Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to strengthen tax incentives to encourage more charitable giving in America. The legislation would represent an important step and encourage greater private sector support of important educational, medical, and other valuable programs in local communities across the country. Americans are among the most caring in the world, contributing generously to charities in their communities: American families contribute, on average, nearly $650 per household, or about $130 billion, per year, to charities. Approximately, three out of every four households give to nonprofit charitable organizations. However, charities are very concerned for the future, anticipating a decline in Federal social spending to address urgent needs like childrens' services, homelessness, job training, health and welfare, just as the need for help accelerates. Nonprofit charities are very concerned about their ability to maintain their current level of services, let alone expand to meet the increasing demand for services. While charitable contributions grew by 3.7 percent in 1994, contributions for human services, the area most closely associated with poverty programs, dropped by 6 percent. Private charities can never replace government programs for national social priorities. However, nonprofit charities across America play a critical role in providing vital services to people in need. The Federal Government needs to take steps to ensure we are doing everything we can to encourage private charitable support to supplement government programs and government support. The Federal Government needs to take steps to encourage greater private sector support. Government must provide both the leadership and the incentives to encourage more private, charitable giving through the tax code. Analysts believe the gift of closely held business stock is an underutilized source of potential funds for charitable activities that warrants closer attention and legislative remedies. A closely held business is a corporation, in which stock is issued to a small number shareholders, such as family members, but is not publicly traded on a stock exchange. This business form is very popular for family businesses involving different generations. However, today, the tax cost of contributing closely-held stock to a charity or foundation can be prohibitively high. The tax burden discourages families and owners from winding down a business and contributing the proceeds to charity. This legislation would permit certain tax-free liquidations of closely held corporations into one or more tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. Under current law, a corporation may have to be liquidated to effectively complete the transfer of assets to the charity for its use, incurring a corporate tax at the Federal rate of 35 percent. In 1986, Congress repealed the ``General Utilities'' doctrine, imposing a corporate level tax on all corporate transfers, including those to tax exempt charitable organizations. Additionally, a charitable organization could also be subject to taxation on its unrelated business income from certain types of donated property. These tax costs make contributions of closely held stock a costly and ineffective means of transferring resources to charity. If the Federal Government is going to find new ways to encourage charitable giving, we need to look at these tax costs which undercut both the incentive to give and the potential value of any charitable gift. Governments at the Federal, State, and local level, are reducing spending in all areas of their budgets, including spending for social services. Public charities and private foundations already distribute funds to a diverse and wide ranging group of social support organizations at the community level. Congressional leaders have looked to private charities in our religious institutions, our schools and communities, to fill the void created by government cut-backs. However, volunteers are already hard at work in their communities and charitable funding is already stretched dangerously thin. Charities need added tools to unlock the public's desire to give generously. We need to create appropriate incentives for the private sector to do more. In California and throughout the country, volunteer and charitable organizations, together, perform vital roles in the community and they deserve our support. Allow me to provide a few examples, which could be repeated in any town across America: Summer Search: In San Francisco, the Summer Search Foundation is hard at work preventing high school students from dropping out of school. Summer Search helps students not only successfully complete high school but, for 93 percent of the participants, go on to college. By increasing charitable contributions, groups like Summer Search can help keep kids in school and moving forward toward graduation and a more productive contribution to the Nation. Drew Center For Child Development: Dramatic increases in the number of child abuse and neglect cases, which now total nearly 3 million children in the United States, is deeply troubling for everyone. We must do everything to prevent these cases, but cutbacks in Social Services block grants will impose new burdens on local communities. Charitable support can be a small part of the solution. Drew Child Development, a child care and development center in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, works directly with children and families involved in child abuse environments. Unfortunately, these 130 families in which the Drew Center supports is not the end of the story. There are thousands of other families that could benefit from this child abuse treatment program if more resources were available. The Drew Center expects cuts in government funding. They anticipate that they will have to cut counselor positions and turn needy families away. Stronger incentives for private sector giving would provide the Drew Center with some of the resources needed to combat this enormous problem. The Chrysalis Center: In 1993 I visited the Chrysalis Center, a nonprofit organization in downtown Los Angeles dedicated to helping homeless individuals find and keep jobs. Chrysalis provides employment assistance, from training in job-seeking skills to supervised searches for permanent employment. In 1995, the center helped over 750 people find work, and has helped place more than 3,000 people in permanent, full-time jobs in the last decade. However, there are still an estimated 15,000 homeless individuals in the Los Angeles area that are able to work. Most of these men and women, however, lack literacy skills and the resources to move from the streets to full-time employment. With increased charitable contributions, Chrysalis would be able to offer hope and opportunity for thousands more. Today, I introduce tax incentive legislation to encourage stronger support for the Nation's vital charities. The proposal: Eliminates the corporate tax upon liquidation of a qualifying closely-held corporation under certain circumstances. The legislation would require 80 percent or more of the stock to be bequeathed to a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization; and Clarifies that a charity can receive mortgaged property in a qualified liquidation, without triggering unrelated business income tax for a period of 10 years. This change parallels the exemption from unrelated business income tax provided under current law for direct transfers by gift or bequest. Under the legislation, the individual donor would receive no tax benefit from the proposal, as the tax savings generated would increase the funds available for the charity. By eliminating the corporate tax upon liquidation, Congress would encourage additional, and much needed, charitable gifts. Across America, countless thousands have built successful careers and have generated substantial wealth in closely-held corporations. As the individuals age and plan for their estate, we should help them channel their wealth to meet philanthropic goals. Individuals who are willing to make generous bequests of companies and assets, often companies they have spent years building, should not be discouraged by substantially reducing the value of their gifts through Federal taxes. While the Joint Tax Committee has not yet prepared an official revenue cost, previous estimates suggest a 7-year cost of about $600 million. However, the revenue estimate represents the expectation of significant transfer to charity as a result of the legislation. By the same techniques used to estimate the tax cost to Treasury, we estimate between $3 and $5 billion in charitable contributions would be stimulated by this tax change. This tax proposal may generate as much as seven times its revenue loss in expanded charitable giving. The legislation has been endorsed by the Council on Foundations, the umbrella organization for foundations throughout the country, and the Council of Jewish Federations. I am pleased to add my colleagues Mark Hatfield, of Oregon, Slade Gorton of Washington and Max Baucus, of Montana, as co-sponsors of the legislation. I encourage others to review this legislation and listen to the charitable sectors in your community. During this past year, the proposed legislation went through several different revisions in order to sharpen the bill's focus and target the legislation in the most effective manner. I want to encourage the review process to continue, so we may continue to build support and target the bill's impact for the benefit of the Nation's nonprofit community. With virtually limitless need, we must look at new ways to encourage and nurture a strong charitable sector. The private sector cannot begin to replace the government role, but if the desire to support charitable activity exists, we should not impose taxes to deplete the value of that support. Tax laws should encourage, rather than impede, charitable giving. By inhibiting charitable gifts, Federal tax laws hurt those individuals that most need the help of their government and their community. I request unanimous consent to have the legislation and section-by- section analysis printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership on this issue. I have been very proud to cosponsor the bill with him, and it has been a very important bill in California. I will never forget going to a school in Hollywood, CA, speaking to a fourth grade class and asking that class, What is your No. 1 fear? Do you know what it was? It was getting shot in class or on the way to school. I didn't believe it, so I asked the class: Well, how many of you have even heard gunshots? In the fourth grade