Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, just to respond very briefly to the Senator from Massachusetts, the present act refers to this: Each order to show cause, or other notice in this subsection, shall be printed in English and Spanish and shall specify that the alien may be represented by an attorney in deportation proceedings, et cetera. All we are putting back in is the reference to English and Spanish. The real fact is that, if on the California border someone is going to get a deportation notice, it really should be in Spanish if one expects them to read it and understand it.

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

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Both these letters, Mr. President, make a strong case and, to me, a convincing case that the current $12 million proposal to construct a triple-fence barrier along the entire 14-mile stretch is not feasible, and would not accomplish the intended goals, and could pose safety risks for Border Patrol agents. The INS argues that some border areas are not suitable for multiple fences and are not sealed off by a single barrier because of the steep terrain. They made the case that it would be difficult if not impossible to erect a triple fence in these areas at below a cost of $110 million--far above the $12 million in this proposal. This, to me, is overly expensive and a waste of taxpayer money. The INS and Border Patrol argue that a triple fence running for 14\1/2\ miles would be dangerous and ineffective. Now, what this amendment does is present a sensible, cost-effective substitute for the triple fence concept. It has the strong support of the INS, the Border Patrol, and the National Border Patrol Council. Essentially, what the amendment would do is authorize $12 million for construction of a vitally needed all-weather road system along the border. It would allow for the low-light television system, more ground sensors and infrared night-vision equipment. It would also provide some flexibility with respect to the border fence itself. I am told that of the 14 mile area, the INS has located eight locations which it has said could be suitable for three-tier barriers that range in length from half a mile to 3 miles in length. That totals about 9\1/2\ miles. Once again, their top priority would be construction of an all-weather road system in this area. What this amendment does, bottom line, is say, ``INS, use your best judgment.'' There is $12 million authorized. Have flexibility. Be able to create your all-weather roads, the necessary infrastructure, and use the triple fencing where it is safe and makes sense to do so. I think that is the appropriate way, really, to handle this situation. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated April 16 from the Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, to the majority leader on this subject.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment concerns the proposal to build a triple-fence barrier on the Southwest border. Specifically, the amendment I am offering would strike section 108 and replace it with a provision allowing $12 million for the construction and expansion of physical barriers along the border with Mexico, which, in addition to fencing, includes all-weather roads, low-light television systems, lighting sensors, and other technology. I think we all know that the border represents the front line of deterrence for illegal entry into the country and that the current situation is inadequate. There is a 14-mile stretch of border that separates San Diego and Mexico, and it is patched with some single fencing that is in constant need of repair, has areas with no barriers at all, and roads that wash out and become impassable at the first sign of rain. The House-passed bill mandates the construction of three parallel fences along the existing 14 miles of reinforced steel fence on the United States-Mexico border in San Diego County. I voted for the triple-fence amendment in the Judiciary Committee because I believed we needed to remedy that situation. After the vote, though, I had a chance to meet with representatives from the Border Patrol and the INS. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Border Patrol signed by its president, stating: A three-tier fence would also create a crime zone within the boundaries of the United States where illegal immigrants would be easy prey for robbers, rapists, and other criminals. The accomplices of these criminals could easily prevent law enforcement officers from responding to these crimes by blocking access roads with nails, broken glass, other debris, [et cetera]. . . . The Border Patrol Council strongly recommends this bill be amended by replacing the requirement with a safer and more effective alternative.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Very short.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 100 years from now, I have no doubt that when historians look back, the remarkable rise of China as a world power will be considered one of the most important international events in the latter half of the 20th century. Even more than the tragic war in Bosnia, more than the fragile attempts at peace in the Middle East, more than the collapse of the Soviet Union, I believe that China's ascendance as a great power and its impact as such--and the content and quality of the United States relationship with China--will shape the direction of global history in the Pacific century. In recent months, Sino-American relations have reached perhaps their lowest level since President Nixon's historic trip to China in 1972. Our relationship has been plagued by tensions in nearly every area in which we interact--trade, nuclear nonproliferation, concerns about Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Tibet to name just a few. But most often the Sino-American relationship has been buffeted by clashing visions of human rights. And it is that which I wish to speak about today. Last month, the State Department issued its annual report on human rights which contained a highly critical section on China. Having read the report and the attendant media coverage that interpreted its contents, I wish to address what I perceive to be a number of grave misjudgments and, frankly, a double standard in American foreign policy when it comes to China. Let me begin with some examples of that double standard. The liberation of Kuwait following the Persian Gulf war is viewed as a triumph of freedom and a high point in recent American foreign policy. Yet, how many Americans are aware of the fact that upon their return the Kuwaitis expelled thousands of Palestinians and denied repatriation of thousands more who had fled during the war for their suspected--and I say suspected--support of Iraq. Before the war, there were over 400,000 Palestinians in Kuwait. Now there are 33,000, according to the Human Rights Watch/Middle East. What happened to them, and who cares? At times, it seemed that there was more attention in the American press given to the number of wives of certain members of the Kuwaiti royal family than of how many Palestinians were expelled in political reprisal. There has been, however, some media coverage and American criticism of Russia's brutal suppression of Chechnya's move toward independence. The Russian military decimated the city of Grozny with tremendous loss of life among civilians and the Chechnyan rebels alike. And the battle goes on today. Conservative estimates are