Dianne Feinstein

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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized in morning business for approximately 30 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1997 which was introduced yesterday by Senator Hatch on behalf of himself and this Senator from California. I also believe my sentiments and cosponsorship are joined by Senators Harkin, Reid, and D'Amato. Mr. President, this legislation makes the Federal Government a much more active partner in the war on criminal activity that, I am regretful to say, has become violent and deadly and is perpetrated by organized street gangs. This bill was introduced with some differences in the last Congress, but the need for the legislation has only increased, and today I hope to lay out the case for the need for the legislation. Gang violence has become a problem in the United States of America of epic proportions, and I think few people really understand the degree to which street gangs are crossing State lines and perpetrating violence. Today, the Department of Justice reports that in the United States there are some 25,000 different street gangs. There are more than 652,000 members of these gangs. And they are not loosely organized. They are not the street kids glamorized in West Side Story. Today's gangs are very different. They are organized. They are sophisticated. They are traveling crime syndicates much like the Mafia. They regularly cross State lines to recruit new members. They traffic in drugs and weapons, they smuggle illegal aliens, they steal, and they murder. In just one city, Los Angeles, consider this: Nearly 7,300 of its citizens were murdered in the last 16 years from gang warfare-- 7,300 citizens. This is more people than have been killed in all of the fighting in Northern Ireland. Gangs were responsible for 43 percent of all homicides in Los Angeles in 1994. They were responsible for 41 percent of homicides in Omaha, NE, in 1995; more than half of all violent crimes in Buffalo, NY, in 1994. In Phoenix, gang-related homicides jumped 800 percent between 1990 and 1994. In Wichita, KS, drive-by shootings jumped from 8 in 1991 to 267 in 1993. That is a 3,000 percent increase in just 2 years. And this is a smaller city--300,000 people. A Justice Department survey found that gang problems are worsening in 48 percent of the responding communities. These are just a few examples of the alarming rise in gang terror. The problem is we have become numb to it. Let me give you an example. In Los Angeles, on a Monday last February, with Mayor Dick Riordan, I announced this legislation at a news conference. The Los Angeles city councilwoman who is in charge of the public safety committee, Laura Chick, reported that just that weekend six people had been murdered by gangs on the streets of Los Angeles, and you know what? Not one was reported in the press. We have become so numb because this kind of violence has become so commonplace all across the United States. Last September, a member of the Crips from Los Angeles was arrested in Dayton, OH, with two other men for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Police seized approximately $1 million in cash in the raid. A 1995 study of gang members by the National Gang Crime Research Center found that three-quarters of all gangs exist in more than one geographic area. One-half of gang members belong to gangs that did not arise locally but arose with contact from a gang outside the area. One- half of gang members had contact with the same gang in another city. And this is the clincher: 61 percent of gang members indicated their gang was an official branch of a larger national gang. Sergeant Jerry Flowers of the gang crime unit in Oklahoma City captured the migration instinct of these gangs when he said, ``The gang leaders realized that the same ounce of crack cocaine they sold for $300 in Los Angeles was worth nearly $2,000 in Oklahoma City.'' Let me now tell you about the size and scope of some of America's most prominent street gangs. The Los Angeles Times recently conducted one of the most intensive investigative reports of major gang activity ever conducted by a newspaper in the United States. Let me begin with the 18th Street Gang and the picture the L.A. Times painted. The 18th Street Gang has as many as 20,000 members in southern California alone--20 times the size of the notorious Bloods and Crips. The 18th Street Gang is so influential in narcotics trafficking that the gang now deals directly with Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. The 18th Street Gang actually rents street corners to nongang dope peddlers, forcing them to pay so-called taxes of up to $1,000 a day. The gang is growing and spreading. They have become the largest and fastest growing gang in Oregon, where they gunned down a 15-year-old member who wanted out of the gang. Utah officials say the 18th Street Gang has arrived there with a vengeance. Even internationally, the 18th Street Gang is fighting for turf. In El Salvador, 18th Street is warring with rival gangs. Honduran authorities have sought advice from Los Angeles law enforcement on the gang. 18th Street has a cell in Tijuana, where they often flee to escape arrest and prosecution. On the average, someone in Los Angeles County is assaulted or robbed by the 18th Street Gang every single day of every month of every year. While currently the deadliest and most prolific on the streets in southern California today, the 18th Street Gang is not the only gang. Let us talk for a moment about Bloods and Crips. The Bloods and Crips that originated in Los Angeles in the late 1960's are the Nation's two largest street gangs. They are also continuing to expand, and you see this expansion as they move across the United States. Local police and the FBI have traced factions of these gangs to more than 119 cities in the West and Midwest. Some of those cities are on this map. They have more than 60,000 members nationally. According to the FBI, narcotics trafficking is their principal source of income. Let me give another one, the Chicago-born Gangster Disciples. The Gangster Disciples, according to the authorities, is a Chicago-based, 30,000-member, multimillion-dollar gang operation spanning 35 States. They traffic in narcotics and weapons and are said to operate much like a Fortune 500 company, with two boards of directors, one in prison and one outside, a layer of governors and regents, a tax collector, and some 6,000 salespersons. Their income is estimated by Chicago authorities to be $300,000 daily. Let me talk for a minute about Russian gangs. Russian organized crime activity in the United States has been expanding for the past 20 years, but its most significant growth has occurred during the past 5 years. Mr. President, 29 States now report activities by Russian crime groups. FBI Director Louis Freeh stated that more than 200 of Russia's 6,000 crime gangs operate with American counterparts in the United States, so they flow from Russia to the United States and back. Russian gangs tend to be more loosely organized than other gangs, but they have formed networks that operate and shift alliances to meet particular needs. The California attorney general indicates that the most common activities by Russian organized crime gangs are fraud schemes involving fuel taxes, insurance, and credit card fraud. But they also engage in more common organized crime activities: extortion, loan sharking, drug trafficking, auto theft and prostitution. Asian gangs: The Department of Justice indicates that among ethnic gangs, Jamaican and Asian gangs are considered by law enforcement officials to pose the largest threat. Asian gangs have been identified as major threats in more than 17 cities. In Los Angeles alone, there are more than 100 Asian gangs with 10,000 members. Illegal activities include alien smuggling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, home-invasion robberies, high-technology heists, and firearms trafficking. Vietnamese gangs, in particular, have become a serious threat in many of our cities. They tend to be very violent. They are more sophisticated organizationally, and they specialize in stealing multimillion-dollar quantities of computer chips. At least 400 Silicon Valley companies in my State that deal in computer chips have been hit in the last year and a half. That is almost one a day. And they are losing tens of millions of dollars. Computer firms lose as much as $1 million a week in thefts, according to the Justice Department. The legislation Senator Hatch and I have introduced does this: It doubles the sentence for any member of an organized criminal gang who commits a Federal crime. It expands the scope of gang-related criminal acts to include activities such as carjacking and drive-by shootings, and significantly increases penalties for those crimes. It checks the growth of gangs by making the recruitment of minors into criminal gangs a Federal offense with stiff penalties. Specifically, this legislation doubles the actual sentence for any member of an organized criminal street gang who commits a Federal crime. Current Federal law increases the penalties for organizers, leaders, managers and supervisors of criminal activity, including gang leaders. However, members of known criminal street gangs currently are not subjected to higher penalties when a Federal crime is committed. Many prosecutors and law enforcement officials indicate that gang members, in addition to the leaders and supervisors of gangs, should see their penalties increased to provide a stronger deterrent for children to stay away from street gangs. This legislation amends the sentencing guidelines so that individual gang members convicted of felonies would have their sentencing level approximately doubled. For example, currently, if a first-time offender who is a member of a gang is convicted of trafficking in 30 stolen guns, he or she would receive a minimum sentence of 4\3/4\ to 6 years in jail. Under this legislation, that sentence would be increased to 9 to 11\1/4\ years. This legislation makes it a Federal offense to engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity, subject to severe and certain penalties. Under this legislation, if a person commits two or more predicate gang crimes, which include carjacking, drive-by shooting, drug dealing and obstruction of justice, in furtherance of a criminal street gang's activities within a 5-year period, that gangster is engaging in a pattern of criminal gang activity and he can be prosecuted federally. This is the Federal-local partnership we envision, to get at gang activity that crosses State lines. And this individual, if convicted, will be sentenced to at least 10 years in prison, up to life imprisonment for a first conviction of this offense; will be sentenced to at least 20 years imprisonment up to life imprisonment for a second or later conviction of this offense; and would be subject to asset seizures and forfeitures. This legislation expands the definition of criminal street gangs in Federal law to better reflect modern-day gang activity. So it broadens the definition of criminal street gangs in title 18 of the criminal code to include State crimes such as drive-by shootings, rape, torture, carjacking, kidnapping, and assault with a deadly weapon. It doubles the penalties for interstate gang-related crimes, and it expands the Travel Act to respond more effectively to the growing problem of highly sophisticated, mobile and organized street gangs. As most of us know, the Travel Act was written in 1961 and it had Mafia- style activity in mind. While the Travel Act as it is now written allows prosecutors to target some gang activities such as drug trafficking, the list is not complete. Law enforcement leaders and prosecutors, including U.S. attorneys, have recommended to us that the act be modernized to better reflect current crimes by gang members. (Mr. BROWNBACK assumed the chair.