Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, before I was interrupted, the point I was trying to make is that no matter how well intended an employer is, it is extraordinarily difficult to tell the difference between real documents and counterfeit documents, and that is what enables illegal immigrants to obtain welfare. They are ineligible for cash welfare programs under Federal law now. However, if they have false documents, they can obtain the very things that they are prohibited from obtaining--whether it is Social Security, whether it is SSI, or whether it is AFDC. An entire industry of counterfeit documents has grown up in California. The most frequently counterfeited document is a birth certificate. You can pay anything from $25 for a Social Security card to $1,000 or more for a passport, as well as personal identification documents. These documents are so authentic-looking that employers cannot tell the difference. In fact, it is estimated that tens of thousands of illegal immigrants today receive welfare benefits in California by using counterfeit documents. This bill makes a major effort to reduce this problem. It reduces the number of acceptable employment verification documents from the current 29 to 6 so that employers are better able to determine which documents are valid. Employers will only have to review 6, not 29. Also, the bill doubles the maximum penalties against employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, increasing them from $2,000 to $4,000 for a first offense with graduated penalties for subsequent offenses. Therefore, the bill adds substantial teeth to the employer-sanction laws. It establishes a pilot program to test the verification system under so that employers can readily and accurately determine an applicant's eligibility to work. The system could also be used to determine an applicant's eligibility for public benefits, therefore, avoiding welfare fraud. It also attacks the serious problem of document fraud by setting Federal standards for making key identification documents, birth certificates, and drivers' licenses tamperproof and counterfeit resistant. The result is that the most counterfeited document, a birth certificate, would be counterfeitproof, as would drivers' licenses. The bill before us would increase the criminal penalties for document fraud, including raising the maximum fine for fraudulent use of the Government's seal to $500,000, and increasing the fine for lying on immigration documents to $250,000 and 5 years in prison. The bill also denies the earned-income tax credit to persons here illegally. You might say, is this a strong, tough bill? I would have to say, yes. It is a strong, tough bill. Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan and the immigration commission which she chaired said this eloquently. ``We are a Nation of laws.'' We are also a Nation that has the most liberal immigration quotas in the world today. No country absorbs more foreign-born people than does the United States of America in the course of a year. So there is more opportunity for an individual to come to the United States than virtually any other place on Earth. Therefore, because we are a Nation of laws and because we have a liberal immigration system, it is not unjust, unfair, or unwise to require that we follow our laws and make sure that we enforce the prohibition against illegal entry into our country. The largest source of illegal immigration, next to visa overstays, comes from people who slip across our borders. That is what this bill addresses. The bill also addresses visa overstays. As many as 700,000 people a year overstay their visas. This bill would require that immigrants who overstay their visas either be deported or be denied future visas. So there is some visa enforcement in this legislation. The need for the legislation has been and will be explained at length over the course of this debate. From the point of view of my State, the problem of illegal immigration is severe. Forty-five percent of the Nation's illegal immigrants now reside in California. That is between 1.6 million and 2.3 million, as I mentioned earlier. Fifteen percent of illegal aliens are in our State prisons. Forty-five percent, or 150,000, of all pending asylum applications come from people in California, and 35 percent, or 40,000, of the 113,000 refugees entering the U.S. claimed residency in California in 1993. Our county governments are being forced to absorb more and more of the costs of medical care, social services, and incarceration for illegal immigrants, and those costs are going up--not down. In the 1996-1997 fiscal year, California will spend $454 million in incarceration costs for criminal aliens. So it is fair to say that the State most affected by this bill is the State of California. This U.S. Senator strongly supports this legislation. The need is very clear. Mr. President, at a later time, I would like to complete this statement, and also at the appropriate time to present a series of amendments that deal with certain unresolved issues. I have some major concerns about the triple fence in the bill, about the fact that cases brought under the bill be tried in Federal court rather than in State court, and that the deportation documents be written in Spanish as well as in English. I hope I can offer these amendments at a later time. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I join with those in thanking the distinguished chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Wyoming, for what is extraordinarily thankless on a subject that perhaps has more controversy than almost any other I have seen since I have been in the U.S. Senate. I will give my views on the bill that is now before us, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996. I come, obviously, along with my colleague, Senator Boxer, from the State most heavily impacted by illegal immigration in the Nation. The presentation of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Judiciary Committee showed that California is on a tier all by itself. The estimates on numbers vary, but they go anywhere from 1.6 million to 2 million, 3 million, and even 4 million people in our State illegally, depending upon whom one chooses to believe. Most authorities agree that the right number is in the vicinity of 2 million people in California illegally right now. One concern is overriding--that illegal immigration is a serious problem. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, not the States, to prevent it. Californians went to the ballot and overwhelmingly approved the most stringent of propositions, proposition 187. One part of proposition 187 provided that if a youngster is in this country illegally, he or she could not go to a public school. A teacher would have to act as an INS agent and ferret out that youngster and remove him or her from school. Even more strongly, the people said that if the parents are here illegally, that youngster would still be denied the right to a basic elementary school education. The people of California overwhelmingly approved it. I believe one of the reasons they did was out of frustration, because the Federal Government has not responded to what is an increasing and growing problem. The bill before us today tackles illegal immigration at the border, mainly by adding strength to our Border Patrol and border facilities. In the past 3 years, the administration and the Congress, both Houses and both parties, have come together, recognizing the need and beginning to improve border infrastructure, such as lights and infrared-seeing devices, and manpower. And the Border Patrol has, for 3 years in a row, had additions of about 700 agents a year. This legislation would add an additional 700 Border Patrol agents in the current fiscal year, and 1,000 more for the next 4 years, bringing the total number of agents to 4,700 by the year 1999. That is more than double the entire force that was in place when I came to the U.S. Senate 3 years ago. It would establish a 2-year pilot program for interior repatriation. The reason for that is, people come across, they are picked up, they are held for an hour, they are sent back right across the border to Tijuana. Three hours later, they try again, the same thing happens, and they try again and again. The pilot project would try to determine whether people who are repatriated into the interior of the country are less inclined or less able to cross that border again illegally than those not repatriated to the interior of the country. The bill would add 300 full-time INS investigators for the next 3 fiscal years to enforce laws against alien smuggling, something that, today in America, is a $3 billion industry. As a matter of fact, last week, the Justice Department made 23 arrests in California, which showed that organized gangs from New York to California were all participating in the alien smuggling of illegals from China to the United States in boats, transferring them to fishing boats, landing them, providing drop houses, and moving them back to New York. The bill would add alien smuggling and document fraud offenses to the list of predicate acts under our Nation's racketeering laws, something many Federal prosecutors have told me is extremely important. The bill would increase the maximum penalty for involuntary servitude to discourage cases like the one we saw recently, where scores of illegal workers from Thailand were smuggled into our country, then put in an apartment building with a fence around it and forced to work in subhuman conditions against their will in southern California. This bill would strengthen staffing and infrastructure at the border, and it would provide for facilities for incarcerating illegal aliens. It would require all land border crossings to be fully staffed to facilitate legal crossing. I can tell you that in San Diego, CA, at the border crossing gates, there are hours of waiting. There are 24 crossing gates at this one station. Only one-half of them are manned. Consequently, people engaged in legal, normal commerce sit at that gate and wait, sometimes for many hours, backed up in traffic. This bill would increase space at Federal detention facilities to at least 9,000 beds. That is a 66-percent increase in detention capacity for the incarceration of criminal aliens. I can tell you, Mr. President, out of 120,000 inmates in the California Department of Corrections, between 15,000 and 20,000 of them are illegal immigrants, serving felony time in California. The cost to the State is literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The bill would create a demonstration project in Anaheim, CA, to use INS personnel to identify illegal immigrants in prison, so that they can be more rapidly deported. Historically, the way Congress has handled illegal immigration is through what are called employer sanctions. I think the intent-- although I was not here, and the Senator from Wyoming knows far better than I--was that the reason most illegals--and I say ``most''--come here illegally is because of the lure of jobs. That is the magnet. Therefore, if you remove this magnet and prevent people from working illegally, you will deter illegal immigration. In order to work, though, employer sanctions need an accurate method of verifying whether an applicant for a job is legally entitled to work. Up to this point, relying primarily on employer sanctions, the basis on which all illegal immigration is handled in the United States, has been a colossal failure. The reason for the failure is that employers have no reliable way to determine if a prospective employee is legally entitled to work. Let me explain why. Presently, if an employer is interviewing someone for a job, he or she might say, ``Can you show me that you are legally entitled to work?'' They can present to the employer 29 different documents, under present law. Under present law, no prospective employer can say, ``May I see your green card?'' That is a violation of law. So they must take one, two, three or four of the 29 different methods of identification offered. If somebody came in to me and I said, ``Do you have an identification to show that you are a resident of California?'' They would say, ``Oh, yes,'' and hold up this card. I would see that it is a California identification card, and its address is Interlock, CA, and it has a State seal on it. It is encased in plastic, and it looks very legal to me. Wrong. This very card is a forgery. Or they might hand me a Social Security card, and I would look at it and see all the traditional signs. The paper looks right, the color looks right. There is a number on it and a signature, just like on my own Social Security card. Could I trust it? No. This is a forgery. The fact of the matter is that on the streets of Los Angeles, CA, you can buy both of these cards for under $50, and you can get them in 20 minutes, and they can have your photograph printed on them. You can purchase documents there anywhere from----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, April 24, marks the 81st anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian genocide. I rise today to acknowledge and commemorate this terrible chapter in our history, to help ensure that it will never be forgotten. Eighty-one years ago today, one of the darkest chapters in human history began. On that day, Ottoman authorities began arresting Armenian political and religious leaders throughout Anatolia. Over the ensuing months and years, some 1.5 million Armenians were killed at the hands of the Ottoman authorities, and hundreds of thousands more were exiled from their homes. On this 81st anniversary of the Armenian genocide, let us renew our commitment never to forget the horror and barbarism of this event. We must remember, we must speak out, and we must teach the next generation about the systematic persecution and murder of millions of Armenians by the Ottoman Government. I know that I am joined by every one of my colleagues, by the Armenian American community, and by people across the United States in commemorating the genocide and paying tribute to the victims of this crime against humanity. As Americans, we are blessed with freedom and security, but that blessing brings with it an important responsibility. We must never allow oppression and persecution to pass without condemnation. By commemorating the Armenian genocide, we renew our commitment always to fight for human dignity and freedom, and we send out a message that the world can never allow genocide to be perpetrated again. Even as we remember the tragedy and honor the dead, we also honor the living. Out of the ashes of their history, Armenians all across the world have clung to their identity and have prospered in new communities. My State of California is fortunate to be home to a community of Armenian-Americans a half a million strong. They are a strong and vibrant community whose members participate in every aspect of civic life, and California is the richer for their presence. The strength and perseverance of the Armenian people is a triumph of the human spirit, which refuses to cede victory to evil. The best retort to the perpetrators of oppression and destruction is rebirth, renewal, and rebuilding. Armenians throughout the world have done just that, and today they do it in their homeland as well. A free and independent Armenia stands today as a living monument to the resilience of a people. I am proud that the United States, through our friendship and assistance, is contributing to the rebuilding and renewal of Armenia. Let us never forget the victims of the Armenian genocide; let their deaths not be in vain. We must remember their tragedy to ensure that such crimes can never be repeated. And as we remember Armenia's dark past, we can take some consolation in the knowledge that its future is bright with possibility.