that 30,000 people have been killed. Yet, our President just visited Russia, and our relations with Russia have never been better. The cover story in the April 22 Washington Post puts America's blind eye in perspective: ``Clinton, Yeltsin Gloss Over Chechen War.'' . . . [the two leaders] declared their admiration for each other and brushed off criticism of Russia's war against Chechen separatists. Our relationship with the former Soviet Union is of such unquestionable importance that, muted criticism aside, American support of the Russian President has never really been in question. So how can China's importance be any the less? Recent tragic events in Liberia, where an unknown number of people have been killed, is only the latest slaughter to emerge from that continent. Not long ago, the news media recounted the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Tutsi and Hutus in Rwanda, and the regime of Gen. Sani Abacha in Nigeria continues to suppress political dissent with lethal force. And yet, each of these countries enjoys the most- favored-nation trading status with the United States. Even some of our closest allies have deeply flawed human rights records. In Egypt, a legitimate effort to crack down on Islamic extremists has at times crossed the line into abuse, such as extended detention without charge, torture, and even summary executions. In Brazil police just 2 weeks ago killed 19 people who were protesting the slow pace of land reform. Turkey, a close NATO ally, has made considerable progress on human rights in recent years, but freedom of expression is still suppressed, torture is still widespread, and there have been numerous documented cases of the excessive use of force against the Kurds in recent years, about which we are all familiar. I do not mean to suggest that human rights should not occupy an important place in our Nation's foreign policy. In each of the cases cited above we have, rightly, protested to the governments involved and worked with them to improve their human rights records. The status of human rights in the countries I have just mentioned is or has been questionable, yet our relations with them do not fluctuate wildly based on human rights violations. We are able to recognize that the United States also has other important interests that must be taken into account, and we must constantly weigh these interests and values as we try to construct an effective foreign policy. No one, for example, would suggest that we cut off relations with Kuwait, Russia, Egypt, Brazil, or Turkey based solely upon their record of human rights abuses. The United States simply has too many security, diplomatic, economic and other interest at stake to contemplate such a course of action. And yet, that is exactly the case with what is probably our most important bilateral relationship in the world today. Fundamental to the instability in the relationship between the United States and China is the lack of any conceptual framework or long-term strategy on the part of the United States for dealing with China. Instead, U.S. policy has been reactive and event-driven, responding to whatever happens to be the current revelation--generally about human rights. Each time we lurch from crisis to crisis, we call into question our entire relationship with China. A whole host of events has contributed to the current deterioration in Sino-American relations, but it is important to recognize the role played by the media in this process. I recognize that the Chinese government does not treat the international press well. But virtually everything we read, hear or see in the American press about China is negative. Yes, there is much that happens in China that is worthy of scrutiny and criticism, but there is also much that is positive as well, and it is largely ignored. The real danger in this is Americans know so little about China. They know only what they read and, particularly since Tiananmen, most of it is negative. The most blatant example of this unbalanced reportage of China was evident when the State Department released its human rights report last month. I read the newspapers. The coverage of the section on China was 100 percent negative. Then I read the report itself, and I am deeply troubled by what can only be described as America's blind eye when it comes to China. Let me read you some of the press coverage following the release of the State Department's Human Rights report. China's economic reforms have failed to alter the government's pattern of systematic disregard for basic human rights, according to the State Department's annual report . . .--Washington Post (3/6/96). The State Department outlined Wednesday what it described as a nightmarish human rights situation in China. . .--Dallas Morning News (3/7/96). The U.S. report released Wednesday found Chinese authorities guilty of widespread and well-documented human rights abuses--San Francisco Examiner (3/7/96) China Dismal on Human Rights, U.S. Admits--Chicago Tribune (3/7/96). Reading these articles, one could only conclude that there have been virtually no changes or improvements on human rights in China in decades, save for a modest increase in the standard of living among some. But anyone who has any knowledge of China can see that in fact dramatic changes have taken place in that country over the course of the last 20 years, and that those changes, by their very nature, have opened the door to major improvements in human rights. Let me read you sections of the unbound version of the State Department's report supplied to the Foreign Relations Committee that were not widely reported on: On page 3 it notes that: In many respects, Chinese society continued to open up: greater disposable income, looser ideological controls, and freer access to outside sources of information have led to greater room for individual choice, more diversity in cultural life, and increased media reporting. On page 13 it says that: Economic liberalization is creating diverse employment opportunities and introducing market forces into the economy, thus loosening governmental monitoring and regulation of personal and family life, particularly in rural areas. On page 9 it notes that, ``Chinese legal scholars and lawyers acknowledge the need for legal reform,'' and notes that development toward a system of due process--the most fundamental guarantee for human rights is due process of law--a system of due process and other legal reforms are under way. For example, an experimental trial system tested in 1994 has now been approved for use in Shanghai and for most civil cases. The new system introduces an adversarial element into trials by giving attorneys more responsibility for presenting evidence and arguing facts. On page 5 it says: In December 1994, China enacted a new prison law designed, in part, to improve treatment of detainees and respect for their legal rights. Farther down on the same page it says: In February, the National People's Congress passed three new laws designed to professionalize judges, prosecutors, and policemen. On page 2: In October the Ministry of Justice promulgated implementing regulations for 1994 legislation that allows citizens to sue government agencies for malfeasance and to collect damages. Where do we see any of this reported? We do not. Page 3: The Government has also drafted a lawyers law that would clarify the nature of the attorney-client relationship, improve professional standards, separate most lawyers from state