Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and myself, I have just sent to the desk the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act. The purpose is to try to provide a Federal response to those who molest children. Recently, a study showed about 40 percent of the child molesters are recidivists. I, frankly, think that could well be even higher than that. In virtually every community throughout the United States, there is a story to tell. Senator Hutchison will speak in a moment about a story from Texas. I can speak about a story from California. I can speak of Polly Klaas, and the person who was just convicted of abducting, kidnaping, raping and killing her had a prior record. The bill we are proposing today attacks the problem of sex offenders on both the State and Federal level. The purpose of the bill is to require life imprisonment for a repeat, two-time child sex offender and to provide an opportunity for the second offense to be heard in a Federal court. The purpose of this bill is that if an individual is convicted of child molestation and repeats that felony, either on Federal land or in the crossing of State lines, that it will become a Federal offense and subject to life imprisonment. This is a harsh bill. It is a tough bill. It has been introduced in the House by Representative Frost. It is my hope, and I believe Senator Hutchison's hope, that tomorrow in the Judiciary Committee I will offer it as an amendment to the child pornography bill. If it fails there, we will try at a later time to offer it as an amendment on the floor to a bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today for two reasons. First, I want to talk about two little girls whose short lives have had an impact far beyond their youthful imaginings. Unlike their families and friends, we do not know them for the love they gave, nor do we know of them for their academic ability or artistic talents. Sadly, unlike their families and friends, we did not know them while they were alive--we know them only because of their tragic deaths. The second reason I rise today is to introduce legislation with Senator Hutchison which is designed to prevent other children from suffering their fate, the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996. I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in full following my remarks. An earlier version of this bill was introduced in the House by Representative Martin Frost of Texas. The first little girl I want to tell you about is Polly Klaas. Many people throughout our Nation have come to know about this 12-year-old girl from Petaluma, CA, a small, close-knit community north of San Francisco, and the tragic circumstances of her death. Polly was kidnaped from her bedroom on October 1, 1993, by a bearded, knife-wielding man who tied her up and threatened to slit her friends' throats as her mother slept in a nearby room. Polly and her friends-- who were over for a slumber party--were playing a board game at the time of the abduction. Immediately after the assailant had fled with Polly, her two friends awakened her mother, Eve Nichols, and she called 911: ``Apparently, a man just broke into our house,'' she said, her voice rising in panic, ``and they say he took my daughter.'' Richard Allen Davis, a 41-year old parolee with two previous kidnaping convictions and a history of psychotic behavior, was arrested on November 30, 1993, and 4 days later, police say, he led them to her body, dumped beside a highway. Next to Polly's body, police found a specialty condom identical to one Davis had bought at the adult novelty store Seductions a day or two before the kidnapping, according to the store's former owner. Polly's clothes were pushed up to her waist. At Davis' trial, prosecutors presented expert testimony that Davis' abduction of Polly was motivated by a desire to gratify his sexual tastes for bondage. Last month, Davis was convicted of all ten counts against him, including attempting a lewd act with a minor. The second little girl I want to tell you about, Amber Hagerman, was visiting her grandparents on January 13 of this year, the day she was kidnaped. An eyewitness later told police that he saw a white or Hispanic man pull the child from her pink tricycle and drag her into a black pickup truck. She was found dead 4 days later--her clothes stolen from her lifeless little body--in a creek behind an apartment complex. Police have made no arrests for the murder of Amber Hagerman, but are continuing to follow every lead. Amber's killer is still free and her family continues to feel the pain caused by the loss of their beloved daughter. Just a few weeks ago, Amber's grief stricken mother, Donna Whitson, released an open letter to her daughter's unknown assailant. In it, she said: [I]t has now been 122 days since I last saw my daughter alive. One hundred twenty-two days since I felt her happiness in my life. One hundred and twenty-two days ago, you tore my baby girl from her family's love * * * [Y]ou destroyed forever the happiness, harmony and dreams that my children and I had been working so hard to bring to fruition. Our plans for the future altered because of you.'' Imagine if you can, trying to comprehend what your own child's last moments of life were like, or trying to fathom the pain and fear felt by your own flesh and blood as they lived them. Donna Whitson has probably