Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this legislation. It might be useful for this body to know a little bit of my background with this kind of legislation. Twenty-five years ago, I was a new president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and I drafted legislation to amend the human rights ordinance of that city and county to prohibit discrimination in both housing and employment on the basis of sexual orientation. To my knowledge, it was the first such legislation ever introduced in a major city and county anywhere in the United States. Well, I served as supervisor for 9 years, and then as mayor for 9 years. During that period of time, I never, ever had a single complaint about that legislation--not one. It was the first in the Nation, and it was difficult to pass; people did not understand it. Some said, ``Is this special treatment?'' Answer: No. ``Does this convey some additional right that no one else has?'' Answer: No. It's pure and simple, as this legislation is pure and simple. What this legislation says is that you cannot be denied employment because you may be gay or straight. It does not say you are protected against inappropriate conduct in any way, shape, or form. I think this is a key point. Is it inappropriate conduct for anybody to be kissing on their job as a waiter or waitress? The answer is, yes, it is inappropriate conduct, regardless of whether they are gay or straight. The same thing goes for clothing. If it is inappropriate to wear certain things in the workplace, this is true whether you are gay or whether you are straight. So a lot of the hobgoblins that are expressed by the other side that this will open the world to all kinds of inappropriate activity, in my view, based on 25 years of watching a piece of legislation that I authored, which was passed, which I presided over as mayor of the city, is simply not correct. There was not one complaint from any major corporation or minor corporation, major business or minor business, major employer or minor employer in the city and county of San Francisco, to my knowledge, in the last 25 years. These are major corporations like Bechtel, major corporations like McKesson, major corporations like Wells Fargo Bank, major corporations like the Bank of America, who have operated with this legislation intact in the city and county of San Francisco for the past 25 years, without a problem. I believe that will be true for the rest of the Nation. This bestows no quota, no special privilege, no exemption from any law or rule or code of conduct anywhere. It simply says, based on the fact that you may be gay or lesbian, you cannot be denied employment. But act inappropriately and it all changes. Do something that is improper conduct, and it all changes. But just because of who you may be, you simply cannot be denied employment. It seems to me that that is a pretty basic right that everybody has, regardless of their race, their religion, their creed, their color. Just because I am black, don't deny me employment. Just because I am Hispanic, don't deny me employment. But if I act inappropriately for the job, if I dress inappropriately for the job, or if I, in any way, create problems, then it is a different story. But not just because of who I am, because I can't help who I am. That is the message of this legislation. Let me give you two cases, two specific cases. William Ballou began working as a waiter in a Fremont, CA, restaurant in September 1991. Within 6 months, he had received both a promotion to assistant manager and a glowing letter of recommendation by the franchise owners of the restaurant. But other waiters, some bartenders, and the restaurant manager frequently made antigay remarks, even urging servers to rush gay patrons, because, they were told, ``this is a family restaurant.'' After one particularly hurtful confrontation with the manager, Ballou told the franchise owners about this harassment. He was then fired due to ``personality conflicts.'' We see this pattern of harassment followed by firing all too often. Sometimes the discriminatory firing is even more blatant. One woman, Tracie Cleverly, worked for many months at a Salt Lake City franchise of a well-known restaurant chain. Her coworkers and manager were aware that she was a lesbian, but this didn't affect her prospects or her work environment. She received good work reviews, and her manager soon started her in training to be a supervisor. Unfortunately, her understanding manager resigned, and a new person came to work his first day with a list of people to be fired, including all of the gay and lesbian workers in the restaurant. And he simply said, ``I don't want these kinds of people working here.'' We are not asking for special rights in this legislation. All we are saying is that simply because someone may be gay or straight, no more than someone may be black or Catholic or Jewish or Spanish or American Indian, or anything else, just because of who they are they should not be discriminated against. I have listened to some of the comments on this floor about inappropriate action and special privilege, and none of this is encompassed in this legislation. It is clean, it is pure, and it is simple. And it is just directed at persons themselves. Once that person begins to do certain things, it may be a different story. Inappropriate conduct, once again, is inappropriate conduct, whether you be gay or straight. I think that is a very important point to get across. So I would like to commend the Senator from Massachusetts. It is my belief that this freestanding bill provides the same remedies permitted under title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act. This is a big country. It is a democratic country. I think every Member of this body believes that no one should be prevented from obtaining a job because of their race, creed, color, sex, and I hope sexual orientation will be added to that. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Would it be possible to have about 10 minutes?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong disappointment that funding for the Travis VA Hospital was not included in the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. There are currently 450,000 veterans in northern California who have no local veterans hospital. Let me briefly describe the continuing situation for these veterans seeking inpatient health services. A veteran in northern California must drive an average of 4 to 5 hours, sometimes as many as 8 hours, to get to a VA inpatient facility. Once the veteran is released from the hospital, he and his family must drive back and forth from home to the VA facility again for checkups. These hardships are having a detrimental effect on the care these veterans receive. The Department of Veterans Affairs own numbers show that the use of inpatient care in northern California has declined from 7,000 cases in fiscal year 1991 to 2,538 in fiscal year 1995. That is a decrease of 64 percent. With the aging population of these veterans, it is hard to believe that they do not need the health care that the Travis VA Hospital would provide. The Clinton administration has seen the needs of these veterans and responded. The President's fiscal year 1997 budget request included $32.1 million for phase II construction at the hospital. Phase II allocation funds utility relocation, site development, and foundation and structural construction. The House of Representatives also acted to meet the needs of these veterans by funding President Clinton's request for phase II funds and by reprogramming the $25 million appropriated last year for an outpatient care facility so that they could also be used to build the hospital. As bad as the situation has been, these veterans have been exceedingly patient. At the groundbreaking ceremony on June 2, 1994, attended by Vice President Gore, we all were optimistic that northern California's veterans would not have much longer to wait for quality health care. More than 2 years later, the plans are complete and the land is ready to begin construction of the replacement hospital. Instead, that land will remain empty, and nearly a half a million veterans will continue to be unserved. The area that the Travis VA Hospital would serve is one of the largest, most geographically dispersed, and highly populated veterans' areas in the country. In fact, more veterans live in northern California than in 27 individual States and the District of Columbia. I am very disappointed that the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee deleted the funding the House included for the Travis VA Hospital and turned their backs on nearly a half a million veterans by not continuing to fund the replacement VA hospital at Travis Air Force Base. It is a sad day when the men and women who have served our country without question--and who have the right to expect their Government to fulfill its promises--are now being told ``tough luck.'' I appeal to my colleagues to honor the commitment we as a nation have made to our veterans when this bill is considered in conference. I pledge to continue my fight for northern California's veterans and for full funding for the Travis VA Hospital.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am concerned about a number of highly qualified persons who work at NASA's Ames Research Center in California. It is my understanding that NASA is considering a layoff of these highly trained individuals and sending the technologies for the space station program on which they are working--the Centrifuge Facility--to the Japanese space agency NASDA. The Centrifuge Facility, and its related programs, have always been a part of the United States' contribution to the International Space Station. I simply do not understand why NASA would consider giving this work to the Japanese when they have significantly less experience in the life sciences area. I say to the Chairman that we are both strong supporters of the International Space Station Program and want to see it become the premier microgravity research center of the world. This can only be accomplished if the best talent is focused on every sector of the program. To assign these biotechnology activities to anyone other than the individuals at the Ames Research Center--many of whom invented these technologies in the first place--makes little sense. Can he assure me that Ames Research Center will remain the center for these critical space station related biotechnical activities?