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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for the purposes of morning business for such time as I may consume.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I recently delivered a speech to the World Affairs Council of Los Angeles. I took the opportunity to lay out some of the areas in which I believe the United States needs to improve its policy toward the People's Republic of China. I thought my colleagues would find this speech to be of interest. I ask that the full text of the speech be printed in the Record. The speech follows: China: Where Do We Go From Here? (Remarks of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein to World Affairs Council, April 11, 1996) It is a great pleasure to be in the City of Los Angeles. And it is my honor to be introduced by such a distinguished resident of this great city. I'm delighted to be at the World Affairs Council, I've had the privilege of speaking at the World Affairs Council in San Francisco on several occasions, but never in this major capital city, so I'm delighted to be here. I want to share with you today some candid thoughts that I have about what I believe to be one of the most important issues for peace and stability in the world today: The current crisis in negotiations on Sino-American relations, and to discuss for a moment how we can forge a new, and better, era in this important relationship. One hundred 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 of the latter half of the twentieth century. More than the tragic war in Bosnia, more than the unsteady march toward peace in the Middle East, more even than the collapse of the Soviet Union, China's ascendence as a great power--and the content and quality of U.S.-Chinese relations--will shape the direction of global history in the Pacific Century. Following what the Chinese view as a ``century of humiliation'' at the hands of western imperial powers, and fifty years of war-lord rivalries, revolution, and economic stagnation, China today is poised at the brink of a remarkable renaissance. For close to two decades the Chinese economy has grown by a staggering 10% a year. China is now the world's 11th largest exporter--that's where Japan was in 1980--and moving up fast. By most estimates, by early in the next century China will have the world's largest economy. In a little more than a decade, U.S. trade with China has grown from some $1.2 billion to over $50 billion per year. China has emerged as a major presence on the world stage. It is a shame that we do not have the benefit of the hindsight that our children and grandchildren will have, because I believe that most Americans--including many policymakers--do not understand the magnitude or breadth of the changes currently underway in China and what they mean for the future peace and stability of Asia and, yes, the world. U.S. Policy Missteps This fundamental lack of understanding is unfortunate--and could turn out to be tragic--because how we manage our relationship with China will have a greater effect on stability in Asia and peace in the world than nearly anything else we do. In recent months U.S.-China relations have reached perhaps their lowest level since President Nixon's historic trip to China in 1972. Our relationship is plagued by tensions in nearly every area in which we interact: a large trade imbalance; China's failure to curb pirating of U.S. intellectual property; China's transfers of sensitive weapons, nuclear materials and technology to Pakistan, Iran, and others; clashing visions of human rights; most importantly, U.S. concerns about Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Tibet, these are perceived as deep threats to Chinese sovereignty. This situation is made even more complicated by domestic politics in both countries. In the U.S., the relationship between China and the U.S. has been buffeted by the vicissitudes of a Presidential election year and provocative Congressional actions. For example, the recent Department of State Authorization Conference Bill contains ill-advised policy mandates, including an invitation for a 1996 visit by Lee Teng-hui to the U.S. ``with all appropriate courtesies,'' and an elevation of the Taiwan office in Washington. In China, the lingering of Deng Xiaoping has prevented, in a sense, the cementing of new leadership, resulting in jockeying and in-fighting among China's political hierarchy. It is difficult for any Chinese leader to take bold action to improve relations with the United States for fear of being accused of weakness. Fundamental to the worsening of relations between our two countries is the lack of any conceptual framework or long- term strategy on the part of the U.S. policy with respect to China--a strategy which sets specific goals for the relationship five and ten years down the road. Instead, U.S. policy has been reactive and ``event- driven,'' responding to whatever happens to be the current revelation, which generally concerns human rights. This calls into question our entire relationship with China each time we lurch from crisis to crisis. A whole host of events have contributed to the current downward spiral in our relations: Tiananmen Square, the sale of F-16's to Taiwan, Congressional opposition to China's bid for the Olympics, U.S. opposition to the construction of Three Gorges Dam project, and Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui's visit to the United States last year. Each of these events has helped create the current atmosphere. Let me say a few words about why these events were so important. Americans were understandably horrified by the globally- televised scenes of Chinese tanks advancing on unarmed civilians at Tiananmen Square in 1989. Unfortunately, those images have come to color our perception of nearly every aspect of the U.S. relationship with China. For most Americans Tiananmen Square is all they know of the China of today. In the wake of Tiananmen, the U.S. made a number of policy decisions that further antagonized China. In 1992, for example, President Bush, who understands China better than most Americans, made what, I believe, was an unfortunate decision to sell 150 F-16 aircraft to Taiwan. The sale, announced during an election campaign, was made without strong evidence that Taiwan faced a significantly enhanced threat from China that made these advanced military planes necessary. For China, the sale was a violation of the ``One China'' policy which has been the bedrock of Sino- American relations since 1972. China put forth an extensive effort to host the Summer Olympic games in 2000: they built a large stadium, apartments and several other facilities, and made a strong pitch to the International Olympic Committee. This was going to be China's introduction to the world--a moment of great national pride. But, the U.S. reaction was distinctly negative. The House of Representatives passed a resolution urging the IOC not to give the games to Beijing and a majority of U.S. Senators sent a letter urging denial to the IOC. The IOC decided, by one vote, to give the games to Sydney, Australia, and, again, China felt the sting of humiliation. Another American effort to thwart Chinese development, from China's perspective, has been our reaction to the Three Gorges Dam project. This massive undertaking, designed to generate power for the enormous Chinese market, is considered a critical step in China's economic development program. Anyone that has been to Beijing has seen the choking clouds of high sulfur coal dust and lacking sufficient power for the basic necessities of life for millions of its people, the Three Gorges Dam represents an important national priority for the Chinese. But the United States has criticized the project, on environmental grounds and last year the Administration indicated it would oppose multilateral and U.S. financing of Three Gorges. The current crisis in U.S.-China relations came to a head last year with the U.S. decision to allow Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui to visit the United States last summer to receive an honorary degree at Cornell University. The Administration had told the Chinese--as late as May of last year--that allowing the visit would be inconsistent with the United States' longstanding ``One China'' policy. Congress then voted overwhelmingly--myself included--to allow this ``private'' visit, and the Administration changed its policy about the visa. The Chinese President, Jiang Zemin, learned of the decision by reading it in the newspaper, as he told me when I visited him in August. You can imagine what the impact was. President Lee's visit, although billed as a private visit, turned out to be much more than that. Members of the Senate met him, he spoke at Cornell and spoke about opportunity for representation in the United Nations. Again generating a deep visceral reaction within the Chinese leadership, not only within the leadership, and this is what Americans must come to understand, but within the Chinese people itself. And this gave rise to a new wave of nationalism among its people. The Chinese showed their anger by overreaction-- engaging in missile tests and live ammunition war games in the Taiwan Straits just prior to the Taiwanese elections. These provocative and unneccessary actions prompted President Clinton to place two carrier groups in the immediate area, sending a clear message that the U.S. would not tolerate military action against Taiwan. It is clear that none of us fully understood the depth to which Taiwan presents a deep and fundamental sovereign imperative to China. We must understand this if we are to deal directly with China. These events, occurring against a background of little dialogue between our two nations and constant criticisms in the American press, added to the strain and distance. The Chinese, for their part, have contributed to the downward spiral in our relations by failing to carry out commitments made. For example, China's failure to carry out last year's Intellectual Property Rights agreement signed last May has cost American copyright-holders over $2 billion in 1995, and less than full compliance with nuclear Non- Proliferation and violations of missile reduction treaties are areas which have drawn considerable and legitimate U.S. concern. The Costs of U.S. Missteps The consequence of this confused and reactive relationship is that --precisely at the time when we should be doing everything we can to strengthen and encourage reform in China by increasing relations with the West--some in China believe that the U.S. is intentionally encouraging China's increasing hardline attitudes with the purpose of pushing China toward an adversarial posture reminiscent of Cold War years with the Soviet Union. As you know, a long, drawn-out leadership struggle has been going on in China for the past several years as the elderly Deng Xiaoping has disappeared from public life. Although a new leadership is in place, competitive forces within that leadership appear to be growing stronger. Hardline actions are more prevalent. For example, China's provocative war games in the Taiwan Straits leading up to the Taiwanese election. China's continued provision of sensitive nuclear and missile technology to Pakistan. The increasingly strong rhetoric toward Hong Kong, such as announcing that the elected Legislative Council will be dissolved and that Hong Kong civil servants will be required to take an oath of loyalty to Beijing. And just last week, when Chinese police tried to stop fundraising for Chinese orphanages at a dinner attended by U.S. Ambassador James Sasser and prevented Chinese-American author Amy Tan from delivering a speech. Additionally, U.S. policy has not enabled those within the Chinese leadership who favor greater cooperation with the West to advance their program. In my conversations with President Jiang Zemin and Executive Vice Premier Zhu Rongji, I have become convinced of their genuine desire to reach out to the United States and build a much more cooperative relationship. In fact, Deng Xiaoping himself, empowered Jiang Zemin to be in charge of American relations and this was ratified by the 14th People's Congress. But to do that, they need our help. They need to be able to engage in a genuine dialogue with U.S. leaders, at the very highest levels. Our President and the President of China need to be able to sit and talk face-to-face, and to pick up the phone and call one another on a regular basis. But they do not yet have that kind of relationship. When the Administration decided not to invite President Jiang Zemin to Washington for a state visit, I believe we lost a valuable opportunity to give ``face'' and support to a moderate, pro-Western leader, thereby enabling the Chinese to see greater value in increased ties and pro-Western views. Most-Favored Nation Status In approximately two months, Congress will consider whether to grant the President's request to renew China's Most- Favored Nation trading status. I believe this issue will spark a definitive debate in the Congress on the future of the United States' China policy. The political implications of revoking MFN for China are great, and dangerous. Revoking MFN would be seen, I believe, as a complete break in U.S.