Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, for his leadership on the issue of the resolution which was just passed by a vote of 97 to 0 in this body. I thank him for his cooperative approach to finding a text that all parties could agree on. I also express my thanks and admiration to the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston, and the Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, for their understanding of this issue and their efforts to craft a responsible resolution. I would also like to thank Senators Murkowski, Helms, Simon, and Pell, and the distinguished majority leader, and their staffs, for working with all of us in a cooperative spirit on this resolution. Mr. President, in the last 2 weeks we have watched as China has tested four missiles in close proximity to Taiwan, and the People's Liberation Army has conducted live-ammunition military exercises in the Taiwan Strait. These tests and exercises are, obviously, aimed at showing in a militant fashion China's depth of feeling about the Taiwan issue and, many believe, to influence the Taiwanese election which will take place in a 2 short days. It is unfortunate, I believe, that China has chosen to express its displeasure through the use of military threats. It is wrong, and the United States is right to deplore it. The United States has for over 24 years adhered to a One China policy that is based, in part, on the understanding that China will not seek to resolve its differences with Taiwan through other than peaceful means. Our One China policy, of course, is also based on an understanding that Taiwan will not make any efforts to resolve its differences with China unilaterally or through any effort or move toward independence. Clearly, a number of Taiwan's actions over the past several months-- including President Lee Teng-hui's visit to the United States, Taiwanese military exercises concurrent with that visit, and an ongoing campaign for a seat at the United Nations--have called into question whether Taiwan is sincere in its statements that it opposes independence. This resolution, then, sends two messages. It says to the Chinese that their use of military threats against Taiwan is unacceptable and represents a potential threat to United States interests in the western Pacific. President Clinton has deployed the USS Independence and the USS Nimitz to the region to monitor events. China must understand that the use of force against Taiwan would have grave consequences. In addition, the resolution says to Taiwan that it must avoid provocative actions that cast doubt on its commitment not to pursue independence and, instead, to work for eventual peaceful reunification. Taiwan's security is important to the United States, but the United States will not sanction actions by Taiwan that raise tensions unnecessarily. The One China policy is the essential element of the United States- China-Taiwan relationship. This policy has been the acknowledged framework that has served all three parties well for some two decades: The United States and China have been able to conduct normal relations befitting two great powers; China has entered into a period of dynamic economic growth; the United States and Taiwan have developed extensive economic and cultural ties; Taiwan has become the single largest investor in China, with over $20 billion in investments on the mainland; and, Taiwan has prospered and moved toward a democracy of which its people can be rightfully proud. With all of these benefits flowing from the One China policy, and the fact that in a poll a week ago in Taiwan only 8 percent of the people favored independence and the overwhelming majority preferred the status quo, no one should take any precipitous action which would threaten to undermine the One China policy. In the aftermath of the Taiwan election, all three parties must move to restore balance to this relationship by reaffirming the One China policy. China's concern, as relayed to me from its highest leadership, has been that Taiwan will not say that it endorses a One China policy and speaks with two tongues. Mr. President, I would like to introduce into the Record a directive from Premier Lien Chan, the number two official of the Republic of China. His directive was made in writing on March 5. It was made public by Patrick Tyler, the Beijing reporter for the New York Times. I called the Taiwan office and received a copy of it. It is on two pages. The part that I would like to quote is as follows: I reiterate that the Republic of China government is adamant in its pursuit of national reunification and strong opposition to Taiwan independence. When I called the Chinese Ambassador and made clear that this had been presented in writing, he made the point that it is presented in English but that it has appeared nowhere in Taiwan in Chinese. I ask unanimous consent to have the directive printed in the Record, if I may, at this point in my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I supported the Senate-passed product liability bill, and I am very proud of that. I think the findings in the conference report very clearly state why there needs to be a product liability bill, not the least of which is some uniformity all the way across the broad consumer market, known as the United States of America. While I supported the Senate-passed bill, the conference report, I believe, raises some new questions, points of controversy that, since I am not a lawyer, I cannot resolve. I ask one party and they say one thing; I ask another party and they say another. This may mean clarification is needed. It may mean that substantive changes need to be made. But surely, it means, I believe, that we should send this bill back to conference. I want, very briefly, in the time afforded me, to make five points. The first is the section, or the move of the section, on negligent entrustment. Negligent entrustment, as it was presented in the Senate bill, applied to the entire bill, and now, in this bill, it has been placed in a section on ``Liability Rules Applicable to Product Sellers, Renters, and Lessors.'' This move, I am told, also then places a cap on punitive damages in negligent entrustment actions, and subjects them to the limitations on joint and several liability. This is a problem to me because, in the event of automobiles and drunk drivers, guns sold or given to people who misuse them, this could have an impact on the kinds and types of suits and the amount of judgments derived therefrom. Therefore, my belief is that this entire issue of negligent entrustment needs to be clarified so that we are certain that the exception applies throughout the entire bill. Second the statute of repose. California has no statute of repose. The proposed statute of repose in the Senate bill was 20 years, and now it is down to 15 years in the conference report. The bill provides, however, that any State with a statute of repose that is under 15 years prevails. California, with no statute of repose, cannot have a higher standard and maintain no statute of repose. But a State with a lesser standard of, let us say, a 10-year statute of repose, can prevail. To me, this is unsatisfactory. For my vote, I would have a very difficult time having a statute of repose in a bill which is less than 20 years. I believe it sends a wrong signal to U.S. manufacturers. I believe it sends a message to manufacturers all across this great land that they can, in fact, manufacture less durable and perhaps even less safe products, because their time for liability is cut dramatically, certainly from no statute of repose to a 15-year statute of repose. This is a dramatic change in the bill. The third point is the definition of durable goods. Durable goods are subject to the statute of repose. In the definition on page 4 of the conference report, section 101, subsection 7, one comma has been deleted and one has been added. I must say that what could be just grammatical has caused a maelstrom of interpretation and misinterpretation. And I, frankly, do not know who to believe. This may be a drafting error, or it may be an intentional change in meaning. But many people point out to me that this change of a comma could change the definition of durable goods. The fourth point I would like to make has