Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely, as there is with every amendment to the Constitution. Implementing legislation carries with it court tests and standards regarding how the legislation is to be carried out.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It does permit a separate capital budget for major capital improvements. I believe it would be foolish to put strictures in the Constitution of the United States. It seems to me that the Constitution of the United States should provide general concepts, and the specifics of those concepts should be worked out by the Congress of the United States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I appreciate that very much. Perhaps one way of answering this would be to place in the Record a letter sent to Senator Daschle by the Secretary of the Treasury on February 3. Let me simply read one sentence. Referring to the majority amendment, the Secretary writes: The amendment as drafted does not distinguish between capital investment and current spending. Outlays are defined as ``all outlays in the United States except for those for repayment of debt principal.'' Even if Congress were to create a separate capital budget by statute, outlays from that budget would still be ``outlays of the United States.'' Under the majority amendment, a capital budget would be prohibited. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No. As I understand it, for example, title I would not be a capital expenditure. The money that is given to poor children, which is I think the largest expenditure, would not be a capital expenditure. Capital expenditure would be reserved for infrastructure.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the amendment I have just sent to the desk essentially differs from the Senate Joint Resolution 1, the majority balanced budget amendment, in just four ways. I would like to quickly summarize the distinctions and then go over each one of them and explain why I believe this amendment will stand the test of scrutiny. This substitute approach, in my view, represents how we need to address the balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, we have just had quite a bit of debate on the Reid amendment. The arguments have been made as to why the Social Security trust funds, should be removed from the unified budget. This amendment would allow Social Security trust funds to continue to remain as part of the unified budget up to the point Congress achieves balance, which has been estimated at 2002. The administration and Congress have both indicated a commitment to balancing the budget by 2002. This amendment respects that goal. The amendment would require that 1 year after enactment, whenever the amendment is ratified by three-quarters of the legislatures of the States, the amendment would go into effect and be binding. If the amendment becomes effective in 2002, the year in which bipartisan consensus exists for balancing the budget, the year in which Social Security would be excluded would be 2003. This provides an opportunity to transition away from our current reliance on the Social Security trust funds to offset deficit spending in other areas and reach balance under a balanced budget amendment. As Senator Hatch will recall, last year when the amendment was on the floor, we held some negotiations to try to reach agreement. Many of us feel very strongly that Social Security should not be part of balancing the budget. We had some negotiations to review whether we might agree to a balanced budget, that excluded the Social Security trust funds, by the year 2008. The majority did not support the approach and the response to the offer was that it is too difficult to balance the budget if you withdraw Social Security trust funds from the unified budget. I have given that considerable thinking and believe that if we use it up to the point of balance, and then separate it out, that gives time to adjust to this withdrawal of Social Security. My amendment prohibits the use of the Social Security trust funds after Congress has reached balance and would prohibit the use of the trust funds thereafter. My amendment's second point would retain restrictions on lifting the debt limit. However, it would require a majority vote, rather than a three-fifths vote, as the majority balanced budget amendment provides. The third point of the amendment would permit Congress to respond to serious economic emergencies or major national disasters. Without that, a bailout for a California earthquake would have to be paid for within the confines of balanced outlays and expenditures. A savings and loan bailout would have to be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget, balancing revenue and expenditures. This balance, if the Nation faced an economic emergency or major natural disaster, would be much more difficult to achieve in the outyears. Fourth, this amendment would clarify that passage of the amendment would not prohibit Congress from developing a capital budget. It does not mandate a capital budget, but as has been made clear by Senator Torricelli and others, the majority amendment would essentially prevent the Federal Government of the United States of America from ever developing a capital budget. A capital budget has been a useful budget structure for many of the States, as you know from experience, Mr. President, and many of the cities, as I know. These cities and States have capital budgets separate and distinct from their operating budgets. They fund these capital budgets for physical assets, like buildings, bridges, and highways, in a multiyear funding mechanism. This structure could make sense for the Federal Government as well, and we should not close the door on this option. Unfortunately, the majority balanced budget amendment does precisely that. So these are the four points of difference. I would like to elaborate on these concerns. Let me just tell you why I feel so strongly about Social Security. To begin with, Social Security is already separate and discreet. Every worker, workers in your family and in my family, have 6.2 percent of their paycheck deducted every month for FICA taxes. This is matched by 6.2 percent from every employer in the country for a total of 12.4 percent FICA contribution. Workers are told that this money goes into a trust fund to be used for their retirement, invested by the Federal Government, so it will be there when they retire for their Social Security benefits. This I view as a solemn pledge. The workers are never told that the 12.4 percent FICA contribution is actually part of the unified budget. They are never told their payments, in fact, support the purchase of a battleship, or the payment of a lawyer's salary, or the payment of a clerk's salary, or the building of a highway or for any other activity of our Government's general operations. Now, this is also wrong because of the looming retirement of the baby boom generation. Analysts concluded Congress needed to increase FICA taxes a while back to be able to provide for the retirement of our large baby boom generation. Well, the taxes were increased, but, again, the funds are part of the unified budget and they support a battleship, a lawyer, a clerk, recreation programs, and so on and so forth. I think that is wrong. I also think the Congress recognized it was wrong when this House, virtually unanimously, enacted the Hollings resolution in 1990. As you know, the Hollings resolution said, henceforth, we will not include Social Security as part of the unified budget. The majority amendment essentially enshrines in the Constitution, for all time, the use of Social Security trust funds as part of the unified budget. The funds will be used to pay for every soldier, every battleship, every highway, every clerk, and every park employee of the Federal Government. I think this is wrong. I think it is wrong morally, I think it is wrong ethically, and I think if it were ever tested, it would be found to be wrong legally, as well. But we have been using the Social Security trust funds and we are in a budget hole as a result. It is really a catch-22 situation. The only way out is to amend this majority balanced budget amendment, and this is what I propose to do. Now, let me give you some idea of the challenge Social Security faces. This chart represents the Social Security trust funds, between 1996 and 2002. According to the Social Security Administration data, we use approximately $570 billion of these surplus trust funds to balance the budget. Between 2002 and 2019 we use $1.8 trillion of Social Security trust funds part of the unified budget. My amendment represents a compromise, if you will. The amendment recognizes how difficult it is to balance the Federal budget without the Social Security trust funds. We will only use the $570 billion up to 2002, and after 2002, these funds will be separated out from the unified budget. These Social Security receipts will remain in a separate and discreet trust fund. They will not be used to pay for a battleship or a soldier or a clerk's salary or a lawyer's salary or anything else. That is $1.8 trillion that will essentially be saved to pay for retirements. This restriction makes the task of shoring up the long-term solvency of Social Security, which the majority balanced budget makes more difficult, a lot easier to achieve. As a former mayor, I know that one of the things you do to really assess spending at any government level is look at outlays. Outlays are dollars the government actually spends. If you look at outlays, you will see in 1995, more than 50 percent of all of the money spent by the Federal Government was essentially spent for entitlements, like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and welfare, and 14 percent was dedicated to pay interest on the debt. Interest, which buys nothing, has doubled since 1969. Therefore, if you do nothing by the year 2003, almost 75 percent of all of the outlays of the Federal Government are effectively Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, and interest on the debt. The spending trends are what really motivates me, and I hope others, to accept a constitutional balanced budget amendment. These spending priorities will run into each other and it becomes more