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, under this legislation, the list of unlawful activities in the Travel Act will be expanded to include the following crimes: drive-by shooting; robbery; burglary; assault with a deadly weapon; intimidation of witnesses, victims, jurors or informants; assault resulting in bodily injury; possession and/or trafficking of stolen property; alien smuggling; and firearms trafficking. In addition, the maximum penalties would be doubled, from 5 to 10 years, for those who commit nonviolent violations of these provisions. A conspiracy provision is also added to the statute. We double the base offense levels under the sentencing guidelines for traveling in interstate or foreign commerce in aid of a street gang. This is to get at those gangs that come from other countries and States and operate back and forth. So traveling in interstate or foreign commerce in aid of a street gang would increase from 6 to 12 in sentencing levels, which increases the base sentencing range from a low of 0 to 6 months and a high of 12 to 18 months, to a new low of 10 to 16 months and a new high of 30 to 37 months. Committing violent crimes in aid of a street gang or racketeering activity would increase from 12 to 24, which increases the base sentencing range from a low of 10 to 16 months and a high of 30 to 37 months, to a new low of 51 to 63 months and a new high of 100 to 125 months. One of the most insidious tactics of today's gangs is the way they target children to do their dirty work, and they indoctrinate them into a life of crime. Let me give you an example. According to the Los Angeles Times, the 18th Street Gang, which I described earlier, ``resembles a kind of children's army,'' with recruiters who scout middle schools for 11- to 13-year-old children to join the gang. The gang's real leaders are middle-age veteranos, long- time gang members who direct this criminal activity from the background. Chicago's Gangster Disciples recruit not just at high schools, but even at elementary schools. One of the gang's members told a Federal court about his preference for children 17 and under as armed guards, ``because they can go to jail and get out quicker.'' This pattern is not unusual. A report by the National Gang Crime Research Center found, ``The term `youth gang' is itself somewhat of a misnomer when it comes to the major gangs in America today * * * the real leaders at the top of these major gangs are in fact older adults, many in their forties and even older * * * 84.8 percent''--85 percent-- ``of the gang members in our sample indicated that their gang does in fact have such older adult leaders.'' Current Federal law contains no penalty for recruiting minors to participate in gang activity, and this is a critical part of our legislation. This legislation makes the recruitment or solicitation of persons to participate in gang activity subject to a 1-year minimum and a 10-year maximum penalty, or a fine of up to $250,000. If a minor is recruited or solicited, the minimum penalty is increased to 4 years. In addition, the person convicted of this crime would have to pay the costs of housing, maintaining and treating the juvenile until the juvenile reaches the age of 18. This act also makes violation of this section a predicate offense under the racketeering statutes, known as RICO statutes. It is now a crime to knowingly transfer a firearm to be used to commit a violent crime or a drug trafficking crime. This legislation adds a mandatory minimum penalty of 3 years if the gun to be used in crime is transferred to a minor. This legislation increases penalties for transferring handguns to minors. The Youth Handgun Safety Act, passed by Congress as part of the 1994 crime bill, does not contain sufficient penalties against juveniles who possess handguns for criminal purposes. In fact, one provision of this act requires only probation for first-time juvenile offenders who possess a handgun. Such a weak penalty has meant that prosecutors don't bother to target and prosecute gang members. I have been told this by U.S. attorneys and by district attorneys, and we aim to correct that problem with this language. In addition, current law sets different penalties for juveniles and adults who transfer a weapon to a minor. The Federal Gang Violence Act toughens the penalties against juveniles and adults who transfer a firearm to a minor--and subjects juveniles and adults to the same penalties for violating this law. This legislation changes the Youth Handgun Safety Act by: First, setting a one-year minimum sentence for anyone--adult or juvenile--who provides a minor with a handgun. Second, holding juveniles accountable when they unlawfully give another minor a firearm by applying the same 5-year maximum sentence now given to adults. Third, setting a 1-year minimum sentence and applying the same 10- year maximum sentence to adults and juveniles who give a firearm to a minor and should have known the gun would be used in a crime of violence. Currently, the 10-year maximum sentence only applies to adults. Juveniles under 13 years old, however, would not be subject to these mandatory minimum sentences. The Armed Career Criminal Act provides that if a person has three or more prior convictions for certain crimes--is a ``career criminal''-- and he possesses, ships, transports or receives a gun or ammunition--is armed--he will be subject to a mandatory minimum 15 year penalty and fine of up to $25,000. Serious drug offenses are already in the list of crimes which count toward the three-conviction minimum; this bill would allow juvenile convictions for serious drug offenses to also count toward that three- conviction minimum. This would not apply to nickel-and-dime possession offenses, but to drug dealing which is punishable by 10 or more years in prison. Many police officers around the country are confronting heavily-armed gang members who are wearing bullet-proof vests. This legislation increases Federal sentences if a person wears body armor in the commission of a Federal offense, by directing the Sentencing Commission to provide for a sentencing enhancement under the Guidelines of at least two levels. Presently, a 30-day time limit exists for bringing juveniles to trial. With crimes being committed by juveniles becoming increasingly violent and complex, prosecutors need additional time to adequately develop cases. This legislation increases the time limit to 45 days. This bill adds firearms trafficking violations to the list of crimes that can be attacked by prosecutors under RICO. Currently, firearms violations are not RICO predicate acts. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials indicate an increasing use of firearms by criminal street gangs to commit home robberies, business invasions, and attacks on rival gangs. Since most of the firearms have moved in interstate commerce--and because firearms are such an integral part of the gang's activity--law enforcement officials have suggested that firearms violations become predicate acts under RICO. Finally, this legislation authorizes $100 million over the next 5 years for hiring additional Federal prosecutors to prosecute violent youth gangs. I don't mean to go into detail, but I really want this body to understand that in this Senator's opinion, and I think Senator Hatch's and our cosponsors', this Nation's No. 1 criminal threat comes from organized street gangs now moving vociferously across State lines and across international lines. If we don't move now, I think we surrender the independence of this Nation to a kind of underground world of street gangs connected in Russia, connected in Asia, connected in Japan, connected in Latin America. and Central America. What we aim to do is up the penalties and create some new penalties which can really be effective in dealing with crime. The addition of the RICO statutes, the use of asset seizures and forfeitures, treating street gangs today the way mafia organized crime was treated 10 to 15 years ago can make a big dent and deter gangs. Most important to me is that it becomes a Federal offense for anyone to go out there and recruit a member of a gang that moves their stolen goods, illegal immigrants, drugs, guns, murder, extortion, witness intimidation across State lines. Mr. President, I would like to make one last comment on another subject before I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this morning, on my way to work, on Connecticut Avenue, I ran into the fact that another bomb had been placed at a Planned Parenthood center. This is just January, and the number of these bombings and attempted bombings are already over six. I rise today really to deplore these acts, and I rise today to say to the right-to-life movement: Please, make clear that terrorism is not part of your agenda. If you fail to do so and fail to do so now, I believe we are in for a terrible siege this year, if the month of January is any indication. I am also hopeful that the Attorney General will join in the investigation and the subsequent prosecution as our legislation of the last session provides. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman for his comments and also for the speed with which he processed this nomination. I think it is very important and significant that he has done that, and it certainly speaks for the best interests of bipartisanship. Mr. President, as the only woman on the Foreign Relations Committee, I consider this to be a historic appointment indeed. I rise to say that I am proud to indicate my very enthusiastic support for Madeleine Albright to be confirmed before this body as Secretary of State. I want to commend President Clinton because he was certainly faced with an array of very qualified candidates. But I think he chose one of the very, very best. Anyone who heard her thoughtful responses to some 6 hours of questioning during her confirmation hearing would have been impressed by her knowledge, her eloquence and her skill. I fully expect Ambassador Albright to be a truly superb Secretary of State. I look forward to working with her as various foreign policy issues come before the Senate of the United States. It is difficult to imagine a background and a body of experience better suited to the person we call on to be our Nation's chief diplomat and the President's chief foreign policy advisor. Madeleine Albright knows firsthand the ``streets'' of foreign policy, how actions by governments affect the lives of individuals. Her enormous intellect, her personal experience, her plain speaking, I think, will be huge assets. As the United States approaches the 21st century, I believe it is crucial that our foreign policy be conducted in a bipartisan manner. The practice of reinventing the wheel of foreign policy every 4 years or at least with every change of administration has been difficult on our allies and weakens American credibility as the strongest nation on Earth. Madeleine Albright holds a unique opportunity to cement a bipartisan foreign policy. If she can accomplish this, her legacy to this Nation and the world will be significant. One of the most complex issues that she will face, and the largest single area that I believe needs focused attention, is the entire Pacific rim. With 60 percent of the people of the world now living on the shores of the Pacific and American trade with the Pacific rim nations three times that of the Atlantic, the administration's No. 1 priority in foreign policy should be to maintain a strong and positive presence in Asia. As part of this effort, the United States must build our most important, but still largely undeveloped, bilateral relationship--that with the People's Republic of China--into one of partnership and cooperation in our many areas of mutual interest. Ambassador Albright's qualifications to be Secretary of State are unimpeachable. For the past 4 years she has served with distinction as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, a member of the President's Cabinet, and a member of the staff of the National Security Council. She has also headed one of Washington's foremost think tanks, served as professor of international affairs at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, and holds a doctorate from Columbia University. And, I might add, she served as a staff member for one of the true giants of the U.S. Senate, Edmund Muskie, who himself went on to serve as Secretary of State. Beyond her professional accomplishments, her life--having fled Czechoslovakia at the dawn of the Second World War--provides a lesson in the values that we as Americans hold most dear and for the role in the world that America, at its best, can play. As the first woman to serve as Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright's nomination will open up new doors for all women, not just in this country, but around the globe, in places unaccustomed to seeing women in high office. Whenever a woman crosses a threshold into an area that has been predominantly held by men, and performs effectively, the doors open for women everywhere. I take particular pride in casting my vote for Ambassador Madeleine Albright. It is a tremendous step forward in our country for a woman to be named the Nation's top diplomat. As consequential as that is, in Madeleine Albright's case it is really a secondary consideration, because she is so eminently qualified for the job. Although I am sure it is unnecessary to do so, I take pride in urging all of my colleagues to support this outstanding nomination. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today in support of President Clinton's nomination of former Senator William Cohen as Secretary of Defense. I truly believe that Senator Cohen has an extraordinary grasp of all defense matters, especially issues of concern to the Navy, and will be an asset as Secretary of Defense. I have always found Senator Cohen to be a fair and thoughtful public servant who takes the time to understand all issues. In fact, I am happy to say that when Senator Cohen speaks on matters of our national defense and foreign policy, I turn up the volume on my television so that I can catch every word. Since coming to the Senate, I have stressed the need to be more bipartisan in all that we do. This is especially true when considering what is necessary for our Nation's security. I am convinced that with the Senator's nomination as Secretary of Defense our ability to work together as Democrats and Republicans will be enhanced as will Congress' ability to work with the executive branch. The value of this cooperation cannot be underestimated. I am also pleased that Secretary-designate Cohen has a keen understanding of international security issues across the board. He is particularly knowledgeable about the Asia-Pacific region and has traveled there many times. Secretary-designate Cohen supports continuing Secretary Perry's strong policy of engagement with China, including extensive military-to-military contacts. This kind of one-on- one relationship with our Asian counterparts is vital to the continued progress in our foreign policy relationship. We, however, must continue to maintain a strong military presence in the Pacific to protect our interests. I am convinced that Senator Cohen will continue to support this effort during his tenure as Secretary of Defense. Eliminating sexual harassment and all forms of discrimination in our Armed Forces is another issue to which I know the Secretary-designate will dedicate his efforts. He was a leader during the scourge of Tailhook and I am confident that he will continue to monitor the Army's investigations into sexual harassment and assault inside its ranks. Finally, I know that the Secretary-designate and I will have the opportunity to discuss and to work on those matter on which we do not see eye to eye. As a Senator, Secretary-designate Cohen had differing views on the administration's current Department of Defense privatization efforts. I look forward to working with him as we continue to explore the best ways to preserve the readiness needs of our military and the most cost-effective means to support our military's depot maintenance activities. I am positive that we will have, as we have always had, the ability to discuss these differences openly and honestly. In closing, I was pleased to hear that Senator Cohen mentioned the problem of access to bombmaking information on the Internet during his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee today. This is a widespread problem for which I have been seeking a solution and I am pleased that the Secretary-designate understands its gravity. I am happy to give my support for the nomination of former Senator William Cohen to the office of Secretary of Defense. I am positive he will be an asset to the Clinton administration and to our Nation as a whole.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing S. 87, a bill to set up a toll-free service so that people with life-threatening diseases and the medical community can find out about research projects on new treatments. There are thousands of serious and life-threatening diseases, diseases for which we have no cure. For genetic diseases alone, there are 3,000 to 4,000. We are familiar with diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis. But there are thousands of others that are not so common, like cystinosis, Tay-Sachs disease, Wilson's disease, and Sjogren's syndrome. Indeed, there are over 5,000 known rare diseases, diseases most of us have never heard of, affecting between 10 and 20 million Americans. Cancer kills half a million Americans per year. Diabetes afflicts 15 million Americans per year, half of whom do not know they have it. Arthritis affects 40 million Americans every year. 15,000 American children die every year. Among children, the rates of chronic respiratory diseases (asthma, bronchitis and sinusitis), heart murmurs, migraine headaches, anemia, epilepsy and diabetes are increasing. Few families escape illness today. Every family fears it. The Bill Our bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a ``one-stop shopping'' database, including a toll-free telephone number, so that patients and physicians can conveniently find out what clinical research trials are being conducted on experimental treatments. By accessing this database, users would be able to find out the purpose of the study, eligibility requirements, research locations, and a contact person. Information would have to be presented in ``plain English,'' not ``medicalese,'' so that the average person could understand it. Our bill is endorsed by the American Cancer Society, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, AIDS Action and the Alzheimer's Association. A Constituent Suggestion The need for this information center came from my constituent, Nancy Evans, of San Francisco's Breast Cancer Action, in a June 13, 1996 hearing of the Senate cancer coalition, which I co-chair with Senator Mack. She described the difficulty that cancer patients have in trying to find out what experimental treatments might be available, research trials sponsored by the federal government and by private companies. Most of them are desperate; most have tried everything. She testfied that the National Cancer Institute has established 1-800-4-CANCER, but the NCI information is incomplete. It does not include all trials and the information is often difficult for the lay person to understand. In addition, the National Kidney Cancer Association has called for a central database. People in Serious Need It is helpful to think about the plight of the individuals that this bill could help. These are people who have a terminal illness; their physicians have tried every treatment they can find. Cancer patients, for example, have probably had several rounds of chemotherapy, which has left them, debilitated, virtually lifeless. These patients cling to slim hopes. They are desperate to try anything. But step one is finding out what is available, even if it is still in the experimental stage. One survey found that a majority of patients and families are willing to use investigational drugs (drugs being researched but not approved for sale), but find it difficult to locate information