug smuggling because some people will still smuggle drugs. By ratifying the CWC, the United States will make it easier to forge international coalitions aimed at eliminating the chemical weapons programs of these regimes, even through military force when necessary. It will also set a standard for those nations to meet if and when their current regimes are replaced by more responsible ones. Condition 31 requires the United States to reject all CWC inspectors from countries like Iran and China. This condition is unnecessarily rigid. It would prevent us from allowing suspect states from seeing for themselves that we are not violating the treaty. It would also certainly result in American inspectors being excluded from inspections in these countries. A better approach would be to strike this language and enact implementing legislation that would allow Congress a role in determining which inspectors should be barred, which the CWC allows the United States to do on a case-by-case basis. Condition 32 would prohibit the United States from ratifying the CWC until Article X is eliminated and Article XI is amended. This is completely unrealistic and completely unnecessary. Articles X and XI were included to reassure countries who signed the treaty that they would not be prevented from developing chemical weapons defenses or engaging in legitimate chemical commerce. None of the 160 nations who have signed or 74 nations that have ratified the treaty will agree to renegotiate these provisions at the eleventh hour. It will simply result in our exclusion from the CWC-- which is clearly the intent. As Gen. Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to President Bush, testified before the Foreign Relations Committee on April 9, 1997: ``Starting over. . .is pure fantasy. If we reject this treaty, we will incur the bitterness of all our friends and allies who followed us for 10 years in putting this thing together. . . The idea that we can lead out again down a different path I think is just not in the cards. We have got to deal with the situation we face now, not an ideal one out in the future.'' The concerns raised about Articles X and XI--which I shared--have been more than adequately addressed by the agreed conditions. This is what I mean about not wanting to take yes for an answer. Condition 33 would prevent the U.S. from ratifying the treaty unless the President can certify with ``high confidence'' that we would be able to detect the production or storage of a single metric ton of chemical agent. This is an absurdly high standard. The intelligence community has consistently said it could detect ``militarily significant'' cheating, but the production of one ton of agent does not qualify. But the tools created by the CWC will only enhance our abilities to detect these violations. It would be foolish to kill the treaty with a condition like this that makes the perfect the enemy of the good. This condition is not about verification--it is about killing the treaty. Tomorrow, each of these five amendments will be subject to a motion to strike. Failing to strike them would be tantamount to killing the treaty. I urge my colleagues to vote for each motion to strike. Those who do not are essentially voting against ratification of the entire CWC. 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--such as that it would lull us to sleep, or that it is not verifiable--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. Our failure to ratify this treaty would be a grave mistake. The treaty will enter into force on April 29, with or without us. This is the only treaty that there is, and it requires U.S. leadership to make it work. Only by being a party to this convention can we make it function to its fullest possible extent. I believe every Member on this side of the aisle supports this treaty. I urge my Republican colleagues to vote for ratification, after voting to strike the five killer amendments. Exhibit 1 The White House, Washington, April 22, 1997. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feinstein: I am pleased that we were able to talk last week about ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, including the concerns which have been raised about Articles X and XI of the treaty. I would like to take the opportunity to elaborate further on these issues and set the record straight. Regarding Article X, concern has been expressed that this provision might force us or other treaty parties to share advanced chemical defense technologies and equipment with rogue nations like Iran and to assist in the development of CW defense capabilities. This simply is not the case. First, only countries that have joined the CWC and renounced CW can request assistance and only then if they are threatened or attacked with CW. Indeed, the very purpose of Article X is to encourage countries to join the CWC and eliminate their CW programs by providing an assurance of international assistance in the event that they are threatened or attacked with CW by a non-party. For states in good standing under the CWC that do qualify for Article X aid, there is no requirement to provide high tech defenses or even gas masks. The obligation to assist can be satisfied with medical or humanitarian aid. Indeed, the President has committed in an agreed condition on the Resolution of Ratification (Condition #15) that the United States will only give medical help to certain countries of concern, such as Iran or Cuba, under Article X. Second, with regard to the actions of other states, let me point out that countries contemplating any exchanges under Article X are legally bound by the fundamental obligation in Article I of the treaty never ``to assist, encourage or induce in any way anyone to engage in any activity prohibited'' under the Convention. This means that all relevant transfers must be subject to very close scrutiny, especially with countries whose compliance may be in doubt. We will use every instrument of U.S. diplomacy and leverage at our disposal to ensure that transfers do not occur which could undermine U.S. national security