difficult to balance the budget under any balanced budget amendment. One has to understand what we are going to protect. I think Social Security is critically important to protect for a number of reasons. If we look at the funding patterns for Social Security, Social Security revenue, payroll taxes and interest that has built up a surplus, begins to drop around 2019. As soon as these funds begin to drop, Social Security outlays begin to exceed our Social Security revenue. Under the majority balanced budget amendment, total expenditures and the outlays meet. When outlays exceed our revenue, Congress either has to increase taxes, cut Social Security payments or cut other programs or in some way find revenues so that those outlays and expenditures match. This is the significance of the Congressional Research Service memo that has been discussed by several Senators. So as it goes straight down, every year you have to either make deeper cuts, in Social Security or somewhere else, or you have to increase taxes just to pay these Social Security checks. Now, is this fair? Is this what we want to do? Is it fair in these outyears to place Social Security recipients so deeply at risk? I have come to the conclusion that it is not fair, that it is not the right thing to do. Therefore, my amendment would permit the use of the Social Security trust funds up to 2002 and remove it from the unified budget thereafter. Critics suggest this amendment creates a big problem in the year 2003. However, this amendment would also provide the ability to develop a capital budget. Our Nation has significant capital needs, yet we are underinvesting in this important area. In 1965, the United States invested 6.3 percent of its budget in infrastructure spending. We built the Nation's highways, we built bridges, we built other major projects which benefit this Nation. This is not a nation whose population is going down. It is a nation whose population is increasing and a growing population has infrastructure needs. However, by 1992, our investment in capital infrastructure declined to 3 percent of the budget. When push comes to shove, Congress reduces capital spending, dropping those things that enable us to provide a decent quality of life for our citizens, such as the ability to get to a job without gridlock or the ability to travel over a bridge on a Federal highway that is not going to fall down. Our infrastructure has been decaying and it needs adequate funding. More than one-third of the major highways of the United States, representing one-quarter of a million miles, are in poor or mediocre condition and need to be repaired. Approximately 25 percent of our 570,000 highway bridges are described as structurally deficient, or functionally obsolete. What does this say? We are becoming capital poor in infrastructure. Those of us that have been Governors and mayors know that one of the prime responsibilities of government is infrastructure, something that is not very sexy for the public. Our responsibilities are the streets, keeping potholes off of streets, keeping bridges and roads in good repair and minimizing the risk of accidents for people. I contend we cannot do that under the restrictions of this balanced budget, unless, at some point in the future, Congress has the ability to enact a capital budget and to fund long-term capital improvements on a multiyear basis rather than in cash up front as is done now. If you take 2 percent of GDP as your measure of investment, it would be about $160 billion right now. Congress could create a limit based on a percentage of GDP. I think we spend about $140 billion now. So if you wanted to ratchet it up, to permit a higher level of investment, you would simply set a limit at a higher percent of GDP. The limit would operate similar to a kind of bond limit, as we use in States. The Government would have a certain bonding capacity and you would stay within the limit of that bonding capacity, which would reflect our economic strength, interest payments, and payback schedule and similar factors. I think it makes tremendous sense. I think that without providing for a capital budget, we undermine our Nation's ability to do and carry out one of the most important responsibilities of a Federal Government, the providing of safe and adequate Federal infrastructure for the future of our people. Now, let me speak about the economic emergency. The majority amendment does not provide for an economic emergency. In an economic emergency, it is important that the automatic stabilizers be able to function. It is important that we be able to respond to extreme and serious national emergencies, whether this be a major depression or, I might say, a savings and loan crisis, that develops in the future, or another crisis. Congress was forced to spend an additional $135 billion to clean up the fiscal mess of the savings and loan crisis in the 1980's and 1990's. These costs weren't anticipated and they weren't projected. Yet, we had to honor the United States' commitment to protect depositors. If Senate Joint Resolution 1 were in place, Congress would have been forced to cut the budget by $66 billion in 1991, to meet its savings and loan bailout obligations in that year, by cutting education, cutting highways, cutting crime fighting and other priorities in order to pay off depositors. Now, is that really the situation we want to place ourselves in for, not just 10 or 15 years, but in perpetuity, forever and ever and ever? If you asked me in the 1960's or 1970's, would I ever think that these savings and loans would default, the answer would have been no. But the fact of the matter is that they did. The fact of the matter is that the cost to the Federal Government was $135 billion, and in 1991 this Congress ponied up $66 billion. Now, that is $66 billion that would be pitted against the purchase of a new battleship or soldiers' salaries or their cost-of-living raise, or a clerk in the Agriculture Department, or a lawyer in the Justice Department. That is the inescapable truth of budgeting. Therefore, the majority amendment prohibition on the development of a capital budget, even if this or a future Congress believes it would be necessary or prudent or wise to enact one, I think, is a major error. Consequently, my amendment would permit Congress to develop a capital budget in the future. Now, let me briefly address extending the debt limit. A three-fifths vote in Government is something you do when you really want the minority to control the process. We are a representative democracy. We represent the people, and the bulk of votes in a representative democracy are a majority. The majority speaks. All of you down there, Mr. and Mrs. America, how many of you favor more police on your streets? The hands go up. A majority. How many favor more firefighters? Hands go up. A majority. We reflect those views when we come back to the Congress. We generally know what the majority believes. It is very hard to know what a minority really believes, and this gives inordinate power to a minority. People often argue it is easy to receive a majority vote. That is wrong and let me try to show you how wrong it is. Since 1990, no budget resolution or conference report has received a three-fifths majority. Since 1990, no vote to raise the debt limit has received a three-fifths majority. In 1985, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law was adopted in the Senate by a vote of 51 to 37. The 1990 budget reconciliation bill was passed with a budget vote of 54 to 45. The 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act was passed with a vote of 51 to 50. The 1995 budget reconciliation bill was adopted on a vote of 52 to 47. The 1995 temporary debt limit increase was adopted on a vote of 49 to 47. If that doesn't demonstrate that majority votes even are tough to get, I don't know what does. Now, the issue here is, what happens if the debt limit isn't extended, and what happens if we permit 41 people to make that determination? Well, we just saw that. The Government shuts down. We default on our obligations. The full faith and credit is cast in doubt. I think it is a huge mistake to put forward a balanced budget amendment that would permit a minority in Congress to hold the Government hostage, shut it down, bring it to the brink of default, risk the loss of our full faith and credit, and the respect that goes with it. This gives 41 Senators and 179 House Members the power to hold this Nation's credit hostage during budgetary disagreements. So I think it is a big, big mistake. In closing, I am pleased to submit this amendment on behalf of Senators Torricelli, Durbin, and Cleland. Essentially, this amendment keeps Social Security as part of the unified budget up to the point we reach balance. As I mentioned, approximately $570 billion will be taken from the trust funds and used to balance the budget by 2002. The amendment separates Social Security out at the point of balance and is able to retain $1.8 trillion of Social Security trust funds outside of the unified budget for the future. This means Social Security will remain financially viable much longer. Social Security is critical for many recipients. Fourteen percent of people on Social Security today are totally dependent on it. Social Security prevents abut 57 percent of beneficiaries from falling into poverty. It is important to protect it. It is the one Government program, beyond all others, that guarantees that people in their golden years will have an opportunity for a decent quality of life. Second, this amendment provides for a national economic emergency. I have spoken about the savings and loan bailout, an unpredictable event, which cost the Treasury $135 billion, a $66 billion appropriation in 1991, alone. Emergencies occur and will need congressional attention. The majority amendment will undermine our ability to address emergency needs. Third, this amendment does not mandate a capital budget, but it would say that the Constitution does not prohibit the development of a capital budget if a majority of the Congress desires to develop and implement one. Fourth, this amendment would change the restrictions on extending the debt limit from three-fifths to a majority vote. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee and attended the hearings and listened to the testimony. I sincerely believe, that my amendment is a balanced budget amendment that will stand the test of time and has an opportunity to be ratified by three-fourths of the State. The Senate should adopt this amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor for the moment.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the desk, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 11 (Purpose: To propose a substitute)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might be allowed 30 seconds to conclude?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I can only say I believe a strong case can be made to the President to decertify Mexico, to provide a list of specific accomplishments that country should meet to waive decertification, and at any time during this next year that they meet that list of requirements, the President has the ability to certify them. I thank the President. I yield the floor. Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to read into the Record a letter that I have just sent to the President of the United States, urging decertification of Mexico: Dear Mr. President: I am writing to urge you to deny certification that Mexico has taken sufficient actions to combat international narcotics trafficking when you report to Congress on the anti-narcotics efforts of major drug producing and drug-transit countries. I believe a reasonable examination of the facts leads to no other decision. Last year at this time, Senator D'Amato and I compiled a list of actions we considered it necessary for the Mexican government to take to beef up their anti-narcotics efforts. This list is attached. Regrettably, I have concluded that there has been insufficient progress, or no progress, on nearly all of the items on this list. Some of these failures are due to inability; others are due to a lack of political will. But all have set back the urgent effort to end the plague of drugs on our streets. I want to bring to your attention a number of the most significant examples of Mexico's inability and unwillingness to deal with the drug trafficking problem effectively: Cartels: There has been little or no effective action taken against the major drug cartels. The two most powerful--the Juarez Cartel run by Amado Carillo Fuentes, and the Tijuana Cartel, run by the Arellano Felix brothers--have hardly been touched by Mexican law enforcement. Those who have been arrested, such as Hector Palma, are given light sentences and allowed to continue to conduct business from jail. As DEA Administrator Constantine says, ``The Mexicans are now the single most powerful trafficking groups''--worse than the Colombian cartels. Money Laundering: Last year, the Mexican parliament passed criminal money laundering laws for the first time, but the new laws are incomplete and have not yet been properly implemented. These laws do not require banks to report large and suspicious currency transactions, or threaten the banks with sanctions if they fail to comply. Promises to enact such regulations--which prosecutors need to identify money-launderers--have so far gone unfulfilled. Mexican officials said that such regulations would be developed by January, but they were not produced. To my knowledge, not a single Mexican bank or exchange house has been forced to change its operations. Law Enforcement: While there have been increases in the amounts of heroin and marijuana seized by Mexican authorities, cocaine seizures remain low. Although slightly higher than last year's figures, the 23.6 metric tons seized in 1996 is barely half of what was seized in 1993. A modest increase in drug-related arrests brought the total to 11,245 in 1996--less than half of the 1992 figure. Cooperation with U.S. Law Enforcement: Our own drug enforcement agents report that the situation on the border has never been worse. Last month, the Mexican government forbade U.S. agents to carry weapons on the Mexican side of the border, putting their lives in grave danger. Recent news reports indicate that death threats against U.S. narcotics agents on the border have quadrupled in the past three months. Some U.S. agents believe that all their cooperative efforts are undone almost instantly by the corrupt Mexican agents with whom they work. Extraditions: Despite the fact that the United States has 52 outstanding extradition request on drug-related charges, not a single Mexican national has ever been extradited to the United States on such charges. Corruption: Mexico's counternarcotics effort is plagued by corruption in the government and the national police. Among the evidence are the eight Mexican prosecutors and law enforcement officials who have been murdered in Tijuana in recent months. There has been considerable hope that the Mexican armed forces would be able to take a more active role in the counternarcotics effort without the taint of corruption. But the revelation that Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, Mexico's top counternarcotics official and a 42-year veteran of the armed forces, had accepted bribes from the Carillo Fuentes cartel, casts grave doubts upon that hope. Recent news reports indicate that U.S. law enforcement officials suspect judges, prosecutors, Transportation Ministry officials, and Naval officers of corruption, and there is persuasive evidence that two Mexican Governors-- Manlio Fabio Beltrones Rivera of Sonora and Jorge Carillo Olea--are actively facilitating the work of drug traffickers in their respective states. The National Autonomous University of Mexico estimates that the drug lords spend $500 million each year to bribe Mexican officials at all levels, and many consider that figure to be a gross under- estimation. Mr. President, I believe the evidence is overwhelming and can lead to no decision other than the decertification of Mexico. It would send a strong signal to Mexico and the world that the United States will not tolerate lack of cooperation in the fight against narcotics, even from our close friends and allies. Accordingly, I urge you to establish a clear set of benchmarks by which you will judge if and when to recertify Mexico for counternarcotics cooperation. These benchmarks must include, but not be limited to: effective action to dismantle the major drug cartels and arrest their leaders; full and ongoing implementation of effective money- laundering legislation; compliance with all outstanding extradition requests by the United States; increased interdiction of narcotics and other controlled substances flowing across the border by land and sea routes; improved cooperation with U.S. law enforcement officials, including allowing U.S. agents to resume carrying weapons on the Mexican side of the border; and a comprehensive program to identify, weed out, and prosecute corrupt officials at all levels of the Mexican government, police, and military. You may feel that U.S. interests in Mexico, economic and otherwise, are too extensive to risk the fall-out that would result from decertification. That is why Congress included a vital national interest waiver provision in Section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act. But other vital interests are not a valid reason to certify when certification has not been earned. If you feel that our interests warrant it, I urge you to use this waiver. But an honest assessment of Mexico's cooperation on counternarcotics must fall on the side of decertification.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Reid amendment to the majority resolution to provide a balanced budget constitutional amendment. As everyone in this body knows, the Reid amendment would exclude Social Security trust funds from the balancing requirement of the proposed constitutional amendment. This exclusion is the only matter in which the Reid amendment differs from the majority's balanced budget amendment. I think the amendment addresses a fundamental question to all of us who are in this body: Will we accept the responsibility to bring the Federal budget in balance without placing at risk the funds our constituents depend on for their retirement? It must be remembered that every American worker pays 6.2 percent of their paycheck, matched by 6.2 percent from the employer, for a total 12.4 percent, which is paid into Social Security for their retirement. What has happened is that the Social Security trust fund has been incorporated as part of the unified budget. Therefore, those moneys actually go into balancing the budget, and the majority amendment would freeze this practice into the Constitution for all time--for all time-- so that forever Social Security trust funds are used to pay the salary of a clerk or a lawyer or build a highway or buy a battleship or do any number of the myriad of things the Federal Government does through its operating budget. I believe that this is the soft underbelly of this constitutional amendment. This is the Achilles heel. Even if this amendment passes both of these bodies, I do not for a minute believe that three-quarters of the people of each legislature in our 50 States will ratify this amendment. This morning we had signatures from 890,000 Social Security recipients, urging our opposition to any balanced budget amendment which does not protect Social Security. Those signatures represent just the current recipients today. People like my daughter, who is in her midthirties, is working and providing that money said to me, ``Mother, you know that isn't going to be there when I retire. Why don't you just let me have the money now. There are better things I can do with it. I could use it right now.'' Social Security is a sacred trust with the public. If I may, let me make the picture for not enshrining it into the Constitution with this chart. What this chart does is show the amount of Social Security surplus-- that is all of this--that goes into balancing the budget. Up to 2002 it is in the vicinity of $500 billion. By 2013, it is $2 trillion that is utilized cumulatively to balance the budget. From 2002 to 2019, the amount that Senate Joint Resolution 1 takes from the trust fund to balance the budget is $1.8 trillion. Now, what happens after the year around 2019 when the surplus begins to fall? When Social Security