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support Senator Bradley's amendment to require health insurance plans to cover hospital maternity stays for 48 hours for routine deliveries and 96 hours for cesarean deliveries. The issue here in whether the decision on how long a mother and her newborn stay in the hospital is based on the mother's health or the insurance company's bottom line. I believe it is a medical decision that should be made by a doctor and a patient. Before 1970 the median length of stay in this country for routine deliveries was 4 to 5 days. By 1992, the median stay dropped to 2.1 days. In 1991--the latest year for which figures are available--nearly 40 percent of newborns in California were discharged in fewer than 24 hours. And the problem seems to be even worse today. Some insurers limit coverage of postpartum hospital care to 1 day or 12 hours. One large California HMO has reduced coverage to 8 hours. These are not generally doctors determining that it is in their patients' best interest to be discharged sooner. The reduction in hospital care is the result of insurance companies making that decision based on how much they want to pay--and the real cost is being borne by patients--mother and child--in greater health risks. There are many medical reasons why a longer hospital stay may be necessary. Some medical conditions do not manifest in 10 or 24 hours after delivery, such as jaundice, heart murmurs, circulatory disfunctions and fevers. Early discharges can also exacerbate medical problems: Studies presented to the Senate Labor Committee have shown that early release of infants can result in the baby having jaundice, feeding problems, respiratory difficulties, metabolic disorders and infections. In fact, a New Hampshire study of hospital readmission rates found that babies discharged at less than 2 days of age have a 70 percent increased risk of facing an emergency room visit. Early discharge not only increases health risks, in many cases, it is so much more costly. A Pasadena women and her 6-week premature infant were discharged after only 23 hours of delivery. The baby was readmitted to the hospital for jaundice and dehydration 2 days later, costing an extra $20,000--$1,000 that had to be paid by the family. Let me give some examples of the human impact of this problem: A Los Angeles woman was released 15 hours after giving birth because of limited insurance coverage. Two days later, her baby was hospitalized for malnutrition--the infant had difficulty with lactation and breast feeding. A San Francisco woman had to leave the hospital 23 hours after delivery against her doctor's advice, even though her baby was 5 weeks premature. The baby was in the emergency room less than 2 days later, and was readmitted to the hospital for dehydration and jaundice. Another California mother was discharged less than 14 hours after deliver. The next morning she was shaking, feverish, and nauseous. She was diagnosed as having a staph infection and was readmitted to the hospital for 4 days. Sometimes these stories have tragic endings. Leigh Fallon, of Petaluma, CA entered the hospital on July 25, 1994. After 2 days of labor with extraordinary complications, she had an emergency caesarean section. The mother had a high fever and great physical distress. Her baby boy developed jaundice, was being treated with antibiotics, and was diagnosed with a heart murmer. Still, under pressure from their insurance company, Leah and the baby were discharged 72 hours after birth. The baby was rushed to the hospital a few days later and did not survive emergency heart surgery. Perhaps nothing could have saved Leah's baby. But clearly, the decision to discharge such a fragile patient was made in the interest of saving money instead of saving a life. Medical decisions should be made by medical professionsals--not insurance companies. That is what they are trained to do. Twenty-nine States have enacted legislation or regulations to curb what's called drive-through deliveries. In California, the legislature failed to come to agreement on legislation at the close of the current session. California voters, instead, will face two ballot measures which include regulations on the subject this November. This is a national problem, and Congress must set a uniform standard in the interest of public health. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the newborns and mothers bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The 44 acres in question are part of the original deed; however, they are contiguous to lands under less restrictive deeds thus creating a danger to this parcel.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is not my intent to request that this land be converted into a cemetery at this time. The Senator is correct, there are other regions in the country that are in great need of additional cemetery space. My goal is to ensure that this land is preserved so that when the need for additional cemetery space arises, 20-50 years from now, the Federal Government will have land without major construction or contamination issues which can be easily converted into a cemetery. Veterans Affairs Secretary Jesse Brown has suggested both to local leaders and the House that a veterans memorial park would be a good interim step to protect the land. This action would not be an additional burden on the taxpayer because local leaders strongly feel they can raise the needed funds privately to create this park. I hope that the committee will support this effort with the inclusion of language in the conference report.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words today relative to an effort being undertaken by veterans and local community organizations to protect and preserve land adjacent to the Los Angeles National Cemetery. This land, 44 acres, was deeded as a gift to the Federal Government provided that its use would be for veterans. It is hoped that the land can be preserved so that as the need for veterans cemeteries grows, this land, which is adjacent to the Los Angeles National Cemetery, will be a valuable resource to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is my understanding that there have been requests of the DVA to lease this land for commercial development, including its use as the site for an NFL stadium. This has raised concerns by veterans and local communities as to the appropriate use of this land so close to a national cemetery where families and veterans go to honor their loved ones. Local organizations are willing and able, through private resources, to develop this land as a park honoring our Nation's veterans. This proposal, in keeping with the intent of the gift of land, complements the existing cemetery and protects the land for future veterans' use. I have received letters from the American Legion, the California Department of Veterans Affairs, and officials of numerous veterans organizations in the State expressing their support for this effort. I would ask that the committee include language in its conference report directing the Department of Veterans Affairs to work with these organizations to develop the land into a veterans memorial park and to prohibit the Department from entering into any long-term, binding leases which would tie the use of that land into one inconsistent with the intent of its donor. I applaud the local veterans, the California veterans groups, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs both in Los Angeles and Washington, DC, and the local citizens groups for working together to arrive at an approach to protect this land for veterans now and in the future

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, with Senator Snowe, I am introducing a bill to set up a toll-free service so that people with life-threatening diseases can find out about research projects that might help them. Today 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. Some of these are familiar, like cancer, Parkinson's disease, and multiple sclerosis. Others are not so common, like cystinosis, Tay-Sachs disease, Wilson's disease, and Sjogren's syndrome. Indeed, there are over 5,000 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. The Bill The bill we introduce 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 find out what clinical research trials are underway on experimental treatments for various diseases. Callers would be able to learn the purpose of the study, eligibility requirements, research sites, and a contact person for the research project. Information would have to be presented in plain English, not medicalese, so that the average person could understand it. A Constituent Suggestion The suggestion for this information center came from Nancy Evans, of San Francisco's Breast Cancer Action, in a June 13 hearing of the Senate Cancer Coalition, which I cochair with Senator Mack. She described the difficulty that 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 testified that the National Cancer Institute has established 1-800-4-CANCER, but their 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 To understand the importance of this bill, we have to stop and think about the plight of the individuals it is intended to help. These are people who have a terminal illness, whose 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. One survey found that a majority of patients and families are willing to use investigational drugs--drugs being researched but not approved-- 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 do not necessarily know about experimental treatments currently being researched. And most Americans do not have sophisticated computer hookups that provide them instant access to the latest information through commercial, government, or medical databases. 