on research projects. A similar survey of physicians found that 42 percent of physicians are unable to find printed information about rare illnesses. Help for Physicians Physicians, no matter how competent and well trained, also cannot be knowledgeable about experimental treatments being researched. And most Americans do not have sophisticated computers hookups that provide them instant access to the latest information. Our witness, Nancy Evans, testified that she can find out more about a company's clinical trials by calling her stockbroker than by calling existing data services. Many desperate families have called me, their U.S. Senator, seeking help. Others have lodged their pleas at the White House. Others call lawyers, 911, the local medical society, the local Chamber of Commerce, anything they can think of. Getting information on health research projects should not require a ``fishing expedition'' of futiile calls, ``good connections'' or the involvement of elected officials. In 1988, Congress directed HHS to establish an AIDS Clinical Trials Information Services. It is now operational (1-800-TRIALS-A) so that patients, providers and their families can find out about AIDS clinical trials. All calls are confidential and experienced professionals at the service can help people. Improving Health, Research Facilitating access to information can also strengthen our health research effort. With a national database enabling people to find research trials, more people could be available to participate in research. This can help researchers broaden their pool of research participants. Modest Help for the Ill The bill we introduce does not guarantee that anyone can participate in a clinical research trial. Researchers would still control who participates and set the requirements for the research. But for people who cling to hopes for a cure, for people who want to live longer, for people who want to feel better, this database can offer a little help. If you have a life-threatening illness, you should not have to have political or other connections, computer sophistication or access to top-flight university medical schools to find out about research on treatments of disease I hope this bill will offer some hope to the millions who are suffering today.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask to be recognized to speak in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is very hard to understand why he has been lingering on the Executive Calendar, essentially since May 16, without our having an opportunity to discuss his candidacy on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I hope we would have that opportunity. I think it is important that we do so. Another candidate who has been waiting before this body since June 27, when she passed the Judiciary Committee on a unanimous vote, is Margaret Morrow, who has been nominated for District Judge in the Central District of California, in Los Angeles. She is a graduate of Bryn Mawr magna cum laude. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School, cum laude. She is a partner in a prominent Los Angeles law firm. She has won the Bernard E. Witkin Amicus Curiae Award from the California Judicial Council in 1995. She has received the Ernestine Stalhut Award for the most distinguished woman lawyer in Los Angeles. She has received the President's award from the California Association of Court-Appointed Special Advocates. She has received the Pro Bono Advocacy Award from the Western Center on Law and Poverty. She has received a number of special awards. She is the first woman president of the California Bar Association and served as president of the Los Angeles Bar Association. She was found also to be ``well qualified.'' Her nomination has been languishing in this body since June 27. I hope that in any arrangement that might be put forward, both Margaret Morrow as well as William Fletcher would be part of that arrangement. This is extraordinarily important to me. Another Presidential nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is Richard Paez. Richard Paez has had a hearing on July 31. Action in the Judiciary Committee has not yet been taken. He was nominated by the President on January 25. Judge Paez is a graduate of Brigham Young University and the University of California Law School. He has had a distinguished career in Los Angeles, where he served on the Los Angeles Municipal Court from 1981 to 1994. He was chairman of the Los Angeles County Municipal Judges Association in 1990. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing and this Senate did appoint him to the District Court for the Central District of California in 1994, so he has had a hearing by the Judiciary Committee. He has been approved by them, and he has been approved by this body for the district court. Now the President has seen fit to recommend him for appointment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I hope that action might be taken on his case prior to the end of this session. There is one hardship case that I would like to raise at this time. The national average caseload for all cases is 448 cases per judge. The national average for criminal cases is 51 cases per judge. San Diego has a major caseload problem. In the Southern District of California, in San Diego, the average caseload is almost double that of the national average, 726 cases per judge. It is quadruple the national average in Federal criminal cases, with 213 criminal cases per judge. Jeffrey T. Miller, who is one of my nominees, was nominated to be district judge for the Southern District of California. He is a sitting State superior court judge in San Diego, and has sat on that bench since 1987. Prior to that time, he was deputy attorney general in the California attorney general's office from 1968 to 1987. I took this up at the Judiciary Committee. I have asked for hearings to be able to consider his case. Judge Keep of the district court in San Diego has called and has indicated her concern about the caseload and asked if this body might be willing to take action to confirm this judge. With a criminal caseload that is quadruple the national average and overall caseload that is almost double the national average, I think on a hardship case that judge, as well, should be approved. I would like to just end with one additional judge and that is Christina Snyder, nominated to be the U.S. district judge, District Court for the Central District of California, in hopes that her case might also be heard. I recognize she has not yet had a committee hearing and has been waiting for one to take place since May 15. What I have tried to do is indicate two court of appeals judges who I think should be part of any final passage. Certainly, at the very least, one district court judge, Margaret Morrow, who has been waiting a long time, should be part of any final passage. I wanted to make very clear to this whole body the importance of this to me, in considering any final passage of judicial appointments which might come before this body. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 University of Texas School of Law, Austin, TX, September 28, 1995. Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Hatch: My expectation is that the letter I wrote Judge Mikva many months ago, urging the President to nominate William Fletcher for a seat on the Ninth Circuit, is a part of the file that your committee has in passing on that nomination. It occurred to me, however, that it might be useful for me to write you directly to say what a fine appointment that is and how much I hope that it will be confirmed by the Senate. I do not doubt that Professor Fletcher is more liberal on many issues than I am. That seems to me almost entirely irrelevant. Over the years that I have known him and also read his writing, what has greatly impressed me has been that he has a quality that I regard as absolutely essential for a scholar and that I regard as equally important for a judge. This is the ability to put his own preferences aside and to hunt objectively to see what answer the law provides. Too many scholars approach a new issue with preconceptions of how it should come out and they then force the data that their research uncovers to support the conclusion they had formed before they did any research. I think that is reprehensible for a scholar and it is dangerous for a judge. I am completely confident that when Fletcher finishes his service on the Ninth Circuit we will say not that he has been a liberal judge or a conservative judge but that he has been an excellent judge, one who has brought a brilliant mind, great powers of analysis, and total objectivity to the cases that came before him. Although you do not know me well, I believe that our acquaintance over a number of years has been enough for you to know that I would not say this merely because I think of Fletcher as a friend, I have spent a lifetime working for the improvement of the federal courts. I believe that the nomination of William Fletcher will add strength to the Ninth Circuit and I hope very much that he is confirmed. It is wonderful to have you as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I wish you well in that challenging task. Anytime I can be of assistance to you or the Committee on the kinds of matters on which I have some expertness, I would be delighted to help. Sincerely, Charlie Wright.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to address my remarks today to pending judicial nominations. It is my understanding that there may be some agreement to bring forward some additional judicial appointments before this Senate adjourns. I certainly hope that is the case. I want to point out five specific judges, relating to California, some of which have been before this body for a substantial period of time, and the importance of those nominations. We essentially have two appointments to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which could be filled by this Senate in the next day. The first is William Fletcher. He is a Harvard College graduate. He is a Rhodes Scholar. He is a Navy officer. He is a graduate of Yale Law School. He has been a law clerk for Justice Brennan, and a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley since 1977. He actually received the university's distinguished teaching award in 1993. I was sitting on the Judiciary Committee when he came up for review. He passed that committee with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 12 to 6. At that time there was some concern about his mother's service on the ninth circuit. An overture was made, as to whether his mother would be willing to either retire or take senior status. She has since said that she would be willing to take senior status to avoid any tinge of nepotism, should he be appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I might say this. The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Professor Fletcher, ``well qualified.'' That is its highest rating. His academic colleagues have stated to us that he is fair minded and politically moderate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a number of letters regarding Professor Fletcher's nomination be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I echo the comments of my colleague, Senator Boxer, on the parks bill in the hopes that some accommodation can be formulated in the next few hours that will give us a bill. One of the most difficult things about this body, and I suppose any other body, is that we do not always get what we would like to get or think we deserve in good conscience or what the body owes or what the Government should respond to. However, this is an important bill, and literally dozens of States are impacted, all of them positively, by this bill. For California, it is a particularly important bill. I thank the chairman of the committee for his indulgence, and I hope in the next few hours there can be some conclusion to this which will bring before us a bill that is significant for every Member of this body.