Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I say, and I think I speak on behalf of my colleague, Senator Boxer, as well, we are not disputing that the time has come to make some changes. We are not even disputing that perhaps there are some who are on SSI or AFDC that can find other ways of support. What we are disputing is that this language is so ironclad that it throws the baby out with the bath water. I was mayor of San Francisco for 9 years, a member of the board of supervisors for 9, for a total of 18 years. I know these communities. I can tell you that there are several hundred thousand people who do not have another source of support. In Los Angeles, I know, I have seen it with my own eyes. This bill does not allow for any fine tuning. I think both Senator Boxer and I would be happy to sit down with the other side and try to work out a process of evaluation whereby you could fine tune this bill so people who truly are blind, who truly can barely walk down a street, who truly have no access to three meals a day can have a source of subsistence in this country.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Pursuant to Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Senator Graham offered an amendment which deals with the receiving of benefits by people who are newcomers to this country but here in a legal status as legal aliens. This amendment relates to that amendment. It provides that the ban on public benefits for newcomers to this country become effective September 1 of this year and last until they become citizens of this country, which can take place in 5 years. In essence, what we would do is take the provision of the bill which effectively prevents and throws off of any benefit program people in this country legally and we would make that prospective. I do this as a Californian. This bill and this amendment has an enormous impact on California, and I want to say why. Presently, in California, are 52.4 percent of all of the legal immigrants in the country on SSI. Fifty-two percent of all the legal immigrants in the country on SSI, aged, blind and disabled, are in the State of California. This bill is where a good deal of the savings are gathered, whether the savings are $16 or $18 billion, clearly, 52 percent of those savings comes from California. I am here with my colleague, Senator Boxer, to tell you that 1 million people--bigger than the population of many States--on the date this bill becomes effective will be thrown OFF of AFDC, will be thrown off of SSI immediately. This includes in my city, San Francisco, very elderly and very senior Russian immigrants. I remember watching a woman walk down Grant Avenue, she happened to be Chinese. She was so hunched over, she could barely walk. She is on SSI. She is a legal immigrant to this country. She would be summarily thrown off of SSI. I happen to agree with something Albert Schweitzer once said: How you treat the least among us is a test of our civilization. Yet, I understand the need to make the changes. The costs have become so great and people are hesitant to pay these costs through their taxes. Therefore, what do you do? Do you throw people off into the streets without no source of support, or do you send a message to the world and say: henceforth, when you come to this country as a newcomer, know that for the time you are not a citizen, you will not be able receive any of these benefits; know that before you come; know that your children will not be eligible for AFDC; the grandmothers will not be eligible for SSI or health benefits--know that before you come, the term on which you are coming to this country. I think that is a fair judgment to make, to send that message. But, I think it is an unfair judgment, and possibly a very difficult judgment. It is easy to come up to this Chamber and come up to the desk and cast that aye vote. It is not going to be so easy when you see that crippled woman, whether she be Hispanic, or whether she be Chinese, Russian, African, or any other newcomer, white too, unable to survive, unable to participate in a program like Self-help for the Elderly or Unlock in My City, which deals with Chinese elderly newcomers to a great extent. I think that is a real dilemma in this bill. Let me talk about what it does in California. It is estimated by the State and by the Department of Health and Human Services that the loss for California is anywhere from $7 billion over the period of this bill to $9 billion. The 20 highest-loss metropolitan areas are: No. 1, Los Angeles and Long Beach; then San Jose, Stockton, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Fresno, Modesto, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Oxnard, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Lompoc. Those are the areas that are impacted with the largest numbers.

Mr. FEINSTEIN

Mr. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for the opportunity to offer this amendment. This amendment is on behalf of Senators Boxer, Graham, and myself. Amendment No. 4929 (Purpose: This amendment provides that the ban on SSI apply to those entering the country on or after the enactment of this bill and exists until citizenship)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield to the other side and request I be allowed to reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I might address the Chairman, I will do my level best and will agree to the half hour, with the proviso that if there is something I need to respond to, I have an opportunity to do so.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Boxer, does.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my amendment to make $4 million from the Army's Research, Development, Test and Evaluation available to acquire a real-time, demonstrated, automatic cargo tracking and control system. This cargo tracking and control system is designed to assure that the smooth flow of cargo and to reduce the occurrence of misplaced cargo at Army ports. This demonstrated cargo tracking mechanism makes it possible for the manager of a port, rail yard, or other cargo distribution area to know where each container is and to move those containers without risk of being lost. The Army has already witnessed massive unreported but costly loss of cargo location in storage following Vietnam and Desert Storm. The Army made previous attempts to purchase this tracking system but was unable to do so due to funding constraints. It is my understanding that the Army Material Command would like to use $4 million from Army Research, Development, Technology, and Evaluation budget line PE0603804A. I am pleased that this amendment is acceptable and I thank the managers of the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my amendment to authorize $12 million for the development of a pulse doppler upgrade to the AN/SPS-48E radar system. The AN/SPS-48E is currently the only surveillance radar capable of detecting low flying cruise missiles coming out of the severe ground clutter that is typical of littoral warfare over water or land. Given the proper funding, the Navy agrees that the AN/SPS-48E pulse doppler upgrade would re-initiate clutter reduction engineering activities, thereby improving their ability to meet current and emerging threats. Present lack of funding for this one-of-a-kind, superior radar system leaves our large deck amphibious ships and the new LPD-17 class ships and their crews unprotected and vulnerable to attack. I am pleased that this amendment is acceptable and I thank the managers of the bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Boxer, Moseley-Braun, and Snowe would like to introduce the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act. In a time of shrinking budgets and resources for breast cancer research, this legislation would provide an innovative way to provide additional funding for breast cancer research. This bill would: authorize the U.S. Postal Service to issue an optional special first class stamp to be priced at 1 cent above the cost of normal first-class postage; earmark a penny of every stamp for breast cancer research; provide administrative costs from the revenues for post office expenses; and clarify current law, that any similar stamp would require an act of Congress to be issued in the future. If only 10 percent of all the first class mail used this optional 33 cent stamp, $60 million could be raised for breast cancer research annually. There is wide support for this legislation. Congressman Fazio, along with 62 cosponsors have already introduced the companion bill in the House. The breast cancer epidemic has been called this Nation's best kept secret. There are 2.6 million women in America today with breast cancer, 1 million of whom have yet to be diagnosed with the disease. In 1996, an estimated 184,000 will be diagnosed with, and 44,300 will die from, breast cancer. It is the No. 1 killer of women ages 40 to 44 and the leading cause of cancer death in women ages 15 to 54, claiming a woman's life every 12 minutes in this country. For California, 17,100 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 4,100 women will die from the disease in 1996. In addition to the cost of women's lives, the annual cost of treatment of beast cancer in the United States is approximately $10 billion. This means the average American woman will have $5,000 added to her health care costs because of the disease. Over the last 25 years, the National Institutes of Health has spent over $31.5 billion on cancer research--$2 billion of that on breast cancer. In the last 6 years alone, appropriations for breast cancer research have risen from $90 million in 1990 to $600 million today. That is the good news. But, the bad news is that the national commitment to cancer research overall has been hamstrung since 1980. Currently, NIH is able to fund only 23 percent of applications received by all the institutes. For the Cancer Institute, only 23 percent can be funded--significant drop from the 60 percent of applications funded in the 1970's. Most alarming is the rapidly diminishing grant funding available for new researcher applicants. In real numbers, the National Cancer Institute will fund approximately 3,600 research projects, of which about 1,000 are new, previously unfunded activities. For investigator-initiated research, only 600 out of 1,900 research projects will be new. The United States is privileged to have some of the most talented scientists and many of the leading cancer research centers in the world such as UCLA, UC San Francisco, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, and the M.D. Anderson. This lack of funding is starving some of the most important research--because scientists will have to look elsewhere for their livelihood. The United States must reverse the trend of diminishing research funds if these scientists and institutions are to continue to contribute their vast talents to the war on cancer and finding a cure. What is clear is that there is a direct correlation between increases in research funding and the likelihood of finding a cure. Cancer mortality has declined by 15 percent from 1950 to 1992 due to increases in cancer research funding. In fact, federally funded cancer research has yielded vast amounts of knowledge about the disease-- information which is guiding our efforts to improve treatment and search for a cure. We have more knowledge and improvements in prevention through: identification of a cancer gene, use of mammographies, clinical exams, and encouragement of self breast exams. Yet there is still no cure. The Bay Area has one of the highest rates of breast cancer incidence and