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 services. I have had many desperate families call 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 futile calls, good connections, or the involvement of elected officials. In 1988, Congress directed HHS to establish an AIDS Clinical Trials Information Service. It is now operational, 1-800-TRIALS-A, so that patients, providers, and their families can find out more about AIDS clinical trials. All calls are confidential and experienced professionals at the service can tell people about research trials underway which are evaluating experimental drugs and other therapies at all stages of HIV infection. 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. It should not take political or other connections, computer sophistication or access to top-flight university medical schools to find out about research on treatments of disease when you have a life- threatening illness. Mr. President, I hope this bill will offer some hope to the millions who are suffering today and I hope Congress will act on the bill promptly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as a nation, 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. I rise today to introduce legislation, joined by my colleague Senator Boxer, to eliminate the tariff for several chemical compounds. These compounds are required for the manufacture of an AIDS drug, nelfinavir mesylate, which has produced promising test results. protease inhibitors Nelfinavir is one of a new class of AIDS drugs called protease inhibitors. The drugs are designed to block an enzyme, called protease, that appears to play a crucial role in the replication of HIV. As the Wall Street Journal reported in its coverage of the recently concluded 11th International Conference on AIDS in Vancouver, BC, researchers have evidence that protease inhibitor drugs, when taken in combination with existing therapies, can reduce levels of the AIDS- causing virus in blood to levels so low that the virus is undetectable by even the most sensitive tests. AIDS researchers at the conference describe this new drug therapy as a major and unprecedented step in combating AIDS, one that may represent a treatment approach that may delay the onset of AIDS, extend patients' lives, and transform AIDS into a long-term, manageable disease. Mr. President, HIV/A is a critical public health issue, requiring the Nation's full attention. In America today, AIDS is the leading cause of death for young Americans between the ages of 25 and 44. More than 220,700 American men, women and children have died of AIDS by the end of 1993. While the number of deaths trails other urgent health priorities such as cancer or heart disease, AIDS is nearly equally debilitating to the Nation when measured by the years of potential and productive life lost due to the disease. In my State of California, 1 of every 200 Californians is HIV positive, while 1 of every 25 is HIV positive in my home of San Francisco. AIDS is a paramount public health concern and every effort should be made to ensure that drugs are made available as swiftly and at as low a cost as possible. We simply cannot delay or waste time in providing drugs, treatments or materials. This tariff legislation represents a modest, but important step. zero tariff for pharmaceuticals Under the 1994 GATT agreement, most pharmaceutical products are entitled to enter the country without a tariff. However, the zero tariff does not apply to many new pharmaceutical products or their chemical ingredients. As a result, the chemicals needed to make nelfinavir mesylate, an AIDS protease inhibitor currently undergoing research testing, but not yet a recognized pharmaceutical product under GATT, would be ineligible for the pharmaceutical zero tariff. During negotiations with World Trade Organization nations to implement the pharmaceutical zero tariff, the administration successfully added the chemical compounds needed to manufacture the AIDS drug. As a result, the tariff will drop to zero on April 1, 1997. Nelfinavir is on the Food and Drug Administration's fast-track approval process for AIDS drugs. Commercial production of the drug will begin well before April 1, in order that the drug can be immediately available to AIDS patients upon FDA approval. Although currently imported duty-free for use in clinical research trials, the imported chemicals will soon be used for commercial production. During the period of commercial production prior to April 1, the chemical compounds will face a 12 percent tariff, which will only add to the cost and delay the drug's production and distribution to individuals in need. This proposed legislation would eliminate the tariff for two of the essential and unique chemical inputs, as well as for the active ingredient nelfinavir (Acid Chloride, Chloroalcohol and AG 1346), from August 1 when the drug production increases, until April 1, 1997 when the tariff drops to zero under the WTO pharmaceutical agreement. Without this legislation, the manufacturer would face a 12 percent tariff for its chemicals, which are not available in the United States, as the drug proceeds into production. This tariff reduction will allow for the acceleration of drug production, providing more timely relief for the public. The Federal Government needs to do everything it can to expedite the development and distribution of AIDS drugs. Without this legislation to remove the tariff, we will be tolerating needless hurdles and delay, rather than needed relief. The Congressional Budget Office is reviewing the cost of the proposed legislation. However, because the WTO negotiations will already provide a zero tariff for the chemical compounds on April 1, the legislation may have a de minimis impact on tariff revenue. For AIDS patients, their families and those at risk, it's a step Congress should take. I have also requested various Federal agencies and other organizations to review the legislation and ensure that other important Federal policies, like narcotics enforcement or maintaining a strong, domestic chemical industry, are not undermined. The Drug Enforcement Agency and U.S. Customs Service indicate the chemicals present no risk for law enforcement or anti-narcotics enforcement priorities. Similarly, the U.S. Trade Representative's Industry Sector Advisory Committee for chemicals and the International Trade Commission also reviewed and approved the administration's efforts to include the chemicals in the pharmaceutical appendix negotiations. PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also has reviewed the proposal and does not oppose the legislation. The administration deserves tremendous credit for extending a zero tariff for these chemical components. It is my hope that miscellaneous tariff legislation, which is currently pending before the Finance Committee, could accommodate this noncontroversial tariff issue, which can accelerate the development and production of an AIDS drug, with the potential to provide meaningful relief. As a matter of public policy, we should do everything we can to develop AIDS drugs and treatments. Patients and their families cannot wait for the next round of drugs to be approved and added to the zero- tariff list, scheduled for review in 1999. By importing the chemical compounds without a tariff, we can accelerate the drug development process. I am pleased to introduce this tariff legislation, along with my colleague Senator Boxer, and will work with the chairman and ranking members of the Finance Committee to pursue the legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as a nation, 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. I rise today to introduce legislation, joined by my colleague Senator Boxer, to eliminate the tariff for several chemical compounds. These compounds are required for the manufacture of an AIDS drug, nelfinavir mesylate, which has produced promising test results. protease inhibitors Nelfinavir is one of a new class of AIDS drugs called protease inhibitors. The drugs are designed to block an enzyme, called protease, that appears to play a crucial role in the replication of HIV. As the Wall Street Journal reported in its coverage of the recently concluded 11th International Conference on AIDS in Vancouver, BC, researchers have evidence that protease inhibitor drugs, when taken in combination with existing therapies, can reduce levels of the AIDS- causing virus in blood to levels so low that the virus is undetectable by even the most sensitive tests. AIDS researchers at the conference describe this new drug therapy as a major and unprecedented step in combating AIDS, one that may represent a treatment approach that may delay the onset of AIDS, extend patients' lives, and transform AIDS into a long-term, manageable disease. Mr. President, HIV/A is a critical public health issue, requiring the Nation's full attention. In America today, AIDS is the leading cause of death for young Americans between the ages of 25 and 44. More than 220,700 American men, women and children have died of AIDS by the end of 1993. While the number of deaths trails other urgent health priorities such as cancer or heart disease, AIDS is nearly equally debilitating to the Nation when measured by the years of potential and productive life lost due to the disease. In my State of California, 1 of every 200 Californians is HIV positive, while 1 of every 25 is HIV positive in my home of San Francisco. AIDS is a paramount public health concern and every effort should be made to ensure that drugs are made available as swiftly and at as low a cost as possible. We simply cannot delay or waste time in providing drugs, treatments or materials. This tariff legislation represents