employment, and improve the ability of citizens to defend their legal interests. The report also cites some positive development in religious freedoms in China. On page 19, it says: After forcefully suppressing all religious observances and closing all seminaries during the 1966 to 1976 cultural revolution, the government began in the late 1970's to restore or replace damaged or confiscated churches, temples, mosques and monasteries and allowed seminaries to reopen. According to the government, there are now 68,000 religious sites in China and 48 religious colleges. The government has also adopted a policy of returning confiscated church property. Where is any of that reported? On page 17, the report cites the growth and development of two specific areas of a freer press: Despite official admonitions, China's lively tabloid sector continued to expand in 1995. Radio talk shows remained popular and, while generally avoiding politically sensitive subjects, they provided opportunities for citizens to air grievances about public issues. The report characterizes a nascent movement toward democracy in China on page 24: Direct election for basic level or village government is legally sanctioned for all China's 1 million villages. Foreign observers estimate that more than one-third of China's 900 million rural residents--which is three times the population of the United States--have already participated in elections for local leaders. . . Successful village elections have included campaigning, platforms and use of secret ballots. . . There were credible reports that candidates most favored by the authorities were defeated in some local, village elections. Where is this reported? And although the Chinese Government, like any government, is reluctant to accept criticism of its human rights record, on page 25, the report notes that: Since 1991, the government has promoted limited academic study and discussion of concepts of human rights. Research institutes in Shanghai and Beijing, including the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, has organized symposia on human rights, established human rights research centers, and visited other countries to study human rights practices in those nations. Some may view these changes as modest and limited in scope, and perhaps they may be, but one has only to look back 30 years to the Cultural Revolution to understand how enormous these changes truly are. We must understand these changes in context: China is a nation which has been ruled by man for 5,000 years, by emperors in the most despotic system, by the national government in the most despotic manner. Changing to the rule of law will not happen overnight or even in a decade, but it is happening. Thirty years ago--just 30 years ago--20 to 30 million people died during the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. Millions lost their jobs, their families and were falsely imprisoned. The human rights and political situation in China has changed dramatically for the better over the last 20 years. When I first went to China in 1979, shortly after the end of the Cultural Revolution, no one would talk freely. You could not have a political conversation. It was a totally centrally controlled government. Now all of that has changed. So change in a country as huge as this, as different as this, where the urban eastern cities are very different from the isolated western areas, does not happen overnight, and sometimes it is even difficult to evaluate it on a year-to-year basis. As I think recent history and this State Department report indicates, China is changing and Americans need to recognize this. They need to know it and they need to encourage China's continued modernization. I should note for those in this body who consider themselves to be friends of Taiwan, as I do also, that the Taiwan whose democracy we celebrate in 1996 was not so very long ago considered to be one of the most egregious violators of human rights, during which we kept all contact with Taiwan. Beginning on February 28, 1947, thousands of political dissidents were killed and imprisoned by the nationalist government on Taiwan in a matter of weeks--the infamous ``2-28 incident.'' In 1948, a state of emergency was declared allowing the President to rule by decree, and from 1950 to 1987, Taiwan was ruled by martial law. During this time, it is estimated that over 10,000 civilian cases were tried in military courts. Citizens were subjected to constant surveillance, individual rights and freedoms were compromised, and political opposition was silenced. To our credit, during this same period, the United States engaged Taiwan politically and economically, working to encourage the growth of democracy. Today, Taiwan is a democracy. To be sure, China has a long way to go, but China is growing so rapidly--with a 10-percent annual growth in gross domestic product. Today, China, as an export power, is where Japan was in 1980, the 11th largest exporter in the world, and it is growing much more rapidly than Japan was growing. To this end, the report also contains a number of constructive suggestions that I feel we should seek to develop as we encourage China to modernize. I believe we should work with the Chinese to develop national legislation governing organ donations, so as to bring to an end any question about current policies, but work with them, engage with them, discuss with them, counsel with them. We should encourage the Chinese to let the International Committee of the Red Cross monitor prisoners to assure that their rights, under these new Chinese laws just now going in place, are not being abused. We should encourage the Chinese to allow the establishment of truly independent Chinese nongovernmental organizations to monitor and discuss the human rights situation. I also add to this list the development of a legal system that guarantees an independent judiciary, due process of law, and new civil and criminal codes. This will do more in protecting and advancing human rights than any other single thing the United States can do, and the Chinese have asked for help in this regard. In releasing the report, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy and Human Rights, John Shattuck, stated at the press conference on March 6: There is no question that economic integration enhances human rights. As Secretary Shattuck also stated, isolating China will not enhance human rights--just the opposite. The continued improvement in the economic well-being of China's citizens is critical to the continued growth of human rights. And continued trade with the United States is critical for the continued development of China's economy. I do not mean to suggest that the free market by itself will improve human rights records. Assistant Secretary Shattuck once again was so right when he said--and I quote-- Economic growth is not in and of itself the ultimate sufficient condition for the full flowering of human rights. We must also pursue other forms of engagement with China. So it is in this context that I urge my colleagues to read in full the State Department's human rights report on China, but to do so not with a jaundiced eye and a focus only on those areas that still require improvement, but with a sense of appreciation for how far in 20 short years China has come, and with continued United States engagement, how much farther China can go in the next 20 years. That is our challenge today. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Schiffer, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 10 minutes on amendment 3740. I should like to take 5 minutes of that time and then have 5 minutes accorded to the Senator from Arizona.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to respond, if I might, to the argument raised by the Senator from Massachusetts. Using an Immigration and Naturalization Service document entitled ``Immigration and Backlog Reductions Under Current Law,'' and adding the three categories--spouses and children's space, spouses and children's change, an increase due to legalization through IRCA, here are the totals that we come up with: In fiscal year 1995, 206,000; in fiscal year 1996, 270,000; in fiscal year 1997, 370,000; in fiscal year 1998, 349,000. The highest year would be 1997, which leaves 110,000 even in 1997 to filter down through the categories. I ask that the chart entitled ``Immigration and Backlog Reductions Under Current Law''--these are assumptions, so I recognize that depending on the assumptions that one uses, you can get different figures. These are the ones that, again, are a little different from what Senator Kennedy is working on because they project this very large total at the bottom of 1 million in 1995, of 984,000 in 1996, of 600,000 in 1997. Those are the total numbers. So I think if these come in to be the case, even in the most difficult year, there is 110,000 that would filter down through the remaining categories.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I call up the amendment. The amendment is at the desk. The amendment is No. 3740.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will explain the amendment this way. Essentially, the amendment is a compromise between the Simpson amendment and what is in the bill as a product of the Abraham-Kennedy amendment. I believe we need to stop the pierceable cap, and my amendment would place a hard cap on family totals of 480,000, which is the current law, without the anticipated increase. It would stop the spillover from the unused employment visas, the loophole in the current system. And it would not close out the preference categories. Under my family amendment, parents and adult children are guaranteed to receive visas every year, remaining consistent with the goal of family reunification. The amendment allocates visa numbers on a sliding scale basis for parents and adult children of citizens, allowing for increases in visas when the numbers fall within the unlimited immediate family category, always remaining within the hard cap of 480,000. It would allow a backlog clearance of spouse and minor children of permanent residents by allowing 75 percent of any visas left over within the family total to be allocated for this category's backlog clearance. Now, to control chain migration, which Commissioner Doris Meissner told me is created by the Sibling of Citizens category, it places a moratorium on that category for 5 years, but if there are any visas left over with the hard cap of 480,000, the amendment would allow 25 percent of the leftover to be used for the backlog clearance of siblings, those who have been waiting for many, many years. The point of this is that if we do not address this issue, the numbers swell 41 percent over what we were indicated they would be in committee to nearly a million. This creates the hard total of 480,000. It permits the sliding scale down the family preference, and it eliminates what is the chain migration concern that had been raised by many in committee. I believe it is a modest amendment to control overall numbers. Coming from the State with the largest numbers, with the absence of classes for youngsters, with the cutbacks in welfare money, with the absence of adequate housing for people, we cannot keep taking 40 percent of the Nation's total of legal immigrants, of refugees, of asylees, and therefore I think this is a prudent, modest, fair compromise. So, again, we would place a hard cap at the current law level, 480,000. We would close a loophole where unused employment visas spill over into the family immigration numbers, and we would guarantee that close family members of citizens get visas each year with flexible limits allowing an increase in the allocation of visas with decreases in the immediate family categories. I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time would we have?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I might send a substitute amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Boxer and myself.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I hope by the tenor of this debate this morning that further amendments are not being closed out. I would be very upset and very concerned if they are, coming from a State that handles 40 percent of the immigration load, whether it be illegal or legal, in the United States and 40 to 50 percent of the refugees and 40 to 50 percent of the asylees in the United States of America. It would seem to me that the voices of the two Senators from California and amendments that they might produce in this area are worthy of consideration by this body. If I judge the tenor of the debate, it will be to close out other amendments, and I very much hope and wish that that will not be the case. In any event, I am going to take this time now to explain what I have in mind and to explain that I would like to send a compromise amendment to the desk. This compromise amendment is between the Kennedy proposal and the Simpson proposal. The debate has been changed. I appreciate what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said, that this debate is not about legal immigration. But the fact of the matter is that we have received in committee incorrect numbers on legal immigration, and those numbers are so dramatically different from the fact of what is actually happening, we learned from the press, that it does, by its own weight, changes the debate. When we hear in committee--and I serve on the Judiciary Committee and on the Immigration Subcommittee--that legal immigration numbers have been going down and will continue to go down--and that has been the testimony--and then yesterday I read press that says, ``Immigration Numbers to Surge,'' and from one of the most distinguished journalists, Marcus Stern of the San Diego Union Tribune: ``Border Surprise, Outcry Greets INS Projection of Soaring Legal Immigration,'' and when the Department's own numbers indicate that immigration in fiscal year 1995 was 1.1 million and in fiscal year 1996 will be very close to that 1 million mark, what we thought we were dealing with in the vicinity of 500,000 or 600,000 is clearly not the reality. Now, reports are one thing, numbers are another. Numbers affect classroom size, they affect housing markets in States that have major impact from legal immigration. California is on a tier of its own in this regard. So I am very hopeful that this body will not make it impossible for the Senators from California to put forward a compromise proposal. I am having copies of that proposal at this time placed on the desk of every Member of this House. Essentially, what the proposal would do is control increases in total family numbers and control chain migration. We would allow reasonable limits in family immigration totals for the next 5 years by placing a hard cap at the current law total of 480,000, without completely closing out adult-children-of-citizen categories and providing for the clearance of backlogs without creating chain migration. Every