-Chinese cooperation. For a country such as China, where face and respect are such central issues, revoking MFN--a trading status the U.S. grants to all but a handful of rogue nations--would be seen as tantamount to the United States telling China that we no longer accept them as a member of the family of nations. More importantly, thousands of businesses and millions of jobs in this country and in China who are now dependent on MFN status would be lost. To deny it would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Also, our ability to work with the Chinese on other trade issues, on Asian security, on non-proliferation, on Taiwan, and on human rights would be severely diminished, if not incapacitated. Where Do We Go From Here? Many of you may be wondering if there is anything we can do to repair a relationship that many feel has already been irreparably harmed. As a Chinese proverb goes, ``Laughter cannot bring back what anger has driven away.'' But there is another Chinese proverb that is perhaps more relevant--``By hard work one can succeed in moving two mountains to open a road.'' First, we must elevate the importance of the relationship with China. President Clinton, Secretary Christopher and high officials must become much more directly involved. With China, in many cases, the messenger is as important as the message. Most Americans know little of China and less about the importance of this relationship. The President must speak to Americans directly of the importance of this relationship and make the case for an improved relationship to the American people. He has not done so thus far. It must be done. Secondly, Secretary Christopher who has visited China only once, must devote to this relationship the same time and energy as he has so effectively applied in the Middle East. Third, we must realize that despite recent tensions, China and the United States have many more common interests than is generally realized, and we must build on those common interests. Four areas in which our shared interests outweigh our differences include: Taiwan, trade, security and nuclear non- proliferation, and improving the quality of life for people. Taiwan: The role of the United States in constructing a relationship between China and Taiwan must, by necessity, be supportive. We should not attempt to impose a solution on either party. The United States can, however, provide the underlying stability for Chinese-Taiwanese cooperation by continually and publicly reaffirming our commitment to a ``One China'' policy. We must also continue to encourage China to refrain from aggressive military actions and rhetoric. The key to a solution remains peaceful reunification. How and when that takes place is up to the two parties involved. Our interest must be to see that peace is maintained, to encourage the two sides to talk, to be an honest broker. Both Taiwan and China should be encouraged to restart the Cross-Strait Initiative that was conducted by China's Association for Relations across the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan's Strait Exchange Foundation. This dialogue showed much promise until it was derailed last summer. Even at the nadir of relations earlier this year, Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng renewed President Jiang Zemin's offer from last year for a Taiwan-China summit. And the Chinese offer to begin direct air, sea, and postal service with Taiwan can only be beneficial. Trade: Trade issues have all too often become flashpoints in U.S.-China relations, with blame to be shared by both sides. This past January, while I was in Beijing, Executive Vice Premier Zhu Rongji, who is in charge of Central Economic Planning, told us that, effective this month, China will lower tariffs by 34% across the board and bring its tariff rate schedule in line with the average of developing countries within two years. Our Trade Representative, Mickey Kantor, told me that he is now reviewing this proposed schedule. The U.S. should work with China to increase U.S. exports to China, now growing at a rate of 17% per year. China states it wants to increase U.S. exports, and this would lower our trade deficit with China. The U.S. should also review provisions of our laws which restrict high value exports. At the same time, the United States should continue to insist that China live up to fair trade policies, in particular, its agreements to protect U.S. intellectual property rights. For example China must prevent the illegal production of pirated CDS, CD-ROMs, and Lds. The best way to accomplish this goal is the development of joint ventures between U.S. copyright holders and Chinese manufacturers, which could transform factories from illegal to legal operations with little job cost. In January, I presented to both the President, the Executive Vice Premier and to the Trade Minister, a letter from the Recording Industries of America containing a proposal that six major American copyright holders are prepared to enter into such joint agreements. As I left China and was in Hong Kong, I noted that a Chinese representative said, ``but we already have these joint ventures.'' And that is exactly the key, the joint ventures are not with the copyright holders, and in order to carry out the intent of the law the venture must be with the U.S. copyright holder. As the world's 11th largest exporter and moving up fast, China's entry into the World Trade Organization is strongly in the United States' interests and holds the best promise for preventing trade disputes from escalating into major conflicts. Although it will take time, we need to continue to work with China to help them develop the commercial legal structure and fair trade policies that are necessary for their membership in that organization. Security: It is vital that China be engaged in a new security partnership, one that is cooperative rather than confrontational. With more than a fifth of the world's population, a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, and an arsenal of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, isolating China is a very dangerous course. Such a partnership suggests that China be encouraged to become an active and responsible party to international organizations, treaties, and regimes. As such, China should be granted an equal say in setting the ``rules of the game.'' The corollary of this, of course, is that China must agree to abide by those rules. One area that immediately suggests itself as a testing ground for this type of partnership is the threat of nuclear proliferation in South Asia. China was helpful in preventing nuclear proliferation in North Korea, a situation that still remains problematic. It is also clearly in the interests of both China and the United States to ensure that tensions are de-escalated in the highly unstable India-Pakistan relationship. Both India and Pakistan have the ability to launch 10 to 20 kiloton nuclear devices, that is twice the size of Hiroshima, in a matter of weeks. Both countries are on China's Southern border, and both suffer from major internal instability. Acting alongside other local and regional powers, the United States and China must work together to de-escalate growing tensions between these two countries. Quality of Life: Finally, despite the bad press that China has received in this country of late regarding human rights, I believe that here too there is opportunity for progress. However, to believe that China will change its ways merely to please America is naive. The real key to change is convincing China that it is in China's interests to change. We have tried lecturing China on individual human rights cases, and have found that method to be unsuccessful. A more productive approach would be to work with China to develop an independent judicial system that can guarantee due process and the rule of law--an area in which China has asked for our help. By engaging China in a larger dialogue about good governance, through exchange programs, assistance in the drafting of criminal and commercial codes, and in establishing an independent judiciary with due process of law, we will do much more to advance the cause of human rights in China in the long run than through constant castigation. Even without our help, China is moving in this direction. Last month, the National People's Congress enacted legislation that provides individuals greater protection from arbitrary punishment by police and government agencies, which sets stricter standards on government agencies for imposing fines and fees, and which requires the ruling State Council to secure the approval of the People's Congress before declaring martial law. Evidence of the past twenty years suggests that China is changing. You must remember back to the 1960's, when 10-15 million people were harmed or lost their lives. When I first went to China in 1979, it was impossible to have an open political discussion. People were simply too afraid. Last month, international journalists openly interviewed ordinary Chinese citizens on the street about their views of the Taiwanese elections. Some supported the government's response, others did not. This change should not be underestimated. It is the unavoidable result of improving conditions and interaction with the West. One has but to look back at the Cultural Revolution of 35 years ago to see the contrast and improvement in freedoms, in the increasing standard of living, wages and savings, and better education of the people, to know that things are changing and improving. As Minister of Trade Wu Yi said to me, ``It isn't easy to go from a China which has been ruled by man for 5000 years to a China ruled by law.'' And that is what is happening. With the Taiwan elections behind us, we now have the opportunity to move past some of the events that soured Sino- American relations earlier this year. To do this, President Clinton must immerse himself fully in the details of this most delicate and critical of American relations. In the final analysis, the goal of American policy must be to encourage China toward a full and active relationship with the West and to work together toward a China that is able to take its role as a stable leader of peace and security in Asia, and an America that can be her ally.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today marks Earth Day. It is a day to celebrate our past achievements in protecting the environment. It is also a day, I hope, to rededicate ourselves to environmental protection. I think, without question, over the last 26 years since the first Earth Day in 1970, we have made enormous environmental gains. We have taken steps to clean up our air and our water, cut toxic emissions from factories by 50 percent--that is in half--and we have taken steps to prevent pollution that threatens our children's health. I remember when my own city, San Francisco, used to pollute the bay and the ocean through 40 different outlets all around the city. The water in the San Francisco Bay has been cleaned up. Dungeness crab has come back to the bay. And I know that this is appreciated by all our citizens: Lead levels in children's blood has been cut by 70 percent. We have worked to protect our remaining wild places and to wisely manage irreplaceable natural resources. But in spite of these accomplishments, much, much work remains to be done. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 50 million Americans every year drink tap water which fails to meet at least one Federal health standard. About 1 million people each year become ill from drinking unsafe tap water, the Centers for Disease Control reports. Toxic air pollutants need to be regulated to protect public health. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to particulate matter may result in as many as 70,000 premature deaths each year. In my own State, in Los Angeles County, children actually grow up in Los Angeles with reduced lung capacity because of pollution. There are 1,290 toxic sites on the Superfund national cleanup priority list, and they include 96 in my own State of California. One in four Americans lives within 4 miles of a Superfund site. These sites must be cleaned up. So we need to move forward. Instead, our past environmental achievements are being threatened often by this very Congress, by efforts to roll back existing environmental laws. Of immediate concern is the omnibus appropriations bill which contains more than a dozen riders, riders which would roll back existing environmental protection. Many have proposed cuts in funds that assist States in providing clean, safe drinking water to Americans. They have proposed cuts that would affect the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act and to issue new standards for toxic air pollutants. They have proposed cuts in the Superfund Program, which would jeopardize cleanup of over 400 of the worst toxic waste sites around the country. One of them is Iron Mountain mine in Redding, CA. This is an old vacant chemical mine with a huge hole in it. The hole is as big as a 30-story office building, and when it rains the water and the air interact with the metals within the mountain, and it throws off sulfuric acid, which then drains into the river and metallizes the river banks. This is one of California's urgent priority Superfund sites that needs cleanup. Also of particular interest to me and to the people of California is the rider on the Mojave National Preserve, the newest unit of our National Park Service System. The conferees on the omnibus appropriations bill have agreed to a revised rider for the National Mojave Preserve that, like the earlier versions, is intended to overturn provisions of the California Desert Protection Act and strip national park protection for the Mojave National Preserve. The new rider reinstates multiple-use management of the east Mojave, management which allowed open pit mining, cross-country motorcycle racers, and other destructive activities to occur in the area. In 1994, Congress overwhelmingly approved the California Desert Protection Act, which I authored, and which established the Mojave National Preserve. That national preserve was already a compromise. I would have had it a national park, but Congress agreed that the Mojave qualified as a national park and should be managed by the National Park Service under park, not multiple-use, regulations. The Desert Protection Act transferred management of the Mojave from the Bureau of Land Management to the National Park Service so the area would receive the protection and the care that it deserves. The National Park Service opened a new visitor center and improved law enforcement. It actually made arrests and shut down a methamphetamine lab, and it improved resource protection. Visitation to the area increased substantially and motels, restaurants, and other businesses in the nearby communities flourished as a result. Now the Mojave rider on the omnibus appropriations bill seeks to reverse that decision. The omnibus appropriations bill appropriates funding for the National Park Service to manage the Mojave National Preserve, but it requires the agency to administer the area as a multiple-use area before passage of the California Desert Protection Act. In other words, it pretends that the Desert Protection Act, overwhelmingly passed by both Houses and signed by the President, does not really exist. This multiple-use management permits a wide variety of development activities which degrades the area's outstanding natural and cultural resources. Specifically, the new rider requires the National Park Service to manage the Mojave under the historic management practices of the Bureau of Land Management rather than under the policies and regulations of the National Park Service. This establishes a dangerous precedent. While early language that attempted to transfer control of the Mojave to the Bureau of Land Management has been dropped, the new rider could be interpreted to require the National Park Service