a modest, but important step. zero tariff for pharmaceuticals Under the 1994 GATT agreement, most pharmaceutical products are entitled to enter the country without a tariff. However, the zero tariff does not apply to many new pharmaceutical products or their chemical ingredients. As a result, the chemicals needed to make nelfinavir mesylate, an AIDS protease inhibitor currently undergoing research testing, but not yet a recognized pharmaceutical product under GATT, would be ineligible for the pharmaceutical zero tariff. During negotiations with World Trade Organization nations to implement the pharmaceutical zero tariff, the administration successfully added the chemical compounds needed to manufacture the AIDS drug. As a result, the tariff will drop to zero on April 1, 1997. Nelfinavir is on the Food and Drug Administration's fast-track approval process for AIDS drugs. Commercial production of the drug will begin well before April 1, in order that the drug can be immediately available to AIDS patients upon FDA approval. Although currently imported duty-free for use in clinical research trials, the imported chemicals will soon be used for commercial production. During the period of commercial production prior to April 1, the chemical compounds will face a 12 percent tariff, which will only add to the cost and delay the drug's production and distribution to individuals in need. This proposed legislation would eliminate the tariff for two of the essential and unique chemical inputs, as well as for the active ingredient nelfinavir (Acid Chloride, Chloroalcohol and AG 1346), from August 1 when the drug production increases, until April 1, 1997 when the tariff drops to zero under the WTO pharmaceutical agreement. Without this legislation, the manufacturer would face a 12 percent tariff for its chemicals, which are not available in the United States, as the drug proceeds into production. This tariff reduction will allow for the acceleration of drug production, providing more timely relief for the public. The Federal Government needs to do everything it can to expedite the development and distribution of AIDS drugs. Without this legislation to remove the tariff, we will be tolerating needless hurdles and delay, rather than needed relief. The Congressional Budget Office is reviewing the cost of the proposed legislation. However, because the WTO negotiations will already provide a zero tariff for the chemical compounds on April 1, the legislation may have a de minimis impact on tariff revenue. For AIDS patients, their families and those at risk, it's a step Congress should take. I have also requested various Federal agencies and other organizations to review the legislation and ensure that other important Federal policies, like narcotics enforcement or maintaining a strong, domestic chemical industry, are not undermined. The Drug Enforcement Agency and U.S. Customs Service indicate the chemicals present no risk for law enforcement or anti-narcotics enforcement priorities. Similarly, the U.S. Trade Representative's Industry Sector Advisory Committee for chemicals and the International Trade Commission also reviewed and approved the administration's efforts to include the chemicals in the pharmaceutical appendix negotiations. PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, also has reviewed the proposal and does not oppose the legislation. The administration deserves tremendous credit for extending a zero tariff for these chemical components. It is my hope that miscellaneous tariff legislation, which is currently pending before the Finance Committee, could accommodate this noncontroversial tariff issue, which can accelerate the development and production of an AIDS drug, with the potential to provide meaningful relief. As a matter of public policy, we should do everything we can to develop AIDS drugs and treatments. Patients and their families cannot wait for the next round of drugs to be approved and added to the zero- tariff list, scheduled for review in 1999. By importing the chemical compounds without a tariff, we can accelerate the drug development process. I am pleased to introduce this tariff legislation, along with my colleague Senator Boxer, and will work with the chairman and ranking members of the Finance Committee to pursue the legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, with Senator Snowe, I am introducing a bill to set up a toll-free service so that people with life-threatening diseases can find out about research projects that might help them. Today 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. Some of these are familiar, like cancer, Parkinson's disease, and multiple sclerosis. Others are not so common, like cystinosis, Tay-Sachs disease, Wilson's disease, and Sjogren's syndrome. Indeed, there are over 5,000 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. The Bill The bill we introduce 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 find out what clinical research trials are underway on experimental treatments for various diseases. Callers would be able to learn the purpose of the study, eligibility requirements, research sites, and a contact person for the research project. Information would have to be presented in plain English, not medicalese, so that the average person could understand it. A Constituent Suggestion The suggestion for this information center came from Nancy Evans, of San Francisco's Breast Cancer Action, in a June 13 hearing of the Senate Cancer Coalition, which I cochair with Senator Mack. She described the difficulty that 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 testified that the National Cancer Institute has established 1-800-4-CANCER, but their 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 To understand the importance of this bill, we have to stop and think about the plight of the individuals it is intended to help. These are people who have a terminal illness, whose 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. One survey found that a majority of patients and families are willing to use investigational drugs--drugs being researched but not approved-- 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 do not necessarily know about experimental treatments currently being researched. And most Americans do not have sophisticated computer hookups that provide them instant access to the latest information through commercial, government, or medical databases. 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 services. I have had many desperate families call 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 futile calls, good connections, or the involvement of elected officials. In 1988, Congress directed HHS to establish an AIDS Clinical Trials Information Service. It is now operational, 1-800-TRIALS-A, so that patients, providers, and their families can find out more about AIDS clinical trials. All calls are confidential and experienced professionals at the service can tell people about research trials underway which are evaluating experimental drugs and other therapies at all stages of HIV infection. 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. It should not take political or other connections, computer sophistication or access to top-flight university medical schools to find out about research on treatments of disease when you have a life- threatening illness. Mr. President, I hope this bill will offer some hope to the millions who are suffering today and I hope Congress will act on the bill promptly.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In 1945, President Harry Truman proposed universal health insurance, putting on the public agenda, the goal of universal health insurance, a goal that still eludes us. Too many Americans find that just when they most need health insurance, it is not there. It is terminated. They are denied its purchase, because they are sick. They are determined to be uninsurable. The bipartisan bill before us today does not provide health insurance to every American. We still face that challenge. But the bill before us today takes an important step toward making health insurance more secure. This bill provides some health security in several ways: No Arbitrary Terminations: Insurers will not be able to impose preexisting condition limitations for more than an initial 12-month period. This means that employees can change jobs without fear or facing a new preexisting condition exclusion. Guaranteed Access: Insurers will be required to offer insurance to all groups, regardless of the health status of any member of the group and employees could not be denied group coverage based on their health status. Guaranteed Insurance Renewal: Groups and individuals who have insurance will be able to renew their policies as long as they have paid their premiums. Individual Coverage Guaranteed: People who leave their job where they have had 18 months of prior employer group coverage and who have exhausted their extended [COBRA] coverage would be guaranteed access to an individual policy. need for the bill The problems this bill addresses are real: Twenty-three million Americans lose their insurance every year; 18 million people change insurance policies annually when someone in the family changes jobs. Over 9 million Americans changed jobs in 1995; millions more wanted to. The General Accounting Office estimates that as many as 4 million employees are locked into their jobs because they fear that the insurer for the next employer will refuse to insure them because of their health condition, something the industry has called a preexisting condition. GAO has said that 21 million Americans could benefit by prohibiting preexisting condition exclusions. Small employers are often unable to get insurance because a few of the employees are ill; insurers refuse to insure. Small employers lack the leverage of big employers in negotiating good prices and policies. In California, 84 percent of the uninsured are in working families. Fifty-two percent