of this Hollywood elementary school, every single hand went up. Then I remember going to Reseda High School and embracing a mother whose son had been shot in a hallway for no reason at all, just shot dead by another student. That is when I came back and sort of firmed up my resolve to really try to do something about it. In 1993--this is the year before we passed this bill, gun-free schools--the Oakland school officials confiscated 60 guns; Fresno school officials confiscated 43 guns; San Jose, 175 guns; Los Angeles, 256 guns; Long Beach, 37 guns; and San Diego, 30 guns. These are the schools of California. Who can learn when a youngster has a .45 in their pocket? I don't think your son or daughter could learn. I know my son or daughter or granddaughter couldn't learn in a school if guns are present. So this is a good bill. I share the frustration of Senator Dorgan. I wasn't shaving that morning, but I did read the New York Times, and what I saw in the New York Times amazed me, because what it said was that no school security guard, seeing a bulge in a youngster's pocket, could go up to that youngster and say, ``What do you have in your pocket?'' If you see a bulge in somebody's pocket, you can have a reasonable belief that they are carrying a weapon, particularly in a day and age where we have 160,000 students a year going into schools with weapons. That is a reasonable belief if there is a bulge. We know for a fact that many schools now have metal detectors, that many schools routinely search backpacks. What does this court finding do to these routine searches? I think it decimates them. So we have submitted to you a bill which we hope will correct this. I know that gun-free schools work. In Los Angeles, when they put in a gun-free-school bill, gun incidents went down by 65 percent. In San Diego, gun incidents in school were cut in half. What we contend is that any school that takes Federal money should have a zero tolerance policy for guns in that school. That means you bring a gun to school, you are expelled for 1 year. No ifs, ands, or buts, you go out. The superintendent has the ability to be able to see there is some alternative placement if that is available and to provide counseling for the youngster. But the point of this is, it has to be enforced. For the New York City Family Court to strike down a gun being entered into evidence that was confiscated by a bona fide security person in the course of their duties on school grounds to me just boggles my mind. Let me talk just for a moment about what happens if this ruling stands and if we don't address it legislatively. I think it is really a shot in the back of school districts that are attempting to eliminate gun violence in their schools. How many school security guards and teachers will now hesitate to be just a little bit more vigilant in protecting the millions of good, innocent kids who are in our schools? How many overworked and underpaid teachers, fearful for their safety, will decide that this is the last straw and simply turn away from teaching if they can't go out there and say, ``I think you may have something in your backpack that is contraband. Open it up.'' Or, ``Susie,'' or ``Jeff, what is that bulge in your pocket? Let me see what you have in your pocket.'' This raises the whole kind of commonsense aspect: Should a youngster in a school have the same privacy rights that a youngster in a home would have? I don't think so. I think a minor should be subject to search for contraband, to search for possession of a weapon, and if we let our laws in this country bend over so backward that a security guard or a teacher can't say, ``Show me what you have in that pocket,'' or ``Show me what I think you have in that backpack,'' or ``I have reason to believe you may have something you shouldn't have in your locker; I am going to open it up and look at it,'' I think any effort to protect youngsters in schools will go right out the window. So I think that what we are trying to do today--Senator Dorgan, myself, I know I talked with Senator D'Amato about this. I know he has said, ``Let's work together.'' I am delighted to see he is on this bill as well. It is extraordinarily important that we get guns out of our schools, and this court decision was just a major setback, because what it said is, you can't enter the gun into evidence, you can't make it stick. I cannot fathom how any judge could do this. I am not entirely sure that the remedy we present today is the full remedy that we need. I think it may even need beefing up in itself. But I think it is a real start in the right direction, and I think it is extraordinarily important that Senators on both sides of the aisle really state to the public their belief that guns must not be brought to school, that knives must not be brought to school, that drugs, for that matter, should not be brought to school, and that we reinforce this in every way, shape or form we can legislatively. I am very, very pleased and proud to join with the Senator from North Dakota, once again, in hopes that this body will take prompt action in the early part of the next session. My hope also is, as this case proceeds on appeal, that common sense may reign. I cannot believe that the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America wanted a situation whereby a youngster could be search-proof in a school for a weapon of destruction.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences as it celebrates its 50th anniversary. The television industry reflects so much of what we are as Americans. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences--with its annual Emmy Award--recognizes the positive impact television makes on so much of our everyday life. I'm an avid channel surfer at home, so I watch a fair amount of television. I know how positive a messenger television can be--whether explaining the spread of a deadly disease, bringing us up-to-the-minute reports of world events, or simply making us laugh during a half-hour situation comedy when our day has ended and we're ready to take a break. The people and programs honored with the Emmy Award are a permanent part of our country's history. Just listen to some of the who's who's list of recipients of the acting awards in the comedy field alone: Lucille Ball--four time recipient--Red Skelton, Danny Thomas, Eve Arden, Jack Benny, Shirley Booth, Carol Burnett, Dick Van Dyke, Mary Tyler Moore, Julie Andrews, and today's recent recipients Candace Bergen--five time recipient-- Kelsey Grammer, and Helen Hunt. The programs honored--``Dick Van Dyke'', ``The Odd Couple'', ``All in the Family'', ``Get Smart'', ``Taxi'', and ``Barney Miller''--show just why the programming of ``Nick at Nite'' is so popular with people trying to recapture the classic days of comedy. The drama programs honored over the years also give us a snapshot of American life at the time the programs aired: ``Studio One'', ``Gunsmoke'', ``The Fugitive'', ``Mission Impossible'', ``Marcus Welby, M.D.'', ``Masterpiece Theatre'', ``The Waltons'', and the modern-day ``Hill Street Blues'' and ``E.R.'' Who can forget the Waltons' powerful message of family persevering through the Depression or who can forget how ``Hill Street Blues'' showed us the life of a police officer like we had never seen it before. For all that is good, educational and powerful on television, I am pleased to pay a small part in honoring the academy and the entire television industry for its work. As the Senior Senator for California, I also know how vital the entertainment industry is to my home State, where more than 150,000 people are employed in more than 1,000 entertainment-related companies. The academy, itself, was founded in 1946 by Syd Cassyd, and elected a year later Edgar Bergan as president. Under his direction, the academy first produced the Emmy Awards in 1948. The organization went national when it merged with the New York Academy in 1947 with Ed Sullivan as its first president. The academy continued to expand adding new chapters throughout the United States. Today, with 9,000 members, the academy is the largest organization in the television industry. In addition to the Emmys for which it is best known, the academy also runs an intern program for college students interested in film and holds student film competitions. In 1984, the academy formed its first steering committee on drug and alcohol abuse and began its work with a 2-day seminar in Washington, DC with First Lady Nancy Reagan. A decade later, the academy sponsored another meeting--this one focusing on the information superhighway--with our Vice President, Al Gore. Mr. President, it is an honor and a privilege to acknowledge the accomplishments of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences as a leader in the entertainment industry. I commend the academy on its growth and creativity over the past 50 years and I look forward to the next 50. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership on this issue. I have been very proud to cosponsor the bill with him, and it has been a very important bill in California. I will never forget going to a school in Hollywood, CA, speaking to a fourth grade class and asking that class, What is your No. 1 fear? Do you know what it was? It was getting shot in class or on the way to school. I didn't believe it, so I asked the class: Well, how many of you have even heard gunshots? In the fourth grade of this Hollywood elementary school, every single hand went up. Then I remember going to Reseda High School and embracing a mother whose son had been shot in a hallway for no reason at all, just shot dead by another student. That is when I came back and sort of firmed up my resolve to really try to do something about it. In 1993--this is the year before we passed this bill, gun-free schools--the Oakland school officials confiscated 60 guns; Fresno school officials confiscated 43 guns; San Jose, 175 guns; Los Angeles, 256 guns; Long Beach, 37 guns; and San Diego, 30 guns. These are the schools of California. Who can learn when a youngster has a .45 in their pocket? I don't think your son or daughter could learn. I know my son or daughter or granddaughter couldn't learn in a school if guns are present. So this is a good bill. I share the frustration of Senator Dorgan. I wasn't shaving that morning, but I did read the New York Times, and what I saw in the New York Times amazed me, because what it said was that no school security guard, seeing a bulge in a youngster's pocket, could go up to that youngster and say, ``What do you have in your pocket?'' If you see a bulge in somebody's pocket, you can have a reasonable belief that they are carrying a