to do with the additur provision, and this relates to punitive damages. I believe it needs further clarification. As I understand the additur provision in this conference bill, it provides that if a State has a cap on punitive damages and does not authorize an additur, then a judge is unlikely to have the authority to award punitive damages above the State cap. I believe this needs to be cleared up by the conference committee. My fifth point has to do with biomaterials. I come from a State with many responsible companies who are very concerned about the possibility of losing their supplies of raw materials. They need this legislation because they produce lifesaving devices, whether they be pacemakers, or heart starters. I was visited by a very young woman who had a condition in which her heart periodically would just stop, and she had an implanted device that would restart her heart. Her heart would sometimes stop when she was asleep. The people that made some of the materials that went into this device essentially would not provide it absent some release from liability. But, as presently drafted, biomaterials suppliers--including suppliers of component parts--can be liable only if they fail to meet their contract specifications, or if they fail to properly register their materials with the FDA. First, I think we need a better definition of what is a ``component part'' in the bill to ensure that this does not sweep too broadly, and to ensure that this language would not allow certain manufacturers of devices to escape liability. I believe it is also very important that raw materials suppliers who know that their products pose a potential hazard and fail to disclose such harm should be held liable for knowing behavior. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Coats-Snowe amendment to the continuing resolution, S. 1594. This amendment does two things: It puts into law a prohibition on Federal and State governments from discriminating against institutions that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures; and, it undermines the long-respected accreditation system by allowing programs to opt out of meeting the required medical training standards set by the ACGME and still receive Federal funds as if these programs met those standards. The Coats-Snowe amendment is unnecessary, it undermines the integrity of Federal and State medical educational and licensing standards, and it represents another step in the erosion of freedom of choice in this country.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment and also to raise a point of order. Prior to making the point of order, however, I point out that as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I do not believe this measure passed by an overwhelming majority. It really passed only on the basis of partisan lines with one exception on our side of the aisle. Essentially, this was the subject of much discussion before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. President. As you, yourself, know, there was no hearing on the bill to split the ninth circuit that is encompassed in this second-degree amendment. No public hearing on this proposal was held before the Judiciary Committee. Essentially, what this proposal does is take the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Arizona, split them from the ninth circuit, and set up their own circuit. This would leave the States of California and Hawaii, along with the territories of Guam and the northern Marianas, in their own circuit. Never before in history has there been a circuit comprised of fewer than three States. If Congress votes to divide the ninth circuit despite the overwhelming opposition of its bench and bar, Congress will be making, I believe, an irreversible decision that will have far-reaching and long-term implications for all circuits. Congress will be endorsing the view that a political division with no real data to support it is an acceptable way to determine circuit composition. I say it is not an acceptable way to determine what a circuit court of the United States should be. The fifth circuit has been held to be some kind of a model. This was split in 1980, following the 1973 findings of the Hruska Commission. It is my understanding that the fifth circuit has one of the poorest records with respect to delays today. The problems of caseload growth are nationwide problems that cannot be resolved by zeroing in on one circuit and wantonly, haphazardly, chopping it up. I believe that there ought to be a study of the structural aspects of all of the circuits. There ought to be a study of the structural alternatives available to the circuit courts of appeal. Qualified members of a commission should make recommendations to the Congress on circuit structure and alignment, whether and how any realignment should occur. If you recall, the Hruska Commission, a long time ago, recommended a split of the State of California. I think, in view of the new techniques that have been put into play by the ninth circuit in the past 23 years, this recommendation is perhaps out of date. The ninth circuit has made requests for new judges. These requests have not been honored in terms of presenting the circuit with an adequate number of judges to do the job. The State bars oppose a ninth circuit split. That is also what makes this a very dangerous proposal. The eleventh circuit split from the fifth only after all of the judges and bar associations essentially agreed with the proposal to create a new circuit. This is the opposite case. The bar associations of Arizona, of Nevada, of Montana, of California, and of Hawaii have all expressed their opposition to splitting the circuit, as did Idaho, the last time this split came up. I ask unanimous consent that those resolutions be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to withhold for a moment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me speak for just a moment on the subject of the pertinence of this amendment at this time. This amendment filed by the distinguished Senator from Montana is really not a relevant amendment, to which, if the subject of the amendment were known, there would clearly have been objection. The amendment carries an appropriation for the Judiciary, which has been funded for the entire fiscal year through a previous continuing resolution. That is the vehicle for this kind of appropriation. It is not relevant to this bill before us. So, Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reid and myself, I raise this point of order.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I raise this point of order that amendment No. 3530 is not relevant to the Hatfield substitute or to the House bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As the distinguished Chair knows, the board of governors of the Arizona bar has issued a resolution against the recent Burns proposal, stating the following: The proposal cuts Arizona off from California, the State with which it shares the greatest legal and economic ties. This bill would create a two-State circuit, with one tiny State dwarfed by a large State. California would have 94 percent of the new ninth circuit's caseload. It is also a very costly proposal. I find it just ironic that the committee would vote to spend so much for no demonstrated gain, when this Congress is so concerned--and I believe commendably concerned-- with reducing the costs of the judiciary. Splitting the ninth circuit would require duplicative offices of clerk of the court, circuit executive, staff attorneys, settlement attorneys, courtrooms, libraries, and mail and computer facilities. The estimated additional costs of a new or rehabilitated courthouse for a proposed headquarters in Phoenix range from $23 to $59.5 million. Both GSA and CBO have allocated startup costs at an additional $3 million. GSA and CBO have estimated annual costs of duplicative staff positions at $1 million, and an additional $2 million for the cost of leasing space for the headquarters until permanent quarters could be made available. So we have duplicative staff to the tune of $1 million, and additional lease costs--unnecessary--of $2 million. If the twelfth circuit, as proposed in this second-degree amendment, were to be created, substantial expenses already incurred