revenue drops below Social Security outlays to beneficiaries, according to the Congressional Research Service report, that is when this body will have to raise taxes or cut Social Security payments or cut some other Federal programs and find some way to balance the budget. Under the majority's proposed constitutional amendment, outlays must match revenue in the fiscal year. If Social Security revenue falls, the revenue needs to be made up through higher taxes or we have to cut spending through reduced Social Security payments or spending reductions elsewhere in the budget. The majority's amendment is unfair because it enshrines in the Constitution, the principle that Social Security receipts and Social Security payments to beneficiaries are at risk. Because, at some point along the way, push is going to come to shove, expenditures are going to exceed outlays, and then there is going to be a problem. There are some in this body who will say, ``Well, that forces us to reform Social Security.'' That may be and it may not be, I don't know. But it is not the right thing to do. In 1990, adopting the Hollings amendment, which Senator Hollings has so eloquently described, this body said we are not going to include Social Security as part of the unified budget anymore. The votes were virtually unanimous. Yet, voila, the Federal Government continues to include Social Security as part of the unified budget. I think that is wrong. That is the soft underbelly, that is the Achilles heel. It is just plain wrong. I support the Reid amendment. The Reid amendment's only difference from the majority resolution is the exclusion of Social Security from the balancing requirement. In the event that the Reid amendment is not successful, tomorrow morning I will propose another version, along with Senators Cleland, Torricelli, and Durbin. This amendment would say: All right, we lost in our effort to take Social Security out of the balancing requirement for the very reason that it is too difficult to achieve balance. We all admit that, that there needs to be some time to adjust to the removal of Social Security from the unified budget. So I will propose an amendment which essentially would do the following. It would say that Social Security will be used up to the year 2002. After the year 2002, when balance is achieved, Social Security will be withdrawn from the unified budget and, therefore, $1.8 trillion will be preserved for retirees. The integrity will be saved. It will not be an IOU. It will be saved. Additionally, my amendment would change extending the debt limit from the three-fifths requirement of the majority balanced budget amendment to a constitutional majority of both bodies. It would also provide an exception for an economic emergency, and that way the stabilizers can function, and it would also clarify that the amendment will not prohibit the enactment of a capital budget as well. So, I believe that, in the year 2002, Congress would have the opportunity to develop a capital budget. At 2 percent of GDP, that capital budget would be around $160 billion a year. We utilize about $140 billion a year now, so it would make some sense and it would fill the gap. If there is an interest in having a balanced budget amendment, this might be a way of going about it and correcting some of the problems. The Reid amendment, which I have voted for in past years, indicates that the enshrinement of Social Security into the Constitution of the United States is not something that this body is going to do. We are not going to take those trust funds and use them to buy battleships or provide park services or pay the salaries of 96,000 workers at the Department of Justice, or to provide anything else. It will be invested as trust funds, as it should be, separate and discrete and held for the retirement of every person who pays that FICA tax every year. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. President, may I ask to spend a few minutes as in morning business to introduce a matter?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Madam President, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I rise to support his arguments, to indicate my support for House Joint Resolution 36. Madam President, I recently returned from a few days in Nepal. If you go to Nepal, you will see that about 35 percent of the children die before the age of 5, and they die before the age of 5 because they are impoverished. They don't have enough food, and they die. This is true in many areas, particularly undeveloped countries, all around the world. I think that one of the most important and effective components of U.S. foreign assistance has been our family planning programs. I believe these programs reduce poverty, I believe they improve health, I believe they raise living standards around the world, and they enhance, certainly, the ability of couples and individuals to determine the number and spacing of their children. I think many of us in this country take that opportunity for granted. Most of us have had the freedom to make choices about how we live our lives by planning the size of our families. But in poorer countries where contraceptive options are not available, women have much higher birth rates, and the more children they have, the higher the poverty rates. Children are malnourished, many get sick, many die. UNICEF estimates that 34,000 children under the age of 5 die every day--every day--in developing countries. And it is not just children. UNICEF further estimates that 600,000 women die of pregnancy-related causes each year and that unsafe abortions are responsible for 75,000 of these deaths. By giving women the opportunity to plan their pregnancies, lives are saved--the lives of women and their children. So the need for these family planning programs could hardly be clearer. Unfortunately, because of this dispute between the House and the Senate last year, the compromise the Senator from Vermont referred to was reached, but that delayed the release of family planning funds until July 1, or March 1, if the President found the delay was harming these programs and Congress agreed. The President has made the finding, arguing, I think, persuasively that the delay thus far has forced many programs to suspend or defer their operations and that further delay, until July, could cause them to shut down. Already, programs serving over 700,000 people annually in Bolivia, the Philippines, Ecuador, and elsewhere, have been suspended. Two weeks ago, the House voted 220 to 209 to agree with the President's finding. So the vote in the Senate is crucial. If we concur with the President and the House, we can release these life-saving funds only 5 months late instead of 9 months late. The difference is critical. Some have tried to draw a connection between our family planning programs and abortion. But no connection exists. Since 1973, U.S. law has prohibited any USAID funds from being used to pay for abortions as a method of family planning or to coerce any person to have an abortion. All our programs are voluntary and they involve contraception, not abortion. Programs are rigorously monitored to ensure strict compliance. So the argument that these programs cause an increase in abortion is simply a red herring. It is actually worse than a red herring in a sense because it is patently and demonstrably false. In fact, it stands the truth on its head. It is the delay in our family planning programs that is actually causing an increase in abortions. The evidence is clear. When family planning options are available, fewer unintended pregnancies occur, and abortions decline. In Russia where the average Russian woman used to have a stunning seven or eight abortions in her lifetime, family planning has made a huge difference. With United States assistance, organizations like the Russian Family Planning Association have raised the rate of contraceptive use from 19 percent to 24 percent from 1990 to 1994. Even that modest increase produced results. In the same period, the Russian Department of Health reported that the total number of abortions performed dropped from 3.6 million to 2.8 million. That is 800,000 fewer abortions. This is specific, irrefutable, documented, statistical proof that family planning moneys drop and lower the rate of abortion. The story repeats itself over and over. In Mexico, in Colombia, wherever USAID has funded family planning, this is the case. So facts are facts. And the link is clear. As our esteemed former colleague, Mark Hatfield, who was and is a proudly pro-life Senator, reminded us each time we voted on this issue, family planning assistance prevents abortion. So this vote is about one thing and one thing only--it is about giving women in the developing world a chance to make their lives and the lives of their children better, safer, healthier, and more fulfilling. I believe we have every reason and every interest to give them that chance. I hope every Member of this body does as well. So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator John Warner, Senator Conrad Burns, Senator Charles Robb, Senator Patty Murray, and Senator Barbara Boxer, I rise today to reintroduce a Senate resolution acknowledging the achievements of NetDay and affirming NetDay's commitment to wire our local K-12 schools to the information superhighway. I wish to commend the organizers and volunteers of NetDay, a nationwide public-private partnership. Last year, NetDay was successful in bringing out more than 100,000 Americans, including 50,000 Californians to volunteer in their neighborhood schools. These students, teachers, parents, and friends of the schools came to wire classrooms and school libraries throughout the Nation. Thousands of individuals accomplished their goal to install communications cables, connect wires and switches to upgrading their schools for the 21st century. Their success was significant. Over 25,000 elementary, junior, and senior high schools were wired. Throughout the United States, volunteers climbed ladders and got on their hands and knees to install the wiring infrastructure needed to connect thousands of elementary and secondary school classrooms with contemporary technology. In recognition of the NetDay effort, I am very proud to submit a Senate resolution commending