Member will shortly have a chart which will show the difference between the Feinstein proposal with the hard cap of 480,000 and the Simpson amendment with a hard cap of 480,000 and no backlog reduction. Also distributed to you will be a chart which will show current law. We now know that although current law is 480,000, it is going to be close to 1 million. The Kennedy proposal of 450,000, which is in the bill, with increases in the immediate family with an anticipated additional increase of 150,000--the Kennedy proposal numbers will be close to 1 million. It will be a major increase in legal immigration, if one is to believe the figures that INS has just put out. We will also distribute to each Member the new figures of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Under current law, INS projected 1,100,000 family immigration last year; and what they say will be in fiscal year 1996, is 934,000, similar to the figures under the Kennedy proposal which is now in the bill. I voted for the Kennedy proposal in committee. I did so with the assurance that the numbers were not going to be increased. The first time I knew that was not the case was when I saw a New York Times article saying that in fact these numbers swelled legal immigration totals. And then of course yesterday we saw that the numbers were off as given to us by INS by 41 percent. Current law has increased the numbers, due to the naturalization of 2.5 million people whom are legalized under IRCA. The spouse and minor children of citizens is going to increase for the next 4 years, increasing an anticipated average of between 300,000 and 370,000 or more per year for the next 4 years. I would suspect that even these numbers are going to be higher. Under current law the spouse and minor children of citizens are unlimited. The family total of 480,000 is a pierceable cap, which means the additional increases in this category due to IRCA legalization, pierces the cap and increases family immigration numbers over the 964,000 in fiscal year 1996. So that number, even the projected numbers, are going to be low. Also under current law, another source of increase in family numbers is the spillover from unused visas in the employment base category. In fiscal year 1995, 140,000 visas were available and only 85,000 were used. This means 55,000 spilled over to the family category. What my compromise amendment does, what the Feinstein amendment would do, is stop the pierceable cap, place a hard cap on the 480,000 that are theoretically allowable today. That is the current law, but without the anticipated increases, because the hard cap would stop that. It would also stop the spillover from the unused employment visas, the loophole in the current system that no one talks about. Fairness, I believe, dictates that we do not close out the preference categories. Let me tell you why. I think Senator Abraham and others, Senator Feingold, understands this. Under our present system, if you close out the family preferences, there is no other way for these members of families to come to this country--no other way--not in the diversity quotas, no other way. So if you close them out, you foreclose their chances of ever coming to this country. And they are on a long waiting list now. So I think the fair way to do it is to place a hard cap on the numbers and then allocate numbers within each of the preference categories. So I do that. I do not close out the preference categories. I would have parents and adult children guaranteed to receive visas every year, remaining consistent with the goal of family reunification. I would allocate visa numbers on a sliding scale basis for parents and adult children of citizens, allowing for increases in visas when the numbers fall within the unlimited immediate family category. However, they must always remain within that 480,000 hard cap. I would allow the backlog clearance of spouses, minor children of permanent residents by allowing 75 percent, with any visas left over within the family total to be allocated to this category's backlog clearance. I would also control chain migration, where one person ends up bringing in 45 or 40 other people, often not blood relatives. Commissioner Doris Meissner has told me that what permits chain migration is the siblings of the citizen category. I would place a moratorium for the next 5 years on this category. However, if there are any visas left over within the hard cap of 480,000 our family amendment allows 25 percent of the leftover to be used for backlog clearance of siblings, those who have been waiting for many years. The problem with the Simpson amendment is that in its operation it would provide no visas for adult children of citizens. It would provide no guarantee of visas for children of citizens. All the numbers left over from Simpson's hard cap family numbers go to spouses and minor children of permanent residents, where the 1.1 million backlog remains. This means no one else who has been waiting to reunite with their children will be able to do so in the next 5 years. The Simpson amendment provides no backlog reduction plan. The amendment is a simple, straight spillover, giving preference to permanent residents over U.S. citizens' families. The problem with the Abraham-Kennedy provision, which is currently in the bill, is that there is no cap on the numbers. With an anticipated 2.5 million IRCA legalized aliens expected to naturalize in the next 5 years, the unlimited family numbers would result in a family immigration total of 1 million a year. Recognize, 500,000 of these people are going to go to California a year. We do not have enough room in our schools. We have elementary schools with 2,500, 3,000 students in them, in critical areas where these legal immigrants go. There is no available housing. There is a shortage of jobs. So why would we do this, if the numbers are swollen 41 percent over what we were told when we considered this bill in committee? The Kennedy-Abraham amendment also has a spillover provision from unused employment-based immigration visas. The current limit is 140,000. The actual use in 1995 was only 85,000, which means in addition to the increasing numbers in family immigration, there would be an additional 55,000 visas totaling up to 1 million in family immigration in 1996. Third, the Kennedy-Abraham amendment increase chain migration by guaranteeing 50,000 visas for siblings of citizens in the next 5 years, which increases to 75,000 per year for the subsequent 5 years. INS Commissioner Doris Meissner has confirmed that the chain migration comes from the siblings category. Under Kennedy-Abraham, the bill would allocate 50,000 to 75,000 for siblings, more numbers in certain years than current law which allows 65,000 per year. I believe that the Feinstein amendment is a reasoned balance between Simpson and the Abraham-Kennedy provision. It places a hard cap on the current level of 480,000 family total per year. It closes the loophole where the unused employment-based visas spills over to the family immigration numbers. Third, it guarantees that close family members of citizens get visas each year with flexible limits, allowing increases in allocation of visas with decreases in the immediate family categories, which INS anticipates will flatten out in about 5 years. The Feinstein amendment is about fair allocation of scarce visa numbers to protect reunification of close family members of citizens, while controlling the daunting increases in family immigration due to the increase in naturalization rates for the next 5 years. Every member, Mr. President, has three pages. The first page would have current law, Feinstein and Kennedy; the second page, Feinstein and Simpson in the numbers in each of the categories. I can only plead with the chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee to please give me an opportunity to send this amendment to the desk so that the Senators, at least of the largest State in the Union affected the most by immigration, would have an opportunity to vote on it. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, having been in this body for 3 years, one thing has become a truism for me with respect to a balanced budget. If it is a Republican plan, the Democrats are going to oppose it. If it is a Democratic plan, the Republicans will oppose it. We have traveled various roads to get there over the last year, but we have stumbled in our efforts to make some very difficult choices and there will be a heavy price to pay for these mistakes. But the ultimate price will be paid by the American people--our children and grandchildren--if we do not put our economic house in order. Therefore, it seems to me that, if we believe what the distinguished Senator from North Dakota just pointed out--and I do--that for the sake of our future and our children's future, we must act and act now. If we fail to take this opportunity to change the unsustainable present course, the next generation will face either an 82-percent tax rate or we will be cutting benefits by 33 percent across the board. What is clear to me is that the only way to solve the problem is in a bipartisan way. Therefore, I, too, want to salute the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Louisiana for their leadership because without it you would not have a document to which 11 Republicans and 11 Democrats now subscribe. The U.S. Government has not balanced its budget since 1969. Since then, the Federal debt has risen to $5 trillion. Interest on the debt alone is over $260 billion a year. By one measure, all the personal income tax paid by people living West of the Mississippi wouldn't even pay the interest on the debt. Today, the two fastest growing parts of the budget are: First, entitlements, such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and Federal retirement programs, and second, interest on the debt. I think all one has to do is take a look at expenditures of the Federal Government. In 1969, entitlements were 27 percent of the budget. In 1995, entitlements were almost 52 percent of the budget. Therefore, in the future, entitlements by the year 2003 and net interest on the debt alone will total more than 70 percent of the outlays. Discretionary spending--the budgets for the Department of Justice, NASA, Veterans' Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, to name just a few--has shrunk from 21.3 percent of the budget in 1969 to 18.2 percent in 1995, and we are continuing to cut. Our discretionary spending has been brought under control, but entitlement spending has not. What these charts tell you, is that, if we don't reign in the cost of entitlement programs, we could not cut enough discretionary spending to balance the budget. Even if we eliminated the entire Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and NASA--we couldn't balance the budget without cutting entitlements. So this is the problem we have been trying to solve. And it's not academic--the budget deficit is a problem that affects people. Increases in the Federal deficit mean higher interest rates. It means buying, or refinancing a home costs more. It means borrowing money for business, school or a new car is more expensive. It saps the private sector's ability to borrow funds in order to grow and create jobs and when businesses can't borrow money to modernize or expand productivity--the economy and employment suffer. Small businesses, who don't sell stock to raise money and may have to borrow to fuel growth, are the ones who suffer the most. The Centrist Coalition proposal balances the budget from the middle, drawing from Republicans and Democrats alike. The Centrist plan provides targeted tax cuts of $130 billion--not as much as the Republicans wanted, but more than the administration offered--aimed at helping families, such as a ``KidSave'' a child tax credit coupled with an IRA, other IRA reforms, and tax breaks for education. It includes tax provisions to encourage economic growth, like capital gains reform for businesses and individuals, and the extension of the R&D tax credit. It provides an estimated $154 billion in savings from Medicare-- again, not the steep cuts in the Republican proposal, but farther than the Administration was willing to go. It saves an estimated $62 billion in Medicaid, and $54 billion in welfare spending--providing more latitude for States to further our goals of reform, but retaining Medicaid as the health insurance safety net for elderly, the disabled, AIDS patients and low-income Americans. The Centrist plan maintains Federal quality standards and enforcement mechanisms in nursing home care, such as required staff-to-patient ratios and commitments for patient privacy. Balancing the budget is an exercise in setting priorities. This plan may not have everything I want. It includes some things I do not support. However, this plan achieves our goal of balancing the budget in 7 years, and represents a strong, bipartisan effort to do what s right--reigning in spending, protecting our most vulnerable citizens, and investing in our future. This is a fair and good plan. I am very pleased to support it. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe I had the floor, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators, Hatch, Kerry, Harkin, Reid, and D'Amato to introduce the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1996--legislation that makes the Federal Government a more active partner in the war against violent and deadly organized gangs. Mr. President, today's gangs are not the bands of loosely organized street kids glamorized in West Side Story. Today's gangs are very different. Consider this: Just last week, the U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco made arrests in a major alien smuggling operation run by organized gangs based in New York and San Francisco. Operation Sea Dragon netted 23 people in connection with a large-scale plan to smuggle two boatloads of more than 270 aliens from China into the United States in 1993. According to the U.S. attorney's office, a number of powerful New York-based gangs, including the White Tigers, Fuk Ching, and the Broom Street Boys joined forces with two bay area gangs to off load the smuggled aliens. A San Francisco-based Vietnamese gang was responsible for furnishing the fishing boats to ferry the smuggled aliens ashore, where a Chinese gang out of Oakland had provided land transportation and drop houses to facilitate the aliens travel to New York. Presumably, once in New York, these illegal aliens were to live in indentured servitude while they paid off the up to $30,000 in crossing debts that the gangs typically charge each passenger. Alien smuggling is a very lucrative international business--law enforcement estimates it brings in $3 billion a year for smugglers. But alien smuggling is just one example of the kinds of dangerous criminal activities modern gangs are engaged in. Today's gangs are organized and sophisticated traveling crime