weapon, particularly in a day and age where we have 160,000 students a year going into schools with weapons. That is a reasonable belief if there is a bulge. We know for a fact that many schools now have metal detectors, that many schools routinely search backpacks. What does this court finding do to these routine searches? I think it decimates them. So we have submitted to you a bill which we hope will correct this. I know that gun-free schools work. In Los Angeles, when they put in a gun-free-school bill, gun incidents went down by 65 percent. In San Diego, gun incidents in school were cut in half. What we contend is that any school that takes Federal money should have a zero tolerance policy for guns in that school. That means you bring a gun to school, you are expelled for 1 year. No ifs, ands, or buts, you go out. The superintendent has the ability to be able to see there is some alternative placement if that is available and to provide counseling for the youngster. But the point of this is, it has to be enforced. For the New York City Family Court to strike down a gun being entered into evidence that was confiscated by a bona fide security person in the course of their duties on school grounds to me just boggles my mind. Let me talk just for a moment about what happens if this ruling stands and if we don't address it legislatively. I think it is really a shot in the back of school districts that are attempting to eliminate gun violence in their schools. How many school security guards and teachers will now hesitate to be just a little bit more vigilant in protecting the millions of good, innocent kids who are in our schools? How many overworked and underpaid teachers, fearful for their safety, will decide that this is the last straw and simply turn away from teaching if they can't go out there and say, ``I think you may have something in your backpack that is contraband. Open it up.'' Or, ``Susie,'' or ``Jeff, what is that bulge in your pocket? Let me see what you have in your pocket.'' This raises the whole kind of commonsense aspect: Should a youngster in a school have the same privacy rights that a youngster in a home would have? I don't think so. I think a minor should be subject to search for contraband, to search for possession of a weapon, and if we let our laws in this country bend over so backward that a security guard or a teacher can't say, ``Show me what you have in that pocket,'' or ``Show me what I think you have in that backpack,'' or ``I have reason to believe you may have something you shouldn't have in your locker; I am going to open it up and look at it,'' I think any effort to protect youngsters in schools will go right out the window. So I think that what we are trying to do today--Senator Dorgan, myself, I know I talked with Senator D'Amato about this. I know he has said, ``Let's work together.'' I am delighted to see he is on this bill as well. It is extraordinarily important that we get guns out of our schools, and this court decision was just a major setback, because what it said is, you can't enter the gun into evidence, you can't make it stick. I cannot fathom how any judge could do this. I am not entirely sure that the remedy we present today is the full remedy that we need. I think it may even need beefing up in itself. But I think it is a real start in the right direction, and I think it is extraordinarily important that Senators on both sides of the aisle really state to the public their belief that guns must not be brought to school, that knives must not be brought to school, that drugs, for that matter, should not be brought to school, and that we reinforce this in every way, shape or form we can legislatively. I am very, very pleased and proud to join with the Senator from North Dakota, once again, in hopes that this body will take prompt action in the early part of the next session. My hope also is, as this case proceeds on appeal, that common sense may reign. I cannot believe that the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America wanted a situation whereby a youngster could be search-proof in a school for a weapon of destruction.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to strengthen tax incentives to encourage more charitable giving in America. The legislation would represent an important step and encourage greater private sector support of important educational, medical, and other valuable programs in local communities across the country. Americans are among the most caring in the world, contributing generously to charities in their communities: American families contribute, on average, nearly $650 per household, or about $130 billion, per year, to charities. Approximately, three out of every four households give to nonprofit charitable organizations. However, charities are very concerned for the future, anticipating a decline in Federal social spending to address urgent needs like childrens' services, homelessness, job training, health and welfare, just as the need for help accelerates. Nonprofit charities are very concerned about their ability to maintain their current level of services, let alone expand to meet the increasing demand for services. While charitable contributions grew by 3.7 percent in 1994, contributions for human services, the area most closely associated with poverty programs, dropped by 6 percent. Private charities can never replace government programs for national social priorities. However, nonprofit charities across America play a critical role in providing vital services to people in need. The Federal Government needs to take steps to ensure we are doing everything we can to encourage private charitable support to supplement government programs and government support. The Federal Government needs to take steps to encourage greater private sector support. Government must provide both the leadership and the incentives to encourage more private, charitable giving through the tax code. Analysts believe the gift of closely held business stock is an underutilized source of potential funds for charitable activities that warrants closer attention and legislative remedies. A closely held business is a corporation, in which stock is issued to a small number shareholders, such as family members, but is not publicly traded on a stock exchange. This business form is very popular for family businesses involving different generations. However, today, the tax cost of contributing closely-held stock to a charity or foundation can be prohibitively high. The tax burden discourages families and owners from winding down a business and contributing the proceeds to charity. This legislation would permit certain tax-free liquidations of closely held corporations into one or more tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. Under current law, a corporation may have to be liquidated to effectively complete the transfer of assets to the charity for its use, incurring a corporate tax at the Federal rate of 35 percent. In 1986, Congress repealed the ``General Utilities'' doctrine, imposing a corporate level tax on all corporate transfers, including those to tax exempt charitable organizations. Additionally, a charitable organization could also be subject to taxation on its unrelated business income from certain types of donated property. These tax costs make contributions of closely held stock a costly and ineffective means of transferring resources to charity. If the Federal Government is going to find new ways to encourage charitable giving, we need to look at these tax costs which undercut both the incentive to give and the potential value of any charitable gift. Governments at the Federal, State, and local level, are reducing spending in all areas of their budgets, including spending for social services. Public charities and private foundations already distribute funds to a diverse and wide ranging group of social support organizations at the community level. Congressional leaders have looked to private charities in our religious institutions, our schools and communities, to fill the void created by government cut-backs. However, volunteers are already hard at work in their communities and charitable funding is already stretched dangerously thin. Charities need added tools to unlock the public's desire to give generously. We need to create appropriate incentives for the private sector to do more. In California and throughout the country, volunteer and charitable organizations, together, perform vital roles in the community and they deserve our support. Allow me to provide a few examples, which could be repeated in any town across America: Summer Search: In San Francisco, the Summer Search Foundation is hard at work preventing high school students from dropping out of school. Summer Search helps students not only successfully complete high school but, for 93 percent of the participants, go on to college. By increasing charitable contributions, groups like Summer Search can help keep kids in school and moving forward toward graduation and a more productive contribution to the Nation. Drew Center For Child Development: Dramatic increases in the number of child abuse and neglect cases, which now total nearly 3 million children in the United States, is deeply troubling for everyone. We must do everything to prevent these cases, but cutbacks in Social Services block grants will impose new burdens on local communities. Charitable support can be a small part of the solution. Drew Child Development, a child care and development center in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, works directly with children and families involved in child abuse environments. Unfortunately, these 130 families in which the Drew Center supports is not the end of the story. There are thousands of other families that could benefit from this child abuse treatment program if more resources were available. The Drew Center expects cuts in government funding. They anticipate that they will have to cut counselor positions and turn needy families away. Stronger incentives for private sector giving would provide the Drew Center with some of the resources needed to combat this enormous problem. The Chrysalis Center: In 1993 I visited the Chrysalis Center, a nonprofit organization in downtown Los Angeles dedicated to helping homeless individuals find and keep jobs. Chrysalis provides employment assistance, from training in job-seeking skills to supervised searches for permanent employment. In 1995, the center helped over 750 people find work, and has helped place more than 3,000 people in permanent, full-time jobs in the last decade. However, there are still an estimated 15,000 homeless individuals in the Los