to approve resource-damaging activities that were previously allowed within the Mojave before its designation. That would include off-road vehicle races, open pit mining, garbage dumps, and uncontrolled use of firearms. Many are particularly concerned that one of the reasons for this rider is to permit this kind of open pit mining in the New York mountains. In my legislation, we very carefully maintain that existing mining uses, those with existing permits, would be able to continue, so that no jobs would be lost. But apparently there are those who even want to go in and open pit mine some of the more fragile areas of this preserve. This new rider could be interpreted to allow unlimited use of motorized vehicles in wilderness areas. The new rider sets the stage for litigation over its interpretation, and the new rider limits funding for the Mojave to less than one-half what the Park Service estimated would be required in FY 1996. The statement of managers accompanying the rider requires the Appropriations Committees to approve the preserve's general management plan. This gives authority to committee members to dictate provisions of a park management plan for the first time in the history of this kind of legislation. In sum, it leaves the east Mojave a national preserve in name only, and no one is fooled by that. The Mojave has been discussed and debated in the House and Senate for 8 years now. The California Desert Protection Act, which passed in the last Congress and was signed by the President, as I have already stated, was a substantial compromise. Rather than carrying out the intent of the legislation, which was to have a national preserve under National Park Service management, we see in the omnibus appropriations bill further efforts to erode and destroy the Desert Protection Act. This, frankly, is unconscionable. It is absolutely contrary to the wishes of the people of the State of California. A Field Institute poll, an objective poll, conducted in December of last year, shows continuing, overwhelming support; 85 percent of Californians support keeping east Mojave a national park--85 percent. In every region of the State, people overwhelmingly support keeping the Mojave as a national park. As we celebrate Earth Day, Congress, I believe, should strip all environmental riders, including the Mojave rider, from the omnibus appropriations bill. That is what Congress can do right now to continue our commitment to environmental protection. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last evening, I had a brief opportunity to indicate to the majority leader my view of the importance of the illegal immigration bill and my hope that it would be restored to the floor very shortly. Yesterday, the Justice Department made a series of arrests on the west coast which I believe underscore the need for this bill to be rapidly considered by this Senate and hopefully passed. Arrests were made yesterday in San Francisco of persons involved in large-scale alien smuggling. They capped a 3-year investigation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. attorney in the northern district of California. This operation was known as Operation Sea Dragon, and the investigation resulted in a sealed four-count indictment of 23 people, all of whom were members of organized and violent gangs. The investigation revealed that a number of powerful New York-based gangs, including the White Tigers, the Fuk Ching, and the Broom Street Boys, joined forces with two Bay Area gangs to smuggle several hundred aliens from China into the United States in 1993. According to the U.S. attorney's office, a San Francisco-based Vietnamese gang was responsible for furnishing the fishing vessels to ferry the smuggled aliens from the mother ship to the coast. A Chinese gang operating out of Oakland then arranged for land transportation and drop houses to facilitate the aliens' travel to New York. More than 270 illegal Chinese aliens were detained when the two fishing boats, the Angel and the Pelican, landed in San Francisco Bay. As many as 15 passengers escaped and an additional 24 smuggled aliens were arrested later at a drop house in New York City. Initially, five people were arrested in San Francisco in connection with the arrival of the two ships. These five smugglers were sentenced in June 1994 to just--to just 2 years in prison. What is interesting is that it is clear from the level of sophistication in this particular operation that organized smuggling of illegal aliens is now becoming a huge business. It is estimated at more than $3 billion a year. It is also clear from the relatively light sentences imposed on those involved that the current penalties do not outweigh the fortune illegal alien smugglers win by breaking the law. And that is the point of my remarks today. Since August 1991, at least 21 boatloads carrying almost 3,000 illegal aliens have been intercepted in U.S. waters by American authorities, 3 near Los Angeles, 4 outside San Diego, and 3 in San Francisco, including the 2 ships involved in this story. The State Department estimates that today there are at least 50 ships used by smugglers, or being constructed to smuggle immigrants. Smugglers cram hundreds of illegal immigrants into decrepit ships in inhumane, cramped quarters where all kinds of abuse often occurs. They are often subject to near starvation. They arrive to lives as indentured workers, and they struggle to pay off their crossing debts which reportedly are around $25,000 to $30,000. Currently the maximum penalty for this kind of smuggling is 5 years. The 23 people indicted in these sealed indictments, these sealed arrest indictments, will be charged with 4 counts, including conspiracy, transportation and harboring of illegal aliens. Each count carries a maximum penalty of just 5 years and a fine of $250,000. If past sentences handed down in similar cases serve as any indication, it is likely that most of these 23 will serve either a year-and-a-half or maybe somewhat more. So, less than 3 years will be served for smuggling nearly 300 people into the country. That is one of the reasons why present Federal sentences do in no way, shape, or form deter this kind of activity. The illegal immigration bill proposed by the Judiciary Committee, and which was taken down by the majority leader, provides much stronger sentences. Federal prosecutors around my State have asked that the Congress increase the penalties against alien smugglers, and the bill does just that. It doubles the maximum sentence for alien smuggling from the current 5 years to 10 years for the first and second offenses. If a third offense occurs, the maximum penalty is increased to 15 years. The bill would make alien smuggling a predicate act under RICO. This would mean that longer prison sentences could be handed down if other crimes were committed, and in general that the racketeering statutes could be applied. It would also allow fines amounting to twice the profit made through smuggling to be imposed. And it would change the penalty so that smugglers can be charged with a violation for each person smuggled. Current law makes it one criminal act, regardless of the number of people smuggled. It would also make any person who knowingly hires an illegal alien or smuggled alien subject to a fine and up to 5 years in prison. It would increase prison sentences for smugglers who bring an alien into this country who later commits a crime, and it would allow asset forfeiture laws to be applied. The U.S. attorney says to us, if this legislation had already become law, the sentences to these 23 smugglers arrested yesterday would be increased by 50 to 100 percent. Instead of facing maximum sentences of 20 years, they would be 30 to 40 years, and the end result would be that the actual time served would increase. I would like to particularly congratulate U.S. Attorney Michael Yamaguchi, the INS, and all the Federal agents involved in this successful investigation. Now the Congress must do its job to see that the laws in place are adequate to deter this kind of illegal alien smuggling. The bill also provides an opportunity to stop illegal immigration--a huge, huge problem in the State of California, with 2 million people there now illegally--the ability to stop it at the borders. It would include an additional 700 Border Patrol officers. It would include $12 million for infrastructure, for roads and for fencing. And it would include an additional 300 INS investigators. It would also toughen the so-called employer sanctions promulgated in 1986. I can only tell you that Proposition 187 passed overwhelmingly in the State of California, the largest State in the Union. If this is not a message that reaches this Congress, I do not know what kinds of actions it takes. So I would simply like to say, please, majority leader, I say this very sincerely, reschedule this bill soon so the many amendments pending can be considered, so this floor can engage in a practical, a fair, and a just debate, and so that those sanctions that can prevent illegal immigration into this country can be revised and based on modern-day needs. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Kennedy- Kassebaum legislation on health insurance reform. This legislation, while not the comprehensive health care reform called for earlier, takes an important and long overdue step in addressing the insecurity many Americans feel about their health insurance. Americans expect their insurance to be there when they need it. That is why we buy it. And yet many Americans find that, just when they need their health insurance, it is not there, or they are denied coverage, or they can't afford the policy premiums. This bill provides a measure of health security in a number of ways. No arbitrary, discriminatory terminations: This bill protects employers from having their policy terminated if their employees incur large medical costs. Insurers could not impose preexisting condition limitations for more than 12 months. This means that employees could change jobs without fear of losing their insurance. Guaranteed access: Under this bill, insurers are required to offer insurance to all groups, regardless of the health status of any member of the group. Nongroup coverage guaranteed: It protects people who leave their job from losing access to coverage. People who have had 18 months of prior employer group coverage and have exhausted their extended coverage-- through COBRA--would be guaranteed access to an individual policy. Enlarging small groups: The bill creates incentives for small employers to form cooperatives to strengthen their bargaining power with insurance companies. Need for the bill: The need for insurance reform is very real: Over 41 million Americans have no insurance. That is a 4-million increase since 1993; In California, almost 23 percent of the population is uninsured--7.4 million people. And two-thirds of these uninsured people are under the age of 34; Twenty-three million Americans lose their insurance every year; Eighteen million people change insurance policies annually when someone in their family changes jobs; Employer sponsored insurance is declining, going from 61 percent of employed workers in 1986 to 54 percent in 1996; In California, it's even worse with only about 50 percent of people covered by employer sponsored insurance in 1994; and With California's unemployment remaining above 7 percent for the last 5 years--employer sponsored insurance is getting more scarce. Preexisting conditions: The problem of people being denied insurance because of preexisting health conditions is one of the most serious concerns people have today about their health care. As a matter of fact, 81 million Americans have preexisting health conditions that could affect their health insurance; Over 9 million Americans changed jobs in 1995; and Millions more want to change jobs. The GAO estimates that as many as 4 million employees are ``locked into'' their jobs because they fear that the insurer for the next employer would refuse to insure them because of a preexisting health condition. Take cancer as an example: Over 1 million people are diagnosed with cancer each year. Over 10 million Americans alive today have a history of cancer. About 184,300 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed this year--the most common form of cancer among women. And, 44,300 will die of breast cancer this year. We probably all have some condition. And yet most policies sold to individuals, and over half of all plans provided by employers, deny coverage for some period of time for the conditions most likely to require insurance. This bill addresses this serious problem by prohibiting insurers from imposing preexisting conditions for more than 12 months. The Problem for Small Employers: Small employers acting alone often lack the leverage to negotiate good prices and benefits that large employers can get. More than half of all uninsured employees work in small firms. Administrative costs are higher for small groups. One survey shows that health costs for large employers declined 1.9 percent in 1994, while small employers had an increase of 6.5 percent. This bill creates incentives for small employers to form cooperatives to strengthen their bargaining power with insurance companies. This approach can work. In 1993, California formed a health insurance purchasing cooperative for small businesses; 2,500 small businesses joined. One year after formation, rates were 10 percent to 15 percent lower than conventional insurance plans. Individuals: Finally, there are 10 to 20 million individual Americans seeking to buy insurance on their own. These people, who are not part of a large pool where risk can be offset, often find themselves excluded or unable to afford the premiums. Genetic discrimination: I especially appreciate the agreement of Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy to include in the managers' amendment provisions barring genetic discrimination by employer-based plans. The language included in this bill is similar to S. 1600, a bill I introduced with Senator Mack, to prohibit health insurers from denying health coverage based on genetic information of the insured or applicant for insurance Last fall, as co-chairs of the Senate Cancer Coalition, Senator Mack and I held a hearing on the status and use of genetic tests. Witnesses testified about the great promise of genetic testing in predicting and managing a range of diseases, but they also cautioned about the potential for discrimination. In the past 5 years, there has been a virtual explosion of knowledge about genes. Scientists are decoding the basic units of heredity. We know that certain diseases have genetic links, including cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis, and Lou Gehrig's disease. Altered genes play a part in heart disease, diabetes, and may other more common diseases. These advances pose some potential problems. Witness after witness at our hearing discussed the potential and the reality of health insurance discrimination