syndicates--much like the Mafia--that regularly cross State lines to recruit new members, traffick in drugs, weapons, and illegal aliens, and steal and murder. In just one city, Los Angeles, nearly 7,300 of its citizens were murdered in the last 16 years from gang warfare. This is more people than have been killed in all the terrorist fighting in northern Ireland. Gangs were responsible for: 43 percent of all homicides in Los Angeles in 1994; 41 percent of homicides in Omaha, Nebraska in 1995; and more than half of all violent crimes in Buffalo, NY, in 1994. In Phoenix, AZ, gang-related homicides jumped 800 percent between 1990 and 1994; and In Wichita, KS, drive-by shootings jumped from 8 in 1991 to 267 in 1993--a 3000-percent increase in just 2 years. This in a small city of 300,000. These are just a few examples of the alarming rise in gang violence gripping our streets. We are becoming numb to the violence. In Los Angeles in February, City Councilwoman Laura Chick, chair of the LA Public Safety Committee, received a faxed report that six people had been murdered over the weekend in LA--and it was not even reported in the press. Criminal gangs are now engaged in million dollar heists, home and business invasions, major narcotics and weapons trafficking, and yes, illegal alien smuggling. And they are crossing State lines to establish criminal operations in other States looking for untapped markets. Sgt. Jerry Flowers with the gang crime unit in Oklahoma City captured the migration instinct of these gangs when he said: ``the gang leaders realized that the same ounce of crack cocaine they sold for $300 in Los Angeles was worth nearly $2,000 in Oklahoma City''. BLOODS and CRIPS The Bloods and the Crips, gangs that originated in Los Angeles in the late 1960's, are the Nation's two largest street gangs. And they are expanding. Local police and the FBI have traced factions of these gangs to more than 119 cities in the West and Midwest with more than 60,000 members. According to the FBI, narcotics trafficking is their principle source of income. gangster disciples The Gangster Disciples, according to local authorities, is a Chicago- based 30,000 member multimillion dollar gang operation spanning 35 States. They traffic in narcotics and weapons, and are said to operate much like a ``Fortune 500 Company'' with two boards of directors--one in prison and one outside--a layer of Governors and regents, a tax collector and some 6,000 salespersons. Their income is estimated at $300,000 daily. russian crime gangs Russian organized crime activity in the United States has been expanding for the past 20 years, but its most significant growth has occurred during the past 5 years. Twenty-nine States now report activities by Russian crime groups. FBI Director Louis Freeh stated that more than 200 of Russia's 6,000 crime gangs operate with American counterparts in the United States. Russian gangs tend to be more loosely organized than other gangs, but they have formed networks that operate and shift alliances to meet particular needs. The California Attorney General indicates that the most common criminal activities by Russian organized crime gangs are fraud schemes involving fuel tax, insurance, and credit card fraud. But they also engage in more common organized crime activities-extortion, loan sharking, drug trafficking, auto theft, and prostitution. asian gangs The Department of Justice indicates that, among ethnic gangs, Jamaican and Asian gangs are considered by many law enforcement officials to pose the largest threat. Asian gangs have been identified as major threats in more than 17 cities. In Los Angeles alone there are more than 100 Asian gangs with 10,000 members. Illegal activities include: alien smuggling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, home invasion robberies, high-technology heists, and firearms trafficking. Vietnamese gangs, in particular, have become a serious threat in many cities. They tend to be very violent, are more sophisticated organizationally, and have specialized in stealing multimillion dollar quantities of computer chips. At least 400 Silicon Valley businesses that deal in computer chips have been hit in the last year and a half, losing tens of millions of dollars. Computer firms lose as much as $1 million a week in thefts. current laws not enough Mr. President, Federal laws now on the books were designed to fight one type of organized crime--the Mafia. And I believe today's laws just are not enough to take on these modern gangs. For the past 7 months, my staff has met with prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and community leaders to search for solutions to the problem of gang violence. The legislation I am introducing today, The Federal Gang Violence Act of 1996, is the result of our work. This legislation strengthens Federal law by attacking gang violence on three fronts: It doubles the sentence for any member of an organized criminal gang who commits a Federal crime; Expands the scope of gang-related criminal acts to include such activities as carjacking and drive-by shootings, and significantly increases penalties for those crimes; and Checks the growth of gangs by making the recruitment of minors into criminal gangs a Federal offense with stiff penalties. Specifically, this legislation: First, doubles the actual sentence for any member of an organized criminal street gang who commits a Federal crime. Current Federal law increases the penalties for organizers, leaders, managers, and supervisors of criminal activity--including gang leaders--who commit a federal crime. However, members of known criminal street gangs currently are not subjected to higher penalties when a Federal crime is committed. Many prosecutors and law enforcement leaders indicate that gang members--in addition to the leaders and supervisors of gangs--should see their penalties increased to provide a stronger deterrent for children to stay away from gangs. This legislation amends the sentencing guidelines so that individual gang members convicted of felonies would have their sentencing level approximately doubled. For example: Now if a first-time offender who is a member of a gang is convicted of gun trafficking, he would get a minimum of 4\3/4\-6 years in jail. Under this legislation, the sentence would be increased to 9-11\1/4\ years. Second, expands the definition of criminal street gangs in Federal law to better reflect modern-day gang activity. The bill broadens the definition of criminal street gang activity in title 18 of the Criminal Code to include many types of State crimes, such as drive-by shootings, rape, torture, carjacking, kidnaping, and assault with a deadly weapon. This legislation also lowers the number of participants--from five members to three members--required to meet the definition of a gang. Third, doubles penalties for interstate, gang-related crimes and expands the Travel Act to respond more effectively to the growing problem of highly sophisticated, mobile, and organized street gangs. The Travel Act was originally written in 1961 with Mafia-style activity in mind. While the Travel Act as it is now written allows prosecutors to target some gang activities--such as drug trafficking--the list is not complete. Law enforcement leaders and prosecutors have indicated that the act needs to be modernized to better reflect current crimes by gang members. Under this legislation, the list of unlawful activities in the Travel Act will be expanded to include the