of uninsured employees work in small firms. And finally, there are 10 to 20 million Americans seeking to buy insurance on their own--individual policies. These individuals, who are not part of a large pool where risk can be spread out, find that insurers refuse to sell to them or price the policies so high they are unaffordable. genetic discrimination I especially appreciate the inclusion of provisions barring genetic discrimination in health insurance, along the lines of S. 1600, a bill I introduced with Senator Mack. Last fall, as cochairs of the Senate Cancer Coalition, Senator Mack and I held a hearing on the status of genetics research and use of genetic tests. We learned we are all carrying around between 50,000 and 100,000 genes scattered on 23 pairs of chromosomes and that every person has between 5 and 10 defective genes, often not manifested. Approximately 3 percent of all children are born with a severe condition that is primarily genetic in origin. By age 24, genetic disease strikes 5 percent of Americans. Genetic disorders account for one-fifth of adult hospital occupancy, two-thirds of childhood hospital occupancy, one-third of pregnancy loss and one-third of mental retardation. About 15 million people are affected by one or more of the over 4,000 currently identified genetic disorders. We are learning virtually everyday about the explosion of knowledge in genetic science. We know that certain diseases have genetic links, like cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, and Lou Gehrig's disease. But understanding genetics brings a new set of problems. Witness after witness at our hearing raised fears of health insurance discrimination. And it is not just fear. It is also reality. We heard about insurers denying coverage, refusing to renew coverage, or denying coverage of a particular condition. In a 1992 study, the Office of Technology Assessment found that 17 of 29 insurers would not sell insurance to individuals when presymptomatic testing revealed the likelihood of a serious, chronic future disease. Fifteen of thirty-seven commercial insurers that cover groups said they would decline the applicant. Underwriters at 11 of 25 Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans said they would turn down an applicant if presymptomatic testing revealed the likelihood of disease. The study found that insurers price plans higher--or even out of reach--based on genetic information. Another study conducted by Dr. Paul Billings at the California Pacific Medical Center, reached similar conclusions. Here are a few examples, real-life cases: An individual with hereditary hemochromatosis--excessive iron--who runs 10K races regularly, but who had no symptoms of the disease, could not get insurance because of the disease. A health maintenance organization that had covered a child since birth, denied therapy after the child was diagnoses with mucopolysaccharidoses [MPS]. A Colorado insurer terminated the policy of the family of a 3-year- old with the same disease. An 8-year-old girl was diagnosed at 14 days of age with PKI [phenylketonuria], a rare inherited disease, which if left untreated, leads to retardation. Most States require testing for this disease at birth. Her growth and development proceeded normally and she was healthy. She was insured on her father's employment-based policy, but when the father changed jobs, the insurer at the new job told him that his daughter was considered to be a high risk patient and uninsurable. The mother of an elementary school student had her son tested for a learning disability. The tests revealed that the son had Fragile X Syndrome, an inherited form of mental retardation. Her insurer dropped her son's coverage. After searching unsuccessfully for a company that would be willing to insure her son, the mother quit her job so she could impoverish herself and become eligible for Medicaid as insurance for her son. Another man worked as a financial officer for a large national company. His son had a genetic condition which left him severely disabled. The father was tested an found to be an asymptomatic carrier of the gene which caused his son's illness. His wife and other sons were healthy. His insurer initially disputed claims filed for the son's care, then paid them, but then refused to renew the employer's group coverage. The company then offered two plans. All employees except this father were offered a choice of the two. He was allowed only the managed care plan. A woman was denied health insurance because her nephew had been diagnosed as having cystic fibrosis and she inquired whether she should be tested to see if she was a carrier. After she was found to carry the gene that causes the disease, the insurer told her that neither she nor any children she might have would be covered unless her husband was determined not to carry the CF gene. She went for several months without health insurance because she sought genetic information about herself. These denials not only deprive Americans of health insurance, they affect people's health. If people fear retaliation by their insurer, they may be less likely to provide their physician with full information. They may be reluctant to be tested. This reluctance means that physicians might not have all the information they need to make a solid diagnosis or decide on a treatment. All of us are at risk of illness. We all have defective genes. I hope that the addition of my language can help ease the fears of many Americans and discourage insurers from using genetics as a reason to deny insurance.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to read you an excerpt from an editorial in yesterday's Sacramento Bee which, I believe, sums up the bill we are about to vote on There is a widespread consensus that welfare must be reformed to reduce long-term dependency and encourage work and personal responsibility. But the current bill, underfunded and overly punitive, ignores everything we have learned over the last decade about moving welfare recipients into the job market. More than half of the welfare recipients lack a high school education at a time when labor markets put a premium on education and skills. Two-thirds live in central cities, places from which employers have fled. At their most successful, past efforts to move welfare recipients into jobs, such as the GAIN program in Riverside have reduced welfare roles by only 10 percent and incomes of welfare recipients by a few hundred dollars a month. Yet the welfare bill requires states to move half of all recipients into jobs, even though, according to Congress' own experts, the bill falls $12 billion shy of funding for the work program. Even if one heroically assumes that two-thirds of welfare families would find permanent employment, the bill's five-year lifetime limit on benefits would leave 1 million families--adults and children alike--without any source of income. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that I must oppose the welfare reform bill as presented to this body by the House-Senate conference committee. I had hoped that the bill that emerged from the conference committee would be one that California could live with, because, I think it is clear that, with 32 million people, no State in the Union has as much to gain or as much to lose from welfare reform. Unfortunately, this bill remains one in which California loses, and loses big. California is being asked to foot the bill for changing welfare as we know it--and that is wrong. One-third of the estimated $55 billion savings in this bill comes from one State: California. California faces a loss of more than $16 billion over the next 6 years as a result of this bill, more when you add reductions in State funds under the new rules and potentially much more if our welfare caseload continues to increase at the current pace. The losses to California are staggering: Up to $9 billion in cuts to Federal aid for legal immigrants, $4.2 billion in cuts in food stamps, and as much as $3 billion in AFDC funds over the next 6 years. Not only is this bill unfair to California on its face, it is seriously flawed in a number of critically important areas. The contingency funds provided in this bill--$2 billion--are too little. California alone, I predict, can and will need the entire amount. Work requirements are an impossible goal. The heart of this bill, moving people from welfare to work, rests on the unknown and probably the impossible. No state, to my knowledge, in 6 years has been able to move 50 percent of its welfare caseload into jobs, as this bill requires. California will have an impossible hurdle to move the required 20 percent of its welfare caseload into jobs in 1 year, let alone 50 percent in 6 years. In order to meet the 20 percent work requirement in this bill, California would have to find jobs next year for more than 166,000 current adult welfare recipients. But, in the last 2 years, the State added an average of only 300,000 people total to payrolls in nonfarm jobs. How do we possibly create enough jobs to increase employment by another 50 percent--especially for a work force that is largely unskilled and under educated? California is a State that has all but lost its production base and is now producing either high- skilled jobs or hamburger flippers at minimum wage. In order to move people into work, there must be affordable child care for parents. This bill does not provide anywhere near enough funds. The child care block grant in this bill is awarded to States based on their current utilization of Federal child care funds. In California, there are approximately 1.8 million children on AFDC. California currently provides child care subsidies and/or slots to approximately 200,000 children. The Child Care Law Center estimates that under the welfare reform bill, as more parents are required to work, as many as 418,000 additional preschool children and 650,000 children aged 5 to 13 may need child care. This would be a 600 percent increase in need for child care slots. This bill does not come near the amount of child care dollars that would be needed in California to do this job. The conference bill is actually worse than the Senate bill in handling America's ultimate safety net: Food Stamps. The conference bill cuts food stamps by 20 percent. California loses $4.2 billion. Last year, an average of 1.2 million households--more than 3.2 million people--in California relied on food stamps each month. California's unemployment rate is still high at 7.2 percent--2 percentage points above the national rate of 5.3 percent. 