based on genetic information. They recounted actual cases where insurers denied or refused to renew coverage based on genetic information. This type of discrimination could have a catastrophic impact if it is not addressed: About 15 million people are affected by one or more of the over 4,000 currently identified genetic disorders; genetic disorders account for one-fifth of all adult hospital occupancy, two-thirds of childhood hospital occupancy, one-third of pregnancy loss and one-third of mental retardation; and an even larger number of people are carriers of genetic disease. The June, 1994 issue of Scientific American estimated that every person has between 5 and 10 defective genes though they often are not manifested. Insurance companies are poised to discriminate: In a 1992 study, the Office of Technology Assessment found that 17 of 29 insurers would not sell insurance to individuals when presymptomatic testing revealed the likelihood of a serious, chronic future disease. Fifteen of the thirty-seven commercial insurers that cover groups said that they would decline an applicant; and Underwriters at 11 of 25 Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans said they would turn down an applicant if presymptomatic testing revealed the likelihood of disease. The study also found that insurers price plans higher--or even out of reach--based on genetic information. Another study conducted by Dr. Paul Billings at the California Pacific Medical Center, reached similar conclusions. Here are a few examples of real-life cases: An individual with hereditary hemochromatosis--excessive iron--who runs 10K races regularly, but who had no symptoms of the disease, could not get insurance because of the disease. An 8-year-old girl was diagnosed at 14 days of age with PKU-- phenylketonuria--a rare inherited disease, which if left untreated, leads to retardation. Most States require testing for this disease at birth. Her growth and development proceeded normally and she was healthy. She was insured on her father's employment-based policy, but when he changed jobs, the insurer at the new job told him that his daughter was considered to be a high risk patient and ``uninsurable.'' The mother of an elementary school student had her son tested for a learning disability. The tests revealed that the son had Fragile X Syndrome, an inherited form of mental retardation. Her insurer dropped her son's coverage. After searching unsuccessfully for a company that would be willing to insure her son, the mother quit her job so she could impoverish herself and become eligible for Medicaid as insurance for her son. Another man worked as a financial officer for a large national company. His son had a genetic condition which left him severely disabled. The father was tested and found to be an asymptomatic carrier of the gene which caused his son's illness. His wife and other sons were healthy. His insurer initially disputed claims filed for the son's care, then paid them, but then refused to renew the employer's group coverage. The company then offered two plans. All employees except this father were offered a choice of the two. He was allowed only the managed care plan. A woman was denied health insurance because her nephew had been diagnosed as having cystic fibrosis and she was found to carry the gene that causes the disease. The insurer told her that neither she nor any children she might have would be covered unless her husband was determined not to carry the CF gene. These are real horror stories. If people with genetic conditions or predispositions cannot buy health insurance on the private market, they usually have nowhere to turn. To qualify for Medicaid, the primary public health insurance program for the non-elderly, families have to ``spend down'' or impoverish themselves. Fear of discrimination can also have adverse health effects. If people fear retaliation by their insurer, they may be less likely to provide their physician with full information. They may be reluctant to be tested. This means that physicians might not have all the information they need to make a solid diagnosis or decide a course of treatment. This bill can help make health insurance available to many who need it and who want to buy it. It can bring peace of mind to millions of Americans. It can restore insurance to what insurance is supposed to be. I hope my colleagues will join me today in voting for this important bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I very much thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for this opportunity. I did have an opportunity to speak yesterday, but there is something I omitted to say that I very much felt was part of this discussion. What happened in Oklahoma City was brought home to us in California last Friday. Early that morning, about 9 o'clock, there was a phone call that came into the Vacaville headquarters of the Labor Department's Mine Safety Administration, and the caller said, using some expletives, ``You guys are all dead. Timothy McVeigh lives on.'' Later that afternoon, a mine safety inspector by the name of Gene Ainslie, who worked with the Department of Labor, was returning from inspecting a mine in Sierra County and he dropped off his official car. He got into his pickup truck, met his wife, started out on Interstate 80 to return to Sacramento, and the pickup truck exploded. A bomb had been placed on that truck. Gene and Rita Ainslie are hospitalized today in serious condition-- actually, today is their 32d wedding anniversary--Gene, with shrapnel in his legs and severe burns, and his wife with a broken ankle and a dislocated hip, but they survived. I and every Member of this body send them our fondest greetings and let them know that our hearts and thoughts are with them both. This was not a random act of violence. It was not a deranged individual on a shooting spree. It was a deliberate and, once again, targeted attack on a representative of the U.S. Government, an attack that was aimed at murdering a Federal employee. This is not an isolated incident, and we have all seen them happening. There will be a study that will released very shortly, an annual study of terrorism. And what it will show is that, for the first time, the United States of America is listed among the top 20 nations experiencing the highest level of terrorism and political violence in the world. I was shocked when I heard this. According to the study, there were 44 incidents reported to the authorities in the United States, an increase of 200 percent since 1988. With this number of incidents, according to this study, we ranked ahead of Lebanon. I only say this because of the particular pertinence of the legislation before us today. We relate the legislation to the Oklahoma City bombing a year ago, but in fact even last Friday an incident took place in the State of California. I think we also need to look at what is happening in our society that is fostering so much hatred and disregard for human life, and what can be done to restore the values of justice and respect for the rule of law that really made this the greatest democracy on Earth. I do not believe this is about restoring faith in our Government. I do not believe right thinking people resort to this kind of violence because they think they pay too much in taxes or because they are angry at Government red tape. I think there really is no justification and no rationale for this kind of behavior. But what does concern me is that the report I get from California is that there are very disspirited Federal employees, that morale is low, and that some, for example those affected by the bomb last Friday, really do not know that anybody cares about them. And what I want them to know, and I know I am joined by every Member of this Senate, is that, in fact, we do care about them. We do know that Federal employees--every member of the Army and the Navy who went to the Gulf war was a Federal employee, every park official is a Federal employee-- these people take the job not for the money, certainly, but because this is the way they want to serve their Nation. They are entitled to respect, and it is our job to see that they have that respect. So, as we pass this bill, which I hope we will do shortly, as a kind of living memorial to what happened in Oklahoma City, I think we have to do it with a view that these events are taking place in this Nation daily, just as it happened last Friday near Sacramento and Vacaville in the State of California. I say to Gene Ainslie, 56 years old, celebrating his 32d anniversary today with his wife Rita, and all those who labor as part of the Federal Government, that we Americans do respect them, that we do honor them, and we will do everything in our power to see that this kind of behavior is not inflamed, but rather it is put to an end.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, both the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Delaware are certainly hard acts to follow. I want to comment on this bill, but before I do so I want to make a public appeal to the majority leader to please, please, please bring back on the floor the illegal immigration bill. This bill, I believe, has widespread bipartisan support. But more fundamentally, I cannot tell you how important this bill is to the safety and well-being of the people of California. Right now on the border you have miles without a Border Patrol agent. Right now, for both Senator Boxer and I, Border Patrol people come in and tell us how they have rocks thrown at them, how they are concerned for their own safety. A few weeks ago you had a major freeway accident with 19 people killed, illegal immigrants in a van. More recently you had an incident, publicized all over the United States, of an unfortunate law enforcement action which involved unrestrained force against illegal immigrants who pummeled on a freeway, hitting other automobiles, trying to get away from a sheriff's officer in pursuit. This is the State that passed Proposition 187, which was a call for help from the Federal Government to enforce the law and change the law and stop illegal immigration. Mr. President, there is so much that this bill--worked on so hard by Senator Simpson, worked on I think on both sides of the aisle in the subcommittee and in the full committee--does. Let me just say it adds 700 Border Patrol agents in the current fiscal year; 1,000 more in the next 4 years. It takes the total number of agents up to 7,000 by 1999. That is double the force that was in place 3 years ago. Every border State wants that. It establishes a 2-year pilot project for interior repatriation. When somebody comes across the border, they are not just returned to the other side of the border, but they are returned deep into the interior to stop them from coming right back again. It adds 300 full-time INS investigators for the next 3 fiscal years to enforce laws against alien smuggling, and it adds alien smuggling and document fraud, a big problem, as predicate acts in RICO statutes, something that Federal prosecutors have asked for. It increases the maximum penalty for involuntary servitude, to discourage cases like the one we saw very recently where scores of illegal workers from Thailand were smuggled in and forced to work in subhuman conditions, against their will, in a sweatshop in southern California. Mr. President, this bill is critical. It is an important thing for border States and particularly for the State of California. If Proposition 187 was not the bellwether that said, ``Federal Government, do your job,'' I do not know what else will be. So I earnestly and sincerely, please, I beg the majority leader to bring this bill back on the floor, let us debate it, let us resolve it, let us pass it, let us get it signed, and let it get into law in the State of California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his work on this bill and the distinguished ranking member for his work on this bill. I am particularly disappointed that the House succeeded in gutting the commonsense prohibition on distributing instructions for bomb making for criminal purposes. I will talk about that in a minute. But the good news is that the conference report also restored good provisions to this bill. I am especially gratified that the conference committee restored my amendment which gives the Secretary of Treasury the authority to require taggants for tracing explosives. The Senator from Delaware, the distinguished ranking member, just explained what taggants are: simple little coded plastic chips that are mixed with batches of commercially available explosives. They allow law enforcement to trace a bomb that has exploded, just like one would trace a car by knowing the license plate number. That is exactly what taggants are. It was studied 16 years ago. Everybody said go ahead with it. They have been available. And it has now happened. Incidentally, it took the Unabomber 18 years to, quite possibly, get caught. Three people have been killed, 23 people have been wounded, in bombs that really plagued nine States. This time could have been cut in half, perhaps, if we had tagging of explosives. Unfortunately, the bill completely exempts black powder from either tagging or study requirements. I must say, how can a bill even refute the ability to study tagging of black powder? The amendment I submitted on taggants essentially provided for its addition, taggants' addition, where explosives would be bought in larger amounts. But, where small amounts of black powder were purchased to use in antique guns and for small arms, the taggant would not be included. The NRA opposes this. What the National Rifle Association is clearly saying is they do not want any taggants in black powder explosives period, or even a study of it. Can you imagine the power of an organization that is able to successfully say we will not even study the impact of tagging black powder, which is also used as the triggering device on major explosive bombs that are used by terrorists? I have a very hard time with that. I heard the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee just say the NRA opposed excluding alien terrorists from this country. The NRA opposed excluding alien terrorists from this country--unbelievable. I think I just heard him say the NRA opposed a prohibition on fundraising in this country by terrorist groups. Let me tell you something, if anybody believes that Hamas is in this country raising money to use it for charitable purposes, I will sell you a bridge tomorrow. I will sell you a bridge tomorrow. That is just unbelievable to me. Nevertheless, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for standing Utah tall in the conference committee on the issue of taggants. I would like to thank Senator Biden and Senator Kennedy for their help as well. I think this is a very important step forward and I do not mean to diminish it in any way. I also must say that I view the habeas corpus reform also as an important step forward. Abuse of the writ of habeas corpus, most egregiously by