done so every day since the loss of her daughter. In her open letter, she asked her daughter's killer: At what point between the time you stole my baby and the time she was returned did you murder my child? Why had you drained the life from her body? How could you steal the clothes from her lifeless body and dump her like trash thrown along the wayside? Mr. President, it is for these two children and their families that we must join with Donna Whitson to say loud and clear that the abduction of children and child sexual abuse will not be tolerated by this society. The Crime Bill Two years ago, Congress acknowledged that action must be taken to stop child sexual abuse when it passed the President's crime bill. The Violent Crime Control Act contained several tough provisions to combat child sexual abuse. More specifically, the crime bill: Established guidelines for State programs that require persons convicted of crimes against children, including sexual misconduct with a minor, to register their addresses with an appropriate State law enforcement agency for 10 years after their release from prison; Sexually violent predators must remain registered until a court determines that they no longer suffer from a mental abnormality that would make a predatory sexually violent offense likely. The crime bill also doubled the maximum prison term for offenders who commit a sexual abuse or sexual contact offense under Federal law after one or more prior convictions for a Federal or State sexual abuse or sexual contact offense. I strongly believe that this landmark legislation will go a long way toward protecting our Nation's children. Earlier this year, the President signed Megan's Law, which requires that State law enforcement agencies release information that is necessary to protect the public from convicted sex offenders in their midst. This change in the law was part of the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act as it was introduced in the House. Yet, much more needs to be done. The Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act Clearly, too many children suffer the physical and emotional impact of kidnaping and it must be stopped before more kids like Polly Klaas and Amber Hagerman fall victim to its tragic effects. Child sexual abuse must be stopped by taking sexual predators off our streets. Swift, sure action must be taken to stop child sexual abuse, and penalties must be increased for those who commit this heinous crime. The Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act will help accomplish this goal in several ways: The heart of the bill is a tough ``two strikes and you're out'' provision for child sex offenders. First, the bill adds life imprisonment for a second offense where the second offense is a Federal one. Second, this legislation also reduces Byrne grant funding by 10 percent to States which do not pass a similar two strikes provision to ensure that all States take this important step to help save our children from sexual abuse. This legislation expands Federal child sexual abuse statutes to cover instances when the perpetrator crosses State lines with the intent to commit the offense, or commits the offense in interstate or foreign commerce. Lastly, the bill establishes a national database for sex offenders and child kidnappers to be maintained by the FBI; and makes that database accessible to appropriate State law enforcement officials. The bill that we are introducing today differs from the House bill in two ways. First, because enhanced community notification has, fortunately, been enacted into law as Megan's Law, that provision is no longer necessary. Second, the House bill contains an explicit death penalty for killing a child in the course of a Federal sex offense. I agree that such an evil and perverted act deserves the death penalty; however, I believe that the death penalty which already exists in Federal law, and which would apply to this heinous act under our bill, is preferable, as it is slightly broader than the penalty in the House bill. Conclusion Mr. President, the sick, tragic deaths of Polly Klaas and Amber Hagerman serve as stark reminders that from tragedy and grief can come constructive action and effective solutions, such as the crime bill's three strikes initiative to incarcerate for life the most dangerous criminals in our society. We have much work to do to ensure the safety of our children from abduction and sexual abuse; passing this bipartisan legislation is a vital part of that effort. As a banner across the building in which the Polly Klaas Foundation is headquartered says: ``We ache. We grieve. We're angry. We're not done.'' I urge all of my colleagues to give their support to the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and myself, I send the bill to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield to my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Texas. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas. It is a great pleasure to work with her. I hope we have success in this measure. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein and Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 1985 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today for two reasons. First, I want to talk about two little girls whose short lives have had an impact far beyond their youthful imaginings. Unlike their families and friends, we do not know them for the love they gave, nor do we know of them for their academic ability or artistic talents. Sadly, unlike their families and friends, we did not know them while they were alive--we know them only because of their tragic deaths. The second reason I rise today is to introduce legislation with Senator Hutchison which is designed to prevent other children from suffering their fate, the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996. I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in full following my remarks. An earlier version of this bill was introduced in the House by Representative Martin Frost of Texas. The first little girl I want to tell you about is Polly Klaas. Many people throughout our Nation have come to know about this 12-year-old girl from Petaluma, CA, a small, close-knit community north of San Francisco, and the tragic circumstances of her death. Polly was kidnaped from her bedroom on October 1, 1993, by a bearded, knife-wielding man who tied her up and threatened to slit her friends' throats as her mother slept in a nearby room. Polly and her friends-- who were over for a slumber party--were playing a board game at the time of the abduction. Immediately after the assailant had fled with Polly, her two friends awakened her mother, Eve Nichols, and she called 911: ``Apparently, a man just broke into our house,'' she said, her voice rising in panic, ``and they say he took my daughter.'' Richard Allen Davis, a 41-year old parolee with two previous kidnaping convictions and a history of psychotic behavior, was arrested on November 30, 1993, and 4 days later, police say, he led them to her body, dumped beside a highway. Next to Polly's body, police found a specialty condom identical to one Davis had bought at the adult novelty store Seductions a day or two before the kidnapping, according to the store's former owner. Polly's clothes were pushed up to her waist. At Davis' trial, prosecutors presented expert testimony that Davis' abduction of Polly was motivated by a desire to gratify his sexual tastes for bondage. Last month, Davis was convicted of all ten counts against him, including attempting a lewd act with a minor. The second little girl I want to tell you about, Amber Hagerman, was visiting her grandparents on January 13 of this year, the day she was kidnaped. An eyewitness later told police that he saw a white or Hispanic man pull the child from her pink tricycle and drag her into a black pickup truck. She was found dead 4 days later--her clothes stolen from her lifeless little body--in a creek behind an apartment complex. Police have made no arrests for the murder of Amber Hagerman, but are continuing to follow every lead. Amber's killer is still free and her family continues to feel the pain caused by the loss of their beloved daughter. Just a few weeks ago, Amber's grief stricken mother, Donna Whitson, released an open letter to her daughter's unknown assailant. In it, she said: [I]t has now been 122 days since I last saw my daughter alive. One hundred twenty-two days since I felt her happiness in my life. One hundred and twenty-two days ago, you tore my baby girl from her family's love * * * [Y]ou destroyed forever the happiness, harmony and dreams that my children and I had been working so hard to bring to fruition. Our plans for the future altered because of you.'' Imagine if you can, trying to comprehend what your own child's last moments of life were like, or trying to fathom the pain and fear felt by your own flesh and blood as they lived them. Donna Whitson has probably done so every day since the loss of her daughter. In her open letter, she asked her daughter's killer: At what point between the time you stole my baby and the time she was returned did you murder my child? Why had you drained the life from her body? How could you steal the clothes from her lifeless body and dump her like trash thrown along the wayside? Mr. President, it is for these two children and their families that we must join with Donna Whitson to say loud and clear that the abduction of children and child sexual abuse will not be tolerated by this society. The Crime Bill Two years ago, Congress acknowledged that action must be taken to stop child sexual abuse when it passed the President's crime bill. The Violent Crime Control Act contained several tough provisions to combat child sexual abuse. More specifically, the crime bill: Established guidelines for State programs that require persons convicted of crimes against children, including sexual misconduct with a minor, to register their addresses with an appropriate State law enforcement agency for 10 years after their release from prison; Sexually violent predators must remain registered until a court determines that they no longer suffer from a mental abnormality that would make a predatory sexually violent offense likely. The crime bill also doubled the maximum prison term for offenders who commit a sexual abuse or sexual contact offense under Federal law after one or more prior convictions for a Federal or State sexual abuse or sexual contact offense. I strongly believe that this landmark legislation will go a long way toward protecting our Nation's children. Earlier this year, the President signed Megan's Law, which requires that State law enforcement agencies release information that is necessary to protect