by the taxpayers also would be wasted. Congress has authorized, and GSA has already completed, an extensive post-earthquake restoration of the current ninth circuit headquarters building in San Francisco, at a cost of over $100 million. The GSA has also completed the build-out of the court of appeals courthouse in Pasadena. I am told that 35 percent of the $100 million was essentially spent on quarters for the ninth circuit. I do not believe that this effort to split the ninth circuit really represents a genuine effort to deal with the problems of the U.S. court system. I believe, really, it is an example of judicial gerrymandering because some decisions made by that court were not to the liking of certain people. I am aware of the fact that the Senator from Montana, in his press release of May 25, states: We are seeing an increase in legal actions against economic activities in States like Montana, such as timbering, mining, and water development. This threatens local economic stability, but as bad as this economic backlog is, I am particularly disturbed by the delays experienced by families of victims. The press release of the Senator from Montana also says: State Senator Ethel Harding, of Polson, knew firsthand the pain of this kind of delay, whose daughter was murdered by Duncan Meccans 20 years ago, but Meccans was put to death only 2 weeks ago. The appeal ended up in the ninth circuit three times over the 20-year period, and part of the delay can be attributed to the heavy caseload and inefficient system of the ninth circuit. Senator Burns' press releases illustrate the fact that, clearly, this effort to split the ninth circuit is politically motivated--because a habeas decision of the ninth circuit was not agreed with, for example. I respectfully submit to my distinguished colleague from Montana that there is habeas reform pending. I happen to support that reform. I submit to this body that that is the appropriate way to deal with habeas reform--not to gerrymander the circuit, but to pass a reform law that changes habeas corpus. Another issue that was brought out in Senator Burns' press release was the Montana sheriff's appeal of background checks under the Brady law. This was cited as further evidence of the need to split Montana and other northwest States from the circuit. I go into this not to measure the good or the bad of the decision relating to background checks, but simply to say that I believe this is the heart of the reason for the split. It is being done precipitously, without study, at great cost, and I believe for the wrong reasons. It, therefore, sets a precedent for these kinds of political maneuverings. Let us take a look at the ninth circuit. The ninth circuit does a good job. In the 23 years following the Hruska Commission report, the ninth circuit has become a national leader in experimentation in judicial administration. It is producing good results. The average time, from oral argument submission to disposition, is 1.9 months, or half a month less than the national average. In fact, the ninth circuit is the second most efficient circuit in deciding cases once they are submitted to judges. The ninth circuit terminates over 8,500 cases a year, almost two- fifths more than the number it terminated 7 years ago. Since 1992, the number of cases pending before the ninth circuit has decreased annually. It is also the first Federal court circuit to automate its docket with computerized issue tracking systems that are far more sophisticated than anything available in 1973. These systems keep ninth circuit panels apprised of other panel decisions, helping them avoid intra-circuit conflicts. So the ninth circuit has pioneered a number of different technological and structural improvements. Additionally, it has used a limited en banc procedure, which has also proved effective in resolving potential intra-circuit conflicts. All active judges participate in the decision as to whether a case will go en banc. The Court's rules allow for rehearing by the full court at the request of either judges or litigants. So either a judge or a litigant can request a hearing by the full court. It should be noted that the limited en banc procedure is called upon very infrequently. There are only about 12 to 13 limited en banc decisions per year out of a total of about 4,000 written decisions. [Exhibit 1] State Bar of Nevada resolution Whereas, The State Bar of Nevada, through the years, has consistently supported the maintenance of the Ninth Circuit as presently constituted; and Whereas, a question of dividing the circuit may well reoccur during the present session of Congress or in the discussions before the Judicial Conference; Now, therefore, the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Nevada Resolves that the Ninth Circuit is well constituted as is, promotes judicial economy, and as constituted, promotes the interests of justice, and no alteration should be made nor should the Ninth Judicial Circuit be divided. Dated: This 9th day of March, 1995.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The ninth circuit judicial conference has opposed the split. The Judicial Council, the governing body of the ninth circuit, unanimously opposes a split. The Federal Bar Association has opposed this split. I ask unanimous consent, also, that their statements be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the concerns of the Senator from Nevada and to reiterate those concerns. Obviously, this is an issue which is of predominant interest to my State, a State of 32 million people. In effect, it creates a very unbalanced situation. We have tried to make some of those arguments in the Chamber. Even more importantly than that, I think it will destroy, certainly for the rest of this session, what has been a measure of consensus on which this body essentially predicates its movement. Let me tell you why I believe that. As Senator Reid pointed out, the notation in the Executive Calendar is that, for everybody who submitted an amendment on the basis that it is relevant to the bill before it--we take their word for it. We take their word for it, that they are not trying to play a trick, they are not trying to put something that is not relevant before this body. In fact, there is a legitimate vehicle for this bill. Senator Burns' position prevailed in the Judiciary Committee. There is a bill which was passed out of the Judiciary Committee which is the proper vehicle on which to discuss this. So I think the claim that to get action we have to breach what is the word of a Member--a Member who has agreed that an amendment is going to be relevant--is a bad claim. To proceed with that amendment when it is found by the Chair on two occasions not to be relevant sets a dangerous precedent. To persist with that amendment is something that in toto destroys the opportunity for consensus in this body. I would say there would be no reason for anyone on this side, after being treated in this manner, to agree to a unanimous-consent agreement for the remainder of this session. We would be very foolish to do so, because clearly the precedent is being set that the rights of the minority are being abrogated right here and now, that it does not really matter what the finding of the Chair is with respect to relevancy, we are going to be overturned. I find this very difficult, particularly when there is a legitimate vehicle on which to discuss this issue. The Senator from Montana knows that. Every member of the Judiciary Committee knows that. The issue was discussed in committee. A bill was passed out of the committee. The chairman of the committee and the majority leader of the Senate can certainly schedule that bill on this floor. That is, then, an appropriate vehicle on which to debate this. So I am very puzzled as to why this has to be done in a precipitous manner, at a time when most of the Members are not here, cannot hear the arguments, and the results of which are going to cast a precedent on the legal system of this Nation which is very large indeed, and shatter consensus making for this body--the kind of honesty, the kind of commitment that is necessary to achieve a unanimous-consent agreement. There is no incentive, certainly, for me to ever agree to a unanimous-consent agreement for the rest of this