death row inmates who file petition after petition after petition on groundless charges will come to an end with the passage and the signature of this bill. I believe it is long overdue. For anyone who believes that habeas is not abused, let me just quickly--because it has been thrown out before, and I know others want to speak--speak about the Robert Alton Harris case. It, I think, is a classic case on what happened with Federal habeas corpus, and State habeas corpus. Mr. Harris was convicted in 1978 for killing two 17-year-old boys in a merciless way, eating their hamburgers, and then going out and robbing a bank. His conviction became final in October of 1981. Yet, he was able to delay enforcement of the California death penalty capital sentence until April 21, 1992--for 14 years. Over that time, he filed no fewer than 6 Federal habeas petitions and 10 State petitions. Five execution dates--five execution dates--were set during the pendency of his case. In all, Harris and his attorneys engineered almost 14 years of delay and piecemeal litigation by misuse of habeas corpus, and, I might say, it was 14 years of unresolved grief for the parents of the children. I think cases like that one point out the need for habeas corpus reform, and, frankly, I want to commend the Judiciary Committee, and in particular the chairman, for seeing that that is included. Senator Hatch also just mentioned the pathogens incident. In the Judiciary Committee, we had some full hearings, that were rather chilling to many of us, on how easy it is to obtain human pathogens. I cannot help but note that the Chair is a distinguished physician and surgeon who knows this area well. But what we found out, essentially, is that one person--namely, Larry Wayne Harris--managed to order and to receive samples of bubonic plague through the mail less than a year ago. Incredibly, although he was caught, he could be charged with only wire and mail fraud, because there were no laws on the books prohibiting the possession of bubonic plague pathogens. In fact, he made up a letterhead and sent it in to a lab, asked to purchase the plague bacteria, and it was sent to him, no questions asked. So this bill clearly takes care of that problem. It adds that any attempt, threat, or conspiracy to acquire dangerous biological agents for use as a weapon are crimes punishable by fines or imprisonment, up to life imprisonment. It also asks the Secretary of HHS to establish and maintain a list of biological agents which pose a severe threat to the public safety, and it directs the Secretary to establish enforcement and safety procedures for the transfer of human pathogens. As a matter of fact, a number of us wrote a letter to the President and urged that emergency action be taken quickly because of the potential ability of people to acquire these bacteria prior to the enactment of this statute. I want to also express my thanks that fundraising by terrorist organizations will be prohibited in the United States of America. I think it is extraordinarily important that this take place. I am also very pleased that there is a section, known as 330, of the conference report--which, as a matter of fact, I offered--which prohibits the United States from selling weapons and defense services to countries that the President determines are not fully cooperating with U.S. antiterrorism efforts. This is a commonsense provision, and I am amazed that there has been nothing in law that meets it. But there certainly is no reason the United States should continue to provide weaponry to any country that refuses to do all it can to combat terrorism. My big disappointment--and I think because the Presiding Officer is relatively new to this body, he would be interested to know--is that on the Internet today, there is a volume called The Terrorist Handbook. The Terrorist Handbook describes how you can make bombs, whether those bombs are in baby food jars, in electric light bulbs or in telephones. To my knowledge, there is no legal use for a bomb in a baby food jar, for a bomb in a light bulb, or for a bomb in a telephone. You know that once you teach somebody how to do that, their only use of the knowledge is to slaughter and to kill. So I have a very hard time understanding why simple language, which says if you knowingly publish material with the intent of enabling someone to commit a crime, shall not be permitted. Let me quote the February 2, 1996, New York Times Metro section. Headline: ``3 Boys Used Internet to Plot School Bombing, Police Say.'' Three 13-year-old boys from the Syracuse area have been charged for plotting to set off a home-made bomb in their junior high school after getting plans for the device on the Internet. The boys, all eighth graders at Pine Grove Junior High School in the suburb of Minoa, were arrested Wednesday by the police. ``There is no doubt that the boys were serious,'' the captain said, adding that they've recently set off a test bomb in a field behind an elementary school and that it started a small fire. This cartoon is exactly what is happening all across the United States with young people. The cartoon is a youngster, sort of a Dennis- the-Menace type sitting at his computer, wrapping dynamite and attaching a detonation and clock device to it, while his mother is on the telephone saying ``History * * * astronomy * * * science * * * Bobby is learning so much on the Internet.'' I have another article. The Los Angeles Times, just this past Saturday, April 13: ``Four Teens Admit to Bombs in Mission Viejo School Yard.'' The boys, all 15- and 16-year-olds, told investigators they learned how to build the small high-pressure explosives from friends who got it off the Internet. According to the chief, who is then quoted, ``It's something they're getting off the Internet. Any time you mix volatile chemicals and have a little bit of knowledge, you put yourself and others in jeopardy.'' A third article, Orange County Register, ``2 Home-Made Bombs Dismantled in Orange'' County. Authorities theorize that teens are learning how to make the 2-liter bottle devices on the Internet. Ladies and gentlemen, how far do we wish to push the envelope of the first amendment? Let me tell you what is also in this ``Terrorist Handbook.'' People say, ``Well, we have a first amendment right.'' There is a part on breaking into a lab. This ``Terrorist Handbook,'' which we downloaded yesterday on the Internet, let me quote from it. The first section deals with getting chemicals legally. This section deals with procuring them. 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 and most of the labs will still be unlocked. One simply takes a bookbag, wears a dress shirt and jeans, and tries to resemble a college freshman. If anyone asks what such a person is doing, the thief can simply say he's looking for the polymer chemistry lab or some other chemistry-related department other than the one they are in. Then it goes on and it tells them how to pick the lock to break into the chem lab. It tells them what kind of chemicals to steal from the chem lab, and then to go out and how to make the bomb--baby food bomb, telephone bomb, light bulb bomb. We know people are following this. Yet this conference committee deleted--deleted--a simple amendment which said, if you knowingly publish this kind of data with the view that someone will commit a crime, that is illegal--that is illegal. The conference committee voted it down, I would take it, at the behest of the National Rifle Association. Why? I cannot figure out why. I cannot to this day figure out why. Let me give you one other quote that was on the Internet. It tells you where to go. Go to the Sports Authority or Hermans sports 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. Then the computer bulletin board posting 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. This is what, by rejecting my simple amendment, the conference is saying is permissible on the Internet. Let me give you one last thing so that it is, hopefully, indelibly etched in everybody's mind what we are doing. Following Oklahoma City, this was on 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 how it could have been better. How far are we pushing the envelope of the first amendment? What I have tried to show is that not only is this kind of thing with knowledge, with intent, on the Internet, but that youngsters are using it. They have used it within the last 2 weeks in New York, in California, and they have used it to do bodily harm to others. So this is my big disappointment in this bill, because I believe we have as much to fear from domestic terrorism, as I think the Unabomber has pointed out, as we do from foreign terrorism. It begins right here at home. It begins with a system that lets everybody do anything they want, including telling you how to steal, break in and steal the chemicals, make the bombs, go out and deliver them. I believe it is the job of this Congress to try to do something about it. With that in mind, I will support the amendment to recommit this to committee. I realize that that is a useless gesture, but just to make the point. I will vote for this legislation and I will at the earliest time possible reintroduce my amendment on another bill to take another crack at saying the time has come for the United States of America to say, indeed, everything does not go. There are some restrictions and some things that we are going to do to stop criminality in this country. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on the tragic death of Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown, which occurred last week in Croatia. I have know Ron Brown and his family for 12 years. Ron was a friend of mine, and a friend of the State of California. One of his first duties as Commerce Secretary was to find ways to resuscitate California's economy, and he helped to do just that. Ron Brown made the Department of Commerce a positive force for helping the largest State in the Union recover from the devastating recession of the early 1990's. Ron had a vision of a prosperous America, where the cliche that ``a rising tide lifts all boats'' could actually come true. He focused his Department and this administration on looking for opportunities to help the American economy make the transition from the era of heavy industry to an era of high technology, scientific innovation, and the advancement of the current revolution in communications. Ron helped formulate this vision, made sure that his Department gave grants and other forms of assistance to firms pursuing it, and at the time of his death was advocating that vision to other parts of the world. But even more important than his career was the man himself. Always upbeat, with ceaseless energy, Ron could persuade the most vehement skeptic of the value of his vision and efforts for our country. He served in a variety of roles, and in each he excelled. His days as an effective leader with the National Urban League demonstrates this, where he became deputy executive director, general counsel and vice president of the Urban League's Washington, DC office. Ron Brown's boundless energy and commitment to excellence did not stop at the National Urban League. It continued to help him break racial boundaries and become the first African-American to head a major political party, helping to elect the country's first Democratic President in 12 years; the first African-American to become a partner in his powerful Washington, DC law firm; and the first African-American to take the helm at the U.S. Department of Commerce. I know of no chairman of the Democratic National Committee who was better regarded, whose fundraising calls were more frequently returned, or whose hardships and public statements were more well regarded--Ron Brown was tops. In my view, Ron Brown's stewardship as Secretary of Commerce was unparalleled. He truly cared about his work and those the Department serves, and the record reflects accurately billions of dollars in trade and new business that will, in the future, benefit this country's businesses and industrial base. I find the circumstances of his untimely death to be particularly poignant. Here he was, leading a group of business people and his staff, on a mission of peace to the war torn land of the former Yugoslavia. He did not wait for peace to be restored. He went when risks of hostile action were still present. He did not wait for pleasant weather before springing into action. And, he did not just work on economic issues. He also spent time with our troops over there, to let them know we support their efforts. Mr. President, we have lost a great American in Ron Brown. Whether it was politics, or crafting legislation for the Senate, or civil rights, or military service, or being a husband and a father, Ron Brown was a great patriot, and a great human being. I shall always treasure the relationship he and I had, and I shall miss him terribly. To Alma Brown and Tracy, who have traveled with me in the campaign, I send my heart and prayers. With all his family, I share an unrelenting emptiness and sadness. I will miss the phone calls, the smile, the exploits from progress, and, most of all, his abiding and consummate belief in all of us.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, David Packard is a legend in California, and will forever remain a treasured part of California's proud history. A man of humble beginnings, through sheer ingenuity and determination, David Packard became one of the most influential entrepreneurs in American business. One of the original cofounders of computer giant Hewlett-Packard, he was considered the patriarch of hi-tech's famed Silicon Valley. His innovation sparked the technology revolution that put California on the map as the information leader of the world. But it was his leadership that inspired generations of hi-tech wizards to break new ground and reach new heights. He truly believed that nothing was impossible if the spirit to succeed was there. And David Packard believed in the American spirit. David Packard set a standard of excellence for business schools all over the world with his ideas of ``management by objective'' and ``management by walking around.'' And he put a human face on success by never climbing out of the reach of the people who worked for him. ``The HP Way'' broke barriers between management and employees, fostering teamwork and a pride of ownership that reached every level of his company. David Packard also served his country as Deputy Secretary of Defense under President Nixon, and, with his wife Lucile, was unmatched as our Nation's most dedicated and generous philanthropist. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation last year distributed more than $116 million to more than 700 recipients. His contributions to Stanford University, my alma mater, leave a legacy that will touch many future generations, who will stand on his shoulders and continue to lead this Nation to new heights of excellence, compassion, and greatness. David Packard will be sorely missed.