the public from convicted sex offenders in their midst. This change in the law was part of the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act as it was introduced in the House. Yet, much more needs to be done. The Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act Clearly, too many children suffer the physical and emotional impact of kidnaping and it must be stopped before more kids like Polly Klaas and Amber Hagerman fall victim to its tragic effects. Child sexual abuse must be stopped by taking sexual predators off our streets. Swift, sure action must be taken to stop child sexual abuse, and penalties must be increased for those who commit this heinous crime. The Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act will help accomplish this goal in several ways: The heart of the bill is a tough ``two strikes and you're out'' provision for child sex offenders. First, the bill adds life imprisonment for a second offense where the second offense is a Federal one. Second, this legislation also reduces Byrne grant funding by 10 percent to States which do not pass a similar two strikes provision to ensure that all States take this important step to help save our children from sexual abuse. This legislation expands Federal child sexual abuse statutes to cover instances when the perpetrator crosses State lines with the intent to commit the offense, or commits the offense in interstate or foreign commerce. Lastly, the bill establishes a national database for sex offenders and child kidnappers to be maintained by the FBI; and makes that database accessible to appropriate State law enforcement officials. The bill that we are introducing today differs from the House bill in two ways. First, because enhanced community notification has, fortunately, been enacted into law as Megan's Law, that provision is no longer necessary. Second, the House bill contains an explicit death penalty for killing a child in the course of a Federal sex offense. I agree that such an evil and perverted act deserves the death penalty; however, I believe that the death penalty which already exists in Federal law, and which would apply to this heinous act under our bill, is preferable, as it is slightly broader than the penalty in the House bill. Conclusion Mr. President, the sick, tragic deaths of Polly Klaas and Amber Hagerman serve as stark reminders that from tragedy and grief can come constructive action and effective solutions, such as the crime bill's three strikes initiative to incarcerate for life the most dangerous criminals in our society. We have much work to do to ensure the safety of our children from abduction and sexual abuse; passing this bipartisan legislation is a vital part of that effort. As a banner across the building in which the Polly Klaas Foundation is headquartered says: ``We ache. We grieve. We're angry. We're not done.'' I urge all of my colleagues to give their support to the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and myself, I send the bill to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas. It is a great pleasure to work with her. I hope we have success in this measure. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and myself, I have just sent to the desk the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act. The purpose is to try to provide a Federal response to those who molest children. Recently, a study showed about 40 percent of the child molesters are recidivists. I, frankly, think that could well be even higher than that. In virtually every community throughout the United States, there is a story to tell. Senator Hutchison will speak in a moment about a story from Texas. I can speak about a story from California. I can speak of Polly Klaas, and the person who was just convicted of abducting, kidnaping, raping and killing her had a prior record. The bill we are proposing today attacks the problem of sex offenders on both the State and Federal level. The purpose of the bill is to require life imprisonment for a repeat, two-time child sex offender and to provide an opportunity for the second offense to be heard in a Federal court. The purpose of this bill is that if an individual is convicted of child molestation and repeats that felony, either on Federal land or in the crossing of State lines, that it will become a Federal offense and subject to life imprisonment. This is a harsh bill. It is a tough bill. It has been introduced in the House by Representative Frost. It is my hope, and I believe Senator Hutchison's hope, that tomorrow in the Judiciary Committee I will offer it as an amendment to the child pornography bill. If it fails there, we will try at a later time to offer it as an amendment on the floor to a bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield to my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Texas. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this bill as drafted would remove from SSI, from AFDC, and from Medicaid, everyone legally in this country that happens to be a newcomer. It is retroactive in that respect. The amendment that Senator Boxer and I put forward would make this prospective. Every newcomer coming into the country after September 1 would not be able to count on any welfare benefits until they became a citizen, which generally takes about 5 years. This is a huge item. In my State alone, it would affect more than 1 million people. Thousands of them are refugees. They have no sponsors. They are aged, they are blind, they are disabled, they are children. This would immediately throw them off of whatever assistance they have, with no other recourse. Los Angeles County alone estimates the cost is $500 million.