Angeles area that are able to work. Most of these men and women, however, lack literacy skills and the resources to move from the streets to full-time employment. With increased charitable contributions, Chrysalis would be able to offer hope and opportunity for thousands more. Today, I introduce tax incentive legislation to encourage stronger support for the Nation's vital charities. The proposal: Eliminates the corporate tax upon liquidation of a qualifying closely-held corporation under certain circumstances. The legislation would require 80 percent or more of the stock to be bequeathed to a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization; and Clarifies that a charity can receive mortgaged property in a qualified liquidation, without triggering unrelated business income tax for a period of 10 years. This change parallels the exemption from unrelated business income tax provided under current law for direct transfers by gift or bequest. Under the legislation, the individual donor would receive no tax benefit from the proposal, as the tax savings generated would increase the funds available for the charity. By eliminating the corporate tax upon liquidation, Congress would encourage additional, and much needed, charitable gifts. Across America, countless thousands have built successful careers and have generated substantial wealth in closely-held corporations. As the individuals age and plan for their estate, we should help them channel their wealth to meet philanthropic goals. Individuals who are willing to make generous bequests of companies and assets, often companies they have spent years building, should not be discouraged by substantially reducing the value of their gifts through Federal taxes. While the Joint Tax Committee has not yet prepared an official revenue cost, previous estimates suggest a 7-year cost of about $600 million. However, the revenue estimate represents the expectation of significant transfer to charity as a result of the legislation. By the same techniques used to estimate the tax cost to Treasury, we estimate between $3 and $5 billion in charitable contributions would be stimulated by this tax change. This tax proposal may generate as much as seven times its revenue loss in expanded charitable giving. The legislation has been endorsed by the Council on Foundations, the umbrella organization for foundations throughout the country, and the Council of Jewish Federations. I am pleased to add my colleagues Mark Hatfield, of Oregon, Slade Gorton of Washington and Max Baucus, of Montana, as co-sponsors of the legislation. I encourage others to review this legislation and listen to the charitable sectors in your community. During this past year, the proposed legislation went through several different revisions in order to sharpen the bill's focus and target the legislation in the most effective manner. I want to encourage the review process to continue, so we may continue to build support and target the bill's impact for the benefit of the Nation's nonprofit community. With virtually limitless need, we must look at new ways to encourage and nurture a strong charitable sector. The private sector cannot begin to replace the government role, but if the desire to support charitable activity exists, we should not impose taxes to deplete the value of that support. Tax laws should encourage, rather than impede, charitable giving. By inhibiting charitable gifts, Federal tax laws hurt those individuals that most need the help of their government and their community. I request unanimous consent to have the legislation and section-by- section analysis printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose the override of the veto of H.R. 1833, a bill banning emergency late-term abortions. This bill is unnecessary. It is an unprecedented intrusion by the Federal Government into medical decision-making and it represents a direct constitutional challenge to safe and legal abortion as protected under the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court decision which has been the law of the land for 23 years. There are several reasons why this is a flawed bill. First, this bill attempts to ban a specific medical procedure, called by opponents, partial-birth abortion, but there is no medical definition of ``partial-birth abortion.'' Second, the language in this bill is so vague that it could affect far more than the one particular procedure it seeks to ban. As such, it undermines Roe versus Wade. Third, there is no exception to protect the health of the woman. This bill would be a blanket ban on the use of a type of medical procedure regardless of whether it is the safest procedure under a particular set of circumstances. Fourth, this bill presumes guilt on the part of the doctor and forces physicians to prove that they did not violate the law. Fifth, this bill is unnecessary Federal regulation, since 41 States have already outlawed postviability abortions except to save a woman's life or health. Sixth, this is an ineffective bill because most cases not affected by it. no medical term for partial-birth abortion; doctors vulnerable to prosecution H.R. 1833 seeks to outlaw a medical procedure called, by the bill, partial-birth abortion. This procedure does not appear in medical textbooks. It does not appear in the medical records of doctors who are said to have performed this procedure. The doctors who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee could not identify, with any degree of certainty or consistency, what medical procedure this legislation refers to. For example, when asked to describe in medical terms what a ``partial-birth abortion'' is, Dr. Pamela Smith, director of ob/gyn medical education at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago called it ``* * * a perversion of a breech extraction.'' Dr. Nancy Romer, a practicing ob/gyn and assistant professor at Wright State University School of Medicine, who said the doctors at her hospital had never performed the procedure, had to quote another doctor in describing it as ``a Dilation and Extraction, distinguished from dismemberment-type D&Es.'' When the same question was posed to legal experts in the Judiciary Committee hearings--to define exactly what medical procedure would be outlawed by this legislation--the responses were equally vague. The vagueness of exactly what medical procedures would be criminalized under this bill is striking and it may be vague for very deliberate reasons. By leaving the language vague every doctor that performs even a second trimester abortion could face the possibility of prosecution under this law. Senator Hatch said in our previous debate that every woman testifying in the committee who thought they were testifying about a ``partial birth abortion,'' were not affected by this legislation. This is evidence of the confusing and nonspecific nature of this so- called partial birth procedure. this bill could affect other legal procedures The language in this bill is so vague that, far from outlawing just one, particular abortion procedure, the way this bill is written virtually any abortion procedure could fall within its scope. I asked the legal and medical experts who testified at the Judiciary Committee hearing if this legislation could affect abortion--not just late-term abortions--but earlier abortions of nonviable fetuses as well. Dr. Louis Seidman, professor of law from Georgetown University, gave the following answer: As I read the language, in a second trimester pre-viability abortion where the fetus will in any event die, if any portion of the fetus enters the birth canal prior to the technical death of the fetus, then the physician is guilty of a crime and goes to prison for 2 years. Dr. Seidman continued his testimony concluding that: If I were a lawyer advising a physician who performed abortions, I would tell him to stop because there is just no way to tell whether the procedure will eventuate in some portion of the fetus entering the birth canal before the fetus is technically dead, much less being able to demonstrate that after the fact. Dr. Courtland Richardson, associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in testimony before a House committee, said, [the language] ``partially vaginally delivers'' is vague, not medically oriented, and just not correct. In any normal 2nd trimester abortion procedure by any method, you may have a point at which a part, a one inch piece of [umbilical] cord for example, of the fetus passes out of the cervical [opening] before fetal demise has occurred. So, contrary to proponents' claims, this bill could affect far more than just the few abortions performed in the third trimester, and far more than just the one procedure being described. presumes guilt; affirmative defense Another troubling aspect of this legislation to me is that it violates a fundamental tenet of our legal system--the presumption of innocence. This bill does exactly the opposite--it presumes guilt. This legislation provides what is known as affirmative defense-- whereby an accused physician could escape liability only by proving that he or she ``reasonably believed'' that the banned procedure-- whatever that procedure proves to be--was necessary to save the woman's life and that no other procedure would have sufficed. It also opens the door to prosecution of doctors for almost any abortion by forcing them to prove they did not violate a law that can be interpreted in many, many different ways. no health exception This legislation has no exemption or protection for the health of the mother and, as such, would directly eliminate that protection provided by the Supreme Court in Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey. If this legislation were law, a pregnant woman seriously ill with diabetes, cardiovascular problems, cancer, stroke, or other health- threatening illnesses would be forced to carry the pregnancy to term or run the risk that the physician could be challenged and have to prove in court what procedure he used, and whether or not the abortion ``partially vaginally-delivered'' a living fetus before death of that fetus. It is also important to point out that, on the extremely rare occasions when a third trimester abortion is performed, it is virtually always in cases where there is severe fetal abnormality or a major health threat to the mother. This procedure is less risky for the mother than other procedures--such as a cesarean delivery, induced labor, or a saline abortion--because there is less maternal blood loss, less risk of uterine perforation, less operating time--thus cutting anesthesia needs--and less trauma to the mother. Trauma, for example, can lead to