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this morning, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, was on the floor speaking about a provision in the State Department Authorization conference report that was voted out last night. The provision was section 1601, which declares that the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act supersede provisions of the United States- China Joint Communique of August 17, 1992. His basic point was that the provision was written not to be a wholesale repudiation of the 1982 Joint Communique, but rather to say that where the two conflict, specifically with respect to arms sales to Taiwan, the Taiwan Relations Act, as the law of the land, must override the communique. He referred to an April 22, 1994 letter he received from Secretary Christopher saying that the Administration agrees that the Taiwan Relations Act takes legal precedence over the communique. Indeed, it is true that the Taiwan Relations Act takes legal precedence over the 1982 Joint Communique. One is the law of the land, and the other is a diplomatic agreement not ratified by Congress. But that is precisely what makes this provision superfluous. If the intent is to say that the law of the land takes legal precedence over other documents, it is absolutely unnecessary. If we add this language to the Taiwan Relations Act, we may as well add it to every other law we pass: ``The provisions of this act supersede the speech made by the President on a similar topic on such-and-such a date.'' The Senator from Alaska says the meaning of the word ``supersede'' is that the Taiwan Relations Act overrides the Communique only if their provisions conflict. He cites the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of ``supersede.'' But, according to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the word ``supersede'' also means ``to make obsolete,'' ``to make void,'' `` to annul,'' ``to make superfluous or unnecessary,'' and ``to take the place of and outmode by superiority.'' Therefore, regardless of the provision's intent, it has the appearance of Congress issuing a wholesale repudiation of the 1982 Joint Communique. This Joint Communique includes not just a paragraph on arms sales, but a reaffirmation of the One-China policy and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity as espoused in the two previous Joint Communiques of 1972 and 1979. By saying we supersede the 1982 Joint Communique, we give the impression that we might be repudiating it outright. To do this would shake United States-China relations to their very core. The fundamental basis of the relationship would be called into question. Under any circumstances, this would be a dangerous course of action, but it is especially so at this extremely sensitive time in relations between the United States, China, and Taiwan. Congress needs to be exceedingly careful not to take actions that will have farther-reaching effects than we intend. We should not underestimate how seriously this provision--which may seem harmless to us--would be viewed not just in Beijing, but also in Taipei. It seems particularly foolhardy to take such a risk over an unnecessary provision, which essentially says nothing more than that the law of the land is the law of the land, which of course it is.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe I have an hour reserved and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee to express my strong opposition to the conference report to accompany H.R. 1561, the State Department authorization bill. This bill has been the cause of much turmoil, as we all know. It began with the markup of a bill that the Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee had no part in drafting, and that many felt contained an excessively far-reaching plan to eliminate three foreign affairs agencies: The Agency for International Development, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the U.S. Information Agency. When that bill reached the floor, Republicans were unable to invoke cloture on it. Meanwhile, the Senate was prevented from taking action to confirm 18 ambassadors, several hundred Foreign Service officer promotions, and to consider two critical arms control treaties--START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Finally, last December, after several arduous weeks of negotiating, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, reached a compromise version of the consolidation plan that allowed the bill to be voted out to conference. This, in turn, resulted in the Senate immediately confirming the ambassadorial nominations that had been on hold, and taking action soon thereafter to ratify the START II treaty. In addition, hearings are now underway that will lead to a vote by the full Senate on ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention by April 30. For that I am grateful. I was among those who voted for S. 908 last December, in part because I felt the compromise consolidation plan reached by Senators Helms and Kerry was a reasonable plan. However, my major motivation was to get it to conference so that we could take action on the ambassadors and treaties that were before the Senate. Unfortunately, the bill that has come back from conference has many, many problems. First of all, the consolidation plan that came back from conference has moved considerably from the fairly reasonable compromise reached by Senator Helms and Senator Kerry. The conference report version requires the elimination of three agencies: USAID, ACDA, and USIA, two of which the President can later choose to preserve. This provision differs sharply from the preconference version which gave the President full discretion over whether or not to eliminate an agency. The new report also requires $1.7 billion in savings over 4 years, rather than over 5 years, as was in the Senate-passed bill. Now, philosophically, Mr. President, it is my very strong belief that a President, any President, must and should be able to organize or reorganize the foreign affairs agencies of the United States as he or she sees fit. I basically believe that foreign policy should be bipartisan, that we should work out our difficulties and speak as one Nation, as represented by our President. But I believe the President must be in charge of foreign policy. I came to that belief, Mr. President, ironically when I was a mayor. I was visited by the Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Schmidt. I saw, when I visited with him at the Fairmont Hotel, that he was chain smoking and was very upset. I said, ``What is wrong?'' He said to me an interesting thing. He said, ``You know, you Americans have no idea what you do when you reinvent the wheel of foreign policy every 4 years. You have no idea what it does to your allies.'' He went home and, 2 weeks later, he resigned. I thought that was very interesting, and I never forgot what he said. So I began to watch American foreign policy a little differently. I saw where it is very difficult for many countries to really understand with what voice this Nation really speaks. I understand the separation of powers. I understand the balance of powers. And yet, we must, as a nation, speak to other nations with one voice and with clearly defined policies. I am finding that becomes more and more difficult. So, consolidation is not the issue. Many of us support consolidation, but we can only support it if it is done in such a way that we provide our President, whether he be Republican or Democrat, with flexibility in the organization of the foreign affairs agencies. Unlike the compromise version that passed the Senate, this conference report returns to a coercive approach that forces the President to eliminate at least one agency over his objections. I simply cannot support a consolidation plan structured in this manner. Second, this conference report does nothing to address the unprecedented restrictions that were placed on U.S. international population and family planning assistance in the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations bill. After months of stalemate on that bill, a conference report was sent to the President, which has the effect of cutting U.S. international population and family planning programs by some 85 percent. These restrictions will have a seriously negative effect on women and families around the world. Family planning assistance, which helps women plan and space their pregnancies, has proven to be a major factor in curbing poverty and starvation and overpopulation, and providing the opportunity for a decent way of life in many parts of the world that are badly overcrowded with children, starving by the thousands because of lack of food. Ironically, the restrictions in the foreign operations bill are advocated by those who oppose abortion and argue for a so-called pro- family agenda. But U.S. law already forbids the use of any U.S. foreign assistance for the provision of abortions. As the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who is a proud opponent of abortion, has pointed out time and time again, depriving millions of poor women of access to voluntary family planning services will only result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. This bill fails to address these misguided restrictions. Third, this bill prohibits any funds from being used to open, expand, or operate diplomatic or consular posts in Vietnam, unless the President certifies that the Vietnamese Government is fully cooperating with the U.S. in a number of areas related to the search for POW's and MIA's--a worthy statement. The problem is that these areas are effectively uncertifiable. In addition, failure to expand our new relationship with Vietnam could actually jeopardize the significant progress that has been made on the POW/MIA issue. Furthermore, this provision unduly restricts the President's ability to conduct foreign relations according to his understanding of U.S. national interests. And by this I mean that it places conditions on whether or not the President can open an embassy. Finally, at the time of the vote on S. 908, I made it very clear that there was an entire category of provisions in the bill, wholly separate from the consolidation aspect, that I found deeply troubling. These provisions related in various ways to the United States' relationship with the People's Republic of China, the largest country on Earth, and the most dynamically growing country in the world today. At that time, I expressed the hope that these provisions would be ameliorated or removed in conference. In fact, I said that the resolution of these matters would be critical to my consideration of whether or not to support the conference report. Unfortunately, virtually every one of these provisions remains in the bill. Some are in a slightly modified form, but they remain objectionable. There are even some new provisions on China in this conference report that were not in the original bill. Let me first list the provisions in this bill relating to China and then explain why they will result in my voting against this conference report. Section 1601 declares that the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act supersede provisions of the United States-China joint communique of August 17, 1982. Section 1603 allows the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, TECRO, to change its name to the Taipei Representative Office. Section 1606 imposes unnecessary new reporting requirements on the Department of State to provide detailed information and political judgments on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong. New in the bill, section 1702 imposes excessive reporting requirements on the President with respect to human rights in China, beyond those already required in the annual Human Rights Report, which I have just read. It is a detailed report, and I believe very strongly that it was inaccurately reported in the press. Section 1702 expresses the sense of Congress that the President should impose human rights-related preconditions on a possible future visit to China. Section 1708 supports the admission of the President of Taiwan to the United States for a visit in 1996 ``with all appropriate courtesies''. A new section, section 1709, supports the United States pushing for Taiwan's admission to the World Trade Organization [WTO], without respect to the status of China's application to join the WTO. Section 1303 authorizes the President to appoint a special envoy for Tibet, and such a person would have to carry the rank of Ambassador. Another new section in the bill, section 1701, provides that the President should condemn a prison system in China and, in essence, demand that China dismantle the prisons. What nation has ever told us to dismantle a prison? Would we listen to that, and would we be affected by it if they did that? I think not. The simple fact of these eight provisions, and others, suggests something about this bill: It is excessively preoccupied with China. No other country receives half the attention China receives in this bill. But far more serious than the preoccupation with China is the very serious damage that these provisions could do to our increasingly important and, I must say, increasingly strained relationship with China. I happen to believe strongly in the importance of the proper development of a relationship with the People's Republic of China, which is the most overlooked and most significant bilateral relationship in the world today. I also happen to believe that there are those in China and in this country who would like to see it became an adversarial relationship. Yes. Would they like to see a return to the dangerous, pivotal, bipolar superpower arrangements that existed all during the cold war? That is what is understood by their actions. Nations then line up. They are either in one camp or the other. It is good for weapons sales. I do not want to see that happen. This relationship is too important to peace and stability in Asia. And, yes, it is too important to the prevention of major misunderstanding which could lead to a potential and devastating third world war. As my colleagues know, the past few weeks have seen tensions in the triangular United States-China-Taiwan relationship reach new heights. As Taiwan's first fully democratic presidential election approached, China felt compelled to vent its displeasure over what it has perceived as a pro-independence policy in Taiwan by conducting missile tests and live-ammunition military exercises in the Taiwan Strait. These tests and exercises by China were unnecessary, dangerous, and provocative. And I have said as much directly to the highest-level Chinese officials. The administration responded prudently by expressing its deep concern, by sending the U.S.S. Nimitz carrier group to join the U.S.S. Independence carrier group in the region to monitor events there, and by making it clear to the Chinese that any attack on Taiwan would have very grave consequences. This is in anyone's book strong and definitive