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, how I wish I could vote for this bill. I voted for the last Senate bill and then voted against the conference committee report because I did not think the conference committee report was an improvement on the Senate bill. Today I, and I believe my colleague from California, will vote against this bill in hopes that when the bill comes out of conference it is a bill that does not so severely disadvantage one State in this Union, and that State is California. Mr. President, as I look at the savings of this bill, a net of about $55 billion, $17 billion of those savings come from the largest State in the Union and the State I believe most impacted by poor people. We know $9 billion comes from the cutoff of legal immigrants, including refugees and asylees who have no sponsor--the aged, the halt and the blind--$3.5 billion of AFDC, and $4.2 billion of food stamps, totaling about a $17 billion impact on the State of California. Now, I ask the State legislature, the State of California, look at the budget. Are they prepared to pick up some of the difference? I ask the counties to let Senator Boxer and I know how this bill impacts your county, because I suspect it is going to be a major transfer, particularly on counties like Los Angeles. I suspect Los Angeles County will be the county most impacted by the passage of this bill in the United States of America. A fair bill, OK, I vote for; but a bill that says, OK, we will take from the biggest State in the Union as much as we possibly can--and that is what this bill has done to date. I do not believe it is a fair- share bill. I do not believe we see communities across the Nation doing their share. Perhaps because we have the two largest metropolitan areas in the Nation is one of the reasons why this bill will fall very hard on poor people and cities, and particularly on cities that have large numbers of dispossessed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I had truly hoped that I could support legislation that could deliver meaningful and historic reform of our Nation's welfare system, but this bill forces California to bear far more than our fair share of the burden. Last year I voted for the Senate bill and against the conference bill because California's concerns were not met. This year, I would hope that some of these items could be fixed in conference committee, so that we are able to vote for a bill at the end of this process. Nearly one-third of the net reductions contained in this bill fall on just one State: California. California is being asked to shoulder $17 billion in cuts--one-third of the entire savings. The question is, what is the State able and willing to provide to fill in the gap? An examination of Governor Wilson's budget indicates that dollars budgeted for food stamps, AFDC, and benefits for legal immigrants drop from an estimated $1.9 billion in the current fiscal year to just over $1.5 billion in 1997--therefore, counties cannot expect a large bailout from the State. Consequently, for those who deserve special help, whether they be aged, blind, developmentally disabled or mentally ill, an increased burden will most certainly fall on the counties. no safety net for children S. 1795 ends the Federal guarantee of cash assistance for poor children and families, and provides no safety net for children whose parents reached the 5-year time limit on benefits. There are approximately 2.7 million AFDC recipients in California, of which 68 percent are children. Under the time limit, 3.3 million children nationwide and 514,000 children in California would lose all assistance after 5 years. The Children's Defense Fund estimates that under this bill, 1.2 million more children would fall into poverty. California's child poverty rate was 27 percent for 1992-94, substantially above the national average of 21 percent. Under this bill, even more children in California would be living in poverty. food stamps drastically reduced California will lose $4.2 billion in cuts to the Food Stamp Program, reducing benefits for 1.2 million households. Nearly 2 million children in California receive food stamp benefits. Children of legal immigrants would be eliminated from food stamp benefits immediately. child care funding inadequate Currently in California, paid child care is not available to 80 percent of eligible AFDC children. The Senate welfare reform bill awards child care block grants to States based on their current utilization of Federal child care funds. But California's current utilization rate is low, so California would be institutionally disadvantaged under this bill. no health coverage for children The Senate bill ends the Federal guarantee of health insurance or Medicaid for women on AFDC and their children. In California, 290,000 children and 750,000 parents would lose coverage, according to the Children's Defense Fund. California has the third highest uninsured rate in the Nation at 22 percent of the population. denial of benefits to legal immigrants The Senate welfare reform bill would deny SSI and