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I begin by paying my respects to those Senators who are departing this body. One of the great privileges for me has been to have worked with them. I think each in his own right has added considerably to the dimension of the Senate, and particularly one Senator, Nancy Kassebaum, I wish to salute her for her many additions. I have had the occasion to sit on the Foreign Relations Committee with her and to observe her and watch her and see her do her homework. For me as a woman this has been a very special experience. So I want to particularly salute her and also to thank the departing Senators for all of the courtesies they have extended to me and to the State of California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, would the Chairman yield for the purposes of a brief colloquy to clarify a provision of the banking title to H.R. 3610, the omnibus appropriations bill, addressing the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Am I correct that the new prohibition on deposit shifting set forth in section 2703(d) of the bill, if not carefully applied by the federal bank regulators, could raise serious issues of interference with first amendment rights of free speech?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, to introduce a revised and substantially improved version of the victims' rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Since Senator Kyl and I originally introduced a victims' rights amendment in April, we have been working very diligently and intensively with the Department of Justice, law enforcement, the White House, major victims' rights groups, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Biden, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde, and a variety of distinguished scholars in the field of law enforcement, to more finely craft this amendment and resolve various concerns with its initial language. We have gone through 41 different drafts of the amendment, so far, as the language has evolved, culminating in the resolution that we are introducing today. We are introducing this most recent version so that interested people have an up to date draft to evaluate. Many of the people who have commented on the victims' rights amendment were commenting on an out of date draft, leading to erroneous and false conclusions by some, including legal scholars. What really focused my attention on the need for greater protection of victims' rights was a particularly horrifying case, in 1974, in San Francisco, when a man named Angelo Pavageau broke into the house of the Carlson family in Portero Hill. Pavageau tied Mr. Carlson to a chair, bludgeoning him to death with a hammer, a chopping block, and a ceramic vase. He then repeatedly raped Carlson's 24-year old wife, breaking several of her bones, He slit her wrist, tried to strangle her with a telephone cord, and then, before fleeing, set the Carlson's home on fire--cowardly retreating into the night, leaving this family to burn up in flames. But Mrs. Carlson survived the fire. She courageously lived to testify against her attacker. But she has been forced to change her name and continues to live in fear that her attacker may, one day, be released. When I was mayor of San Francisco, she called me several times to notify me that Pavageau was up for parole. Amazingly, it was up to Mrs. Carlson to find out when his parole hearings were. Mr. President, I believe this case represents a travesty of justice-- It just shouldn't have to be that way. I believe it should be the responsibility of the State to send a letter through the mail or make a phone call to let a victim know that her attacker is up for parole, and she should have the opportunity to testify at that hearing. But today, in most States in this great Nation, victims still are not made aware of the accused's trial, many times are not allowed in the courtroom during the trial, and are not notified when convicted offender is released from prison. I have vowed to do everything in my power to add a bit of balance to our Nation's justice system. This is why Senator Kyl and I have crafted the victim's rights amendment before us today. The people of California were the first in the Nation to pass a crime victims' amendment to the State constitution in 1982--the initiative proposition 8--and I supported its passage. This measure gave victims the right to restitution, the right to testify at sentencing, probation and parole hearings established a right to safe and secure public school campuses, and made various changes in criminal law. California's proposition 8 represented a good start to ensure victims' rights. Since the passage of proposition 8, 20 more States have passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of crime victims--and five others are expected to pass by the end of this year. In each case, these amendments have won with the overwhelming approval of the voters. But citizens in other States lack these basic rights. The 20 different State constitutional amendments differ from each other, representing a patchwork quilt of rights that vary from State to State. And even in those States which have State amendments, criminals can assert rights grounded in the Federal constitution to try to trump those rights. I stand before you today to appeal to my colleagues in this body--the highest legislative institution in the land--that the time is now to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to protect the rights of victims of serious crimes. The U.S. Constitution guarantees numerous rights to the accused in our society, all of which were established by amendment to the Constitution. I steadfastly believe that this Nation must attempt to guarantee, at the very least, some basic rights to the millions victimized by crime each year. For those accused of crimes in this country, the Constitution specifically protects: The right to a grand jury indictment for capital or infamous crimes; the prohibition against double jeopardy; the right to due process; the right to a speedy trial and the right to an impartial jury of one's peers; the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the criminal accusation; the right to confront witnesses; the right to counsel; the right to subpoena witnesses--and so on. I must say to my colleagues that I find it truly astonishing that no where in the text of the U.S. Constitution does there appear any guarantee of rights for crime victims. To rectify this disparity, Senator Kyl and I introduce the victims' rights amendment in April. That amendment, like the one we introduced today, provides for certain basic rights for victims of crime: The right to be notified of public proceedings in their case; The right to be heard at any proceeding involving a release from custody or sentencing; The right to be informed of the offender's release or escape; The right to restitution from the convicted offender; and the right to be made of all of your rights as a victim. Personally, I can say that the process of forging a constitutional amendment for victims' rights has been truly fascinating. The Constitution our forefathers scribed 200 years ago is a remarkable document that has withstood the test of time. Earlier this year, Senator Kyl and I embarked on a journey to include an amendment to this magnificent document that would ensure that the rights of the roughly 43 million people victimized by crime each year will be protected. Our ongoing effort to include a victims' rights amendment in the Constitution has been at times frustrating, while at other times exhilarating. Each sentence, each word, and each comma has undergone hours of deliberation and questioning. Having said that, I must tell this body and share with my colleagues that this latest resolution is still a work in progress--let me be perfectly clear, we anticipate modifications. Three principal issues remain unresolved: First, whether there should be an effective remedy when crime victims are denied rights regarding sentences or pleas. Second, whether to include nonviolent crimes (``other crimes''), and if these crimes are included, whether they should be defined by Congress or by Congress and the States. Third, whether to have a right to a ``final disposition free from unreasonable delay'', whether to limit this right to trial proceedings, or whether to exclude this altogether. Mr. President, Senator Kyl and I believe that the latest resolution before us is much better than the version than was previously introduced for a number of reasons. The language describing these rights has changed--and we continue to welcome suggestions to ensure that this amendment pass with the largest majority. Unfortunately, there was precious little time to advance the amendment in this Congress, and once it became clear that the other Chamber would not proceed with the amendment this session, Senators Kyl and Biden and I decided not to press for Senate action in the last few weeks of the Congress, but, rather, to spend the next few months continuing to work to fine tune the amendment and build a consensus for its passage. We implore Members of this body to examine this amendment, and to help to secure passage of this monumental piece of legislation. After 200 years, doesn't this Nation owe something to the millions of victims of crime? I believe that is our obligation and should be our highest priority--not only for the crime victims, but, for all Americans--to ensure passage of a victims' rights constitutional amendment. I want to personally than Senator Kyl for his tireless efforts to accomplish this amendment, and to say that I look forward to continuing to work with him in the months to come. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a successful small business in my State, Telamon Electronics, which will celebrate the opening of its new offices on October 1, 1996 in Chino, CA. Telamon, Nortel, and Pacific Bell have forged a high technology business alliance in Chino which has shown how large and small businesses can work together effectively. Through their efforts, Telamon has created over 30 new high-technology jobs in one of the southern California communities most affected by the reduction in defense spending. At a time when we are shifting spending to the local level, these partners have made it possible for the California economy to benefit from Telamon's over $1 million in estimated tax revenues. It is the highest sales tax generator out of 2,100 businesses in the city of Chino, which is located 35 miles east of Los Angeles. To foster employee growth, Telamon Electronics offers its employees profit sharing, rewards for suggestions, scholarships for their children, and education grants for their professional growth. Telamon is enhancing its community by enhancing its employees.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in appreciation of the leadership of Senator Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Moynihan, who brought to the Senate and secured passage of miscellaneous tariff legislation. The legislation takes a number of important steps and deserves our support. I am particularly pleased Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan were able to incorporate S. 2021, a bill I introduced earlier this year which would reduce tariffs for certain chemicals used in a new AIDS drug that has shown encouraging test results. Upon approval, the Finance Committee bill will take an important step to reduce tariffs for these chemicals, which are not available in the United States. We must do everything we can to find a cure for HIV/AIDS. However, until we have a cure for this urgent health priority, we need to find effective treatments and put them in the hands of people with needs. This provision will accelerate the manufacturing and final testing for a new protease inhibitor and deserves the full support of Congress. S. 2021, legislation I introduced with my colleague Senator Boxer, would eliminate the tariff for several chemical compounds which are required for the manufacture of an AIDS drug, nelfinavir mesylate, which has produced promising test results.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the continuing resolution and, specifically, the immigration bill, which deals with illegal immigration and which has been added as a portion of that bill. Few issues are more clearly and unequivocally the responsibility of the Federal Government than the issue of immigration, whether it be lawful or unlawful. Legal immigration, the threads from which our Nation's rich tapestry is woven, is a matter of national policy, and, in fact, no nation on Earth has as a liberal policy and takes in more people from other countries each year than does the United States of America. The ability to absorb newcomers becomes a question of resources, a reflection of our values, values of self-sufficiency, responsibility, respect for our laws, family unity, and the legacy of this country as a Nation of immigrants. Illegal immigration, however, is a matter of law enforcement -- whether it is enforcing our borders, enforcing our laws against working illegally or hiring someone to work illegally. It is the Federal Government's responsibility to enforce these laws. Unfortunately, this job has not been done well over the years, and the prohibitions against illegal immigration, while on the books, have meant very little in reality. The cost of the failure to act on this responsibility has been very high. Warning signals have been coming for years: Communities are demanding action against: the growing crowds of illegal workers looking for day labor on street corners; lawsuits demanding Federal reimbursement for the cost of incarcerating, educating or providing health care for illegal aliens. ``English only'' laws are being discussed, expressing concerns about the inability of teachers to teach in schools. Many in California have dozens of different languages. As a matter of fact, there has been a report that 67 different languages are spoken in a single elementary school. It is very difficult for teachers to teach under these circumstances. There is also a rise in discrimination, and even vigilantes at airports looking for illegal immigrants. A study just released by the Public Policy Institute of California sheds some light on the rise in animosity toward illegal immigrants. The study shows that the level of illegal immigration into California during the 1980's was substantially higher than previously thought. Researchers estimate that as many as 2.2 million illegal immigrants settled in California during the 1980's, their migration soaring along with the California economy, comprising as much as 22 to 31 percent of all newcomers to the State during that period. This is the point. As the State's economy stalled in the 1990's, the research indicates, interestingly enough, that illegal immigration dropped to about 100,000 a year. So as the economy of a given area gets stronger, the job magnet attraction for illegal immigration increases. When an economy worsens, that job magnet attraction clearly decreases. I came to this body in 1993 after having run for Governor of my State 3 years before. I knew then as I traveled through my State--and I learned it very clearly--in 1989 and in 1990 that this was going to be a growing issue, and that the need for change was becoming more urgent. As a newcomer to this body, I stood in the Chamber on June 30, 1993, and told my colleagues that I believed we needed to take action to stem illegal immigration, that the impact on my State had become enormous, and that failure to do so would only bring about a backlash. At that time, I introduced a bill to beef up our borders and stiffen penalties for document fraud and for employing illegal workers. I tried to get myself on the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, where I have served with the distinguished Presiding Officer these past 2 years. But this body did not act. The House did not act. Within a year, in California, organizers were circulating petitions to put proposition 187 on the ballot--by far, the most draconian and punitive anti-immigration measure seen in this country for many decades, and for the first time it targeted children. It took the approach of requiring that teachers and doctors report anyone suspected of being here illegally. Essentially, if a youngster were in school and looked different or talked different and the teacher suspected they might be illegal, it was that teacher's law-given obligation to report that youngster to the INS. If that youngster was born in this country and therefore a citizen but the parents might have been born in another country and came here illegally, it was that teacher's obligation to report that youngster. Most amazingly so, the same prerequisites and obligations were imposed on doctors and health care workers. Therefore making it a real risk, if a child had measles or chicken pox, to even take that child to a doctor. Believe it or not, that proposition passed with a substantial majority in the State, and it won in most minority communities. As a matter of fact, even in those communities where it did not win, it received a substantial plurality. A poll taken by the Los Angeles Times, right after the election, asked voters why they supported proposition 187. Nearly 80 percent of the initiative's supporters said it was to send a message to Washington. More than half said they hoped this would force Washington to do something about illegal immigration. Less than 2 percent--believe it or not--cared for the specific measure that denied education to illegal children in that now infamous initiative. I did not support that measure, but the message was unmistakably clear. People should not have to force the Federal Government to live up to its responsibilities to enforce our borders and our laws. Period. We do not have the luxury of debating this issue for another 2 years or 4 years. Rather, we have the responsibility to take action now. And the bill in this continuing resolution does offer strong reform. This is not a perfect bill, but its major thrust is to stop illegal immigration. And carried out and enforced, I believe it can make a major step forward in that direction. Let me just quickly talk for a few moments about some of the key provisions. Mr. President, both you and I strongly supported the provision to add 1,000 new border patrol agents each year for the next 5 years and allow the Attorney General to increase support personnel at the border by 300 per year, over the same period. This effectively doubles the strength of the Border Patrol. I think this works. Since 1993, Border Patrol, along our southwest border, has increased by 50 percent in personnel. And, as a result, apprehensions of illegal immigrants rose more than 60 percent in 1 month at the beginning of this year. Clearly, the presence of added Border Patrol makes a difference in controlling illegal immigration. This bill improves border infrastructure, authorizing $12 million for new equipment and technologies for border control, including building a triple fence in appropriate areas, and new roads. This would be in one of the most highly traveled and difficult to patrol areas along the southwest border. The bill adds 600 new INS investigators in 1997 alone to enforce our laws. I have heard critics criticize this bill, saying it does not do enough in that direction. However, there will be 150 more investigators to investigate employer violations, 150 to investigate criminal aliens, and 300 designated to investigate visa overstays in 1997. You and I know that one-half of the people who come into our country illegally have visas and they just simply overstay that visa. And the visa, up to this point, has had no teeth. If they disappear into the fabric of the society, it is very difficult to find them to enforce that visa. This bill dedicates 300 new INS investigators to visa overstays. It is the first real effort this Congress has made to control one of the biggest problem areas in illegal immigration. And the bill allows the Attorney General to establish an automated entry and exit control system, to