1,117,000 people are out of work today--more than the entire populations of nine States. This bill would limit food stamps for an able-bodied adult with no children to a total of 3 months over a period of 3 years. If that person becomes unemployed, they would only be able to receive an additional 3 months of food stamps in that same 3-year period. This bill would also bar all legal immigrants from receiving food stamps-- there is no exemption for elderly, disabled, or children. The shelter deduction in this bill is a case in point which demonstrates that, however well intentioned this bill might be, it lacks a fundamental foothold in reality when it comes to California. The shelter deduction allows families with children to deduct a maximum of $247, with an increase to $300 in the year 2001, from their income level when applying for aid--ostensibly to compensate for the cost of housing. In the vast majority of the population centers in California, particularly in urban areas, you can not find a place to rent for that amount of money. In San Francisco, the average rent is between $750 and $1,000 per month. So this deduction is so low that it is virtually useless in California. California is not the only loser in this welfare bill. America's children lose as well. In a rush to deliver a welfare reform bill--any welfare bill--before the November elections, this bill is the moral equivalent of a dear John letter to our Nation's needy children. Under this bill, 3.3 million children nationwide and 1.8 million children in California could lose AFDC after the 5-year limit. Children of undocumented immigrants would not even be allowed to buy federally subsidized school lunches. Recent studies by Children Now and the Urban Institute estimated that this welfare plan would thrust an additional 1.1 million children into poverty conditions in the United States. The Senate rejected moderate amendments sought by the White House as well as members of both parties to provide noncash assistance to children whose parents lose their benefits in the form of vouchers for food, clothing and other basic necessities. The voucher language included in the conference report is an empty- handed gesture allowing states to rob Peter to pay Paul because it adds no new funds to provide basic necessities to children whose parents lose benefits. The major cost shift to California comes from the elimination of Federal assistance for legal immigrants, most of whom are elderly, blind, and disabled--all of them poor--who came to this country under terms agreed to by the Federal Government. And yet, the Federal Government will not bear the cost of changing the terms of that deal-- the cost of this policy shift will be forced onto States and counties. Let me be clear: I am all for changing U.S. immigration policies to hold sponsors of legal immigrants legally bound to provide financial support to their sponsees. But to change this policy on those already in this country--retroactively--and thus summarily dropping hundreds of thousands of elderly and disabled immigrants from Federal support programs like SSI, food stamps, and AFDC onto already overburdened county assistance programs, is not only an abdication of Federal responsibility--to me it is unconscionable. The impact of this cost shift to California counties could be catastrophic. An estimated 722,939 legal immigrants in California--many of whom are aged, blind, and elderly--would lose SSI, AFDC, and food stamps under this bill. Los Angeles County--the most impacted area nationwide--estimates that 93,000 noncitizen legal immigrants will lose SSI under this bill, at a potential cost of more than $236 million each year in county general assistance funds. Los Angeles also estimates that the restriction on future immigrants receiving nonemergency Medicaid services would result in $100 million in additional costs--much higher unless the State comes up with the funds to provide coverage to noncitizens. San Francisco County estimates that the cost of county funded general assistance could increase $74 million under the legal immigrant provisions in this bill--an increase of more than 250 percent. Other counties in California are studying the impact of this legislation and coming up with similar financial horror stories. Twelve of the top twenty metropolitan areas in the country that are impacted most severely by this bill are in California. The State of California indicated by its budget that it has no ability or intention of stepping in to fill the funding gap this bill creates. Governor Wilson's State budget for fiscal year 1996-1997 assumes the immigrant provisions in this legislation will pass and legal immigrants will no longer be eligible for assistance. California's legislative analyst's report indicates that Governor Wilson's budget: . . . assumes enactment of federal legislation barring most legal immigrants from receiving SSI/SSP benefits starting January 1, 1997. The budget assume savings of $91 million from this proposal. That is from the ``Legislative Analyst's Report, 1996-97 Budget.'' While we in Washington sit in our ivory tower and pat ourselves on the back for changing welfare as we know it, the real impact of this bill will land on real people who are too old or too sick to care for themselves, and whose families--if they have one--have no ability to help them. Let me put some faces and names on this welfare bill for you: A 73-year-old woman who asked not to be named came to the United States as a refugee from Vietnam in 1981. She sold everything she owned to pay for her passage on a boat for her and her mother. Her mother died on the trip over. She moved to San Francisco in 1985 and fell ill with kidney disease. She currently depends on SSI and Medicaid to pay for dialysis and other medical care. Her only relative in the United States is a goddaughter who cannot afford to care for her. She has applied for citizenship, but may not pass the English proficiency exam. Maria, who lives in Los Angeles, came to the United States in 1973 when she was 62 years old to live with her daughter. In 1984, her daughter had a stroke at work which rsulted in two cerebral aneurysms. Following the stroke, her daughter was unable to work and therefore unable to support Maria as she had done for the previous 11 years. Maria received both SSI and Medicaid. Neither Maria nor her daughter would be able to survive on her daughter's disability income alone. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask to be recognized for 13 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the committee to clarify the subcommittee's intent with respect to the committee report language relating to the BART-SFO extension. Specifically, I would like to address the stipulation contained in the committee report that would prevent the Federal Transit Administration from entering into a full funding grant agreement for the BART-SFO extension until all litigation regarding the project has been resolved. I have very strong concerns that this requirement could result in indefinite delays in the project. Further, I understand Secretary Pena, Governor Wilson, and the Federal Transit Administration [FTA] share these same concerns. I understand it is not the chairman's intent with this report language to kill this project. Further, the chairman does not intend to impose any restrictions on the BART-SFO extension that have not previously been demanded of this and other transit projects seeking full funding grant agreements from the FTA. I have a July 30 letter from Secretary Pena stating that the language contained in the committee report could encourage lawsuits and further that he would prefer not to see this language included. I understand the chairman does not intend to encourage frivolous lawsuits with this language, and further, I understand in speaking with the chairman that I can be assured this committee report language will be revised during the conference negotiations with the House to reflect the chairman's intent to move ahead with this project.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee in offering an amendment which I think is of great importance. As my colleagues know, the problem of drugs coming into our country from Mexico has reached epidemic proportions. Seventy percent of all illegal drugs entering the United States, including three-quarters of all the cocaine and 80 percent of all foreign-grown marijuana, are smuggled through Mexico. Ninety percent of the precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine are smuggled into the United States from Mexico. We need cooperation from Mexico in many aspects of counternarcotics: from border control, to cracking down on money laundering, to combating corruption. There has been some progress in these areas, but not nearly enough, and much more is needed. Perhaps the most basic area in which we need cooperation is in cracking down on the drug lords who run the smuggling rings. Mexican drug lords are getting rich poisoning our kids, and the Mexican Government must help us do something about it. That means extraditions. Although the United States has had an extradition treaty with Mexico since 1978, Mexico has never extradited a Mexican national to the United States for drug charges. Juan Garcia Abrego was not extradited--he was deported as an American citizen. And extradition orders have been signed for one Mexican national, Jesus Emilio Rivera Pinon, but he remains in a Mexican jail. Ninety-nine outstanding formal extradition requests have not been acted upon. This amendment is designed to create additional incentive for Mexico to move forward with the extradition of our most wanted drug lords. If Mexico does not arrest them, they should at least arrest and prosecute these drug lords themselves. If Mexico fails to take these steps, the United States will withhold funding for the International Military Education and Training Program with Mexico. This is a reasonable, and not overreaching, point of leverage to encourage the Mexicans to do what they should be doing anyway. If Mexico will comply with these extradition requests, it will be an important step toward addressing the problem of Mexican drug trafficking. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, and I commend both the Senator from Oregon and the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Senator Byron Dorgan, and the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Simon, who is present on the floor, for their longtime support of this code of conduct. I am a newcomer to this. Let me tell you what I feel. I am one who votes for defense appropriations. I want to see this Nation strong. I believe there is a deterrent value in having the best equipment, the best training and the most advanced technology for our armed forces. I believe that there is a price for freedom, and it is eternal vigilance. But I did not come to the U.S. Senate to make the entire world less safe in the future than it was when I arrived. This code of conduct is an enormous addition to a major public policy debate and there are human dimensions to these decisions. Every time I look into the big round eyes of my little 3-year-old granddaughter, Eileen, it is almost impossible not to ask, ``Am I contributing to the kind of world in which I want my granddaughter to live? Is the world a safer place because of what I do in this body?'' And I think about what that world will be like when she is 13 and 23 and 33 years old. That is not so long. Technology moves so fast, though. What kind of weapons will there be? Who will have them? How will they be used? Will they be used against her in some way? I am sorry to say these are not just the ruminations of an overprotective grandmother. These are very real and very frightening questions the people of America must ask themselves, because our country remains the biggest, the boldest and the largest arms purveyor in the world today. Which brings us to the question that is before us: What should U.S. policy be regarding the sale of weapons? I truly believe we need to take more time in deciding to whom we sell weapons, not only as a matter of conscience, but as a matter of national security. What happens to the deterrent value of our military strength when we export technologies and weapons systems that are equal to that which our own troops use? For example: Kuwait had the new M1-A2 main battle tank before it was even delivered to U.S. forces. Saudi Arabia now has these tanks as well. We have exported Patriot missiles to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. F-16 and F-15 fighter planes, almost exactly what our Air Force is currently flying, have been exported to Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Turkey and South Korea, as has been stated, are building F-16 fighters under coproduction agreements with the United States. In fact, there are more people, as Senator Hatfield said, building these planes in Turkey than there are in the United States. The upgrades of these F-16's will not even be performed by the United States. They will be done by Denmark, Sweden and Norway. One of the main reasons the United States overwhelmed Iraq's military in the Gulf War was because our equipment was more technologically advanced. What will be the result the next time we go to war and our troops look across the battlefield at the same tank they are sitting in? U.S. weapons have already been used against the United States overseas. During the eighties, we sent Somalia 4,800 M-16 rifles, 84 106- millimeter recoilless rifles, 24 machine guns, 75 81-millimeter mortars and landmines. Guess what the ``technicals" of Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aideed used to ambush and kill 30 Americans soldiers? Our own weapons. Iran has deployed the American Hawk anti-aircraft missiles in the Straits of Hormuz, which were exported to the Shah decades ago before the revolution. Three-hundred U.S. Stinger anti-aircraft missiles provided to Afghani rebels are unaccounted for and are reportedly being sold on the black market. Although we don't know the cause, wouldn't it be tragically ironic if the downing of TWA Flight 800 was because of a Stinger missile obtained on the black market? Libya and North Korea may have acquired U.S. Stinger missiles through this very same black market. How will these weapons be used? How stable are the regions to which U.S. weapons and technology are being transferred? Did you know that Turkey used U.S. COBRA helicopters to destroy small Kurdish villages? Today, Iran is using the same F-14 fighters we exported to the Shah. Allies change and governments fall. What happens if the Government of Saudi Arabia falls into Islamic fundamentalist hands? What happens if tensions between Pakistan and India reach the boiling point? We are today escalating an arms race between these two countries. Since the Reagan administration, arms have been treated more as items for international commerce than as tools to advance our national security. I believe this is dangerous and ultimately self-defeating. The President, any President, is confronted with strong incentives to sell arms abroad, to bolster allies whose security is in our interest, to encourage diplomatic and economic cooperation. I don't believe it is realistic to think that in the face of these pressures, any American President alone is able to unilaterally change course and substantially limit arms sales without strong congressional support and even initiation. That is what we are considering today, initiating a code of conduct. So it is for these reasons that I believe the code of conduct on arms transfers will help to bring some increased transparency and added consideration to the whole arms sales process. The code of conduct requires the President to develop a list of countries to which our Government may export weapons systems. Their criteria, outlined by the Dorgan/Hatfield amendment, is very basic, reasonable and flexible. In instances where a country may not qualify, the President has the ability to ask the Congress for a national security waiver, or he may enact an emergency waiver on his own so that nation may receive U.S. arms. In this way, the President maintains the flexibility he needs to deter aggressors and conduct foreign policy. The United States continues to be the unquestioned leader in weapons technology. However, the United States currently exports 52 percent of all global arms sales, making us the leader in this dubious category as well. If we continue to export advanced and often sophisticated best weapons systems to volatile areas, we put our own troops and our national security at risk maybe not today, but what about next year and the next decade? I am not saying that the United States should export no arms, but we must have a rational arms sales policy that first and foremost protects U.S. national security, and second does not gratuitously exacerbate a global arms race. I am very afraid that if we continue to export the numbers and kinds of weapons systems and technologies we are currently, we will be less secure in the future, not more. It is time for the United States to show a different kind of leadership, one encouraging restraint and transparency in the sale of arms around the world. By enacting the Code of Conduct, the United States will take an important step forward in a global effort to make the world a safer place for all.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cohen amendment. I think we would all like to truly believe that, in an area of the world remote to the United States, this country can unilaterally impose a sanction which is going to have an effect. But it is not supported by anyone else in the area. I know of no other country in the area that will support this sanction. Additionally, the administration--the State Department and the White House--is in support of the Cohen-Feinstein amendment. In essence, what this amendment does is, as Senator Craig just stated, seek to develop a multilateral alliance of the ASEAN countries, and others, to be able to deal with the problems that the SLORC regime presents to the people of Burma, or Myanmar, as some people might say. I think it is a well thought out amendment. It is an important amendment. There is one U.S. economic venture in that country, and let us speak about it and speak about it candidly. It is a joint venture between Unocal and the French to build a pipeline. They will build schools, they will build hospitals, they will put to the community an opportunity for economic upward mobility. Let us say the unilateral sanction passes, and let us say Unocal cannot go ahead, do you know who will take Unocal's share in this? Mitsui, a Japanese company, or South Korea. They will do it without building hospitals, and they will do it without the schools. I wonder what is gained by it. I hear many people say, ``Shut down an economy and that will change a regime.'' I really believe that when you have an economy and you participate in it, and you bring Western values to a country, and you help with schools and you immunize kids, all of which is happening, it can be particularly effective. Now, I very much respect Aung San Suu Kyi. I wish her well, and I think the SLORC regime would be well advised to work with her to improve the standard of living. And, at the same time, I believe it is extraordinarily important that the administration, and whatever administration, and the State Department, and whatever State Department, begin to develop the kind of multilateral alliance with the ASEAN countries that can be effective in meeting the human rights needs in this region. So I believe that the Cohen-Feinstein amendment, which provides that there be no bilateral assistance, other than humanitarian and counternarcotics until the Government of Burma is fully cooperative with the United States on counternarcotic efforts, and the program is fully consistent with the United States human rights concerns in Burma. It promotes multilateral assistance by asking the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct the United States executive director of each international financial institution to vote against any loan or other utilization of funds of the respective bank to and for Burma. I think it makes a great deal of sense. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Cohen-Feinstein-Chafee amendment. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Cohen-Feinstein-Chafee-McCain amendment with respect to Burma. Before I begin, I want to express my admiration for the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator McConnell, who has almost singlehandedly brought this issue to the floor. He has been doggedly pursuing adjustments to our Burma policy for many months, and has focused the attention of the Senate and the administration on this issue in a way that would not have happened otherwise. There is clearly no division, I think, at least, in this body, on the nature of the SLORC regime in Burma. It is an oppressive antidemocratic regime, and it has systematically deprived the people of Burma of the right to govern themselves. There is no disagreement on that point, I think, nor on the desirability of restoration of democracy in Burma. The key question, though, we need to ask, is what is the most effective way to advance the goal? In order to answer that question, we need to have a clear understanding of what leverage we have, or lack of, on Burma. We also need to have a clear understanding of how other interests in the region will be affected. The key problem with the Burma provision, as I view it, in the bill before the Senate, is that it presumes we can unilaterally affect change on Burma. I have come, as I have watched world events, to doubt that unilateral sanctions make much sense. It is absolutely essential that any pressure we seek to put on the Government of Burma be coordinated with the nations of ASEAN and our European and Asian allies. If we act unilaterally, we are more likely to have the opposite affect-- alienating many of these allies, while having no real impact on the ground. One of the key aspects of the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine is that it requires the President to work to develop, in coordination with members of ASEAN and other nations having major trading and investment interests in Burma, a comprehensive multilateral strategy to bring democracy and to improve human rights and the quality of life in Burma. This strategy must include the promotion of dialog between the SLORC and democratic opposition groups in Burma. Only a multilateral approach is likely to be successful. Knowing that the ASEAN nations, who are moving now toward more engagement with Burma, not less, will not join us in sanctions at this time, it is clear that such a policy will not be effective. For example, on the Unocal pipeline, if we apply unilateral sanctions, the Unocal pipeline, which is now a joint venture between France and the United States company, will only be taken over by either Japanese interests--I am told Mitsui is interested--or South Korean interests. Therefore, what point do we really prove? The Cohen-Feinstein amendment does recognize that there are steps we can and should take at this time. It does ban bilateral assistance to Burma, but it does so with three important exceptions. First, it allows humanitarian assistance, which is clearly a reasonable exception in the case of natural disaster or other humanitarian calamity. Second, it allows assistance that promotes human rights and democratic values, which clearly makes sense, since that is what we are trying to promote in Burma. Finally, it allows an exemption for counternarcotics assistance, if the Secretary of State can certify that the Government of Burma is fully cooperating with the United States counternarcotics effort, and that such assistance is consistent with United States human rights concerning Burma. This last exemption goes to perhaps, I believe, our most important interest in Burma. Sixty percent of the heroin coming into the United States comes from Burma today, and it is a growing scourge on our cities. The Burmese Government is not cooperating with the United States counternarcotics interests and is benefiting from the drug trade. The President has decertified Burma on these grounds. But this exemption does recognize that if conditions change, it would be in our interest to be able to engage a cooperative Burmese Government in a counternarcotics policy. It is clearly in our interests to have this ability. The Cohen-Feinstein amendment also directs the United States to oppose loans by international financial institutions to Burma, and it prohibits entry visas to Burmese Government officials, except as required by treaty obligations. In addition, the amendment requires the President to report regularly to the Congress on progress toward democratization in Burma, improvement in human rights, including the use of forced labor, and progress toward developing a multilateral strategy with our allies. The amendment gives us some leverage by making clear that the United States is prepared to act unilaterally if SLORC takes renewed action to rearrest, to harm, or to exile Aung San Suu Kyi, or otherwise engages in large-scale repression of the democratic opposition. The courage and dignity of Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues deserves respect and support from all of us. This provision may provide some measure of protection against increased oppression against them. We may be able to have the effect of nudging the SLORC toward an increased dialog with the democratic opposition. That is why we also allow the President to lift sanctions if he determines that Burma has made measurable and substantial progress toward improving human rights and implementing democratic government. We need to be able to have the flexibility to remove sanctions and provide support for Burma if it reaches a transition stage that is moving toward the restoration of democracy, which all of us support. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Maine for his leadership in crafting this amendment. He has worked closely with the administration, which supports his language. It represents the best policy, I believe, for us to play a role in moving Burma toward democracy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the AIDS Memorial Grove Act of 1966. This bill is identical to H.R. 3193 sponsored by Congresswoman Pelosi in the House. The legislation recognizes the significance of the 15-acre AIDS Memorial Grove in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco and directs the Secretary of Interior to designate the AIDS Memorial Grove as a national memorial. The AIDS Memorial Grove is a place where people come together to grieve, find solace, support and hope. Since 1991, volunteers have been planting trees and maintaining this woodland area. Visitors come not only from San Francisco, but also from all across the United States. In giving national recognition to the area, the legislation makes the AIDS Memorial Grove the Nation's first living memorial dedicated to the thousands of Americans who have died of AIDS and in support of individuals who are living with acquired immune deficiency syndrome and their families and friends. No Federal funds would be required. The AIDS Memorial Grove is, and will continue to be, a public/private partnership totally supported by private donations. The AIDS Memorial Grove board of directors already has signed a 99-year agreement with the City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department to maintain the grove in perpetuity. The legislation is consistent with other bills creating areas affiliated with the National Park System. I urge my colleagues to join me in working for its enactment. 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 am introducing the AIDS Memorial Grove Act of 1966. This bill is identical to H.R. 3193 sponsored by Congresswoman Pelosi in the House. The legislation recognizes the significance of the 15-acre AIDS Memorial Grove in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco and directs the Secretary of Interior to designate the AIDS Memorial Grove as a national memorial. The AIDS Memorial Grove is a place where people come together to grieve, find solace, support and hope. Since 1991, volunteers have been planting trees and maintaining this woodland area. Visitors come not only from San Francisco, but also from all across the United States. In giving national recognition to the area, the legislation makes the AIDS Memorial Grove the Nation's first living memorial dedicated to the thousands of Americans who have died of AIDS and in support of individuals who are living with acquired immune deficiency syndrome and their families and friends. No Federal funds would be required. The AIDS Memorial Grove is, and will continue to be, a public/private partnership totally supported by private donations. The AIDS Memorial Grove board of directors already has signed a 99-year agreement with the City of San Francisco and the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department to maintain the grove in perpetuity. The legislation is consistent with other bills creating areas affiliated with the National Park System. I urge my colleagues to join me in working for its enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.