flood stamps to most legal immigrants, including those already residing in California. In 1994, 15.4 percent, or 390,000, of AFDC recipients in California were noncitizens. Fifty-two percent of all legal immigrants in the United States who are on SSI and AFDC reside in California. Los Angeles County estimates that 234,000 aged, blind, and disabled legal immigrants would lose SSI benefits, 150,000 people would lose AFDC, and 93,000 SSI recipients would lose benefits under this bill. The county estimates that the loss of SSI funds could result in a cost shift to the county of more than $236 million annually. Loss of Medicaid coverage for legal immigrants would shift an additional $100 million per year. With this in mind, I cannot support this bill, because I believe it unfairly disadvantages California. It would be my hope that as the conference process continues, this can be taken into consideration and the bill that emerges can be fair across the board and not single out any one State for one-third of the burden of the cuts. It is especially important that individual counties in California take a close look at the impact this legislation will have on their jurisdiction. For example, Los Angeles County continues to be the most devastated county in the Nation under this bill with almost $500 million in added costs each year. California counties must help us press our case with the House-Senate conferees on the impact of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Just one thought for this body. Take the most conservative cost for California, $7 billion; 7-year bill, $1 billion a year, most of it coming from Los Angeles County, let us say $500 million a year. California is a proposition 13 State. This all has to come from general assistance. General assistance is locally funded. Los Angeles cannot raise its property tax rate under proposition 13. How does the county fund it? The county cannot fund it. This will force, if the county is to fund it--this will force the reduction of other county programs. It could be the sheriff, it could be the jail. There is no way around it. The dollars are too big. The distinguished chairman of the committee indicated that the savings, by taking all legal immigrants off of all benefits, is $18 billion. What we are telling you is we know 52 percent of this comes from California. Therefore, if California is a prop 13 State and it presses the local jurisdictions and they are funded by property taxes and they cannot raise their property taxes and they cannot say ``legal immigrants, leave the country and go home,'' it is a real catch-22 for the local government. If I might, just quickly, ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated July 17 from the Democratic floor leader of the California Assembly and President pro tempore of the California Senate; and a memorandum from the California State Association of Counties.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much of my time is remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much for yielding. Let me make this point. Under present law, affidavits of support are not legally enforceable. In the immigration bill, that is one of the things that is achieved. It is a binding contract, an affidavit, so that in the future these contracts will be legally enforceable. I support that. I agree with you on this point. But the point that we are trying to make is that at present they are not. Therefore, there has been a kind of a change. The other point that I want to make to you is that this is not the same as the Daschle bill. This bill is not the same as the Daschle bill on this point. The Daschle bill has certain exemptions. The disabled are exempted. Refugees are exempted. Battered women and children are exempted. Veterans are exempted. That is a point I really appreciate the opportunity to make.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Just on that one point, if I may. I appreciate what the Senator is saying. But when you continue to read the report that you were reading from the Congressional Budget Office, it does say: While the new mandates imposed by the bill would result in additional costs to some States, the repeal of existing mandates and the additional flexibility provided are likely to reduce spending by more than the additional costs. That cannot be true for California. In a way, it is a play with words because the numbers are so big in California in terms of 52 percent of the impact of this section of the bill with SSI falling on California. Fifty-two percent of all of the SSI users are in California. That is who you are talking about. Those are the elderly. Those are the blind. Those are the disabled. By this bill, boom, they are off. That is the issue that both of us are trying to bring respectfully to your attention. What I do not understand is--and I understand the savings. See, the reason this section of the bill has the large amount of savings that it does is because of California, because $7 to $9 billion of it is California. The minute you transfer it and it goes to the county-- because California alone is a proposition 13 State and cannot raise its property tax to accommodate the general assistance added burden--you could force some counties--and LA could be one under this; you just have to know this because the numbers are so huge in Los Angeles. It is a very precipitous situation.