match arriving and departing aliens and identify those who overstay their visas. It precludes a person who overstays his or her visa from returning to this country for up to 10 years. This gives meaning to a visa. In a sense, in a great sense, I am sorry we have reached this day and age in our very free society. But, you know, there is one thing I deeply believe and that is, we are a country of laws. We do not have the liberty to pick and choose which laws we enforce or do not enforce. But the departments of our Government should be bound to enforce the laws that are on the books. We, if we do not like those laws, have the ability and the opportunity to change those laws. I am very disappointed this bill does not increase penalties for employers who violate the law as the Senate bill did, but penalties do exist. I have just taken a look at those penalties. As I mentioned earlier, there are also 150 INS agents, investigators specifically designated to investigate employers. The penalties essentially go from $250 to $10,000 in civil penalties for each alien, increasing with the number of offenses. And, on top of these fines, if the employer has a pattern of violations, he or she can also be subject to a maximum of $3,000 per alien and 6 months in prison for each transaction. And the Attorney General may also issue an injunction against the employer for repeated offenses. If you think about it, these are strong penalties. But what is the problem? The problem is they have not been enforced. So this bill, once again, must be enforced if it is to have teeth. Let me speak of worker verification. This is another disappointment because the heart of any effective system to prevent the job magnet from working is verification of documents that show legal authority to work. Any employer who can have their prospective employee, while being interviewed, present up to 29 documents, really cannot tell which is real and which is false. I know that. I have been in that position. I know how difficult it is to tell. This bill establishes three pilot programs for employment verification in five of the highest-impact States. So this is a step forward. I want to speak for just a moment about document fraud, because probably there is no more greater problem in the United States in this area than document fraud. It is wholesale. It is rife. It is just all over the place. Just recently, INS shut down a major document fraud ring in Santa Ana, CA. They confiscated 22,000 fake green cards, Social Security cards and driver's licenses. These were all first-rate forgeries, and they were meant to be sold in California and throughout three other States. It is a major underground industry in my State, and this bill does begin to deal with this problem. It reduces the number of documents that can be used to establish an individual's employment eligibility, and it increases the maximum penalties for document fraud from 5 to 15 years in prison. That is the maximum, and it sets security standards for key identification documents, such as birth certificates and driver's licenses, to prevent fraud and counterfeiting. If I had my way, we would cut the number of documents down to a basic number and make every green card, every Social Security card and every birth certificate counterfeit-resistant. So the compromise in this bill is not all I wanted or think we need, but, again, it will be light years better than the situation we now have with employers having to struggle to recognize up to 29 different documents. The bill also stiffens penalties for aliens illegally entering or attempting to enter the United States, and makes high-speed flight from an INS checkpoint a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. I think most Members of this Senate have seen the results of high-speed chases, certainly in my State, where people can die by the dozens in car crashes, in overcrowded vans, as innocent victims of high-speed- pursuit chases by law enforcement. And, of course, one very notorious incident resulted in law enforcement officers in a county taking out their frustrations physically upon some of the people who were being carried in the van. Let me just for a moment speak about title V. This was a controversial title. It included some provisions for illegal immigrants and several provisions for legal immigrants. It was meant to tighten up income requirements and do some other things. Basically, I very much agree with the changes made to title V--with some exceptions, and I am prepared to support it. There is one area which was not changed and with which I have a major problem, and that is the section that deals with refugee assistance. A provision was deleted from the conference report that would have corrected a glaring inequity in the allocation of refugee assistance funds. Under the funding formulas in the current law, funds for refugee assistance are not allocated on the basis of need or numbers or where the refugees are. My State, California, has 60 percent of all of the refugees in the United States of America. We receive $31 per refugee under this bill, while other States receive as much as $497 per refugee. That is just plain wrong. It is not the way this Government should exist, with cushy deals for some States and other States really ending up down and out. This provision costs California $7 million in Federal funds. The withdrawal of the language that I submitted, to see to it that refugee dollars went based on where the refugees are, is not included in the immigration bill. It went with some kind of a political plum. I certainly intend to readdress this issue at the first available opportunity in the next Congress. In conclusion, Mr. President, I must say, I am very pleased that the Gallegly amendment is out of this bill. I also think that fair changes have been made to the immigration bill, and I particularly thank the members of the Immigration Subcommittee. I think both you and I would agree that the markup of this bill on the Senate side was something very unusual. Members listened to each other, and it went on hour after hour, day after day. I think we produced a very good bill on the Senate side. This bill has been changed somewhat. I think it still remains a very strong Federal tool giving the Departments of the Federal Government both the license they need, as well as the tools they need, to see that we do what we should do: guarantee that the borders of our country are enforced against illegal immigration. I, for one, being the product of legal immigrants, really believe that it is important that the richness of our tapestry continue to be woven through people who come to this country from many other places. The fact that the legal immigration quotas remain as they are, extraordinarily broad, and I think liberal, is important, and that we say to the people of this Nation, ``We are a nation of laws, and we will abide by them.'' I thank the committee. I particularly thank the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, Senator Simpson, who worked very hard and very diligently, who has studied this issue and which legislation bears his name. I think he has been a person of great integrity and credibility on the issue for a long, long time. When he retires from this body, I guess at the end of this year, he will leave a legacy of fairness and a striving for laws in this area which are sustained by that credibility and integrity. Finally, I want to address sponsor income requirements. In addition to being enforceable, sponsor contracts must also be realistic. I support raising the income requirement for sponsors of immigrants. The purpose of the sponsor income requirement is to ensure that people who sponsor immigrants into this country have the ability to provide for them. Tell me how someone supports a family of two on $10,360 per year--which is the current poverty-level requirement. A person can barely support himself or herself on $10,360 per year-- that's why it's called the poverty level. This bill makes what I think is a modest change in the income requirement: If you have an income of $12,950 per year for a family of two, you can bring your spouse and minor children into this country. California--and all States who bear the burden of illegal immigration--need this bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation by voting yes. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, to introduce a revised and substantially improved version of the victims' rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Since Senator Kyl and I originally introduced a victims' rights amendment in April, we have been working very diligently and intensively with the Department of Justice, law enforcement, the White House, major victims' rights groups, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Biden, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde, and a variety of distinguished scholars in the field of law enforcement, to more finely craft this amendment and resolve various concerns with its initial language. We have gone through 41 different drafts of the amendment, so far, as the language has evolved, culminating in the resolution that we are introducing today. We are introducing this most recent version so that interested people have an up to date draft to evaluate. Many of the people who have commented on the victims' rights amendment were commenting on an out of date draft, leading to erroneous and false conclusions by some, including legal scholars. What really focused my attention on the need for greater protection of victims' rights was a particularly horrifying case, in 1974, in San Francisco, when a man named Angelo Pavageau broke into the house of the Carlson family in Portero Hill. Pavageau tied Mr. Carlson to a chair, bludgeoning him to death with a hammer, a chopping block, and a ceramic vase. He then repeatedly raped Carlson's 24-year old wife, breaking several of her bones, He slit her wrist, tried to strangle her with a telephone cord, and then, before fleeing, set the Carlson's home on fire--cowardly retreating into the night, leaving this family to burn up in flames. But Mrs. Carlson survived the fire. She courageously lived to testify against her attacker. But she has been forced to change her name and continues to live in fear that her attacker may, one day, be released. When I was mayor of San Francisco, she called me several times to notify me that Pavageau was up for parole. Amazingly, it was up to Mrs. Carlson to find out when his parole hearings were. Mr. President, I believe this case represents a travesty of justice-- It just shouldn't have to be that way. I believe it should be the responsibility of the State to send a letter through the mail or make a phone call to