mortality in the world. According to data given to my staff by the Northern California Cancer Center, Bay Area white women have the highest reported breast cancer rate in the world, 104 per 100,000 population. Bay Area African-American women have the fourth highest reported rate in the world at 82 per 100,000. I want to recognize Dr. Balazs (Ernie) Bodai who suggested this innovative funding approach. Dr. Bodai is the chief of the surgery department at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in Sacramento, CA. He is the founder of Cure Cancer Now, which is a nonprofit organization committed to developing a funding source for breast cancer research. As you know, last week the Postal Service introduced their breast cancer awareness stamp. Although the issuance of the awareness stamp was an important step toward educating the public about the disease, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act is a new and different effort in that it would actually raise funds for the NIH research on breast cancer, and if the stamps were purchased and not used, the postal service would still make money. This legislation is also supported by the American Cancer Society, Association of Operating Room Nurses, California Health Collaborative Foundations, YWCA-Encore Plus, the Sacramento City Council and Mayor Joe Serna, Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, Sutter County Board of Supervisors, Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Yuba City Council, California State Senator Diane Watson and California State Assemblywoman Dede Alpert as well as the Public Employees Union, San Joaquin Public Employees Association, and Sutter and Yuba County Employees Association. Given the intense competition for Federal research funds in a climate of shrinking budgets, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act would allow anyone who uses the postal service to contribute in finding a cure for the breast cancer epidemic. In a sense, this particular proposal is a pilot. I recognize that the postal service may oppose this since it has not been done before. I also recognize that in a day of diminishing Federal resources, this innovation is an idea whose time has come. It will make money for the post office and for breast cancer research. No one is forced to buy it, but women's organizations may even wish to sell the stamps in a fundraising effort. The administrative costs can be handled with the 1 cent added on the 32 cent stamp and conservatively it can make from $60 million per year for NIH's research on breast cancer. We need to find a cure for breast cancer and I believe the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act is an innovative response to the hidden epidemic among women. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I, along with Senators Boxer, Moseley-Braun, and Snowe would like to introduce the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act. In a time of shrinking budgets and resources for breast cancer research, this legislation would provide an innovative way to provide additional funding for breast cancer research. This bill would: authorize the U.S. Postal Service to issue an optional special first class stamp to be priced at 1 cent above the cost of normal first-class postage; earmark a penny of every stamp for breast cancer research; provide administrative costs from the revenues for post office expenses; and clarify current law, that any similar stamp would require an act of Congress to be issued in the future. If only 10 percent of all the first class mail used this optional 33 cent stamp, $60 million could be raised for breast cancer research annually. There is wide support for this legislation. Congressman Fazio, along with 62 cosponsors have already introduced the companion bill in the House. The breast cancer epidemic has been called this Nation's best kept secret. There are 2.6 million women in America today with breast cancer, 1 million of whom have yet to be diagnosed with the disease. In 1996, an estimated 184,000 will be diagnosed with, and 44,300 will die from, breast cancer. It is the No. 1 killer of women ages 40 to 44 and the leading cause of cancer death in women ages 15 to 54, claiming a woman's life every 12 minutes in this country. For California, 17,100 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 4,100 women will die from the disease in 1996. In addition to the cost of women's lives, the annual cost of treatment of beast cancer in the United States is approximately $10 billion. This means the average American woman will have $5,000 added to her health care costs because of the disease. Over the last 25 years, the National Institutes of Health has spent over $31.5 billion on cancer research--$2 billion of that on breast cancer. In the last 6 years alone, appropriations for breast cancer research have risen from $90 million in 1990 to $600 million today. That is the good news. But, the bad news is that the national commitment to cancer research overall has been hamstrung since 1980. Currently, NIH is able to fund only 23 percent of applications received by all the institutes. For the Cancer Institute, only 23 percent can be funded--significant drop from the 60 percent of applications funded in the 1970's. Most alarming is the rapidly diminishing grant funding available for new researcher applicants. In real numbers, the National Cancer Institute will fund approximately 3,600 research projects, of which about 1,000 are new, previously unfunded activities. For investigator-initiated research, only 600 out of 1,900 research projects will be new. The United States is privileged to have some of the most talented scientists and many of the leading cancer research centers in the world such as UCLA, UC San Francisco, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, and the M.D. Anderson. This lack of funding is starving some of the most important research--because scientists will have to look elsewhere for their livelihood. The United States must reverse the trend of diminishing research funds if these scientists and institutions are to continue to contribute their vast talents to the war on cancer and finding a cure. What is clear is that there is a direct correlation between increases in research funding and the likelihood of finding a cure. Cancer mortality has declined by 15 percent from 1950 to 1992 due to increases in cancer research funding. In fact, federally funded cancer research has yielded vast amounts of knowledge about the disease-- information which is guiding our efforts to improve treatment and search for a cure. We have more knowledge and improvements in prevention through: identification of a cancer gene, use of mammographies, clinical exams, and encouragement of self breast exams. Yet there is still no cure. The Bay Area has one of the highest rates of breast cancer incidence and mortality in the world. According to data given to my staff by the Northern California Cancer Center, Bay Area white women have the highest reported breast cancer rate in the world, 104 per 100,000 population. Bay Area African-American women have the fourth highest reported rate in the world at 82 per 100,000. I want to recognize Dr. Balazs (Ernie) Bodai who suggested this innovative funding approach. Dr. Bodai is the chief of the surgery department at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group in Sacramento, CA. He is the founder of Cure Cancer Now, which is a nonprofit organization committed to developing a funding source for breast cancer research. As you know, last week the Postal Service introduced their breast cancer awareness stamp. Although the issuance of the awareness stamp was an important step toward educating the public about the disease, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act is a new and different effort in that it would actually raise funds for the NIH research on breast cancer, and if the stamps were purchased and not used, the postal service would still make money. This legislation is also supported by the American Cancer Society, Association of Operating Room Nurses, California Health Collaborative Foundations, YWCA-Encore Plus, the Sacramento City Council and Mayor Joe Serna, Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, Sutter County Board of Supervisors, Nevada County Board of Supervisors, Yuba City Council, California State Senator Diane Watson and California State Assemblywoman Dede Alpert as well as the Public Employees Union, San Joaquin Public Employees Association, and Sutter and Yuba County Employees Association. Given the intense competition for Federal research funds in a climate of shrinking budgets, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act would allow anyone who uses the postal service to contribute in finding a cure for the breast cancer epidemic. In a sense, this particular proposal is a pilot. I recognize that the postal service may oppose this since it has not been done before. I also recognize that in a day of diminishing Federal resources, this innovation is an idea whose time has come. It will make money for the post office and for breast cancer research. No one is forced to buy it, but women's organizations may even wish to sell the stamps in a fundraising effort. The administrative costs can be handled with the 1 cent added on the 32 cent stamp and conservatively it can make from $60 million per year for NIH's research on breast cancer. We need to find a cure for breast cancer and I believe the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act is an innovative response to the hidden epidemic among women. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support increasing the minimum wage from the current floor of $4.25 to $5.15 per hour, the 90- cent increase being phased-in in two stages over the next year. This issue is about making ends meet. It's about people being able to pay the rent and put food on the table, and the bottom line is, the current minimum wage is simply not enough to live on. A person working full time at minimum wage today does not even make enough money to meet the Federal poverty level. An American working a 40-hour week makes an annual salary of $8,640--nearly $300 below the Federal poverty level of $8,910. For a family of two, the poverty level is $11,920. The minimum wage is supposed to be a safeguard against poverty-level wages, but for millions of Americans, the cost of living has outpaced any protection afforded by the minimum wage. Many families in this country are just one paycheck away from disaster--whether it is an illness, the need to move, or simply the car breaking down--many people living paycheck to paycheck live in fear that they may not make it this month or the next. They live in dread of the next heat wave that could force them to choose between paying the extra-high electric bill or buying the kids a new pair of shoes. We don't have a magic wand to fix their situation, but in my view we do have an obligation to maintain a minimum wage level that, at the very least, keeps pace with the cost of living. Let me give you an example of what raising the minimum wage just 90 cents would mean to a family: It means $1,800 more money every year; enough to pay 4 months of rent; enough to cover health care costs for a whole year; enough to pay 9 months of utility bills; and enough to buy 7 months worth of groceries. Maintaining a minimum wage that makes sense is especially important for States like mine with a higher than average cost of living: A loaf of bread in Los Angeles, at $1.34, is double that of the United States average of 75 cents. A gallon of milk in the United States costs $1.41 on average, but in San Diego it costs $1.71. A can of tuna that costs 69 cents on average costs 90 cents in San Diego. In San Francisco, housing costs are 160 percent higher than the national average. The cost of health care in Los Angeles is 37 percent higher than the national average. The cost of transportation is 22 percent higher and there a fewer lower cost alternatives. The minimum wage does not just affect teens who are working their first job. Seventy percent of Americans who receive the minimum wage are adults over 20 years old. Forty percent are the sole breadwinner in their family and more than three of every five are women, many of whom are single women supporting a family. A decent wage has long been a hallmark of this country's promise. It means a livable wage for a fair day's work. It means providing for your family and staying off welfare. A decent minimum wage honors work. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this amendment. It will mean a great deal to a lot of hard-working Americans.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Times detailed the recent alarming rise in bombmaking incidents in my State of California: reports of possible explosives to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department have more than doubled in the last 2 months; responses by the Los Angeles Police Department to reports of suspected bombs shot up more than 35 percent from 1994 to 1995; the LAPD found 41 explosives in 1995, more than double the number 3 years earlier; and the Sheriff's Department discovered 69 bombs last year. What is especially troubling is that it appears that an increasing number of these incidents involve children, who are getting instructions for making these explosives from the Internet: Four teenagers were arrested last week for a rash of pipe bombings in Rancho Palos Verdes in May and June which destroyed four mailboxes, a guard shack, and a car. In Orange County, police say teenagers may have used the Internet to help construct acid-filled bottle bombs in Mission Viejo and Huntington Beach, one of which burned a 5-year-old boy when he found it on a school playground. Two-months ago, the Orange County Register reported that a North Carolina teenager who posted ``The Anarchist Cookbook'' on his World Wide Web page was told by a Dutch girl that she had used the recipes to blow up a neighbor's car. All Senators and Representatives should be concerned about this, for these incidents are occurring across the country. Wherever there is a computer and a phone line, this danger is present. In February, in upstate New York, three 13-year-old boys were charged with plotting to set off a homemade bomb in their junior high school, using bomb-making plans which they had gotten off of the Internet. Yesterday's Los Angeles Times article reported that computer- generated guides proved a common link in bombs built recently by teenagers from the streets of Philadelphia and Houston to rural Kansas and upstate New York. These incidents aren't just limited to dangerous teenage pranks either. One of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers was arrested with manuals in hand. My amendment gives law enforcement another tool in the war against terrorism--to combat the flow of information that is used to teach terrorist and other criminals how to build bombs. This information is not something that one would use for a legitimate purpose or information that can be found in a chemistry textbook on the back shelf of a university library. What my amendment targets is detailed information that is made available to any would-be criminal or terrorist, with the intended purpose of teaching someone how to blow things up in the commission of a serious and violent crime--to kill, injure, or destroy property. In researching this issue, I came to find that specific and detailed information on how to make a bomb is distributed far too widely. It's available on the Internet, in books, in magazines, and by mail order. According to terrorism expert Neil Livingston, there are more than 1,600 so-called mayhem manuals--books with titles like ``The Anarchist Cookbook,'' ``The New Improved Poor Man's James Bond,'' ``How To Kill'', and ``Exotic and Covert Weapons''. Let me provide some examples of the type of information I am talking about: The ``Terrorist's Handbook'' is available by mail order and on the Internet. Just recently, my staff downloaded a copy of it from the Internet; Mr. President, you could do the same thing today. The ``Terrorist's Handbook'' begins by saying: ``Whether you are planning to blow up the World Trade Center, or merely explode a few small devices on the White House lawn, the ``Terrorist's Handbook'' is an invaluable guide to having a good time. Where else can you get such wonderful ideas about how to use up all that extra ammonium triiodide left over from last year's revolution. The Handbook goes on to give step-by-step instructions on what to do: Acquiring chemicals: ``The best place to steal chemicals is a college. Many state schools have all of their chemicals out on the shelves in the labs, and more in their chemical stockrooms. Evening is the best time to enter a lab building, as there are the least number of people in the building. . .. Of course, if none of these methods are successful, there is always section 2.11 [Techniques for Picking Locks].'' It then tells the reader how to pick a lock. The Handbook lists various explosive recipes using black powders, nitroglycerine, dynamite, TNT, and ammonium nitrate. And, it provides explicit instructions for making pipe bombs, book bombs, light bulb bombs, glass container bombs, and phone bombs, just to name a few. Phone bomb: ``The phone bomb is an explosive device that has been used in the past to kill or injure a specific individual. The basic idea is simple: when the person answers the phone, the bomb explodes. . .. It is highly probable that the phone will be by his/her ear when the devise explodes.'' Light Bulb bombs: ``An automatic reaction to walking into a dark room is to turn on the light. This can be fatal, if a lightbulb bomb has been placed in the overhead light socket. A lightbulb bomb is surprisingly easy to make. It also comes with its own initiator and electric ignition system.'' Yet another handbook contains detailed schemes and diagrams for a zippered suitcase booby trap, and a shower head booby trap, triggered by the pressure of turning on the water. One of the more appalling descriptions of bomb making involves baby food bombs. The following information was taken from the Bullet'N Board computer bulletin board off the Internet: Babyfood Bombs: ``These simple, powerful bombs are not very well know even though all the material can be easily obtained by anyone (including minors). These things are so f---ing powerful that they can destroy a car. . .. Here's how they work. ``Go to the Sports Authority or Hermans sport shop and buy shotgun shells. At the Sports Authority that I go to you can actually buy shotgun shells without a parent or adult. They don't keep it behind the little glass counter or anything like that. It is $2.96 for 25 shells.'' The computer bulletin board posting then provides instructions on how to assemble and detonate the bomb. It concludes with, ``If the explosion doesn't get'em then the glass will. If the glass doesn't get'em then the nails will.'' Here are some more examples of individual postings from the Internet: ``Are you interested in receiving information detailing the components and materials needed to construct a bomb identical to the one used in Oklahoma? The information specifically details the construction, deployment and detonation of high powered explosives. It also includes complete details of the bomb used in Oklahoma City, and how it was used and could have been better.''--posted April 23, 1995. ``I want to make bombs and kill evil zionist people in the government. Teach me. . .. Give me text files!. . .. Feed my wisdom, Oh great one.''--posted April 25, 1995. The foreword to the book ``Death by Deception: Advanced Improvised Booby Traps'' states: Terrorist IEDs [improvised explosive devices] come in many shapes and forms, but these bombs, mines, and booby traps all have one thing in common: they will cripple or kill you if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In this sequel to his best-selling book ``Deathtrap'', Jo Jo Gonzales reveals more improvised booby-trap designs. Discover how these death-dealing devices can be constructed from such outwardly innocuous objects as computer modems, hand-held radios, toilet-paper dispensers, shower heads, talking teddy bears, and traffic cones. Detailed instructions, schematic diagrams, and typical deployment techniques for dozens of such contraptions are provided. Other titles of books that teach people how to make bombs include: ``Guerrilla's Arsenal: Advanced Techniques for Making Explosives and Time-Delay Bombs''; and ``The Advanced Anarchist Arsenal: Recipes for Improvised Incendiaries and Explosives.'' Enough is enough. Common sense should tell us that the First Amendment does not give someone the right to teach someone how to kill other people. The right to free speech in the First Amendment is not absolute. There are several well known exceptions to the First Amendment which limit free speech. These include: obscenity; child pornography; clear and present dangers; commercial speech; defamation; speech harmful to children; time, place and manner restrictions; incidental restrictions; and radio and television broadcasting. I do not for one minute believe that the Framers of the Constitution meant for the First Amendment to be used to directly aid the teaching of how to injure and kill. In today's day and age when violent crimes, bombings, and terrorist attacks are becoming too frequent, and when technology allows for the distribution of bomb making material over computers to millions of people across the country in a matter of seconds, some restrictions on speech are appropriate. Specifically, I believe that restricting the availability of bomb making information, if there is intent or knowledge that the information will be used for a criminal purpose, is both appropriate and required in today's day and age. My amendment is an important, balanced measure to confront the problems presented by today's rapid growth in technology, and I am extremely gratified by its adoption today. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Los Angeles Times, June 27, 1996] Internet Cited for Surge in Bomb Reports computers: police and sheriff's officials say web sites provide youngsters with information on making explosives (By Eric Lichtblau and Jim Newton) Los Angeles explosives experts have seen an alarming rise in bomb calls over the last several months, and they think they know the main culprits: youngsters on the Internet who are learning to make bombs by scanning computer sites with ominous names like ``the Anarchists Cookbook'' and ``Bombs and Stuff!'' Reports of possible explosives to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department have more than doubled in the last two months. More troubling, the percentage of suspicious devices that turn out to be real explosives--especially homemade pipe bombs--has grown even more drastically. The Los Angeles Police Department has noted a similar rise in bomb reports, reflecting a nationwide trend that experts blame on newfound computer access to explosives recipes. ``A lot of the [cases], we're finding out, are kids getting the information off the Internet,'' said Lt. Tom Spencer, who heads the sheriff's arson/explosives detail. ``We're very worried, to be honest . . . It's frightening.'' Sheriff's officials believe that information from the Internet was used in a rash of pipe bombings in Rancho Palos Verdes in May and June that destroyed four mailboxes, a guard shack and a car. Four teenagers were arrested last week in the explosions. In Orange County, meanwhile, police said the Internet may have aided vandals in building acid-filled bottle bombs in Mission Viejo and Huntington Beach. A 5-year-old boy was burned by one of the bombs on a school playground in an April attack that led to the arrests of four teenagers. And nationwide, computer-generated guides proved a common link in bombs built recently by teenagers around the country, from the streets of Philadelphia and Houston to rural enclaves of Kansas and upstate New York. Some bookstores and libraries have long provided printed information on homemade bombs--one such manual was found this week in Torrance after a 23-year-old man allegedly blew out three windows at his parents' home with a 10-inch-long pipe bomb. But the Computer Age has cast the explosives' net far wider, experts say. LAPD spokesman Cmdr. Tim McBride said: ``There is a lot of verbiage on the Internet, where people are becoming * * * more aware of what it takes to put a bomb together.'' Indeed, a quick scan of computer sites reveals wide access to site offering enlightenment on a wide range of bombs, some cast in a serious, academic tone, others in an aggressive or even hostile bent. ``Don't be a wimp. Do it NOW!!!'' urges a file on ``making and owning an H-bomb.'' One popular site, the Anarchists Cookbook, lists no fewer than 19 chapters related to explosives, from ``Making Plastic Explosives From Bleach'' to a ``Home-Brew Blast Cannon'' and ``A Different Kind of Molitov [sic] Cocktail.'' USC terrorism expert Richard Hrair Dekmejian believes that users of such technology are often troubled youths who, without intervention, could become involved in more serious violence along the lines of the Oklahoma City, World Trade Center or Unabomber attacks. The Internet's bomb-making intrigue offers an outlet for troubled youths who are ``bored and alienated,'' he said in an interview. ``This is very, very serious. This is a new epidemic, and I see the problem getting worse,'' Dekmejian said. The numbers in Los Angeles seem to prove him right. Both the LAPD and the Sheriff's Department--the main agencies that handle bombings in the area--have seen marked increases in the last several years in reports of suspicious devices. Last year, responses at each department shop up more than 35% over 1994, reaching 972 calls to the LAPD and 595 to the Sheriff's Department. Each report of a suspected bomb automatically triggers a response by a bomb squad. The rise has been even more drastic at the Sheriff's Department in the last two months. The bomb detail, which had been averaging about 30 calls a month, handled 68 assignments in April and 62 in May. LAPD officials attribute the rise in part to the public's increased awareness and sensitivity to the threat posed by bombs, especially after terrorist bombings in Beirut, New York City and Oklahoma City, among other attacks. For that reason, an abandoned briefcase may be more likely to generate a call to police today than it was a few years ago. But the trend goes beyond public alertness, officials say, and the number of actual explosives discovered has gone up significantly as well. The LAPD found 41 explosives in 1995, more than double the number three years earlier. And the sheriff's discovery of explosives rose about 10% over that same period, to 69 bombs. The rise was particularly sharp in 1995 at the Sheriff's Department, with the number of bombs 50% higher than in the previous year. The Sheriff's Department and its 26 bomb technicians recently began using a new 4\1/2\-inch-high robot to ferret out possible explosives. Much smaller than its predecessors, it can be used to roam under trucks or through theater aisles to inspect suspicious items. But technology can be a double-edged sword, and Spencer says his people remain hamstrung as long as the Internet provides free recipes for disaster. ``We can't do anything because there's a freedom of speech mandate that says people can put on the Internet what they want, and people will access if if they want to access it,'' he said. ``The way to stop it is for parents to monitor what their kids are doing.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to propose an amendment, which is co-sponsored by by Senator Biden, to prohibit teaching bomb-making for criminal purposes. First, I want to express my sincere appreciation to the managers of this bill, Senators Thurmond and Nunn, and to the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch and Biden, for their cooperation in accepting this important amendment. My amendment prohibits the teaching of how to make a bomb if a person intends or knows that the bomb will be used for a criminal purpose. Additionally, the amendment prohibits the distribution of information on how to make a bomb if a person intends or knows that the information will be used for a criminal purpose. The penalty for violation of this law would be a maximum of 20 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, or both. As my colleagues will recall, this amendment was accepted in the Senate as part of the anti-terrorism bill last summer. Regrettably, the House dropped it from their bill, and it was not restored in conference. I vowed then, on the floor of the Senate, to continue this fight, and attach this amendment to the next appropriate legislative vehicle. Today, that time has come. Unfortunately, while Congress was failing to act, the need for this law has, tragically, continued to grow dramatically. Just yesterday, while I was working to add this amendment to this bill, the Los Angeles Times ran a story, ``Internet Cited for Surge in Bomb Reports,'' which demonstrated this need. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the DOD authorization bill for fiscal year 1997. This is a responsible bill that provides continued national security and properly funds modernization and operating accounts. As the front page of any newspaper in this country today reminds us, we continue to live in a dangerous and uncertain world. Civil and international conflicts can begin by the assassination of a national leader, the blockade of shipping lanes, or ethnic strife. Our military response to these conflicts can vary from peacekeeping, humanitarian, and peace enforcement operations to full scale deployment. Because we continue to ask our military to participate in more and more operations other than war, we not only must plan and prepare to send our troops to an international border to protect our allies or our citizens living overseas, but to protect foreign civilians in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. While the fiscal year 1997 DOD authorization bill is nearly $12 billion higher than the President's budget request, it keeps total defense spending $5.6 billion below last year's inflation adjusted level. Although some of my colleagues may think this a negligible reduction, this is the 12th year in a row where the U.S. defense budget is less than it was the year before; $7.6 billion of these additional funds were allocated to modernization of our weapons systems to that the men and women of our Armed Forces have access to the best technology and safest equipment possible. At a time when we are asking our soldiers to do more and more with less, we must strive to provide them with reliable systems that are capable of carrying out a variety of missions. Concern over the funding levels for the new military equipment was noted by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikavili, is especially worrisome in the area of procurement and research and development. During their testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee, General Shalikavili and the service chiefs recommended that the procurement account be funded at $60 billion in fiscal year 1997. This bill also increases funding in the service's day-to-day operating accounts. Reduced funding threatened to limit the ability of the services and Guard and Reserve forces to carry out the airlift, support, medical, and counterdrug tasks asked of them. For example, the committee increase funding for the Air National Guard by $76 million to ensure that it could carry out its aircraft and mission support operations. The committee also rightly increased the level of funding for the Defense Department's counterdrug activities. These missions, especially those carried out by the National Guard, have had a substantial impact on reducing the flow of drugs into this Nation. As a Senator from California, where illegal drugs are an epidemic, I am very pleased with this action. This year's defense bill also recognizes the needs of our men and women in uniform. I believe the committee wisely included additional military construction projects, a 4-percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters, and a 3-percent pay raise to better our uniformed military's standard of living. I do not, however, support all the extra funds that were added to this bill. I felt it important to support Senator Dorgan's amendment to cut $300 million from national missile defense funding. I believe that a national missile defense is a laudable goal, and I certainly want to see different Anti-Ballistic Missile [ABM] Treaty compliant national missile defense systems studied. But, the cold war is over. There is no immediate or even midterm threat to U.S. security that suggests the need for an immediate development and deployment of a national missile defense system. Only Russia and China have nuclear armed ICBM's that can reach the United States--and China has no more than a dozen or so of these weapons. There is consensus within the national intelligence community that it is very unlikely that additional countries can or will build ICBM's within the next two decades. In addition, the Pentagon's Joint Requirements Oversight Council [JROC] believes that with current and projected ballistic missile threats, the funding level for developing a national missile defense system should be no more than $500 million per year. Funding at this level will allow the United States to continue to field critical theater missile defenses and national missile defense systems to meet projected threats, save money, and achieve an affordable ballistic missile defense. Should threats to the United States materialize, it will give us sufficient lead time to respond to those threats, at that time and as necessary, with appropriately higher funding and a more aggressive national missile defense program. I also supported the Wellstone amendment to transfer $1.3 billion-- just 10 percent of the $13 billion increase in funding from the President's request--from DOD to higher education and employment and training programs. California is one of the most heavily impacted States by the cuts. This amendment would have provided the needed extra funding for education and job training programs. Senator Wellstone's amendment would have transferred $806 million from DOD's coffers for Pell grants, Perkins loans, and direct student loans. Employment and training programs for dislocated workers, summer youth jobs, school-to-work, and one-stop job training centers would have received a total of $504 million. All of these programs are as important to California as adequate defense spending and I am sorry that the Wellstone amendment did not pass. In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to make special note of a major victory for the women who serve in our armed forces. I am speaking of the passage of the repeal of current law that prohibits abortion at an overseas U.S. military facility even if the woman paid for the procedure herself. Forcing a woman to fly to the United States to obtain an abortion creates a double standard that is not only unjust, but potentially dangerous to the health of our women in uniform and military spouses. I am very pleased to see this amendment pass. allied burdensharing