all of the more than 100,000 volunteers for their hard work and dedication to ensure that schools throughout America have the needed technological infrastructure for the 21st century. NetDay began in California on March 9, 1996. The term was coined by co-founders John Gage of Sun Microsystems, one of the Nation's leading technology companies and Michael Kaufman of KQED, a California public broadcasting station. Mr. Gage and Mr. Kaufman saw this initiative as a day where hundreds of Californians came out to an old-fashioned barn raising for the modern technology age. Just as volunteers would gather in the Nation's early years, with neighbor helping neighbor, to build homes, barns, or community buildings, California's NetDay volunteers gather in support of neighborhood schools. Amazingly, and to their surprise, NetDay succeeded in 1 year in wiring 3,500 schools efficiently and cost effectively, establishing and improving our classroom information infrastructure up and down the State. The NetDay effort is an important one to California. Despite the State's tremendous resources, opportunities, and wealth of technology companies, California still ranks at the bottom of States in funds spent per student on computers. The cost today of providing a computer for each student, from kindergarten to high school, is approximately $6 billion for 1,159,565 computers in California. NetDay activities are one way to ease some of the financial burden. With our current budget deficit, we have been doing everything to encourage local, volunteer solutions to difficult problems. NetDay activities across America have and will continue to save schools and taxpayers millions of dollars in technology start-up costs by providing equipment, computer time, and training for teachers through the school's corporate partners. Business sponsors and corporate volunteers have been instrumental in making NetDay a successful reality. But we should also note that NetDay was not just about saving money. The most valuable asset of NetDay was the commitment of thousands of volunteers who worked in their community schools. The relationships formed between schools and their communities will extend beyond 1996. NetDay volunteers have the continued goal of stimulating and facilitating communities in the United States to participate in their local schools. Parents and neighbors who had previously never visited or been involved in their children's school are now motivated to come back to the classroom and work to improve their child's learning environment. NetDay organizers tell me that communities across the Nation are already planning to organize future NetDay activities, building and expanding upon earlier achievements. Further, in April of this year, NetDay organizers will be focusing resources on schools and communities that are often underserved. We all agree our children deserve the finest preparation possible to face the demands of the changing information-based economy. We need to provide the next generation with the proper training for high- technology, well paying jobs. This will only happen if we include all our neighborhoods. NetDay will help meet these challenges, stressing educational opportunity for everyone by reaching out to rural and lower income communities where current technology may be inadequate or incomplete. Even if students don't have computers at home, at least students can have access at schools to explore, develop skills, learn, and grow. Congress should encourage these important goals. With this resolution we can support the overall effort of ensuring that our classrooms are equipped with effective and constructive learning tools. As students move from elementary school to high school and then into college or the work force, it is imperative that these individuals are adequately trained to use contemporary technologies. This resolution will help motivate our communities, both volunteers and businesses, to provide donated resources, to build upon the success of the NetDay experience and to ensure that the children in all our towns and cities reap the benefits of an advanced learning environment. I would also like to take this time to congratulate this administration for making the improvement of our classroom's technological infrastructure a priority. This administration deserves great credit for advancing education and technology. Last year, President Clinton and Vice President Gore joined thousands of Californian volunteers in fulfilling this goal. They also support the expansion of NetDay activities nationwide to increase the level of technology in our classrooms to enhance our children's ability to learn. It is my pleasure to submit this resolution commending the NetDay co- founders, Michael Kaufman and John Gage, the dozens of corporate sponsors and business partners, and the thousands of students, teachers, parents, and neighbors working in community schools throughout California and the Nation. The success and commitment they have shown can serve as a positive model, this year and in future years. My colleague and cochair on the U.S. Senate Information Technology Caucus, Senator John Warner joins me in cosponsoring this resolution. In addition, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Senator Charles Robb of Virginia, Senator Patty Murray from Washington, and my California colleague Senator Barbara Boxer join me in supporting the advancement of educational technology by sponsoring this resolution. Together, we urge our Senate colleagues to affirm congressional support for preparing U.S. classrooms with the needed technological infrastructure for the 21st century. In today's global economy, America's students will face challenges on an international scale. Students must graduate with the skills needed to face today's changing workplace. Computers and technology can enhance the educational experience of children and provide a valuable complement to traditional teaching tools. Technology is not the complete solution to our complex education needs, but it is an important area that needs both our attention and our support. I invite my Senate colleagues to join this public-private partnership effort.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on January 30, with my distinguished colleague, Harry Reid, I introduced S. 248, to establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. I now ask that it be printed in the Record. The text of the bill follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, from November 11 through November 26, 1996, I traveled to the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Nepal for discussions with senior leaders in each of these places. I have today transmitted my report on this trip to the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I hope my colleagues find it of interest. I ask that the report be printed in the Record. The report follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, February 5, 1997. Hon. Jesse Helms, Chairman. Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Helms and Senator Biden: Attached please find a report on my travel to China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Nepal from November 11 through 26, 1996. During the China portion of the trip and parts of the Hong Kong and Taiwan portions, I joined Senators Daschle, Dorgan, Glenn, Kempthorne, and Leahy. Travel costs were at my personal expense. In China, I discussed with the Chinese leadership the need to develop a long-term strategic framework for our relationship based on our many mutual interests, tensions in the triangular U.S.-China-Taiwan relationship, a variety of U.S.-China trade issues, nonproliferation and other security concerns, and human rights and legal development in China. In Hong Kong, the itinerary included meetings with British, Chinese, and Hong Kong officials and members of the business community to assess the prospects for Hong Kong's reversion to Chinese rule in July 1997. In meetings with the Taiwanese leadership in Taipei, I discussed Taiwan's role in the U.S.-China relationship and how to get dialogue across the Taiwan Strait back on track. In Nepal, I examined the progress made by this fledgling democracy in consolidating its democratic institutions, and looked at ways the United States can be most effective in helping promote Nepal's economic development. I met with His Majesty King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, and Foreign Minister Prakash Chandra Lohani, as well as members of the various parties in the parliament. I am grateful to Ambassador James Sasser and his staff in Beijing, Consul General Richard Boucher and his staff in Hong Kong, American Institute in Taiwan Director Darryl Johnson and his staff in Taipei, and Ambassador Sandy Vogelgesang and her staff in Kathmandu. Their cooperation and assistance helped make this trip as productive as it was. I would particularly like to thank Foreign Service Officers Darcy Zotter, Robert Forden, Michael Meserve, Gina Sullivan, Paul Daley, and Peter Bodde, and AIT staffer Andrew Wilson, for their assistance. I am also grateful to the staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations for their help. I hope you find this report useful. Sincerely, Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we begin the 105th Congress with a sober recognition of the fact that the Federal Government cannot solve all problems. Anyone who questions this premise need only look at painful choices that must be made in order to balance the Federal budget, our first and most difficult task this session. Having said that, the clearest message, I think, sent to us this past November was that the people of America want Republicans and Democrats to work together to solve real problems. I have been very concerned and I might even say dismayed by statements made by Members of this body and the House, that under no circumstances will there be any changes, no matter how meritorious, no matter how necessary, to the welfare bill which passed last year. Mr. President, when this body debated and approved the historic welfare reform bill last year, I outlined to my colleagues what I saw as some of the major flaws in the drafting of that bill, and as a result, the impact that this legislation will have on the largest State in the Union--California. I want to take an opportunity this afternoon to update those comments. The impact of this bill on California is huge. At this stage, it really is not fully known or even understood. Some estimate that California will absorb about $17 billion of the $55 billion saved by this bill. That is a body blow to our safety net. It could have a catastrophic impact both financially and in terms of human lives. I voted, because of this, against that welfare bill. I am not alone in my concerns. Even the Republican Governors, many of them poster-children for the reform effort, are looking at the fine print now and saying, ``How is my State going to pay for these costs? How are we going to provide the necessary care? How are we going to meet these requirements without turning people out on the streets?''