session if something as important to the State of California as this is going to be dealt with in this manner. Both Senator Reid and I have met with Senator Burns. We have indicated our agreement to proceed with a study. We have indicated that we would shorten the time of the study from the 2 years proposed. I have an amendment for a study which is somewhat broader than Senator Burns' amendment. We have agreed to cut the time in half. We have reached out in trying to solve this in the tradition of the Senate, which I always thought involved a certain conviviality. But now to find out that there is just simply going to be a partisan vote, with no chance to debate it when all the Members are here, I think is a big mistake. We have tried earlier, Mr. President, to indicate the deficiencies of the amendment. We have argued about its cost. This is cost that does not have to be incurred. A building was rehabilitated in San Francisco with 35 percent more space provided and $100 million spent in earthquake recovery funds to accommodate expansion and new judges for the ninth circuit; $23 to $59 million will need to be spent for new courthouse expansion and construction the Burns bill would require. I indicated earlier that at least $3 million of that is entirely duplicative. It is a duplication. At a time when we are scrambling for every dollar, we are going to duplicate staff for a political proposal. I pointed out that this is an unfair division. California, Hawaii, Guam, and the North Marianas would have 62 percent of the caseload, and Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana would have only 38 percent of the caseload. The way the allocation of the judges is structured in this, it is an unfair, unbalanced allocation of judges. California, Guam, and the Marianas would not get 62 percent of the judges to handle 62 percent of the caseload. They would get a greatly reduced amount. It is clearly a political proposal. To ram it through on an irrelevant amendment sticks in the craw. So it is unfair at best. It is a disproportionate allocation of cases and of judges. Third, there has never been a hearing on this proposal. This proposal would restructure--with no public hearing--the largest circuit in the Nation that hears about 8,000 cases a year. There was a hearing on a former proposal by Senator Gorton. We understood that proposal. Then suddenly a new proposal was made in the Judiciary Committee, and there was no public hearing. Fourth, we have argued that there is a need for a study. The last comprehensive study was done in 1973, by the Hruska Commission. This was before the ninth circuit instituted many changes in its methodology for doing business and speeding up caseload. I believe, if you really dispassionately look at the facts, you will see that the ninth circuit is processing cases just as fast as the dominant majority of other circuits, certainly faster than the fifth circuit that was split in 1980 based on the Hruska Commission's recommendations. So, we say take 2 years, have 12 members appointed in a dispassionate way by three different entities, and fund it with $500,000, to look at all the circuits, look at the workload across this Nation, and make some decision. I would like, if I might, to read from the minority report that was filed by Senator Kennedy and myself in the Judiciary Committee on a couple of points. One of these points that I would like to make is the impact of having one State predominate in the proposed new ninth circuit. The majority acknowledged that California will undoubtedly predominate in the new ninth circuit. But the majority also insisted that this situation is not without precedent in the court of appeals. The fact is that California would predominate in the new Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to a degree that is without precedent or parallel. According to the majority's own figures on the other circuits dominated by one State, New York contributes 87 percent of the caseload of the second circuit; Texas contributes only 69 percent of the fifth circuit's caseload. In the proposed new ninth circuit, however, 94 percent of the caseload would come from California. That is an inordinate amount. It has never been done before in the history of this Nation. I would like to read one other section: ``To divide circuits in order to accommodate regional interests''--which is clearly what we are doing here. Let us not pretend. Every press release indicates that this is the reason for the split--regional interests, economic interests, criminal justice interests, the fact that a group of people do not like some decisions. I think that is true for everybody, for every appellate court decision that is made, there are some people who do not like the decision. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, rejected such a premise for dividing circuits as completely unacceptable, in testimony about an earlier version of this legislation. Chief Justice Burger stated: I find it is a very offensive statement to be made, that a U.S. judge, having taken the oath of office, is going to be biased because of the economic conditions of his own jurisdiction. Judge Charles Wiggins, Reagan appointee and former Republican Member of Congress, recently wrote a letter criticizing the political motivations behind the current proposal: The majority report . . . contains the misleading statement that the recommended division of the ninth circuit is not in response to ideological differences between judges from California and judges from elsewhere in the circuit. I strongly disagree that such a motive does not, in fact, underlie the proposal for the change. Such a regionalization of the circuits in accordance with State interests is wrong. There is one Federal law. It is enacted by the Congress, signed by the President, and is to be respected in every State in the Union. The law in Montana and Washington is the same law as exists in Maine and Vermont. It is the mission of the Supreme Court to maintain one consistent Federal law. I do hope that you will challenge the supporters of the revision to explain the reasons justifying their proposal. So, we know that with no public hearing on this proposal, we have an unprecedented, unparalleled proposal to split a court, giving the big weight to one State in that court, over 90 percent, and to do a split in a way that the judges are not fairly allocated. California, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Marianas Islands, with 62 percent of the caseload, will have far below the number of judges required to handle that, and seven States with 38 percent of the caseload would have a better allocation of judges. This is a very serious proposal and it is being done in a way that is of very deep concern to this Senator: In an amendment found twice to be unrelated to the legislation contemplated by this body at that time--in a way that most certainly is going to create a problem in terms of the people of this side ever agreeing to a unanimous consent-request again. So, Mr. President and Members of the Senate, I hope there would be due consideration given to these arguments. I think this is a very serious situation indeed, and I am hopeful that cooler heads will prevail.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, not to belabor the point, but earlier I made the point about the duplicative costs of the ninth circuit split proposal, the inordinate costs of the proposal, the unnecessary costs of the proposal, the unfair division that the Burns bill presents. I would like to just clarify what I said. What I said was that California, Hawaii, Guam, and Northern Marianas have currently 62 percent of the caseload; Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana have 38 percent. In the Burns proposal, the group of States with 62 percent of the cases get 15 judges, and the States with only 38 percent of the caseload get 13 judges. The States with 62 percent of the cases end up getting proportionately fewer judges relative to caseload. According to ninth circuit statistics for 1995, the proposed new twelfth circuit would have only 765 filings per three- judge panel, whereas the ninth circuit would have 1,065 filings per three-judge panel. How this huge caseload is going to be handled with a disproportionately low number of judges should cause some concern because this will still remain a very large circuit. It will be unable to function due to a heavy backlog of cases. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 8 years ago this week, in the closing weeks of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein sent Iraqi forces to crush a rebellion among the Kurds of northern Iraq. In the assault, centered on the city of Halabja, Saddam's forces rained poison gas down upon the city, and over 5,000 Kurds, many of them civilians, lost their lives in horrifying fashion. As research since the end of the Iran-Iraq war has shown, Halabja was only the most brutal chapter in Saddam's genocidal campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. From the mid-1980's through the end of the war, Iraq forced hundreds of thousands of Kurdish citizens into detention camps, kidnapped tens of thousands of others, most of whom are presumed dead, and attacked Kurdish towns and villages, often with deadly poison gas. Some 150,000 Kurds lost their lives in this infamous Anfal campaign--which can only be described as a campaign of genocide by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds of Iraq. Sadly, this is not the only incident of Saddam's brutality against his own people. The threshold crossed by Iraq during the Anfal campaign laid the groundwork for Saddam's most recent genocidal killing spree, this time against the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq. In the years following the gulf war, as Iraqi Shiite rebels took refuge in the remote communities of the Marsh Arabs, Saddam turned his army on this community. In the last 3 years, thousands of Marsh Arabs have disappeared, never to be heard from again, and entire villages have been burned to the ground. This time, the genocide was accompanied by an environmental outrage, as Iraqi engineers drained thousands of acres of marshlands in order to reach remote villages, wiping out a fragile ecosystem and obliterating the centuries-old way of life of the Marsh Arabs. The Kurds, too, continue to suffer at Saddam's hand. They narrowly escaped a new round of massacres at the end of the gulf war in 1991, thanks to the intervention of the United States and our allies. Today, although the Kurds of Iraq govern the northern provinces autonomously under the protection of Operation Provide Comfort--a cooperative effort by the United States, Britain, and France--they remain subject to an internal blockade by Saddam's forces, as well as the U.N. embargo against all of Iraq, and periodic Iraqi attacks against Kurdish towns and individuals. No Member of this body has done more to publicize and address the plight of the Kurds than the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell. Thanks in large part to his efforts, and those of the distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, over 18 tons of Iraqi Government and secret police documents detailing Iraq's genocidal campaign against the Kurds--after being captured by Kurdish rebels in 1991--were brought to the United States for research and analysis. The result has been a well-documented history of Iraqi atrocities against the Kurds, including the horrific use of poison gas. On this tragic anniversary, I want to commend Senator Pell and Senator Helms for their leadership on this issue. I hope that the United States will continue to take a leadership role in working to ensure a better life for the Kurds of Iraq, both until and after Saddam Hussein is driven from power.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank Senator Hollings. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Grassley, Reid, and Kyl, the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. This is legislation that, first, increases the regulation of precursor chemicals necessary to produce methamphetamine, a dangerous narcotic also known as speed, crank or ice. Second, it increases the penalties for possession of controlled chemicals or paraphernalia used to make methamphetamine. This legislation has been drafted over the past 6 months with the input of the Drug Enforcement Agency, the California Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, the California Narcotics Officers Association, and local, State, and Federal law enforcement and prosecutors. I have a particular interest in this issue because of the ravaging effects that methamphetamine has had in my own State and other States in the Southwest. Let me, for just a moment, explain how serious this problem is today. Methamphetamine has been around for a long time. But what once was a small-scale drug operation run by motorcycle gangs has now been taken over by at least one Mexican drug cartel. According to DEA, it is a multibillion-dollar industry in America. California has become the front line in this new and dangerous drug war. DEA has designated California as the ``source country,'' a source country for methamphetamine, much like Colombia is the source country for cocaine. It has identified that 93 percent of the methamphetamine seized nationwide has its point of origin in California. The explosion of this drug is being documented in hospital emergency rooms around California, and the epidemic is spreading eastward. In Sacramento just 4 weeks ago, law enforcement made the largest seizure in county history--80 pounds; street value, $2.5 million. Large-scale labs are now commonplace. Last year in the Central Valley, law enforcement convicted a man who manufactured in excess of 900 pounds with a street value of $5 million. Literally hundreds of illicit laboratories exist throughout the State. In two counties alone, Riverside and San Bernardino, there were 589 methamphetamine labs discovered in 1995. Labs can be in apartments, in mobile homes, in moving vehicles, and in hotel rooms. They can be dismantled in a matter of hours. They are explosive, toxic, and they burn. Law enforcement has indicated that drug dealers come in, set up, produce their drugs in hotels, and leave. The California Environmental Protection Agency expects that 1,150 sites will require cleanup by the end of this year in California. Most of the chemicals--iodine, refrigerants, hydrochloric gas, sodium hydroxide--are toxic and, in the case of red phosphorous, one of the precursor chemicals, highly flammable and explosive. Two months ago, a mobile home in Riverside used as a methamphetamine lab exploded, killing three small children. Incredibly enough, the mother of these children pleaded with neighbors that they not call for help. Before firefighters could find the children's burnt bodies, the woman walked away from the scene. Police in Phoenix say methamphetamine is mainly responsible for the 40-percent jump in homicides the city is experiencing. In Contra-Costa County, law enforcement reports that methamphetamine is involved in 89 percent of domestic disputes. Last year in San Diego, rival methamphetamine smuggling rings were responsible for 26 homicides. In 1994, among all adults arrested in the San Diego area, 42 percent of men and 53 percent of women tested positive for amphetamines. Sutter Memorial Hospital in Sacramento says that methamphetamine-affected babies now outnumber crack-addicted babies 7-1. The Methamphetamine Control Act which we are introducing today is carefully crafted. It is a targeted piece of legislation. It is drafted with the help of Federal, State, and local law enforcement, and it is aimed at the supply side of the problem. This bill would increase criminal penalties that can be applied to large-scale methamphetamine manufacturers throughout our Nation. It restricts access to the precursor chemicals used in mass quantities to produce methamphetamine. It would increase the penalties for possession of controlled chemicals or specialized equipment like the triple-neck flasks used to make methamphetamine. It would add chemicals used to make methamphetamine--iodine, red phosphorous, and hydrochloric gas--to the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act. It imposes a civil ``three strikes and you're out'' law, for companies that are found to be selling chemicals used to make methamphetamine. There are in our State about seven rogue chemical companies. Anyone with $100 and a mail order catalog can put themselves