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise as a cosponsor of Senator Lautenberg's amendment and to both commend him and support him for this amendment. Prior to making my remarks, I would like to address a comment made by the very distinguished Senator from New Hampshire that these guns have no value, that the $76 million price tag on them is outrageous. Well, we called a number of gun shops around the Nation to determine whether the M-1 and the M-1 carbine had a value. I would like to share with the Senator what I found. The M-1, which the Army puts a value of $310 on, can be purchased at the Old Town Armory in Alexandria, VA for $425. It can be purchased at the Old Sacramento Armory in California for $549. It can be purchased at Segal Guns in Oakland for $495. Remember, the Army's value is $310. The M-1 carbine, which the Army puts a value of $76.90 on, can be purchased at the Old Town Armory for $389, and the Old Sacramento Armory for $425, at the San Francisco Gun Exchange for $278.50 and $325, at the National Shooting Club in Santa Clara at $400 and $425. As a matter of fact, if you average these prices and say what market prices are for these weapons, the M-1 and the M-1 carbine, and the other items, actually increase the amount to about $86.5 million rather than $76 million. So I respectfully submit to this body that it is not true that these guns have no value. They are, in many cases, collectors items, and they bring a substantial value. Nonetheless, I rise in support of what Senator Lautenberg is doing, because to me this kind of program is not one in which the Federal Government should be involved. It is not one in which we should be providing cash and leased space and weapons to a civilian program. My view is that the groups who are interested in this are well-funded, they have a fee base, and they can handle this program on their own, and that is an appropriate thing to do. I also have a problem in that I do not believe that military weapons should be sold by the U.S. military to civilians. Military weapons may be out-of-date weapons, but, nonetheless, they are designed with a purpose, and that purpose is combat. Heaven knows we have enough combat on our streets. I looked at the background of this program. It was actually established, interestingly enough, in 1903 as a military program prior to the Spanish American War to take young recruits and would-be military and teach them how to shoot prior to their coming into the military. Last year, under title XVI of the 1996 Defense Authorization Act, the nonprofit, so-called private Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearm Safety was put forward. In effect, this is a change in name only. It is the same program. It may have a different board of directors, but it will be the same identical program--sort of the same program with a different name on it. So essentially, when it becomes operational in October of this year-- and it has not yet become operational--it will take control of 176,218 Army rifles and 146 million rounds of ammunition worth more than $62 million. Even more remarkable, it will receive at least $4.4 million in cash from the Army, and it will be given leased Federal property such as vehicles and computers valued at $8.8 million at no cost to the corporation but at a cost of $76 million to the taxpayers. So the taxpayers are essentially giving to a totally civilian program $76 million of their funds. Is training people to shoot straight a worthy cause? Of course it is. But it is not the Government's responsibility. I do not know about you, Madam President, but I have not received one phone call or letter from a constituent complaining that we are not funding enough shooting competition. I have, however, heard from constituents about the $11 million that was cut from Healthy Start, a program to reduce infant mortality among low-income pregnant women, and I have heard about the $384 million that was cut from student financial assistance grants, and I have heard about the $12 million cut from the school dropout prevention program and the $4 million cut from the National Health Service Corporation that sends doctors and nurses into underserved areas. So what this boils down to--and I recognize there is a firewall between defense and social programs--is really a sense of priority. Is this where we want Army weapons going? Is this how we want Federal dollars used? My own State of California will have cut $12 million for the Commerce Department's Tourism and Travel Administration. This is a big deal in California. It is one of our major industries. Local communities feel a very real impact from the $35 million lost in impact aid to make up for lost tax revenue. So this, again, is about priorities. I do not think--well, I know, because the military has said they do not need the program. They do not really want the program. $76 million--think of what that could do put to use. I am also very much aware of the fact that there are many guns in this Nation. We have 212 million guns in the United States of America in private circulation and another 6 million being added every single year. Do we really need to use Federal money to add over 175,000 Army guns to this street supply? This is not a question of gun control. This is not controlling guns. It is a question of adding to the supply with taxpayer dollars. I, for one, do not truly believe that the Federal Government should do this. I believe, in a sense, that it has as much social well-being and purpose as a Federal tea-tasting program. In reports such as ABC's Prime Time Live and a Boston Globe article, it is true militia members brag that they are adding to their stockpiles of weaponry and ammunition and have received training at U.S. Army bases from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. What is to stop them from receiving training at this program as well? As a matter of fact, this group does its own gun checks--not a Federal agency, not somebody independent, not somebody trained in it, but very progun, antiregulation, antilicensing people would do the betting of who would have these weapons. So I would say who do we really know? Where do we really think these weapons and ammunition will go? The clear answer is we do not really know because the new corporation would have the sole responsibility for determining who gets the guns and who does not. A group of private citizens will determine who gets military weapons and who does not. That, to me, is wrong-headed. It is ill-advised. Then when you fund it with taxpayer dollars, I think Senator Lautenberg is absolutely right on, it becomes a major boondoggle. I yield the floor. I thank the Chair. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address technology and children, two of our Nation's highest investment priorities. March 9 was a very exciting day this year in California. On March 9, more than 50,000 Californians volunteered in their neighborhood schools, installing communications cables, connecting wires and switches, and upgrading their schools for the 21st century. Throughout the State, volunteers installed the wiring infrastructure to connect thousands of elementary and secondary school classrooms to the information superhighway and provided schools with the educational benefits of contemporary technology. March 9, named ``NetDay96'' by its cofounders John Gage of Sun Microsystems, one of the Nation's leading technology companies, and Michael Kaufman of KQED, a California public broadcasting station, was an old fashioned barn-raising for the modern technology age. Just as volunteers would gather in the Nation's early years, neighbors helping neighbors, to build homes, barns or community buildings, California's NetDay96 volunteers gathered in support of neighborhood schools. NetDay96 succeeded in wiring 3,500 schools efficiently and cost-effectively, establishing and improving our classroom information infrastructure. Despite the State's tremendous resources and opportunities, California ranks 50th in the Nation in funds spent per student on computers. The cost of providing one computer for each student, from kindergarten to high school, would cost approximately $6 billion for 1,159,565 computers. The NetDay96 activities will help build community involvement and ease some of the financial burden. Today, it is my pleasure to submit a resolution in support of California's NetDay96 activities, commend NetDay organizers and volunteers and those who would work to extend the benefits of NetDay96 nationwide. The relationships formed between schools and their communities will extend beyond March 9. Californians are already planning to organize future NetDay96 activities, building and expanding upon the earlier achievements. Congress and the President should encourage other communities to build upon the success of California's NetDay96 experience and provide the benefits of technology and education for students and schools across the country. Several members of my California staff were among the 50,000 NetDay96 volunteers at work in schools across the State. Cathy Widener of my staff described the work at Brittan Acres Elementary School in San Carlos, California as ``inspirational.'' Cathy attended school at Brittan Acres and her father teaches there. Cathy noted parents and teachers were on the classroom floor, pulling cable and installing wires, as employees of California's leading high tech companies provided instructions and directed traffic. Dalila De Lancey, principal of Freeport Elementary School, a magnet school in the Sacramento school system, indicates the school connected every classroom and library in the school. Corporate sponsors, including Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Pacific Bell, Sun Microsystems and others donated equipment needed to get the job done. Carolyn Harper, the Elmhurst Middle School Librarian in Oakland appreciated the support from Honeywell Corp., whose volunteers brought ladders, tools, and loads of enthusiasm. NetDay96 was part of the Oakland Unified School District's effort to complete the construction of a district-wide computer network and develop a technology exchange program to recondition and install computers. Technology companies were an important part of Netday96 and helped to forge a partnership between California's businesses and schools to improve education for all students. Even if students don't have computers at home, at least students can have access at schools to explore, develop skills, learn, and grow. We all agree our children deserve the finest preparation possible to face the demands of the changing information-based economy. NetDay96 helped meet these challenges, stressing educational opportunity for everyone by reaching out to rural and lower-income communities where current technology may be inadequate or incomplete. It may surprise others to learn that the most valuable asset of Netday96 was, in addition to the computers, wires and equipment, the commitment of thousands of volunteers who worked in their community schools. California's NetDay96 experience can be adopted in