interests, including the extensive verification and compliance provisions in the Convention. As Secretary Cohen said on ``Meet the Press'' on Sunday, we will be in a much better position to do this if we are inside the treaty rather than outside. Frankly, other countries will have little incentive to work with us to ensure that inappropriate transfers do not occur if we have not ratified ourselves. Article XI encourages free trade in non-prohibited chemicals among States that join the CWC and renounce any CW capability. Some have charged that this provision might force us or our chemical industry to share dual-use technologies and manufacturing secrets with other countries. Such an interpretation is totally at odds with the plain language of the treaty. It also defies logic to suggest that a treaty expressly devoted to eliminating chemical weapons somehow requires its parties to facilitate the spread of chemical weapons. First, Article XI is explicitly subject to the fundamental ban in Article I on assisting anyone in acquiring chemical weapons. Moreover, in order to reinforce the treaty's constraints against the transfer of dangerous technology, the President has committed in agreed condition #7 in the Resolution of Ratification to obtain official assurances from our Australia Group partners at the highest diplomatic levels that Article XI is fully consistent with maintaining strict export controls on dangerous chemicals and that they are committed to ensuring the Group remains an effective mechanism for dealing with CW proliferation. I would note that this condition also requires annual certification. Second, with the CWC the countries undertaking exchanges are legally bound by the fundamental obligations in Article I. As Ron Lehman, former Arms Control Director under President Bush, recently stated in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: ``We made it very clear throughout the negotiations that all of this was subject to Article I, which is the fundamental obligation not to assist. . . . But the most important, I think, telling fact in support of the U.S. interpretation is the fact that after the Convention was done so many of the usual list of suspects were so unhappy that they did not get what they wanted in these provisions.'' I would note, in conclusion, that renegotiation of Articles X and XI of the CWC, as the Helms condition (#32) in the Resolution of Ratification would require, is not a realistic option. This treaty was intensively negotiated for more than 10 years. It has been signed by 162 countries and ratified by 74. As Brent Scowcroft recently testified, ``Starting over . . . is pure fantasy. If we reject this treaty, we will incur the bitterness of all of our friends and allies who followed us for 10 years in putting this together . . . the idea that we can lead out again down a different path I think is just not in the cards. We have got to deal with the situation we face now, not an ideal one out in the future.'' This is why the Senate must vote to strike this Helms Condition. I hope this information facilitates the Senate's consideration of the CWC and look forward to a successful vote in the coming days. Sincerely, Samuel R. Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, April 24th, marks the 82nd anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. I rise today to acknowledge and commemorate this terrible chapter in history, to help ensure that it will never be forgotten. Eighty-two years ago today, one of the darkest chapters in human history began. On April 24, 1915, Ottoman authorities began arresting Armenian political and religious leaders throughout Anatolia. Over the ensuing months and years, some 1.5 million Armenians were killed at the hands of the Ottoman authorities, and hundreds of thousands more were exiled from their homes. On this 82nd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, let us renew our commitment never to forget the horror and barbarism of this event. We must remember, we must speak out, and we must teach the next generation about the systematic persecution and murder of millions of Armenians by the Ottoman government. I know that I am joined by every one of my colleagues, by the Armenian-American community, and by people across the United States in commemorating the Genocide and paying tribute to the victims of this crime against humanity. As Americans, we are blessed with freedom and security, but that blessing brings with it an important responsibility. We must never allow oppression and persecution to pass without notice or condemnation. By commemorating the Armenian Genocide, we renew our commitment always to fight for human dignity and freedom, and we send out a message that the world can never allow genocide to be perpetrated again. Even as we remember the tragedy and honor the dead, we also honor the living. Out of the ashes of their history, Armenians all across the world have clung to their identity and have prospered in new communities. My state of California is fortunate to be home to a community of Armenian-Americans a half-a-million strong. They are a strong and vibrant community whose members participate in every aspect of civic life, and California is the richer for their presence. The strength and perseverance of the Armenian people is a triumph of the human spirit, which refuses to cede victory to evil. The best retort to the perpetrators of oppression and destruction is rebirth, renewal, and rebuilding. Armenians throughout the world have done just that, and today they do it in their homeland as well. A free and independent Armenia stands today as a living monument to the resilience of a people. I am proud that the United States, through our friendship and assistance, is contributing to the rebuilding and renewal of Armenia. Let us never forget the victims of the Armenian Genocide; let their deaths not be in vain. We must remember their tragedy to ensure that such crimes can never be repeated. And as we remember Armenia's dark past, we can take some consolation in the knowledge that its future is bright with possibility.