following crimes: Drive-by shooting; robbery; burglary; assault with a deadly weapon; intimidation of witnesses, victims, jurors, or informants; assault resulting in bodily injury; possession and/or trafficking of stolen property; alien smuggling; firearms trafficking; kidnaping; and insurance fraud. In addition, under this legislation, the maximum penalties are doubled from 5 to 10 years for those who violate these provisions without intending to commit violent crimes themselves. A conspiracy provision is also added to this statute to make it easier to prosecute all the gang members who help to commit these crimes. This act also doubles the base offense levels under the sentencing guidelines for: Traveling in interstate or foreign commerce in aid of a street gang, from 6 to 12, which increases the base sentencing range from a low of zero to 6 months and a high of 12 to 18 months, to a new low of 10 to 16 months and a new high of 30 to 37 months; and committing violent crimes in aid of street gang or racketeering activity from 12 to 24, which increases the base sentencing range from a low of 10 to 16 months and a high of 30 to 37 months, to a new low of 51 to 63 months and a new high of 100 to 125 months. Fourth, solicitation or recruitment of persons into gang activity: Current Federal law contains no penalty for recruiting minors to participate in gang activity. Law enforcement officials indicate that sophisticated organized crime syndicates will recruit minors to do the dirty work so that the organizers of the criminal activity cannot be convicted of a crime. This legislation makes the recruitment or solicitation of persons to participate in gang activity subject to a 1-year minimum and 10-year maximum penalty, or a fine of up to $250,000. If a minor is recruited or solicited, the minimum penalty is increased to 4 years. In addition, the person convicted of this crime would have to pay the costs of housing, maintaining and treating the juvenile until the juvenile reaches the age of 18 years. Fifth, this bill makes the use of a minor in the commission of a Federal crime a RICO predicate. Identifying an organization dedicated to criminal activity in accordance with the RICO Statute results in asset forfeiture and a maximum of 20 years in prison. Sixth, transfer of firearms to minors for use in crime. It is now a crime under Federal law to knowingly transfer a firearm to be used to commit a violent crime or a drug trafficking crime. This legislation adds a mandatory minimum penalty of 3 years imprisonment if the gun to be used in crime is transferred to a minor. Seventh, this legislation increases penalties for transferring handguns to minors. The Youth Handgun Safety Act, passed by Congress as part of the 1994 crime bill, does not contain sufficient penalties against juveniles who possess handguns. In fact, one provision of the current Youth Handgun Safety Act requires only mandatory probation for a first-time juvenile offender who possesses a handgun. Such a weak penalty has meant few prosecutors would utilize the Youth Handgun Safety Act to target gang members. In addition, current law sets different penalties for juveniles and adults who transfer a weapon to a minor. The Federal Gang Violence Act toughens the penalties against juveniles and adults who transfer a firearm to a minor--and subjects juveniles and adults to the same penalties for violating this law. This legislation changes the Youth Handgun Safety Act by: Setting a 1-year minimum sentence for anyone--adult or juvenile--who provides a minor with a handgun. Holding juveniles accountable when they unlawfully give another minor a firearm by applying the same 5-year maximum sentence now given to adults. Setting a 1-year minimum sentence and applying the same 10-year maximum sentence to adults and juveniles who give a firearm to a minor and should have known the gun would be used in a crime of violence. Currently, the 10-year maximum sentence only applies to adults. Juveniles under 13 years old, however, would not be subject to these mandatory minimum sentences. Eighth, the James Guelff Body Armor Act: Many police officers around the country are confronting heavily armed gang members who are wearing bullet-proof vests. This legislation makes it a separate crime to wear body armor in the commission of a Federal offense, which would be punished by automatically adding 2 years to the sentence for the original crime. Ninth, serious juvenile drug offenses as Armed Career Criminal Act predicates: The Armed Career Criminal Act provides that if a person has three or more prior convictions for certain crimes--is a career criminal--and he possesses, ships, transports, or receives a gun or ammunition, is armed, he will be subject to a mandatory minimum 15-year penalty and fine of up to $25,000. Serious drug offenses are already in the list of crimes which count toward the three-conviction minimum; this bill would allow juvenile convictions for serious drug offenses to also count toward that three- conviction minimum. This would not apply to nickel-and-dime possession offenses, but to drug dealing which is punishable by ten or more years in prison. Tenth, expands the time limit for bringing juvenile proceedings to trial. Presently, a 30-day time limit exists. With crimes being committed by juveniles becoming increasingly violent and complex, prosecutors need additional time to adequately develop cases. This legislation increases the time limit to 70 days. Eleventh, adds firearms violations, such as trafficking, to the list of crimes that can be attacked by prosecutors under RICO. Currently, firearms violations are not RICO predicate acts. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials indicate an increasing use of firearms by criminal street gangs to commit home robberies, business invasions, and attacks on rival gangs. Since most of the firearms have moved in interstate commerce--and because firearms are such an integral part of the gang's activity--law enforcement officials have suggested that firearms violations become predicate acts under RICO. Twelfth, this legislation promotes the use of State Department linguists to assist in translating and monitoring wiretaps in gang investigations. Federal law enforcement and courts report that they are experiencing difficulty and high costs in locating and employing certified translators for Southeastern Asian languages and Chinese dialects used by some gangs. Thirteenth, this legislation provides $100 million over the next 5 years for hiring additional Federal prosecutors to prosecute violent youth gangs. Mr. President, the legislation I have laid out for you today is a starting point, and I think it is long overdue. I know there is no silver bullet to cure our Nation of the ills wrought by street gangs. But this legislation takes an important step forward by adding the Federal Government's weight to what has thus far been largely State and local war on gangs by significantly strengthening the Federal laws that deal with gang crime. It is my belief that the only real long-term solution lies in combining forces at the Federal, State, and local level. And I am pleased to say that thus far, this legislation has received nearly 80 endorsements from local California law enforcement, including Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block, and Police Chiefs in Fresno, Oakland, and Sacramento. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I welcome their input as this bill moves forward.