other States and communities that may not have the same number of technology companies as California's Silicon Valley. NetDay96 sponsors found that virtually all companies today have the technology, expertise, and skills to help schools if they choose to do so. For NetDay96, technology companies were as near as the local phone or cable company. All businesses equipped to be competitive today have the necessary tools to assist schools if they have the desire and opportunity to do so. NetDay96 provided them with the opportunity. Companies can step forward. Students, parents, and schools benefited from significant NetDay96 corporate sponsorship, including companies like MCI, AT&T, NetCom, and Earthlink, who agreed to provide free Internet access to every elementary and secondary school in California. Other companies such as American Online, Pacific Bell, Cisco Systems, Sun Microsystems and hundreds of other companies contributed by sponsoring individual schools, providing wiring kits, and helping to design and test the networks. With our current budget deficit, we have been doing everything we can to encourage local, volunteer solutions to difficult problems. NetDay96 and future NetDays across America can save schools and taxpayers millions of dollars in technology start-up costs by providing equipment, computer time and training for teachers through the school's corporate partners. Business sponsors and corporate volunteers were key ingredients in making NetDay96 a successful reality. This administration deserves great credit for advancing education and technology. President Clinton and Vice President Gore joined the thousands of California's NetDay volunteers. They support the expansion of NetDay96 activities nationwide to increase the level of technology in our classrooms and enhance our children's ability to learn. It is my pleasure to submit this resolution commending the NetDay96 co-founders, Michael Kaufman and John Gage, the dozens of corporate sponsors and business partners, and the thousands of volunteers working in community schools throughout California. The success and commitment they have shown can serve as a positive model for other States throughout the Nation, this year and in future years. My California colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, joins in co- sponsoring this resolution. Together, we urge our Senate colleagues to affirm congressional support for preparing U.S. classrooms with the needed technological infrastructure for the 21st century. In today's global economy, America's students will face challenges on an international scale. Students must graduate with the skills needed to face today's international challenges. Computers and technology can enhance education experience of children and provide a valuable complement to traditional teaching tools. Technology is not the complete solution to our complex education needs, but it is an important area that needs both our attention and our support. I am pleased to submit this resolution to stress the value of volunteer efforts to bring technology to the classroom. With our investments in technology and students, the next generation will graduate with more of the skills they need to compete and win in the global economy. NetDay96 was a successful effort in California and I encourage an effort to expand the effort nationwide to permit students across the country to enjoy the benefit of technology and education. I urge my Senate colleagues to support this effort.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am, along with Senators Kyl and Grassley, proposing an amendment to the DOD authorization bill that will stop the Government from inadvertently contributing to the manufacture of controlled substances. Our amendment requires that no Federal department or agency may sell stockpiled chemicals until the Drug Enforcement Agency certifies that the sale of the chemical would not result in the illegal manufacture of a controlled substance. This problem was brought to my attention through a routine solicitation to sell iodine by the Defense National Stockpile Center. Earlier this year, Defense National Stockpile offered for sale, to the highest bidder, 450,000 pounds of crude iodine. Iodine is one of the main ingredients in methamphetamine. Defense National Stockpile had no idea that iodine was used in making meth, and therefore did not consult with the Drug Enforcement Agency regarding the practices of the companies that might purchase this iodine at rock-bottom prices. After consulting with DEA, at my request, the Defense National Stockpile chose to cancel the iodine sale. Had my staff not noticed this proposed sale, hundreds of thousands of pounds of iodine could be on its way to methamphetamine labs across the country--the lion's share probably in my State. I have been extremely concerned with the proliferation of methamphetamine due to the meteoric rise in hospitalizations and arrests from abuse. Earlier this year, Senators Kyl, Reid, Grassley, and I introduced the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. This legislation, drafted with the input of the Drug Enforcement Agency, the California Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, the California Narcotics Officers Association, and local, State, and Federal and law enforcement, is a carefully crafted, targeted piece of legislation aimed at the supply side of the problem. The bill increases criminal penalties that can be applied to large-scale methamphetamine manufacturers in our Nation; restricts access to the precursor chemicals used in mass quantities to produce methamphetamine; and, increases the penalties for possession of controlled chemicals or specialized equipment used to make methamphetamine This legislation also adds the chemicals used to make methamphetamine--iodine, red phosphorous, and hydrochloric gas--to the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act. You can, therefore, see how an unchecked sale of 450,000 pounds of iodine could add to the huge problem we already have. I have a particular interest in this issue because of the ravaging effects it is having on my State and on other States in the Southwest. Let me explain how serious this problem is today: Methamphetamine has been around for a long time. But what was once a relatively small-scale drug operation run by American motorcycle gangs, has now been taken over by the Mexican drug cartels and, according to DEA, is now a multibillion dollar industry. California--particularly Sacramento, the Central Valley, and the Inland Empire--has become the front line in this new and dangerous drug war. DEA has designated California as the source country for methamphetamine--much like Colombia is the source country for cocaine, and identified 93 percent of the methamphetamine seized nationwide as having its point of origin in California. The explosion of this drug is being documented in jails and hospital emergency rooms around California, and this epidemic is spreading eastward: California hospitals--366 percent increase--from 1,466 admissions in 1984 to 6,834 in 1993. Central California hospitals saw a 1,742 percent increase. Sacramento hospitals--1,385 percent increase--from 46 cases in 1984 to 637 in 1993. In San Diego, admissions to drug-treatment programs for methamphetamine abuse surged 551 percent from 1988 to 1995. In 1994, for the first time, methamphetamine admissions outnumbered those for alcohol. At Sutter Memorial Hospital in Sacramento, babies born with methamphetamine in their blood system now outnumber crack babies by as much as 7 to 1. More than 1,800 deaths were caused by methamphetamine abuse from 1992 to 1994--a 145-percent increase in just 2 years. The majority of these cases occurred in the four western cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Phoenix. The problem is still growing: Large-scale labs are now commonplace. Last year, in the central valley, law enforcement convicted a man who manufactured in excess of 900 pounds of methamphetamine, with a street value of $5 million. Literally hundreds of illicit laboratories are located throughout the State. San Bernardino and Riverside law enforcement officials say there were 589 methamphetamine labs discovered in 1995--in just those two counties alone. And since the first of this year--just 9 weeks--another 127 labs were found in these two counties. Part of the problem for law enforcement is that the labs are so highly mobile. Labs can be set up in apartments, mobile homes, and even moving vehicles, and can be dismantled in a matter of hours, making it very difficult for police to track and close these labs. Law enforcement is now finding labs in hotel rooms. Drug dealers come in, set up, produce their drugs, and leave. Hotel staff then find the materials left in the rooms. California Environmental Protection Agency expects that 1,150 sites will require cleanup by the end of this year in California. This trend is overwhelming local resources because these labs are also very dangerous. Most of the chemicals used in these laboratories, such as iodine, refrigerants, hydrochloric gas, and sodium hydroxide, are toxic and, in the case of red phosphorous, highly flammable or even explosive. Two months ago, a mobile home in Riverside County being used as a meth lab exploded killing three small children. Incredibly, the mother of these children pleaded with neighbors that they not call for help. Before firefighters could find the children's burnt bodies, the woman walked away from the scene. This is a horrifying example of the effects of this drug. But the violence associated with methamphetamine is even more alarming. Prolonged use of the drug produces paranoid and violent behavior. And, because the methamphetamine trade is so lucrative with its low production costs and high-profit margin, police are seeing a tremendous surge in violence, particularly among rival gangs associated with distribution. Police in Phoenix say methamphetamine is mainly responsible for the 40-percent jump in homicides the city is experiencing. In Contra Costa County, law enforcement leaders report that methamphetamine is involved in 89 percent of domestic disputes. Last year in San Diego, rival methamphetamine smuggling rings were responsible for 26 homicides. In 1994, among all the adults arrested in the San Diego area, 42 percent of men and 53 percent of women tested positive for amphetamines. In San Luis Obispo, CA last year, local authorities requested assistance from DEA in dealing with spiraling violence that involved 13 drug-related homicides--in 1 month--committed by gangs in the production and distribution of methamphetamine. Fighting the spread of methamphetamine should be the responsibility of every Federal department and agency. My amendment helps to ensure that the Federal Government does not contribute to this crisis.