-- for some, in large numbers. Even the Republican Governors are asking for changes. A headline in the Washington Post 2 days ago said it pretty clearly: ``After getting responsibility for welfare, States may pass it down,'' something that I, as a county supervisor and a mayor for some 18 years, recognize that it is exactly the way it goes. The buck usually stops with the lowest rung of a government. That is just what is going to happen with this bill. In California, a proposition 13 State, there is no way for local governments to raise their taxes or their revenue potential to deal with the problem. In the months since the passage of the welfare bill, I directed my staff to examine how this bill would impact California counties. To date, my staff has met with the welfare directors of 22 out of California's 58 counties. Their pleas were nearly universal. I will share them with you. The work requirements, they say, as currently outlined in the bill will most probably not be attainable even under the most optimistic of circumstances. The child care funds in the bill for California are not enough to satisfy the requirements of the bill. The legal immigrant provisions denying food stamps and SSI, particularly to the elderly, the sick, and the disabled, will have a devastating impact on county general assistance programs. The biggest impact will be on the largest county in the State, Los Angeles County. And the counties tell me they have no computer ability to track and monitor recipients under the new rules. How do they comply? Some of the changes asked for by these counties are technical in nature, such as increasing the time permitted for job search to be more realistic for areas where the average search even for nonwelfare recipients is twice as long as that permitted under the bill. Other changes are more fundamental, such as restoring some assistance to the elderly and disabled legal immigrants. I know President Clinton shares many of these concerns, and will propose a number of changes in his budget soon to be released. I hope the door is not closed to at least looking at what the facts are. I believe it would really be unconscionable, and in a sense, the height of irresponsibility, to arbitrarily say we will not look at any problem or any misdrafting in that bill. I will point out one area in my remarks later where I think it is simply a case of misdrafting. Let me speak for a moment about legal immigrants. There are 500,000 elderly and disabled noncitizens nationwide who will lose SSI by August 22, 1997. Of these legal immigrants 205,000 are in California--more than 40 percent. That is a very real problem. Many of these individuals are seriously ill and completely destitute, with no family capable of supporting them. In Los Angeles County alone, there are 93,000 such people, and the ultimate transfer to the county will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. When they lose their benefits they will turn to the counties. Just last week, California's State legislative analyst's office estimated the ban on SSI and food stamps will cost California $5.8 billion over 6 years. Now, either this is a massive cost-shift or the homeless in America and in California are going to be greatly adding to their numbers. In Los Angeles County alone the nonmedical costs of supporting elderly and disabled legal immigrants could top $236 million annually. San Francisco also estimates that 20,000 legal noncitizens may turn to the county's general assistance program, at a total cost of up to $74 million annually. Let me give an actual example from my hometown legal immigrants. My San Francisco staff met with a 73-year-old legal immigrant on SSI. She was welcomed to this county from Vietnam in 1980. She was a refugee from communism with no family in the United States. She speaks no English and she is suffering from kidney failure. She requires dialysis three times a week. Under this new law, this 73-year-old woman will lose SSI, her only source of support. Her well-being will become the responsibility, somehow, some way, of the county. During the welfare debate I proposed an amendment to make this section of the bill prospective. I understand the majority's concern that the legal immigrants' use of SSI was increasing at a higher ratio than U.S. citizens' use of SSI. I understand wanting to slow that number down. The way to do it is to say that in the future, everyone coming to this country following the date of enactment, which was August 22 last year, know that when you come to the United States of America as a legal immigrant, you are not eligible for SSI. For the people here before that time, what I propose is that there be an amendment to the bill that would say SSI could be continued for those who have no other verifiable source of support. These are the elderly, they are monolingual, they are destitute, and many of them are ill. Let me speak for a moment, Mr. President, about the work requirements of the bill, because counties throughout California are really concerned. Under the new welfare law, 25 percent of single-parent families on welfare and 75 percent of two-parent families on welfare must be engaged in work activities this year. By 2002, the requirements rise to 50 percent of single-parent families and 90 percent of two-parent families. California's economy is recovering, but our unemployment rate is still 1\1/2\ points above the national rate. It is 6.8 percent. The national rate is 5.4 percent. So some 1 million Californians are still on unemployment. Let me give you some examples of how unrealistic the work requirements of the welfare bill are on certain counties in California. In Tulare County, the heart of the great Central Valley, the heart of the area that has the largest agriculture producers in the United States, the unemployment rate is 16.3 percent, more than 10 percentage points above the Nation, and one-third of the county is on public assistance--one-third of the county. There are no jobs for people. In Merced County--again in the Central Valley--unemployment is even higher at 16.8 percent. Thirty-five percent of the population there receives some type of public assistance. Here are others: Imperial County, 27 percent unemployment; Madera, 15.9; Monterey, 10.6 percent; Stanislaus County, 17.3 percent; and Sonoma County, 14 percent. And these are not small population areas. In some of the cases, the population of these counties is actually more than the population of some of the States. These are larger areas. With 2.7 million families in California on welfare, counties fear that the work requirement, as defined in the new welfare law, simply is not realistic for the State to be able to meet. California is simply not creating jobs fast enough, and the kinds of jobs that the State is creating are high-technology, biotech, highly skilled jobs, and jobs in the import-export business; jobs that relate to Asia; jobs that have a level of educational requirement that can produce a high skill level. In Riverside County in southern California, their GAIN Program, which is their welfare-to-work program, is the most successful program of its kind in the Nation. It is 12 years old. It has been the model for other programs all throughout the United States. Yet, in that time, only 14 percent of single-parent families currently meet the work requirement as set under welfare reform. And only 15 percent of two-parent families meet the work requirement. That is after 12 years of trying. If Riverside County can't meet the requirements, how many counties and States nationwide will actually be able to do so? That is why I urge that the President and Members of Congress to allocate some new funds--countercyclical moneys--that would apply particularly in counties where the unemployment rate is at a certain amount. You might want to make it over 1 percentage point from the national average, particularly in areas where there is a high welfare load, which gives testament to the fact that you can't produce jobs in that county. I feel that Congress should amend the welfare law in significant ways to make it easier for States to meet the work requirements. And I would like to suggest some of them. Doubling the time allowed for job search activities from 6 weeks to 12 weeks. That is what they say it actually takes and where there is success. Expand the welfare law's definition of ``work'' to include 2 years of vocational education instead of 1. That is what they say it requires to be employable. Include people who--this is a glitch, I think, in the drafting of the bill and one of the reasons that I am so concerned that the announcement has been made that even technical changes will not be made to the bill. The way the bill is drafted, it does not include people who leave welfare for work and those who are immediately placed in a given month as part of the State's total number of people moving from welfare to work. So, In other words, the way the bill is drafted, you don't get credit for the people that month you place in jobs. I think that this is a technical glitch. I think it is a drafting error. I think it is easy to correct. But if we have this policy of nothing no matter whenever it is not going to get corrected. I would suggest creating a countercyclical funding program for the next 6 years, and I suggest targeting counties with high unemployment and high welfare caseloads. Child care funding increases: Under the new welfare law, the money is