action. Under these tense circumstances Congress, I believe, must be very careful right now, post-Taiwanese election, not to take any action that would make a potentially difficult situation worse. There is a real window of opportunity. There is a calling for the first democratically elected President of Taiwan to take some steps to clarify Taiwanese policy, to indicate the willingness to reinstitute the across-the- strait dialog, and to clarify once and for all--perhaps jointly with China--a One-China policy. I believe, as far as the United States is concerned, that we do not need legislation to further inflame the situation. The point has been made. The election has been held. The Taiwanese President has been reelected. Now we need to play the pivotal role of encouraging the parties to get together and discuss a peaceful resolution of their difficulties. Without firm United States adherence to the principle of one China we would be unable to conduct any kind of normal relations with Beijing. This is an undeniable fact of life, no matter what anybody in this body says. If there is not a One-China policy, we drive the People's Republic of China into the adversarial Soviet Union-type of response and a cold war. I do not believe this is desirable United States policy. And that is the impact. That is the practical, as I would say, ``on the streets'' impact of this bill. I do not believe that the United States is going to retreat on a One- China policy. But to amend the Taiwan Relations Act to explicitly supersede the 1982 joint communique is to give substance and credibility to China's fears. That is what they suspect we are up to. Why would we take that provocative step at this time? For what reason other than to enable ourselves to become incendiary? From the Chinese prospective, it would be tantamount to a declaration that we were about to send a new round of arms sales to Taiwan, that we no longer subscribe to the One-China policy, and that we are meddling deeply in their internal affairs. Not only would passing this provision be foolhardy; it is also unnecessary. The Taiwan Relations Act is the law of the land. And, like any law, it carries greater weight than any diplomatic agreement, other than a treaty. But to amend the act to explicitly state that it supersedes the 1982 joint communique would be seen by China as an outright repudiation of a critical and stabilizing element of our longstanding policy toward China subscribed to by six United States Presidents. I want to commend the administration for listing this provision prominently among the principal reasons the President will veto this bill when it lands on his desk. Elsewhere in this conference report Congress expresses its support for a visit to the United States by the President of Taiwan in 1996 ``with all appropriate courtesies''. I must ask my colleagues: How short are our memories? For over 10 months our relationship with China has been in crisis. Here is a country--Taiwan--that says it is in opposition to independence, that says as late as March 5 in a written directive by the Taiwanese premier, that ``We are in opposition to independence.'' Why then would we ask a leader who is not representing an independent country to make an official visit? It does not make sense. Li Teng-hui's visit to Cornell was the event that sparked the incendiary nature of the last few months. And remember, that visit was billed as a private one; an unofficial one. One can only assume by using the phrase ``with all appropriate courtesies" the authors of this provision mean to imply some kind of an official visit despite America's commitment--we made a commitment--to maintain only economic, cultural, and unofficial relations with Taiwan. That is our commitment. If our relationship with China has suffered that much over an unofficial visit, one can scarcely imagine the damage it would suffer in the wake of an official one. I think we face a similar problem with the proposed name change of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. It was only a year ago that the Taiwanese reached an agreement with the administration to change the office's name from the Coordinating Committee for North American Affairs to its current title. Now some are advocating a change to the Taipei Representative Office. I have asked the Taiwanese if they asked for this change. They said no, they did not. Then why are we doing it? Only to tweak China? Is this really necessary? Is this how we want to make foreign policy, a tweak here and a tweak there? ``We know your Achilles' heel, China, and now we are going to press on it a little bit.'' Oh, my goodness. The current title of the office accurately reflects the unofficial nature of our relationship with Taiwan based primarily on economic and cultural relations. There is no need to create a new title that is not desired, that implies some kind of broader recognition, other than to tweak China. The people of Taiwan are to be congratulated for the democratic elections they have recently held. They can be justifiably proud. But the crux of our difficulties with China is China's concern that we are in some way egging Taiwan on toward a declaration of independence. That should not be the message we send. These provisions give credible substance to China's fear. They suggest we are not satisfied with Taiwan's status and will undertake unilateral actions to nudge it in the direction of independence. As I said, that is not our role. Our role as a friend of China and a friend of Taiwan is to encourage the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue by negotiation and mutual decision. The United States has no right to take actions that could lead to either a nonpeaceful outcome or a non-negotiated outcome. Unilateral actions by any party in this matter are not acceptable. There are other provisions which will be irritants of our relationship with China at best and counterproductive to our own goals at worst. For example, I am aware that the backers of the provision authorizing a special envoy for Tibet have only the best of intentions--to see life improved for the Tibetan people. However, I can assure my colleagues that the appointment of a special envoy for Tibet with the rank of Ambassador would be seen by the Chinese, once again, as an attempt to advocate for independence of an area they consider within their territorial boundaries. Even if this person never set foot in Lhasa--and we know that with the rank of Ambassador the Chinese would never let him set foot in Lhasa--we know the Chinese will view such a special envoy as interfering in their internal affairs. Now, I am as committed as any Member of this body to improving the lives of the Tibetan people. My husband and I both regard his Holiness, the Dalai Lama, as a personal friend. I first met him in Dharmsala in 1978 and have spent many hours with him and his representatives discussing ways to help Tibet and Tibetans. In January, in Hong Kong, I met with his older brother, Gyalo Thondup, who has been his representative in many negotiations with the Chinese, and had an extensive discussion. In 1991, I carried a letter from his Holiness, the Dalai Lama, to President Jiang Zemin asking for negotiations between the two sides. As mayor of San Francisco in 1979, I was the first public official to invite the Dalai Lama to visit a city in the United States--San Francisco, an official visit to my city. And since then I have been trying to find ways to bring the two sides together and to encourage China to understand that it is to China's great advantage to see that the culture and religion of the Tibetan people are protected and that human rights for the Tibetan people are improved. I recite this background merely to make the point that I am well acquainted with the issue of Tibet and have spent many years working on it. In my view, the appointment of a special envoy by the United States would be counterproductive. It would result in the Chinese being unwilling to talk with us or anyone else about ameliorating conditions for the Tibetan people. What we need to do instead, through intense, continuing, low-key diplomacy, is to convince the Chinese that it is to their advantage to engage in talks with the Dalai Lama in which all issues other than Tibetan independence would be on the table. This I believe is an achievable goal but only if we avoid somehow injecting ourselves in the issue in such a way that the Chinese see us as advocates for Tibetan independence. You cannot have a special envoy with the rank of Ambassador and not create the impression that what we are trying to do is see Tibet as independent. Therefore, the Chinese will fight any improvements all the way. That is why I think this is not well thought out. There has already been at least one missed opportunity to advance the cause of Tibet. After the last Panchen Lama died, the Chinese authorities invited the Dalai Lama to come to Beijing for a memorial service, but he declined the invitation. I believe that was a mistake because it would have given a new generation of Chinese leadership an opportunity to get to know the Dalai Lama as the fine person he truly is, as a caring, loving person, and a devout Buddhist. By all means, we should continue to explore ways to achieve cultural and religious autonomy for Tibet and hopefully 1 day the return of the Dalai Lama and Tibetans in exile to their native soil. And in the words of an ancient Chinese proverb, When water flows, there will be a channel. I am hopeful that the water of negotiations will flow before too long. In my discussions with Chinese leaders over the last year, they have repeatedly raised their concern that the United States is pursuing a policy of containment with respect to China, perhaps in the guise of something else. I do not believe we have such a policy, and I have said so. However, when I look at a bill like this one, full of provisions that deal almost patronizingly with an independent nation, China, I must say it seems that some, for whatever reason, do genuinely want to pursue a policy of containment. One certainly could not blame a Chinese observer for drawing that conclusion. I think we have discussed at length in the past why a containment policy is unworkable and unwise. China is a nation of 1.2 billion people. It is a nuclear power. It is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and one of the fastest growing and most dynamic economies in the world. China is not going to be contained. What we need to do is set a long-term strategic and conceptual, goal-oriented relationship with certain priorities in our policies, areas where we can work together, and a methodology for areas where there is a difference of opinion to be able to sit down over the long term at the table and make progress on those issues that divide us. I believe this is possible. We have enormous national interests in developing a peaceful and cooperative relationship with China, and we cannot do so by setting them apart, by making them the adversary that they do not want to be and that we do not want them to become. I hope my colleagues will reconsider the wisdom of legislating in this area so excessively in the future. Mr. President, for all of the problems contained in this bill, I urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report. If the bill is passed, I wish to commend the President for pledging to veto this legislation, and I look forward to congratulating him when he does. I thank the Chair. I reserve the remainder of my time Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support the comments of my colleague on the Presidio. I have lived all my life one block from the Presidio. I know it well. The Presidio bill is predicated on something that is unique. It is a private-public partnership whereby the more than 500 historic buildings and the additional buildings would be leased out, with a hope that over a 15-year-period it would be able to make public areas of the Presidio self-supporting. Having said this, I am hopeful that every Member of this body could realize the longer it takes to get a bill, the more in jeopardy that plan becomes. Because of the rains, because of the fact that many of these buildings are now boarded up, they are subject to intrusion, to vandalism; they are subject to the absence of an adequate policing authority on that 1,500-acre post. The Presidio, by each day of delay, is placed in jeopardy. I am also hopeful, and I address these remarks to the distinguished majority leader, that he would be willing to become a party to negotiations which I think can go on, on the subject of the Utah wilderness, so that we might be able to get an agreement that would be satisfactory to the two Senators from Utah, as well. I think it is possible. I think that every area is not the same as Yellowstone or Yosemite. They have certain unique characteristics which need to have attention, as well. I am hopeful, Mr. Leader, that in the ensuing days, perhaps under your auspice, there might be negotiations which could be carried out. At least we should try and see if we cannot get some agreement which can either enable the package to move ahead as a package, or enable the Presidio, something which my colleague just said, does have unanimous consent in this body, to move ahead.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think it is very important that this directive, which clearly states that it is the policy of the Taiwanese government to pursue national reunification and strongly oppose independence, be known by the world. Now there will be a window of opportunity following Saturday's election for resumption of the Cross-Straits Initiative that was derailed last summer after Lee Teng-hui's visit. This dialogue, conducted by China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits and Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation, offers a unique opportunity to begin to meet and discuss the major issues concerning reunification. China has for some time offered Taiwan direct air service. As you know, today the plane leaves Taiwan, it appears to land at Macao, it changes its flight number, and it goes on to China. This is not necessary. China is prepared to once again offer, as its Vice Foreign Minister told 10 U.S. Senators who were present at a meeting last week, direct sea service and direct postal service. I ardently urge both parties to sit down at the table and begin to discuss issues around which there is a common interest. One has to be a One China policy. The second has to be peaceful reunification. The third has to be steps taken to achieve both of the foregoing. I think the peace, security, and stability of Asia, and perhaps the world, are at stake in these discussions. I earnestly and sincerely implore the parties, both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, to sit down at the table, to end these military exercises, and to resolve a peaceful reunification for the future. I thank the Chair for your indulgence. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.