into business in manufacturing methamphetamine. They can buy large-scale quantities of those chemicals that go into making methamphetamine. This bill would double the maximum criminal penalty for possession of a chemical identified under the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act in methamphetamine production and would increase the maximum criminal penalty from 4 to 10 years for those who possess the specialized equipment used to manufacture methamphetamine. It would remove the loophole on pseudoephedrine in the Controlled Substances Act. Pseudoephedrine, a common ingredient in many over-the- counter medicines, is now used as a substitute for ephedrine to make methamphetamine. I have met with retailers and manufacturers of over-the-counter medicines and I understand the concerns about regulations which the DEA has proposed to control the illicit diversion of pseudoephedrine to make methamphetamine. I intend to work with these groups over the coming weeks to ensure that the 37 million Americans who rely on these products continue to have access to them. We are creating an informal advisory group comprised of executives of chemical manufacturers and supply house companies, DEA officials, and other law enforcement agencies to devise strategies to see that this law is responsibly and sensibly enforced. This bill includes a sense-of-the-Congress resolution supporting efforts for global chemical control. The point is that many chemicals used to make methamphetamine, such as ephedrine, are tightly controlled in the United States but are literally smuggled into the United States through countries with little or no control, like Mexico. This legislation would express the sense of the Congress that ephedrine-producing countries should require approval from the Mexican Government for shipments of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to Mexico, where they then come into this country. I am very pleased, Mr. President, that this is a bipartisan effort. I am delighted to have the cosponsorship of Senators Grassley and Kyl. I note that this bill is also being introduced in the House today by Congressman Riggs and Congressman Vic Fazio. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senators Grassley, Reid, and Kyl, the Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. This is legislation that, first, increases the regulation of precursor chemicals necessary to produce methamphetamine, a dangerous narcotic also known as speed, crank or ice. Second, it increases the penalties for possession of controlled chemicals or paraphernalia used to make methamphetamine. This legislation has been drafted over the past 6 months with the input of the Drug Enforcement Agency, the California Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, the California Narcotics Officers Association, and local, State, and Federal law enforcement and prosecutors. I have a particular interest in this issue because of the ravaging effects that methamphetamine has had in my own State and other States in the Southwest. Let me, for just a moment, explain how serious this problem is today. Methamphetamine has been around for a long time. But what once was a small-scale drug operation run by motorcycle gangs has now been taken over by at least one Mexican drug cartel. According to DEA, it is a multibillion-dollar industry in America. California has become the front line in this new and dangerous drug war. DEA has designated California as the ``source country,'' a source country for methamphetamine, much like Colombia is the source country for cocaine. It has identified that 93 percent of the methamphetamine seized nationwide has its point of origin in California. The explosion of this drug is being documented in hospital emergency rooms around California, and the epidemic is spreading eastward. In Sacramento just 4 weeks ago, law enforcement made the largest seizure in county history--80 pounds; street value, $2.5 million. Large-scale labs are now commonplace. Last year in the Central Valley, law enforcement convicted a man who manufactured in excess of 900 pounds with a street value of $5 million. Literally hundreds of illicit laboratories exist throughout the State. In two counties alone, Riverside and San Bernardino, there were 589 methamphetamine labs discovered in 1995. Labs can be in apartments, in mobile homes, in moving vehicles, and in hotel rooms. They can be dismantled in a matter of hours. They are explosive, toxic, and they burn. Law enforcement has indicated that drug dealers come in, set up, produce their drugs in hotels, and leave. The California Environmental Protection Agency expects that 1,150 sites will require cleanup by the end of this year in California. Most of the chemicals--iodine, refrigerants, hydrochloric gas, sodium hydroxide--are toxic and, in the case of red phosphorous, one of the precursor chemicals, highly flammable and explosive. Two months ago, a mobile home in Riverside used as a methamphetamine lab exploded, killing three small children. Incredibly enough, the mother of these children pleaded with neighbors that they not call for help. Before firefighters could find the children's burnt bodies, the woman walked away from the scene. Police in Phoenix say methamphetamine is mainly responsible for the 40-percent jump in homicides the city is experiencing. In Contra-Costa County, law enforcement reports that methamphetamine is involved in 89 percent of domestic disputes. Last year in San Diego, rival methamphetamine smuggling rings were responsible for 26 homicides. In 1994, among all adults arrested in the San Diego area, 42 percent of men and 53 percent of women tested positive for amphetamines. Sutter Memorial Hospital in Sacramento says that methamphetamine-affected babies now outnumber crack-addicted babies 7-1. The Methamphetamine Control Act which we are introducing today is carefully crafted. It is a targeted piece of legislation. It is drafted with the help of Federal, State, and local law enforcement, and it is aimed at the supply side of the problem. This bill would increase criminal penalties that can be applied to large-scale methamphetamine manufacturers throughout our Nation. It restricts access to the precursor chemicals used in mass quantities to produce methamphetamine. It would increase the penalties for possession of controlled chemicals or specialized equipment like the triple-neck flasks used to make methamphetamine. It would add chemicals used to make methamphetamine--iodine, red phosphorous, and hydrochloric gas--to the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act. It imposes a civil ``three strikes and you're out'' law, for companies that are found to be selling chemicals used to make methamphetamine. There are in our State about seven rogue chemical companies. Anyone with $100 and a mail order catalog can put themselves into business in manufacturing methamphetamine. They can buy large-scale quantities of those chemicals that go into making methamphetamine. This bill would double the maximum criminal penalty for possession of a chemical identified under the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act in methamphetamine production and would increase the maximum criminal penalty from 4 to 10 years for those who possess the specialized equipment used to manufacture methamphetamine. It would remove the loophole on pseudoephedrine in the Controlled Substances Act. Pseudoephedrine, a common ingredient in many over-the- counter medicines, is now used as a substitute for ephedrine to make methamphetamine. I have met with retailers and manufacturers of over-the-counter medicines and I understand the concerns about regulations which the DEA has proposed to control the illicit diversion of pseudoephedrine to make methamphetamine. I intend to work with these groups over the coming weeks to ensure that the 37 million Americans who rely on these products continue to have access to them. We are creating an informal advisory group comprised of executives of chemical manufacturers and supply house companies, DEA officials, and other law enforcement agencies to devise strategies to see that this law is responsibly and sensibly enforced. This bill includes a sense-of-the-Congress resolution supporting efforts for global chemical control. The point is that many chemicals used to make methamphetamine, such as ephedrine, are tightly controlled in the United States but are literally smuggled into the United States through countries with little or no control, like Mexico. This legislation would express the sense of the Congress that ephedrine-producing countries should require approval from the Mexican Government for shipments of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to Mexico, where they then come into this country. I am very pleased, Mr. President, that this is a bipartisan effort. I am delighted to have the cosponsorship of Senators Grassley and Kyl. I note that this bill is also being introduced in the House today by Congressman Riggs and Congressman Vic Fazio. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today, Senator Mack and I are introducing a bill to do two things. It would-- First, prohibit health insurers from conditioning the sale or terms of health insurance on genetic information of the insured or applicant for insurances; and Second, prohibit health insurers from requiring an applicant for insurance or an individual or family member presently covered to take a genetic test or to be subjected to questions relating to genetic history. Under this bill, an insurer could not engage in the following actions on the basis of any genetic information of an individual or family member or on the basis of an individual's or family member's request for or receipt of genetic services: Terminate, restrict, limit, or otherwise apply conditions to coverage of an individual or family member; Cancel or refuse to renew the coverage of an individual or family member; Deny coverage or exclude an individual or family member from coverage; Impose a rider that excludes coverage for certain benefits and services under the plan; Establish differentials in premium rates or cost sharing for coverage under the plan; or otherwise discriminate against an individual or family member in the provision of health care. Last fall, as cochairs 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. A considerable portion of illness derives from defects in one or more genes or the interplay of environmental and genetic factors. For example, approximately 3 percent of all children are born with a severe condition that is primarily genetic in origin. By age 24, genetic disease strikes 5 percent of Americans. Genetic disorders account for one-fifth of adult hospital occupancy, two-thirds of childhood hospital occupancy, one- third of pregnancy loss, and one-third of mental retardation. About 15 million people are affected by one or more of the over 4,000 currently identified genetic disorders. An even larger number are carriers of genetic disease. J. Rennie in the June 1994 Scientific American estimated that every person has between 5 and 10 defective genes though they often are not manifested. Indeed, we are all carrying around between 50,000 and 100,000 genes scattered on 23 pairs of chromosomes. In the past 5 years, there has been a virtual explosion of knowledge about genes. Scientists, including those at the Federal Human Genome Project, 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, neurofibromatosis, and Lou Gehrig's disease. Altered genes play a part in heart disease, diabetes, and many other more common disease. While these important understandings hold great potential, they also present some serious problems. Witness after witness at our hearing discussed the potential and the reality of health insurance discrimination. They told us about insurers denying coverage, refusing to renew coverage, or denying coverage of a particular condition. In a 1992 study, the Office of Technology Assessment found that 17 of 29 insurers would not sell insurance to individuals when presymptomatic testing revealed the likelihood of a serious, chronic future disease. Fifteen of 37 commercial insurers that cover groups said they would decline the applicant. Underwriters at 11 of 25 Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans said they would turn down an applicant if presymptomatic testing revealed the likelihood of disease. The study 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, 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 inquired whether she should be tested to see if she was a carrier. After she was found to carry the gene that causes the disease, the insurer told her that neither she nor any children she might have would be covered unless her husband was determined not to carry the CF gene. She went for several months without health insurance because she sought genetic information about herself. These practices deny people health insurance. In the United States, 40 million people or 15 percent have no health insurance. In California, it is 23 percent, translating to between 6 and 7 million people. 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 nonelderly, families have to spend down or impoverish themselves. Having more uninsured people means that we all pay more, both for the public programs and for uninsured people arriving in hospital emergency rooms at the last minute with exacerbated conditions. Not only do these denials deprive Americans of health insurance, the fear of discrimination can have adverse health effects. For example, if people fear retaliation by their insurer, they may be less likely to provide their physician with full information. They may be reluctant to be tested. This reluctance means that physicians might not have all the information they need to make a solid diagnosis or decide a course of treatment. I hope Congress will begin to address this unfair insurance practice. After all, we are all just a bundle of genes. We are all at risk of disease and illness. This bill can help make health insurance available to many who need it and who want to buy it. I hope my colleagues will join me today in enacting this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to salute Susanne B. Wilson, who will be honored with the 1995-96 distinguished Tower Award by San Jose State University. Since 1972 the Tower Award has been presented to alumni, faculty, and community leaders recognizing exceptional and continuous service to San Jose State and the university community. Continuing the tradition of the award, Susie Wilson is a longstanding leader in Santa Clara Valley as a public official--a member of the county board of supervisors and a member of the San Jose City Council--and in her work for numerous organizations. Susie's active leadership role at San Jose State University spans nearly three decades--first as a student then as a faculty member, and now as a volunteer alumna. She earned her bachelor's degree in political science in 1976, and later served as a lecturer during the 1980's. In 1994, she was the first visiting professor in the SJSU leader-in-residence program, teaching a senior seminar in the ethical issues in politics. Susie was one of the founders of and participants in the Walk for Women of Sparta, which was the largest fundraiser by women for women athletes, which raised over $1 million for women's athletic scholarships. She has also been active in the Spartan Foundation, a key fundraising organization of the San Jose State, and is currently serving on the executive committee and board of directors. Susie Wilson built a reputation of leadership as a member of the San Jose City Council where she served for 6 years, then as a member of the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors. Susie solved problems, brought opposing parties together in compromise, and worked through consensus to prevent political stalemates. It is no surprise that when Susie retired from the board she started her own business called SOLUTIONS. Susie has continued to be a community leader, lending her insight and expertise to organizations such as the United Way, the Boy Scouts of America, and Cambrian Park United Methodist Church, her church of over 30 years. A champion of social justice, one of her most important accomplishments was her success as chair of the YWCA Villa Nueva Capital Campaign. Villa Nueva is a 63-family residential housing unit for lower income families which houses transitional and affordable housing, mostly for single parents and their kids. To honor Susie, the building was named in her honor when it opened in 1993. In addition, she is a founding member of the National Women's Political Caucus and a member of the American Association of University Women. Susie Wilson is truly a model of effective leadership in a community. I join with her wonderful husband Bob, a retired IBM engineer, their sons, Bill, Rob, and David, as well as their families and six grandchildren in celebrating this well-deserved award. I congratulate Susie Wilson as she is honored with the Tower Award for her years of giving to others and for her well known, more private, and very personal accomplishments. And I congratulate President Caret for his selection of Susie which honors San Jose State University and the previous recipients of the award.