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support this simple but strong legislation to protect our children. This bill, which I introduce with Senator Boxer, would provide three simple protections: First, the bill would prohibit commercial list brokers from selling personal information about children under 16 to anyone, without first getting the parent's consent. All kinds of information about our children--more facts than most of us might think or hope for--is rapidly becoming available through these list brokers. It is only a matter of time before this information begins to fall into the wrong hands. Recently, a reporter in Los Angeles was easily able to purchase parent's names, birth months and addresses for 5,500 children aged 1-12 in a particular neighborhood. The reporter used the name of a fictitious company, gave a nonworking telephone number, had no credit card or check, and identified herself as ``Richard Allen Davis,'' the notorious murderer of Polly Klaas. When ordering the list, the company representative simply told her, ``Oh, you have a famous name,'' and sent her the information COD. This is simply unacceptable. Second, the bill would give parents the authority to demand information from the list brokers who traffic in the personal data of their children--brokers will be required to provide parents with a list of all those to whom they sold information about the child, and must also tell the parent precisely what kind of information was sold. If this personal information is out there, and brokers are buying and selling it back and forth, it is only reasonable that we allow parents to find out what information has been sold and to whom that information has been given. Finally, this bill would prohibit list brokers from using prison labor to input personal information. This seems like common sense to most of us, but unfortunately the use of prison labor is not currently prohibited. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a May 6, 1996, Wall Street Journal article be printed in the Record. This recent Wall Street Journal article described the terrible experience of Beverly Dennis, an Ohio grandmother who filled out a detailed marketing questionnaire about her buying habits for a mail-in survey. She filled out the questionnaire when she was told that she might receive free product samples and helpful information. Rather than receiving product information, however, she soon began to receive sexually explicit, fact-specific letters from a convicted rapist serving time. The rapist, writing from his prison cell, had learned the very private, intimate details about her life because he was keypunching her personal questionnaire data into a computer for a subcontractor. Ms. Dennis received letters with elaborate sexual fantasies, woven around personal facts provided by her in the questionnaire. This bill would have prevented the situation from ever occurring. This bill is really very simple. Some marketing companies may be unhappy that the Government is trying to legislate how they do business, but we have to weigh the safety and well-being of our children against the small inconvenience of requiring parental consent in these cases. Given the rapidly changing nature of the marketing business and the ways in which child molesters and other criminals operate, this bill is an important step in protecting our kids from those who would do them harm. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support this simple but strong legislation to protect our children. This bill, which I introduce with Senator Boxer, would provide three simple protections: First, the bill would prohibit commercial list brokers from selling personal information about children under 16 to anyone, without first getting the parent's consent. All kinds of information about our children--more facts than most of us might think or hope for--is rapidly becoming available through these list brokers. It is only a matter of time before this information begins to fall into the wrong hands. Recently, a reporter in Los Angeles was easily able to purchase parent's names, birth months and addresses for 5,500 children aged 1-12 in a particular neighborhood. The reporter used the name of a fictitious company, gave a nonworking telephone number, had no credit card or check, and identified herself as ``Richard Allen Davis,'' the notorious murderer of Polly Klaas. When ordering the list, the company representative simply told her, ``Oh, you have a famous name,'' and sent her the information COD. This is simply unacceptable. Second, the bill would give parents the authority to demand information from the list brokers who traffic in the personal data of their children--brokers will be required to provide parents with a list of all those to whom they sold information about the child, and must also tell the parent precisely what kind of information was sold. If this personal information is out there, and brokers are buying and selling it back and forth, it is only reasonable that we allow parents to find out what information has been sold and to whom that information has been given. Finally, this bill would prohibit list brokers from using prison labor to input personal information. This seems like common sense to most of us, but unfortunately the use of prison labor is not currently prohibited. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a May 6, 1996, Wall Street Journal article be printed in the Record. This recent Wall Street Journal article described the terrible experience of Beverly Dennis, an Ohio grandmother who filled out a detailed marketing questionnaire about her buying habits for a mail-in survey. She filled out the questionnaire when she was told that she might receive free product samples and helpful information. Rather than receiving product information, however, she soon began to receive sexually explicit, fact-specific letters from a convicted rapist serving time. The rapist, writing from his prison cell, had learned the very private, intimate details about her life because he was keypunching her personal questionnaire data into a computer for a subcontractor. Ms. Dennis received letters with elaborate sexual fantasies, woven around personal facts provided by her in the questionnaire. This bill would have prevented the situation from ever occurring. This bill is really very simple. Some marketing companies may be unhappy that the Government is trying to legislate how they do business, but we have to weigh the safety and well-being of our children against the small inconvenience of requiring parental consent in these cases. Given the rapidly changing nature of the marketing business and the ways in which child molesters and other criminals operate, this bill is an important step in protecting our kids from those who would do them harm. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes $6.5 million for basic research in nuclear test monitoring. These funds ensure that the Department of Defense is able to support a comprehensive research and development program to improve nuclear test monitoring capabilities. The proliferation of nuclear weapons continues to be one of the most serious threats to our national security. This amendment underscores the need for the United States to maintain an effective capability in detecting and identifying clandestine nuclear tests. Only a sustained level of research involving the university community, in partnership with DOD and small companies, has been shown to be effective in developing and improving the monitoring of nuclear testing. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT] will present new monitoring challenges including the detection and identification of events of smaller and smaller magnitude; and the ability to discriminate industrial or other chemical explosions and earthquakes from nuclear explosions. In order to meet these challenges, it is critical that adequate resources be devoted to programs aimed at developing and sustaining the capabilities required to monitor a CTBT. Under the CTBT, all signatories are committed to permanently refrain from testing nuclear weapons. This treaty would help to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons by outlawing the tests which are so necessary for their development. It would help prevent additional countries from developing nuclear weapons, beyond the five declared nuclear weapons states--the United States, Russia, China, France, and Britain--and the three undeclared nuclear weapons states--Israel, India and Pakistan. The CTBT would facilitate the political conditions necessary to continue step-by-step reductions of nuclear weapons and, perhaps, their eventual elimination. The five nuclear weapons states are all finally on record supporting a CTBT. My amendment will ensure that there is adequate funding, $6.5 million, for basic research to improve technologies which enhance our ability to detect underground nuclear tests. I am pleased to offer this amendment and ask my colleagues for their support.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona. I want to compliment both Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for this effort. I intend to vote for cloture, and should cloture on this bill be successful, I will either propose a substitute of the whole or two second-degree amendments to this bill. I would like to take the time allotted to me this morning, Mr. President, to explain my position on campaign finance reform. I believe very strongly that the time has come to engage the debate. If nothing else, I believe I am kind of a walking, talking case for campaign spending reform. In the 1990 race for Governor, I had to raise about $23 million. In the first race for the Senate in 1992, $8 million; in the second race, $14 million. One newspaper just estimated that in the big States a candidate really has to raise about $2,000 a day just to run for reelection to the Senate of the United States. It certainly should not have to be this way. Essentially I agree with the basic tenets of the McCain-Feingold legislation. I agree that the time has come to try a system that would voluntarily cap campaign spending with a high of about $8.2 million in the big States like California, going down to $1.5 million in States with lesser population. I believe that efforts should be made to limit the amount of personal funds that can be used in a campaign. I believe that an effort to promote honesty in advertising and reducing the influence of connected PAC's in the outcome of elections is important. As always in an election year, we hear a lot of talk about Congress enacting meaningful campaign spending reform. But when it comes to actually doing something about it we tend to hide behind one procedural maneuver or another that allows us to vote the right way but gets us nowhere toward achieving a piece of legislation. In the last Congress a campaign finance bill passed both the Senate and the House but got bogged down because the necessary 60 votes to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed with a conference were not present in the Senate. I understand that this will likely be the problem here today. I hope we do get the 60 votes for cloture, and I hope that in the ensuing debate a solid campaign finance reform bill can emerge. Legislation I introduced last year and which, for the most part, forms the basis of McCain-Feingold, addresses what I believe are the areas most in need of reform: The limiting of spending; creating a level playing field between wealthy candidates who finance their own campaigns and candidates who rely on contributions; and finally ensuring honesty in campaign advertising. One of the problems where I have a very real difference with the present bill is on the issue of a candidate using vast sums of his or her own money to finance a campaign. Either the substitute bill, or a second-degree amendment which I will offer if we gain cloture on this bill, mirrors parts of the campaign finance bill introduced by Senator Dole in the last Congress. It also attempts to limit the ability of a wealthy candidate to buy a seat in Congress. The provisions of the amendment I would propose are a little different than anything that has been introduced before now. Under my substitute bill, after qualifying as a candidate for a primary, a candidate must declare if he or she intends to spend more than $250,000 of their own funds in the election. If