an incompetent cervix which can cause repeated pregnancy loss. The sad fact is, while our technology allows many genetic disorders to be detected early in pregnancies, all cannot be detected. While many women undergo sonograms and other routine medical examinations in the earliest weeks of pregnancy to monitor fetal development, and, if a woman is over 35 years of age, she may undergo amniocentesis, these tests are not routine for women under 35 because of the potential risk to the fetus with amniocentesis, plus the additional cost involved. Ultrasound testing would provide further early detection of fetal anomalies, but these tests also are not routinely used until late pregnancy. As a result, some women carry fetuses with severe birth defects late into the pregnancy without knowing it. According to obstetricians, some of the severe fetal anomalies that would cause a woman to end a pregnancy at this late stage are tragic: Cases where the brain forms outside the skull; cases where the stomach and intestines form outside the body or do not form at all; fetuses with no eyes, ears, mouths, legs, or kidneys--sometimes, tragically, unrecognizable as human at all. But even with advanced technology, many serious birth defects can only be identified later, often in the third trimester or when the fetus reaches a certain size. Anomalies such as hydrocephaly may not even be detected with an early ultrasound examination. Other abnormalities such as polyhydramnios--too much amniotic fluid-- does not occur until the third trimester--and may require an abortion. The delivery of these babies can often endanger the mother's life. The families who face these unexpected tragedies do not make hasty or careless decisions about their options. In addition to the obstetrician, they seek second and third opinions, often consulting specialists, including perinatalogists, genetic counselors, pediatric cardiologists, and pediatric neurosurgeons--who explore every available option to save this baby that they very much want. The Federal Government has no place interfering, making this tragic situation any more difficult or complicated for these families.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senate for approving last night, at my urging, H.R. 3056, which makes a small change in Federal law to enable a California county that operates a Medicaid managed care plan to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries in another county. This bill, introduced by Congressman Frank Riggs, is needed because the Health Care Financing Administration concluded that current law limits coverage under these county-operated plans solely to the county in which an organization operates. This bill was requested by Solano and Napa Counties in California so that Solano County could expand its Health Partnership Plan to Napa County, thus providing care to 12,000 individuals. Currently, these Medicaid beneficiaries have ``hit or miss'' health care. Some are refused care by private physicians. The health care they do get is inconsistent and unreliable. Many end up in emergency rooms when illnesses are exacerbated and care is expensive. When Solano started its plan, emergency room visits were cut in half the first year because Medicaid beneficiaries were linked up with a primary care physician. This resulted in major savings. In short, this bill will mean more access, more care and better health. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill could save up to $500,000 per year. The bill is supported by Gov. Pete Wilson, the California Department of Health Services, and the Solano and Napa County Boards of Supervisors. I thank Senators Lott, Daschle, Roth, and Moynihan for their help in moving this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to recognize and honor a respected leader in the law enforcement community and a friend. Jim Freeman has graciously served our Nation for over 30 years as a Special Agent at the FBI. Mr. Freeman began his career by receiving his appointment as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] in July 1964, following his receipt of a bachelor of arts degree from San Francisco State University that same year. He has served as special agent in charge of the San Francisco Division of the FBI since August 1993, where he is responsible for approximately 650 employees and a territory that extends from Monterey to the Oregon border. The majority of his assignments in this area deal with organized crime and drugs, white collar crime, violent crimes, terrorism and foreign counterintelligence. In 1995, Mr. Freeman was named as the FBI's official adviser to the Technology Theft Prevention Foundation, which is comprised of insurance and electronic industry executives with the mission of reducing high- technology crimes through a variety of initiatives awareness training and law enforcement support. During his tenure, the San Francisco Division of the FBI has created a high-tech crimes squad in San Jose which investigates crimes ranging from robbery of components and semiconductors, to the theft of intellectual property, as well as a computer intrusion squad in San Francisco which investigates serious computer hacking crimes. His other assignments have included the development of the Crimes Against Children Task Force in San Francisco in February 1994, and assuming the leadership of the UNABOM Task Force on April 1, 1994. Mr. President, Mr. Freeman's previous postings were as a special agent in the Oklahoma City and Los Angeles bureau divisions; a supervisory special agent in Los Angeles; assistant special agent in charge in Miami; an inspector in FBI Headquarters' Inspection Division; and special agent in charge of Honolulu Division of the FBI. In 1986, he was elected as the FBI's representative to the U.S. Department of State's Senior Seminar at the Foreign Service Institute in Rosslyn, VA, for the 1986-1987 session. On November 20, 1988, Mr. Freeman was selected as a member of the Senior Executive Service. Mr. President, in conclusion, I want to commend Agent Freeman for his leadership and hard work he has demonstrated during his active years as law enforcement officer. His service to the State of California is greatly appreciated and will not be forgotten. I wish him all the best in years to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I also thank the Chair. I must say, I came to this floor to speak for the fifth time about methamphetamine this morning. However, I happened to hear the preceding speakers, and I really want to identify myself with the comments just made by the Senator from North Dakota. Even on this side of the aisle, there is legitimate difference about how much should be in the defense budget. I, for one, voted for more than the President put forward in his budget. I think that is legitimate, but I also think we should talk about it, and I think we should debate it. However, it is clear to all of us, I think, that we are engaged in a military operation. Therefore, the lives of our pilots, of our men and women in the Armed Forces, and of innocent civilians are at risk. I think during a military operation, an attack on the President, on the very policy that is determining that operation is, frankly, ill- advised, I think it is highly partisan, I think it could put American and other lives at risk, and, frankly, I think it is just plain tacky. So I want to say that. I would be hopeful that during a time of some national emergency--and I think this operation does qualify--we can come together as Republicans and as Democrats to support the Commander in Chief of the United States of America, who happens to be the President, whether that President is Democratic or whether that President is Republican. I pledge as a Democrat that should the President be a Republican, I would do the same, because I think it is important.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come here because I have spoken on this floor five times about methamphetamine. There is good news. I think it is stellar news. It is how this body can work together to solve what is a very real problem in America. I mentioned before that methamphetamine has been a major problem in the State of California. As a matter of fact, the DEA has determined that California is the ``source country'' for methamphetamine, much like Colombia is for cocaine. In Operation Pipeline, conducted by the DEA, 92.8 percent of all methamphetamine seized in a national drug operation actually originated in California. Hospital admissions are up, way above that for cocaine. Deaths are up. Medical costs are up. Methamphetamine has become a real problem and a national emergency. Last June and July--that is 1995--I wrote to the Attorney General laying out the vast extent of the methamphetamine problem in California and asking her for proposals to crack down on this trade, especially on the precursor chemicals used to make methamphetamine. Over the ensuing months, my staff and I worked with prosecutors, narcotics officers, and the California Department of Justice, in a bipartisan way, to try to develop solutions. In February of this year, Senator Grassley and I, along with Senator Reid, introduced the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. We had a bipartisan group of Senators which also included Senator Kyl. Representatives Fazio and Riggs in the House introduced the same bill. In April, President Clinton announced his national methamphetamine strategy adding additional measures to attack meth. In July of this year, Senators Hatch, Biden, Grassley, and I and others introduced the bill which was passed last night, incorporating our earlier proposals. Frankly, thanks to Chairman Hatch and Senator Biden, I think this is a much better bill than the original bill we introduced. I note with some interest that yesterday was Senator Grassley's birthday. How nice to have a birthday and at the same time to have a bill that you worked on which passed the Senate of the United States unanimously, and which will solve a major problem out there. This would not have happened had it not been bipartisan. It would not have happened had it not been for the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of that committee coming together to work on a problem. A lot of staffs were involved across the aisle. I think they worked in the best bipartisan way this body can muster to solve a real problem. That is practical. You know, I often hear a lot about ideology around here. I have never been in a place that is more partisan than around here. Yet, the fact of the matter is, some problems take very conservative solutions, some take more innovative solutions, and most take just plain sitting