insufficient to accommodate the increasing demands. Currently, my State subsidizes child care for 205,000 low-income children. But there are 1.8 million children on welfare in California--1.8 million. The State currently only has funds to subsidize 205,000. In order to accommodate the increases in the work requirements which are required by this bill from 25 percent in 1997 to 50 percent in 2002 for an individual recipient, I would propose adding an additional $1.43 billion in child care funding over the next 6 years. I would also propose exempting parents with children under the age of 12, instead of 6, from the work requirement if they cannot find child care. This bill--mark my words--will be known as the ``latchkey mandate bill'' if people can't find work. And there is no reason for any child in elementary school be left home alone without any adult supervision. Let me speak for just a moment on the reporting requirements. When Federal welfare reform was enacted, little attention was paid to the 15 new reporting requirements that the law imposes on the States-- everything from welfare recipients' race and citizenship status, to other Federal benefits they receive, to unemployment status and earnings. California, like many other States, has no computer system in place to track and report all of this data. And without effective tracking and reporting, the Nation's largest State has no hope of enforcing the time limit and preventing welfare fraud. Contra Costa County's welfare director said that his county's ability to meet the reporting requirements of the bill is ``literally zip.'' This is a big county. I think that the welfare law's reporting requirements are important, and I do not advocate relaxing them. But I do believe that the counties are going to require additional support in the form of computer assistance that is greater than that which is provided in the bill today, and that we ought not to be so fixed that we cannot take a look at it. I make these comments at this time in the hope that someone might read them, or even see them, or take notice of them, and that this statement that there will be no amendments to this bill can perhaps be changed to ``Well, we will carefully consider amendments.'' I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, with my distinguished colleague, Harry Reid, I am introducing S. 248, a bill to establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. The Commission proposal emerged last year during a debate over a controversial bill to divide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result of that discussion, it became clear to me and the majority of my colleagues that there was no consensus on how best to resolve the problem of caseload growth in the U.S. courts. The idea of a study commission gained broad support and has independent merit. Legislation to form a study commission was approved twice by the Senate in the 104th Congress: in March 1996 as a stand-alone bill, and later in the session as part of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. Although the Senate amendment was not included in the final version of H.R. 3610 signed by the President on September 23, 1996, the initial funding for the Commission was appropriated therein. The authorizing legislation deserves a speedy enactment by the 105th Congress. The Commission legislation we are offering today is evenhanded, fair, and genuinely bipartisan. It will consist of two members appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, two members appointed by the President, two members appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, two members appointed by the minority leader of the Senate, two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and two members appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives. The object is to have a balanced group of individuals who will examine the issues fairly and give full consideration of all relevant perspectives. With a balanced membership, we can be confident that the Commission's recommendations will be given due weight by all three branches of the National Government.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, with my distinguished colleague, Harry Reid, I am introducing S. 248, a bill to establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. The Commission proposal emerged last year during a debate over a controversial bill to divide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result of that discussion, it became clear to me and the majority of my colleagues that there was no consensus on how best to resolve the problem of caseload growth in the U.S. courts. The idea of a study commission gained broad support and has independent merit. Legislation to form a study commission was approved twice by the Senate in the 104th Congress: in March 1996 as a stand-alone bill, and later in the session as part of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. Although the Senate amendment was not included in the final version of H.R. 3610 signed by the President on September 23, 1996, the initial funding for the Commission was appropriated therein. The authorizing legislation deserves a speedy enactment by the 105th Congress. The Commission legislation we are offering today is evenhanded, fair, and genuinely bipartisan. It will consist of two members appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, two members appointed by the President, two members appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, two members appointed by the minority leader of the Senate, two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and two members appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives. The object is to have a balanced group of individuals who will examine the issues fairly and give full consideration of all relevant perspectives. With a balanced membership, we can be confident that the Commission's recommendations will be given due weight by all three branches of the National Government.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, as cochair of the Senate Cancer Coalition, I am pleased today to join with Senator D'Amato in introducing S. 249, the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1997. The Bill This bill does four things: For treatment of breast cancer, it requires insurance plans to allow physicians to determine the length of a patient's hospital stay according to medical necessity; and it requires health insurance plans to cover breast reconstruction following a mastectomy. For treatment of all cancers, it requires health insurance plans to cover second opinions by specialists whether the initial diagnosis is positive or negative; and it prohibits insurance plans from financially penalizing or rewarding a physician for providing medically necessary care or for referring a patient for a second opinion Two California Cases I have received two letters from constituents describing firsthand their treatment by insurance companies in having a mastectomy. Nancy Couchot, age 60, of Newark, CA, wrote me that she had a modified radical mastectomy on November 4, 1996, at 11:30 a.m. and was released by 4:30 p.m. She could not walk and the hospital staff did not help her ``even walk to the bathroom.'' She says, ``Any woman, under these circumstances, should be able to opt for an overnight stay to receive professional help and strong pain relief.'' Victoria Berck, of Los Angeles, wrote that she had a mastectomy and lymph node removal at 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1996, and was released from the hospital 7 hours later, at 2:30 p.m. Ms. Berck was given instructions on how to empty two drains attached to her body and sent home. She concludes, ``No civilized country in the world has mastectomy as an outpatient procedure.'' These are but two examples of what, unfortunately, is becoming a national nightmare--insurance plans interfering with professional medical judgment and refusing to cover hospital stays of mastectomy patients. Need for the Bill Increasingly, insurance companies are dropping and reducing inpatient hospital coverage of mastectomies. This is beyond the pale. It is unconscionable. The Wall Street Journal on November 6 reported that ``some health maintenance organizations are creating an uproar by ordering that mastectomies be performed on an outpatient basis. At a growing number of HMOs, surgeons must document ``medical necessity'' to justify even a one-night hospital admission.'' In 1997, over 184,000 women--or 1 in every 8 American women--will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 44,300 women will die from breast cancer; 2.6 million American women are living with breast cancer today. In my State, 20,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 5,000 will die or one every 27 minutes. San Francisco has among the highest incidence rates of breast cancer in the world. After a mastectomy, patients must cope with pain from the surgery, with psychological loss--the trauma of an amputation--and with drainage tubes. These patients need medical care from trained professionals, medical care that they cannot provide themselves at home. In the last 10 years, the length of overnight hospital stays for mastectomies has declined from 4 to 6 days to 2 to 3 days to, in some cases, no days. With the average cost of one day in the hospital at $930, if insurance plans refuse to cover a hospital stay, patients are forced to go home. Breast Reconstruction Insurance plans also refuse to cover breast reconstruction. Our bill requires coverage. Breast reconstruction is an important followup part of breast cancer treatment and recovery. One study found that 84 percent of patients were denied insurance coverage for reconstruction of the removed breast. Commendably, my State has passed a law requiring coverage of breast reconstruction after a mastectomy. However, we need a national standard, covering all insurance policies. Second Opinions Covered Another important feature of our bill is insurance coverage of second opinions for all cancers. The news of possible cancer is traumatic. It is a dreaded fear that we all live with daily. For this life- threatening disease for which there is no cure, more information is better than less. Expert advice is needed to make