the candidate says ``I am going to spend more than $250,000 of my own money in this election'' then the contribution limits on his or her opponent are raised from $1,000 to $2,000. If a candidate declares that he or she will spend more than $1 million on the race from their own pocket, then the contribution limit on his or her opponents would be raised to $5,000. This is different from McCain-Feingold where there is only the jump to $2,000. And the reason it is different is because in the larger States, if an individual is going to spend more than $1 million, as happened in my case where my opponent spent about $30 million of his own money, it is impossible to catch up with the smaller contributions. Therefore, raising the limit to $5,000 only in instances where in individual States they are going to spend more than $1 million of their own money would enable a more level playing field. The amendment I will propose would also address the issue of PAC's. As you know, McCain-Feingold would prohibit all PAC contributions whether or not these PAC's are connected PAC's; that is, connected to a business or a labor union or a nonconnected PAC. By that, I mean organizations that are developed let us say to promote women for public office, or let us say to support a cause in candidates who support that cause for public office. The law permitting nonconnected PAC's would remain unchanged in my amendment. As a fallback, if the ban on connected PAC's is found to be unconstitutional, it provides that contributions from connected PAC's be limited to 20 percent of a campaign's receipts. In my view, a blanket ban on all political action committees in a sense throws the baby out with the bath water. I think we need to be encouraging people to be involved in politics and not discouraging them. Virtually every legal scholar who has examined this question believes that a complete ban on all PAC's is unconstitutional. The Congressional Research Service has advised the Senate, and I quote: ``A complete ban on contributions and expenditures by connected and nonconnected PAC's appears to be unconstitutional in violation of the first amendment.'' I support the ability of a group or organization to encourage small donations from their members to candidates of their choice. In some cases, these members send their contributions made out directly to the candidate's campaign to that organization to be gathered or bundled and presented collectively to the candidate. In other cases, the organization simply asks for donations to be made directly to the candidates they recommend. This is not the same as writing a check to an intermediary or to a political action committee and then having the political action committee decide how to disburse the funds. The McCain-Feingold bill bans bundling in all political action committees. My amendment would not affect bundling, and I believe this is a crucial difference in these two bills. For example, there are two organizations which have helped women run for political office. One is EMILY's List, and one is WISH List. One is a Democratic organization and one is a Republican organization. Both of these groups collect smaller donations primarily from women. They bundle those funds from many sources to a single candidate. In the 1994 election cycle, EMILY's List members supported 55 women candidates. They raised a total of about $8.2 million. The average donation to EMILY's List was less than $100. WISH List, a much smaller and newer organization than its Democratic counterpart, supported 40 Republican women candidates and raised approximately $400,000. None of these funds were given directly to either of these groups and neither group used the funds to lobby on legislation before Congress. Both EMILY'S List and WISH List researched the records of women candidates and advised their members which candidates they recommended supporting. Based on that information, the members decided who to support and how much they wished to donate, and they donated directly to the candidates, sent their check to either WISH List or EMILY'S List who then put the checks together and sent them to the candidates. I believe that has been helpful in electing women to both Houses of this Congress. Currently, there are nine women in the Senate. When I came to this body, there were only two elected women. Groups like WISH List and EMILY'S List are an important factor in helping more women run for office. Frankly, I do not have a problem with any organization going out and endorsing candidates, writing to their members, and saying if you would like to contribute to these candidates, please go ahead and do so. I have no problem whether that group is the Christian Coalition, whether it is the National Rifle Association, whether it is EMILY'S List or WISH List. I think the encouragement of small contributions to candidates that support a cause that you believe in is important to the American political system. My separation from what Senators McCain and Feingold have done is that this bill wipes out all PAC's, connected and unconnected. I would ban connected PAC's but permit unconnected PAC's to continue their bundling efforts. The other difference I have would be in how you would voluntarily have the spending limits to create two different levels. If a wealthy candidate were to enter a race and say, I do not intend to adhere to the spending limits; I intend to spend $250,000 to $1 million of my own money, then your opponent's limit goes to $2,000. If the wealthy candidate says, I am going to spend more than $1 million, then the limit of the opponent goes to $5,000. I strongly support the $50 disclosure requirement. I strongly support the incentives that are built into this bill which would provide free radio time, special mailing to those who do comply with the voluntary spending limits. I believe this is an important bill. I am proud to vote for cloture. I hope that the Senators of this body would see some merit in either the two amendments I will offer as second-degree amendments or the substitute of the whole to do the two items that I mentioned. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Craig- Bingaman amendment, urging the renewal of our semiconductor agreement. The agreement has reduced trade friction and promotes private sector cooperation. It is essential that a new government-to-government agreement is negotiated with Japan before the current agreement is allowed to expire on July 31. The United States and Japan have a significant stake in trade harmony in this important economic sector. The current $100 billion world market for semiconductors is expected to grow to $300 billion by the year 2000. The semiconductor industry is the basis of our electronics industry and an increasingly pervasive part of our everyday life. This agreement, first signed in 1986, creates a regular framework for business and government leaders to meet and review trade issues and business trends. This framework has helped build smooth, steady growth in the industry, defused potential disputes, and promoted trade harmony, rather than the hostility that has characterized other trade sectors. As a replacement, the Japanese electronics industry proposes an industry-to-industry agreement with no government involvement. This industry agreement is unacceptable. It would take no action to ensure continued progress to increase foreign market share in Japan. Without an agreement, in a market downturn, United States producers could be cut out of segments of the Japanese market. A strong government oversight role is fundamental to enforcing the integrity of the semiconductor market under the agreement. The government-to-government semiconductor agreement must be renewed in order to provide for the gathering and publication of market share data and provide for the regular meetings of industry leaders to review market and industry issues. Market access in Japan is critical for the continued growth and strength of the United States semiconductor industry. The $39 billion Japanese semiconductor market is expected to grow to $57.1 billion by 1999. Each percentage point increase in United States market access in Japan represents hundreds of millions of dollars in increased sales and United States jobs. Representatives of the United States semiconductor industry recently met in Hawaii with their Japanese counterparts to try to reach agreement on future United States-Japan cooperation on semiconductor issues. During the meetings, the Japanese company executives submitted a confidential proposal to continue cooperation in semiconductors, but refused to discuss the role of the Government in ensuring the agreement. At the same time, the Japanese Government insisted it could not discuss the agreement with the United States Government unless and until an industry level agreement is reached. This rigid insistence appears deliberately designed to deadlock discussions until the current agreement expires in July. The United States industry--in close consultation with USTR--has decided that it cannot and will not continue to meet with Japanese company leaders under these circumstances, but will respond to proposals put forth by the Japanese companies. Mr. President, the purpose of the 1991 agreement, like the 1986 agreement which preceded it, is to allow foreign manufacturers equitable access to the Japanese semiconductor market. The agreement seeks to open the Japanese market to the point where sales generally occur without respect to the nationality of the supplier. The semiconductor agreement has been a tremendous success and must be continued. Under the agreement, the foreign share of the Japanese increased from 8.5 percent in 1985 to 25.4 percent in 1995. Of this 25- percent share, the U.S. firms have an 18-percent market share. The United States semiconductor manufacturers, many of them based in my State of California, make the best product in the world and are extremely competitive in all open markets across the full range of applications and products. However, United States manufacturers have been less successful in the Japanese market than in the neutral world markets outside of the United States and Japan. In neutral markets, American manufacturers represent 40 percent of all semiconductor sales last year. In Japan, United States semiconductor makers accounted for only 18 percent of 1995 sales, a gap consistent across the full range of semiconductor products and applications. By contrast, there is only a small difference between the 23-percent share Japanese firms have in the United States market and the 27- percent share they have in neutral markets. The disparity between United States sales outside and inside the Japanese market suggests semiconductor sales in that country are, unfortunately, still not always made solely on the basis of market forces such as technology, price, quality, service, and delivery. Current market conditions require the continuation of the United States-Japan agreement. Mr. President, the United States-Japan semiconductor agreement reduces trade friction and promotes private sector cooperation, rather than Government enforcement. For both countries, the extension would represent an opportunity to continue the current, mutually beneficial relationship and should not to be allowed to slip by. The Clinton administration deserves credit for endorsing renewal and raising this issue during bilateral meetings. However, the Japanese Government should understand very clearly that the desire to extend the agreement is shared by Congress as well. I am pleased to support the amendment. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.