down at a table and working out a solution. And that is methamphetamine. So last night the Hatch-Biden-Feinstein-Grassley bill, known as the Methamphetamine Control Act, was passed. Among some of the things it does is it adds seizure and forfeiture authority for precursor chemical violations. It provides for stiff escalating civil penalties for the reckless sale of chemicals used to manufacturer methamphetamine. It gives the Attorney General the authority to shut down chemical supply houses which provide chemicals to clandestine methamphetamine manufacturers. It provides for restitution for the cost of cleaning up clandestine methamphetamine labs, which runs about $7,000, $8,000 a lab. It allows the Attorney General to require, by regulation, reporting the sales of ordinary, over-the-counter, pseudoephedrine-containing products in quantities above 24 grams. This is really important because as there are controls on ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, which goes into over-the-counter cold medication, developed as a major source for methamphetamine makers to buy. So they would go into something like a Long's drugstore that has maybe 30 feet of display space of over-the- counter cold medication and they would buy maybe 5,000 packages, everything they could get their hands on, ring it up, not have to give a name, address, a driver's license, anything, and walk out, open the packages or bottles, get children to open the blister packs, and go into their clandestine labs and make methamphetamine. This bill cracks down on that. I have heard that Long's, for example, is interested in being part of a major education program, which is provided for in this bill, to educate people and their own retail outlets about what is happening in methamphetamine. I am very proud to say that pharmaceutical houses, like Warner- Lambert, became solidly in support of this legislation once they understood what was actually happening with their products. So I think this bill is a Republican win; it is a Democratic win. It is a good, strong, tough bill. Amazingly enough, 2 months before a Presidential election, on a bipartisan basis, it passed the Senate of the United States. We hope it will be marked up either today or tomorrow in the House of Representatives and we will get something done. Mr. President, you are a Republican. I am a Democrat. I happen to think this is what the people of America sent us both here to do. So I would like to send my warm congratulations to Chairman Hatch, to Senators Grassley, Kyl, Reid, most particularly to ranking member Senator Biden, whose staff worked very, very hard, and Senator Harkin, who came aboard and was supportive early on. This is important legislation. Oh, and, Mr. President, my staff just told me, you are part of this effort as well. Let me salute you and say thank you. Californians are grateful, and I think all of America will be as well. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for what was a strong, accurate and, I think, eloquent statement, something that has become very controversial and really should not be controversial.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator will yield, we are verifying this at this moment. I was informed by my staff that the Treasury Department is in support of this offset. We will be happy to verify it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am very happy to respond through the Chair to the distinguished Senator. It is my understanding that the Treasury Department supports this appropriation. In other words, the Treasury Department has agreed to the offset.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Additionally, there was a study performed by the Aerospace Corp. and contracted out by ATF. This was done about 15 years ago. And I would like to read from a letter of Dr. Carl Boyars who is the manager of the Explosives and Materials Control Directorate of the Aerospace Corp. He was in charge of this study. And he says in a letter to me, dated July 31, 1996: The only firearms for which black powder is now used as a propellant explosive are antiques and antique replicas, both commonly referred to as ``muzzle loaders''. Black powder is sold in cans for use by hobbyists who reenact battles of prior centuries and carry out similar activities. It is also used, illegally, by some makers of pipe bombs because of its ready availability and ease of ignition. Addition of identification taggants in the final step of black powder manufacture was easily performed, involved no hazard, and performance of the tagged product in muzzle loading firearms was no different from the performance of untagged black powder in tests carried out by a muzzle loading firearms expert selected by the black powder manufacturer. So the black powder manufacturer selected a specific expert, and that expert carried out these tests and found no difference between muzzles loaded with tagged black powder and muzzles loaded with untagged black powder. He continues: Smokeless powder is also sold in cans for use by reloaders. These are individuals who prefer to load cartridge ammunition by hand rather than use factory manufactured ammunition in their own firearms. Advantages cited by reloaders are cost (e.g., in shotgun ammunition) or greater accuracy because of more precise control of the load in each cartridge. The smokeless powder intended for reloaders is also used, illegally, by some makers of pipe bombs because of its ready availability, ease of ignition, and much higher energy content than black powder. Unlike black powder, smokeless powder can come in a wide range of chemical compositions and physical shapes and sizes, depending on the manufacturer. The individual particles of smokeless powder may be cylindrical, flat, or spherical, although all particles within any can of smokeless powder for reloaders will have the same chemical composition and shape. This makes the development of an identification taggant for smokeless powders a more complex problem. A test program was set up to examine the feasibility of identification tagging of spherical smokeless powder. However the manufacturer of the spherical powder biased the test conditions so greatly that failure was guaranteed. This is from the definitive person who did the study by the Aerospace Corp., as contracted by ATF back in 1980. The Swiss also took this study, and the Government of Switzerland began requiring their use--taggants--in all commercial explosives. The success has been outstanding. In over 10 years, they have solved 565 crimes based on taggants. The report compiled by the Swiss Scientific Research Council stated the following: After more than a 10 year experience in the field of marking explosives, safety fuses and detonating cords, we feel that our methods and procedures have proven highly practical and efficient. In summary, it is safe to say that Switzerland with its marking methods is on the right lines. Fears that adding marker substances might negatively influence the safety of explosives for civil use has proven unsubstantiated. Here is my point. I have, I think, adequately debunked this incident where opponents say powder with taggants exploded. No taggants were in the powder that exploded in 1979 in that Arkansas plant. Two, the head person of the Aerospace study found that taggants were safe for use with one exception that needs further study. Three, Switzerland has used taggants for 10 years, made 565 arrests successfully. Four, we are now No. 20 in terrorist incidents in the world. And 90 percent of pipe bombs use this kind of black and smokeless powder. Therefore, should not this body exercise its responsibility and do a study of black and smokeless powder? The Senator from Massachusetts and I both say, yes, let us do that study, let us spend the money. We can save lives, and we will arrest perpetrators. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment, which I strongly support, would repeal the prohibition of requiring or even studying the use of taggants in black and smokeless powder. What we are saying is, let's take a look, in a comprehensive, well-done, study of using taggants in black and smokeless powder. It provides the funding, $21 million, for the examination of the safety and the effectiveness of taggants, which is required before they can be used. Why do we want black and smokeless powder? Senator Kerry was eloquent. Ninety percent of all of the pipe bombs have black and smokeless powder. Therefore, not to be even able to study it renders us impotent in ever using taggants in a meaningful way to trace those who practice terrorist incidents. Why is this important? It is important because today--today--the United States of America is in the top 20 nations with the highest level of terrorism in the world. We have more incidents than Lebanon. The Senator has indicated the number of incidents: well over 4,000 now since 1990. We all know of the Unabomber. We all know a pipe bomb was used at the Atlanta Olympics. We all have seen what happened in the World Trade Center. We are all deeply concerned about TWA Flight 800. What is a taggant? A taggant is a small sandwich-shape microchip. It is color coded in different codes. When it is broken down, it looks like the smallest little flecks of sand, different colors, so small you can barely see them at all. These are put in the powder. And then depending on the color coding of the taggant, you can trace where this was purchased. So it becomes like a fingerprint that enables somebody to go back to the source and trace a perpetrator. It is not a solution, but it is an aid to law enforcement to be able to ferret out and arrest, I think, the biggest cowards of all time--the people who use bombs on innocent people. That is why it is important. We have heard a lot about the fact that this information to make pipe bombs is so easily available. Youngsters are making these bombs from information available on the Internet--pipe bombs, 80 percent of all of the bombings according to one study have become all too common. Let me go back to some of the concerns. Some of the concerns are safety: There was an explosion in 1979 at a firm called GOEX Manufacturing Co. in Arkansas. I have here an affidavit, which I would like to submit for the Record, from a gentleman by the name of James P. Palmquist, who was the senior attorney with the office of the general counsel of 3M, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. He handled for 3M a lawsuit against 3M involving this explosion at GOEX in Arkansas in 1979. I want to read three parts of his affidavit, and I quote: 4. That in the course of discovery concerning the allegations made in this lawsuit, records were discovered which identified the exact location at the time of the accidental explosion of all MICROTAGGANT materials which were then being evaluated, which records proved that there was no MICROTAGGANT materials in the booster materials that were being reworked at the time of the accidental explosion; The point is Taggants were not in the materials that were exploded in 1979, which is the incident that the National Rifle Association most uses to discredit taggants. 