all-important decisions. I believe it is reasonable to encourage people to have a second consultation with a specialist, by requiring insurance plans to cover second opinions. Patients often need specialty care. A December 1996 study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine found that specialty care improves the outcome of heart attack patients. This should come as no surprise. Specialists are knowledgeable about their field. A California doctor pointed out that nonspecialists may order a ``battery of unnecessary and sometimes invasive and risky examinations'' for patients. Thus, incentives that discourage the use of specialists or referrals to specialists, can end up costing the insurance plan more--instead of saving money. No Financial Incentives Finally, our bill prohibits insurance plans from including financial or other incentives to influence the care a doctor provides, similar to a law passed by the California legislature last year. Many physicians have complained that insurance plans include financial bonuses or other incentives for cutting patient visits or for not referring patients to specialists. Our bill bans financial incentives linked to how a doctor provides care. Our intent is to restore medical decisionmaking to health care. For example, a California physician wrote me, ``Financial incentives under managed care plans often remove access to pediatric specialty care.'' A June 1995 report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute cited the suit filed by the husband of a 34-year-old California woman who died from colon cancer, claiming that HMO incentives encouraged her physicians not to order additional tests that could have saved her life. Our bill tries to restore professional medical decisionmaking to medical providers, those whom we trust to take care of us. It should not take an act of Congress to guarantee good health care, but unfortunately that is where we are today. I hope my colleagues will join us in enacting this bill, an important protection for millions of Americans who face the fear and the reality of cancer every day.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, as cochair of the Senate Cancer Coalition, I am pleased today to join with Senator D'Amato in introducing S. 249, the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1997. The Bill This bill does four things: For treatment of breast cancer, it requires insurance plans to allow physicians to determine the length of a patient's hospital stay according to medical necessity; and it requires health insurance plans to cover breast reconstruction following a mastectomy. For treatment of all cancers, it requires health insurance plans to cover second opinions by specialists whether the initial diagnosis is positive or negative; and it prohibits insurance plans from financially penalizing or rewarding a physician for providing medically necessary care or for referring a patient for a second opinion Two California Cases I have received two letters from constituents describing firsthand their treatment by insurance companies in having a mastectomy. Nancy Couchot, age 60, of Newark, CA, wrote me that she had a modified radical mastectomy on November 4, 1996, at 11:30 a.m. and was released by 4:30 p.m. She could not walk and the hospital staff did not help her ``even walk to the bathroom.'' She says, ``Any woman, under these circumstances, should be able to opt for an overnight stay to receive professional help and strong pain relief.'' Victoria Berck, of Los Angeles, wrote that she had a mastectomy and lymph node removal at 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1996, and was released from the hospital 7 hours later, at 2:30 p.m. Ms. Berck was given instructions on how to empty two drains attached to her body and sent home. She concludes, ``No civilized country in the world has mastectomy as an outpatient procedure.'' These are but two examples of what, unfortunately, is becoming a national nightmare--insurance plans interfering with professional medical judgment and refusing to cover hospital stays of mastectomy patients. Need for the Bill Increasingly, insurance companies are dropping and reducing inpatient hospital coverage of mastectomies. This is beyond the pale. It is unconscionable. The Wall Street Journal on November 6 reported that ``some health maintenance organizations are creating an uproar by ordering that mastectomies be performed on an outpatient basis. At a growing number of HMOs, surgeons must document ``medical necessity'' to justify even a one-night hospital admission.'' In 1997, over 184,000 women--or 1 in every 8 American women--will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 44,300 women will die from breast cancer; 2.6 million American women are living with breast cancer today. In my State, 20,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 5,000 will die or one every 27 minutes. San Francisco has among the highest incidence rates of breast cancer in the world. After a mastectomy, patients must cope with pain from the surgery, with psychological loss--the trauma of an amputation--and with drainage tubes. These patients need medical care from trained professionals, medical care that they cannot provide themselves at home. In the last 10 years, the length of overnight hospital stays for mastectomies has declined from 4 to 6 days to 2 to 3 days to, in some cases, no days. With the average cost of one day in the hospital at $930, if insurance plans refuse to cover a hospital stay, patients are forced to go home. Breast Reconstruction Insurance plans also refuse to cover breast reconstruction. Our bill requires coverage. Breast reconstruction is an important followup part of breast cancer treatment and recovery. One study found that 84 percent of patients were denied insurance coverage for reconstruction of the removed breast. Commendably, my State has passed a law requiring coverage of breast reconstruction after a mastectomy. However, we need a national standard, covering all insurance policies. Second Opinions Covered Another important feature of our bill is insurance coverage of second opinions for all cancers. The news of possible cancer is traumatic. It is a dreaded fear that we all live with daily. For this life- threatening disease for which there is no cure, more information is better than less. Expert advice is needed to make all-important decisions. I believe it is reasonable to encourage people to have a second consultation with a specialist, by requiring insurance plans to cover second opinions. Patients often need specialty care. A December 1996 study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine found that specialty care improves the outcome of heart attack patients. This should come as no surprise. Specialists are knowledgeable about their field. A California doctor pointed out that nonspecialists may order a ``battery of unnecessary and sometimes invasive and risky examinations'' for patients. Thus, incentives that discourage the use of specialists or referrals to specialists, can end up costing the insurance plan more--instead of saving money. No Financial Incentives Finally, our bill prohibits insurance plans from including financial or other incentives to influence the care a doctor provides, similar to a law passed by the California legislature last year. Many physicians have complained that insurance plans include financial bonuses or other incentives for cutting patient visits or for not referring patients to specialists. Our bill bans financial incentives linked to how a doctor provides care. Our intent is to restore medical decisionmaking to health care. For example, a California physician wrote me, ``Financial incentives under managed care plans often remove access to pediatric specialty care.'' A June 1995 report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute cited the suit filed by the husband of a 34-year-old California woman who died from colon cancer, claiming that HMO incentives encouraged her physicians not to order additional tests that could have saved her life. Our bill tries to restore professional medical decisionmaking to medical providers, those whom we trust to take care of us. It should not take an act of Congress to guarantee good health care, but unfortunately that is where we are today. I hope my colleagues will join us in enacting this bill, an important protection for millions of Americans who face the fear and the reality of cancer every day.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a speech that this Senator made to the Asia Society yesterday morning entitled, ``China: The Future.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know that Senator Kennedy wanted to be recognized, but because he is not here I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise, for Senator Boxer and myself, to introduce legislation that amends the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to allow the Federal Government to transfer to State and local governments surplus Federal property for use for law enforcement or public safety purposes. This bill expands current authority which restricts this type of property transfer to State and local governments for use only as correctional facilities. Our law enforcement and public safety officials need the flexibility that this legislation provides. While continuing to allow prisons to be built, this legislation provides communities with the options they need to establish or expand needed law enforcement training facilities, fire fighting academies, and the like given an area's particular need. The one thing communities need after a military base closure is the flexibility to reuse bases to fulfill their greatest local needs. This bill will continue to facilitate the successful reuse of base realignment and closure sites, like March Air Force Base in California, for civilian and public safety purposes. Fighting crime continues to be a top priority for communities throughout the Nation. It makes sense to allow communities to put former military bases to use in that fight. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. Our communities affected by base closures deserve all options to facilitate successful reuse. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.