let a victim know that her attacker is up for parole, and she should have the opportunity to testify at that hearing. But today, in most States in this great Nation, victims still are not made aware of the accused's trial, many times are not allowed in the courtroom during the trial, and are not notified when convicted offender is released from prison. I have vowed to do everything in my power to add a bit of balance to our Nation's justice system. This is why Senator Kyl and I have crafted the victim's rights amendment before us today. The people of California were the first in the Nation to pass a crime victims' amendment to the State constitution in 1982--the initiative proposition 8--and I supported its passage. This measure gave victims the right to restitution, the right to testify at sentencing, probation and parole hearings established a right to safe and secure public school campuses, and made various changes in criminal law. California's proposition 8 represented a good start to ensure victims' rights. Since the passage of proposition 8, 20 more States have passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of crime victims--and five others are expected to pass by the end of this year. In each case, these amendments have won with the overwhelming approval of the voters. But citizens in other States lack these basic rights. The 20 different State constitutional amendments differ from each other, representing a patchwork quilt of rights that vary from State to State. And even in those States which have State amendments, criminals can assert rights grounded in the Federal constitution to try to trump those rights. I stand before you today to appeal to my colleagues in this body--the highest legislative institution in the land--that the time is now to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to protect the rights of victims of serious crimes. The U.S. Constitution guarantees numerous rights to the accused in our society, all of which were established by amendment to the Constitution. I steadfastly believe that this Nation must attempt to guarantee, at the very least, some basic rights to the millions victimized by crime each year. For those accused of crimes in this country, the Constitution specifically protects: The right to a grand jury indictment for capital or infamous crimes; the prohibition against double jeopardy; the right to due process; the right to a speedy trial and the right to an impartial jury of one's peers; the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the criminal accusation; the right to confront witnesses; the right to counsel; the right to subpoena witnesses--and so on. I must say to my colleagues that I find it truly astonishing that no where in the text of the U.S. Constitution does there appear any guarantee of rights for crime victims. To rectify this disparity, Senator Kyl and I introduce the victims' rights amendment in April. That amendment, like the one we introduced today, provides for certain basic rights for victims of crime: The right to be notified of public proceedings in their case; The right to be heard at any proceeding involving a release from custody or sentencing; The right to be informed of the offender's release or escape; The right to restitution from the convicted offender; and the right to be made of all of your rights as a victim. Personally, I can say that the process of forging a constitutional amendment for victims' rights has been truly fascinating. The Constitution our forefathers scribed 200 years ago is a remarkable document that has withstood the test of time. Earlier this year, Senator Kyl and I embarked on a journey to include an amendment to this magnificent document that would ensure that the rights of the roughly 43 million people victimized by crime each year will be protected. Our ongoing effort to include a victims' rights amendment in the Constitution has been at times frustrating, while at other times exhilarating. Each sentence, each word, and each comma has undergone hours of deliberation and questioning. Having said that, I must tell this body and share with my colleagues that this latest resolution is still a work in progress--let me be perfectly clear, we anticipate modifications. Three principal issues remain unresolved: First, whether there should be an effective remedy when crime victims are denied rights regarding sentences or pleas. Second, whether to include nonviolent crimes (``other crimes''), and if these crimes are included, whether they should be defined by Congress or by Congress and the States. Third, whether to have a right to a ``final disposition free from unreasonable delay'', whether to limit this right to trial proceedings, or whether to exclude this altogether. Mr. President, Senator Kyl and I believe that the latest resolution before us is much better than the version than was previously introduced for a number of reasons. The language describing these rights has changed--and we continue to welcome suggestions to ensure that this amendment pass with the largest majority. Unfortunately, there was precious little time to advance the amendment in this Congress, and once it became clear that the other Chamber would not proceed with the amendment this session, Senators Kyl and Biden and I decided not to press for Senate action in the last few weeks of the Congress, but, rather, to spend the next few months continuing to work to fine tune the amendment and build a consensus for its passage. We implore Members of this body to examine this amendment, and to help to secure passage of this monumental piece of legislation. After 200 years, doesn't this Nation owe something to the millions of victims of crime? I believe that is our obligation and should be our highest priority--not only for the crime victims, but, for all Americans--to ensure passage of a victims' rights constitutional amendment. I want to personally than Senator Kyl for his tireless efforts to accomplish this amendment, and to say that I look forward to continuing to work with him in the months to come. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is acting today on Senate Resolution 285 with respect to Cambodia. I want to briefly outline why the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and I offered this resolution with respect to Cambodia, and why we feel it is important. On September 12, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1642, as amended by the Senate, extending most-favored-nation trading status to Cambodia. The legislation now awaits the President's signature, which is expected. That is as it should be. Cambodia has made tremendous strides since the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in 1991. The granting of MFN status is an important way of recognizing that Cambodia is emerging from the violence and repression that plagued its past. The United States can help Cambodia continue in its path of normalization and development by engaging it in a free and open trade relationship. But the extension of MFN status to Cambodia should not be misconstrued as a signal that we no longer have concerns about the conduct of the Royal Government of Cambodia [RGC]. Indeed, while the U.N.-sponsored elections of 1993 blew the air of freedom and democracy through Cambodia, recent events suggest that the RGC may be sliding backward in its safeguarding of these principles. Among the most concerning developments is the deterioration of the political rights and freedoms of opposition leaders and the press. In recent months: Former Foreign Minister Prince Sirivudh was arrested and exiled on trumped up charges of plotting to assassinate Second Prime Minister Hun Sen; Former Finance Minister Sam Rainsy--a persistent critic of government corruption, was expelled from the National Assembly and the FUNCINPEC Party; A gathering of leaders of the Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party was attacked with a grenade; Journalist and Khmer party member Thun Bunly was assassinated; and Other journalists have been harassed and intimidated for criticizing government corruption and abuse, and few of these crimes have been properly investigated. These incidents, and many others like them, suggest that Cambodia is in danger of slipping back into its old habits of repression. In addition, corruption is widespread in Phnom Penh, with many government officials directing money into their own pockets. Furthermore, Cambodia has emerged as a major center of heroin trafficking, and there is evidence that some government officials--including members of police and military units, have profited from this trade as well. The RGC, which has been certified as cooperating in our antinarcotics efforts, needs to do even more. Finally, despite the Cambodian Constitution's requirement that the RGC safeguard the environment, the RGC has allowed massive deforestation to take place in many areas of the country. This environmental degradation, a serious concern in its own right, is compounded by three factors: Unrestricted clear-cutting is threatening the agricultural livelihoods of numerous Cambodians, to the point where some communities have been destroyed by drought and floods, and famine is a serious concern; Concessions granted to timber companies are often a means of lining the pockets of national and local officials, adding to the corruption problem; and, Concessions granted to timber companies for logging in western Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge still dominates, have enabled the Khmer Rouge to generate millions of dollars of income by charging the loggers passage fees. The specter of the Khmer Rouge still haunts Cambodia. That is why it was particularly disturbing in recent weeks to see that the RGC obtained from King Sihanouk an amnesty for Ieng Sary, the former Deputy Prime Minister of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot's brother-in-law. It should be of great concern to Members of the Senate that a former Khmer Rouge leader, who participated in the genocide of some 2 million Cambodians--rather than being charged as a war criminal, as he should be, and as Congress has endorsed in the Cambodian Genocide Justice Act--is being allowed to participate fully in Cambodia's political life. That is the spirit in which this resolution is offered, Mr. President. The United States has provided much assistance to Cambodia to aid in its recovery from civil war. We are now extending MFN status to them, another step forward in our relations. But we should not allow that progress to obscure our understanding of the serious and troubling trends beginning to emerge in Cambodia. I hope this resolution will help the administration send the appropriate message of concern over these trends.