5. That further information was discovered indicating other reasons for the increased instability of the booster materials which were being reworked at the time of the accidental explosion; 6. That based upon such facts it became clear to all involved in the lawsuit that there was no evidence whatsoever that 3M's MICROTAGGANTs could have contributed in any way to subject explosion, said lawsuit was dismissed. It is signed by James P. Palmquist. It is notarized. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object. I think it is really time for us to go on record. Senator Kerry and I participated, as did the distinguished Senator from Idaho sitting in the back of the room, in a special effort where we tried to negotiate something and were not able to do so. I think what we hope to do is lay out the case, and I am sure the case in opposition to studying black and smokeless powder will be laid out. We would really appreciate an up-or-down vote, I say to my colleague.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Give me 10 minutes, maybe a little more.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Lautenberg amendment, because I believe it offer women a vital protection against those who might do them harm. Every year, an estimated 2 million women are victimized by domestic violence. Of these 2 million, nearly 6,000 die. And 70 percent of the time, the perpetrators of the deadly violence use a gun. Mr. President, we already prohibit convicted felons from possessing a firearm. But is an unfortunate fact that many domestic violence offenders are never convicted of a felony. Outdated or ineffective laws often treat domestic violence as a lesser offense. Sometimes, victims are reluctant to cooperate for fear of more violence. And sometimes victims just don't want to pull themselves through the ordeal of a trial. And finally, plea bargains often result in misdemeanor convictions for what are really felony crimes. As a result, Mr. President, many perpetrators of severe and recurring domestic violence are still permitted to posses a gun. Mr. President, these people are like ticking time bombs. It is only a matter of time before the violence get out of hand, and the gun results in tragedy. Something must be done to close this dangerous loophole. This amendment looks to the type of crime, rather than the classification of the conviction. Anyone convicted of a domestic violence offense would be prohibited from possessing a firearm. Fewer abusers will have guns, and fewer of the abused will wake up each morning wondering whether they will live through the day. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his efforts, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Open Campus Police Logs Act of 1996. Mr. President, every year around this time thousands of students leave home to begin their pursuit of a college degree. These students-- and their parents--expect not only a quality education, but also a campus on which they can study and live in safety. Yet, statistics show that during a 4-year-period, one in four college students will become a victim of violent crime. And according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the number of crimes on college campuses are on the rise. Under the Campus Security Act of 1990, colleges and universities are required to make crime statistics available to students, applicants and school employees. However, under-reporting of crime statistics by school administrators and the utilization of internal campus disciplinary systems, which are protected by privacy laws, have rendered the existing law ineffective. All too often, we hear stories of college administrators who pressure victims to use discretion and to settle cases internally--without resort to the criminal justice system. Offenders then come before the campus tribunal, and are never publicly processed for the crimes. Sometimes, even the victims themselves cannot find out what happened in these internal trials. And all too often, Mr. President, colleges and universities concerned about their image have been found to underreport crime and hide the true statistics from applicants and the media. Students are unable to discover the true rate of campus crime, and are therefore unable to make informed decisions about where to go and how safe certain areas truly are. The bill I am proposing today would extend the current law, in order to further inform students of the crimes occurring on college campuses so that they can better protect themselves. This bill would continue to require that schools receiving Federal money compile statistics on crimes like murder and rape. However, it would also require schools to maintain a daily log--one that is open to public inspection--of all crimes committed against person or property. These daily logs would chronicle not only the time, place and date of the crime, but also the names and addresses of all those arrested by the campus police or security force. No more could colleges hide statistics in annual reports and with secret, unreported disciplinary hearings. Every student or employee would have access, every day, to information about every arrest occurring on campus. Some colleges and universities will argue that this bill is too burdensome. But this legislation should not be viewed by college administrators as an added burden for the campus security office, but rather as an effective tool to better inform the collegiate community. Students and employees have a right to know what dangers they face on campus. It is through this improved awareness that students and faculty will be able to better protect themselves. After all, one of the best weapons we have for deterring crime is accurate and timely information. A New York Times reporter recently wrote about a woman who had been raped in February of last year--by a fellow student at her university in Ohio. Although the university's disciplinary board found the accused guilty of violating the student code regarding sexual assault, he was merely placed on student probation. He never went through a criminal trial. As a result, the offending student was free to come and go on a campus where most women did not--and indeed could not--realize that he had committed any crime at all. At this same school, Mr. President--where the student rapist was placed on probation--possession of a beer by an underage student can result in automatic suspension. Furthermore, when the university published their official crime statistics later that fall, no rapes were reported. It is clear that compliance with reporting requirements could be far better. Colleges and universities have made it their mission to provide a quality education in a suitable environment to America's students. By failing to disclose the true nature of crime on their campuses, administrations are not living up to this goal. We must make our campuses safer, by allowing students to better protect themselves from potential crime through the daily, public disclosure of past incidents and potential dangers. Mr. President, it is an unfortunate fact that today's students must take care to protect themselves from serious crime on our college campuses. Yes, protecting the privacy of accused students is important. But protecting the safety of potential victims is equally vital to providing an enriching and safe experience for each and every one of the many children who leave home each year in search of a future full of promise and prosperity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Open Campus Police Logs Act of 1996. Mr. President, every year around this time thousands of students leave home to begin their pursuit of a college degree. These students-- and their parents--expect not only a quality education, but also a campus on which they can study and live in safety. Yet, statistics show that during a 4-year-period, one in four college students will become a victim of violent crime. And according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the number of crimes on college campuses are on the rise. Under the Campus Security Act of 1990, colleges and universities are required to make crime statistics available to students, applicants and school employees. However, under-reporting of crime statistics by school administrators and the utilization of internal campus disciplinary systems, which are protected by privacy laws, have rendered the existing law ineffective. All too often, we hear stories of college administrators who pressure victims to use discretion and to settle cases internally--without resort to the criminal justice system. Offenders then come before the campus tribunal, and are never publicly processed for the crimes. Sometimes, even the victims themselves cannot find out what happened in these internal trials. And all too often, Mr. President, colleges and universities concerned about their image have been found to underreport crime and hide the true statistics from applicants and the media. Students are unable to discover the true rate of campus crime, and are therefore unable to make informed decisions about where to go and how safe certain areas truly are. The bill I am proposing today would extend the current law, in order to further inform students of the crimes occurring on college campuses so that they can better protect themselves. This bill would continue to require that schools receiving Federal money compile statistics on crimes like murder and rape. However, it would also require schools to maintain a daily log--one that is open to public inspection--of all crimes committed against person or property. These daily logs would chronicle not only the time, place and date of the crime, but also the names and addresses of all those arrested by the campus police or security force. No more could colleges hide statistics in annual reports and with secret, unreported disciplinary hearings. Every student or employee would have access, every day, to information about every arrest occurring on campus. Some colleges and universities will argue that this bill is too burdensome. But this legislation should not be viewed by college administrators as an added burden for the campus security office, but rather as an effective tool to better inform the collegiate community. Students and employees have a right to know what dangers they face on campus. It is through this improved awareness that students and faculty will be able to better protect themselves. After all, one of the best weapons we have for deterring crime is accurate and timely information. A New York Times reporter recently wrote about a woman who had been raped in February of last year--by a fellow student at her university in Ohio. Although the university's disciplinary board found the accused guilty of violating the student code regarding sexual assault, he was merely placed on student probation. He never went through a criminal trial. As a result, the offending student was free to come and go on a campus where most women did not--and indeed could not--realize that he had committed any crime at all. At this same school, Mr. President--where the student rapist was placed on probation--possession of a beer by an underage student can result in automatic suspension. Furthermore, when the university published their official crime statistics later that fall, no rapes were reported. It is clear that compliance with reporting requirements could be far better. Colleges and universities have made it their mission to provide a quality education in a suitable environment to America's students. By failing to disclose the true nature of crime on their campuses, administrations are not living up to this goal. We must make our campuses safer, by allowing students to better protect themselves from potential crime through the daily, public disclosure of past incidents and potential dangers. Mr. President, it is an unfortunate fact that today's students must take care to protect themselves from serious crime on our college campuses. Yes, protecting the privacy of accused students is important. But protecting the safety of potential victims is equally vital to providing an enriching and safe experience for each and every one of the many children who leave home each year in search of a future full of promise and prosperity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to address the legislation under consideration, the Defense of Marriage Act. Proponents claim Congress needs to act swiftly to thwart an impending ``threat against the family.'' Let's put this in perspective. Nearly 4,000 people have been killed in Los Angeles County alone in the last 5 years from gang-related violence. Criminal gangs are operating in more than 93 percent of American cities today. Children are being recruited to their death by gangs who prey on juveniles to do their bidding. This is a threat against American families. More than 10,000 people were hospitalized from methamphetamine abuse in California in 1994. Methamphetamine-addicted babies now outnumber crack babies in some hospitals. And more than 1,000 toxic meth labs in California alone remain a public health threat because local jurisdictions don't have enough money to clean them up. This is a threat against American families. Right now, as we speak, some 15-year-old girl is dropping out of high school somewhere because she is pregnant, unmarried and unable to finish school. Teenage pregnancy is still at epidemic proportions in this country. This is a threat against American families. If we had our priorities straight, we'd be voting on legislation addressing these issues today instead of this bill. Having said that, let me address the merits of the legislation before us. I personally believe that the legal institution of marriage is the union between a man and a woman. But, as a matter of public policy, I oppose this legislation for two reasons: One, I believe it oversteps the role of Congress--setting a very bad precedent and perhaps even being unconstitutional; And Two, I believe it is unnecessary.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my great concern and disappointment with the conferees named by the other body who insisted on striking section 1088 of the Senate's DOD authorization bill. Section 1088, an amendment by Senator Biden and myself would have prohibited teaching bombmaking for criminal purposes. As my colleagues will recall, this amendment was accepted in the Senate as part of the antiterrorism bill last summer in addition to being part of the Senate DOD authorization bill. Regrettably, as happened this time, the other body dropped it from the bill. The bombing in Centennial Olympic Park is only the most recent pipe bombing. In just 10 days, from July 21 to July 31, my staff found seven newspaper accounts of bombing incidents. A 15-year-old boy, in Irving, TX, blew off three fingers with a bomb he learned to make using the Anarchist's Cookbook from the Internet.-- Dallas Morning News, July 26, 1996. A high school student from Providence, RI, assembled a foot-long bomb after obtaining instructions from the Internet.--Newsday, July 28, 1996. A 16-year-old boy from Plainview, TX, lost a finger when a homemade bomb exploded. The Bomb was made using information from the Internet.-- Newsday, July 28, 1969. In Pennsylvania, three teenagers carrying a list of 20 ingredients needed to build a bomb were arrested after breaking into the Penncrest High School chemistry lab. They downloaded this list from the Internet.--Chicago Tribune, July 23, 1996. In Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, sheriff's officials believe information available over the Internet was used in a series of pipe bombings which destroyed four mailboxes, a guard shack and a car. Four teenagers were arrested in this case.--Los Angeles Times, July 27, 1996. In Orange County, CA, police believe four teenagers used the Internet to get instructions on building acid-filled bottle bombs. One of those bombs burned a 5-year-old boy at a school playground in April.--Los Angeles Times, July 27, 1996. A 23-year old man, from Torrance, CA, used a 10-inch-long pipe bomb which blew out three windows in his home. He obtained the bomb making instructions from a manual on homemade bombs.--Los Angeles Times, July 27, 1996. In addition to the explicit explanations on how to make all sorts of bombs, the Terrorist's Handbook, downloaded by my staff from the Internet, also encourages criminal behavior. Let me read a section entitled, ``Checklist for Raids on Labs.'' In the end, the serious terrorist would probably realize that if he/she wishes to make a truly useful explosive, he or she will have to steal the chemicals to make the explosive from a lab. This section ends with the needed lists of solid and liquid chemicals needed to make most bombs. This amendment would have prohibited the teaching of bomb making if a person intends or knows that the bomb will be used for a criminal purpose. Additionally, the amendment prohibits the distribution of information on how to make a bomb if a person intends or knows that the information will be used for a criminal purpose. This information is not something that one would use for a legitimate purpose or information that can be found in a chemistry textbook on the back shelf of a university library. What my amendment targets is detailed information that is made available to any would-be criminal or terrorist, with the intended purpose of teaching someone how to blow things up in the commission of a serious and violent crime--to kill, injure, or destroy property. This provision could give law enforcement another tool in the war against terrorism--to combat the flow of information that is used to teach terrorist and other criminals how to build bombs. Some question the constitutionality of this provision. Common sense should tell us that the first amendment does not give someone the right to teach someone how to kill other people. The right to free speech in the first amendment is not absolute. There are several well known exceptions to the first amendment which limit free speech. These include: Obscenity; child pornography; clear and present dangers; commercial speech; defamation; speech harmful to children; time, place and manner restrictions; incidental restrictions; and radio and television broadcasting. I do not for 1 minute believe that the Framers of the Constitution meant for the first amendment to be used to protect the teaching of methods to injure and kill. However, knowing that there would be concern over the first amendment, I carefully crafted this amendment with constitutional scholars. I'd like to read you some of what they said about this amendment. I think the language . . . is about as tight as it could be . . . the reasonable-knowledge, explosive materials, and furtherance-of-a-criminal purpose language is all clear enough; these are legal terms of art and unlikely to be found void for vagueness.--Richard Delgado, University of Colorado at Boulder. The rigorously-protected talk anticipated by the first amendment is, in brief, political discourse, in the widest sense of that term. This kind of talk does not include routine commercial speech (including advertisements), pornography and obscenity, planning for criminal activity, and related forms of expression. Commonsense distinctions should be apparent here. These distinctions would rule out anyone's instructing others in how to make explosives, especially when it is known to the instructor that the explosives being talked about are to be made and used by his students as part of an illegal enterprise.--George Anastaplo, Loyola University of Chicago. Some civil libertarians attempt to immunize virtually all talk from government regulation, but a stable community would be difficult if not impossible if this should ever become the rule. Others have gone so far as to justify actions, including some violent actions, as forms of expression that are entitled to freedom-of-speech protection. But even these theorists are reluctant to argue that blowing up public buildings should be considered a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.--George Anastaplo, Loyola University of Chicago. In today's day and age when violent crimes, bombings and terrorist attacks are becoming too frequent, and when technology allows for the distribution of bombmaking material over computers to millions of people across the country in a matter of seconds, some restrictions are appropriate. Specifically, I believe that restricting the availability of bombmaking information, if there is intent or knowledge that the information will be used for a criminal purpose, is both appropriate and required in today's day and age. My amendment to this bill was an important, balanced measure to confront the problems presented by today's rapid growth in technology, and I am extremely disappointed that it was removed during conference.