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Gregg's amendment to delete the sugar program from this bill. Mr. President, California has not fared well under the current sugar program. Beet sugar production has declined markedly and the west coast's only cane sugar refinery, located in Crockett, CA, has suffered severe financial losses. As a result, California has lost several hundred sugar-related jobs in the past year alone. In November, I learned that the cane sugar refinery in California was forced to cease operation for a week because it ran out of sugar. I have since learned that the closing of this California refinery was not an isolated case and that other refineries in Baltimore, MD, and Brooklyn, NY, have been closed several times during the past year for the same reason--no sugar. Mr. President, the sugar program is complex. Under current law, the Secretary of Agriculture is required to provide price supports to growers through nonrecourse loans to processors, and to do so at no cost to the Federal Government. To accomplish this objective, the Secretary uses an elaborate supply management scheme that includes production and marketing allotments and strict import controls. As currently administered, the sugar program has caused serious financial stress on a major segment of the U.S. sugar industry. The Secretary's initial decision to restrict import imports of raw cane sugar to the minimum allowed by law so distorted the price relationship between raw cane sugar and refined white sugar that all U.S. cane refiners experienced severe operating losses for the past 2 years. The increases in the quota announced by the Secretary of Agriculture last fall and last month are steps in the right direction, but the industry has not yet recovered. As I understand it, the fundamental problem with the administration of the sugar program is the complete disregard of the relationship between raw cane sugar prices and refined beet and cane sugar prices. Present Government policy inflates raw sugar prices to unreasonable levels by restricting raw sugar imports. High price supports encourage excess beet production which, in turn, depresses refined sugar prices. As a result, the normal economic relationship between raw and refined sugar prices no longer exists. Raw costs have exceeded refined prices so that cane refiners can no longer recover their refining costs in the marketplace. And cane refiners have been forced to sell their production at a substantial loss. If continued as currently administered, the Government's sugar program will destroy the cane sugar refinery industry and seriously threaten the stability of the Nation's sugar supply. Cane sugar refiners have a vital role to play in the U.S. sugar industry. They provide over half of the refined sugar consumed in the United States under normal circumstances. Only cane refiners have the capability to supply sugar when domestic sugar production is adversely impacted by weather or other disruptions. Since the sugar program was put in place in 1981, 11 of the industry's 22 cane refiners have closed. The Government should not be in the business of deciding who is a winner and who is a loser in the sugar business. Of immediate concern in my State is the damage the sugar program has inflicted on the California and Hawaiian Sugar Co. in Crockett, CA. This 90-year-old cane sugar refinery is the Nation's largest and the only such facility on the west coast. C&H Sugar refines all the sugar produced in Hawaii, as well as some imported raw cane sugar brought in under the quota. C&H Sugar refines and distributes about 15 percent of the cane sugar consumed in the United States. As a direct result of the sugar program and its impact on imports, C&H Sugar lost about $13 million in 1994 and incurred operating losses of about $23 million in 1995. In 1981, C&H Sugar had 1,313 employees. Today C&H Sugar has 582 employees. In other words, since 1981, over 700 jobs at C&H Sugar have been lost. Two hundred-six of these jobs were lost in January. More drastic measures are inevitable unless fundamental changes are made in the sugar program. Mr. President, the job losses at this refinery are significant. These are good blue-collar jobs, predominantly union, with heavy minority employment. C&H Sugar's work force is 50 percent minority and 75 percent union members. C&H Sugar pays wages of $13.50 to $24 an hour, plus benefits, pension, and medical coverage for retirees. In most cases, these workers are not going to be able to duplicate these jobs. More recently, in January, Imperial Holly Corp. announced its agreement to purchase of three of Spreckles Sugar Co.'s beet sugar processing plants in California and plans to close all three facilities and consolidate operations at existing Holly facilities in California. This will result in a further loss of hundreds of sugar related jobs in California. Given the problems facing the sugar industry right now, I cannot support an extension of the current sugar program for 7 years as provided in this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report for the Telecommunications Act of 1995. This legislation establishes real progress on important issues and I am pleased to provide my support. This legislation creates a new regulatory structure for the rapidly evolving communications technology and fills an important need. The current regulatory scheme divides industries, like local telephone service and long-distance service, broadcast television, and cable television. A new regulatory framework is needed, to permit the creation of new companies, new services, and promote competition between the previously separated lines of business. Stronger competition in the communications industry will bring new services to the market, present more choices for the public and lower prices to consumers. This bill significantly deregulates the communications industry to permit that competition to take place. During consideration of the bill, I joined many of my colleagues in urging several components and I was pleased to see that a number of these important proposals were able to be incorporated in this legislation. Among the issues included were: The V-Chip requirement, which will assist families to monitor television in their homes to protect children from unsuitable and inappropriate TV programming, including sex or violence. During the state of the union speech, President Clinton called for passage of the telecommunications legislation with the V-chip and a content ratings system for television programming. I am pleased Congress could address the concerns of families across America and incorporate these provisions. The cable scrambling amendment I offered with Senator Lott requiring cable companies to scramble indecent or sexually explicit materials to assist parents to protect minors. Senator Exon's provisions to control access to indecent materials will require the operators of computer networks, like America Online, to screen out indecent materials for children. Conferees had a difficult time reconciling different proposals and I am pleased the provisions could be accommodated. Assisting high-technology industry from inappropriate standards and requirements: During consideration of the bill, some of California's leading high-technology firms and computer companies raised a concern that regulations prepared by the FCC would deny flexibility and limit the computer industries' ability to develop standards based on market needs. Computer companies including Apple, Motorola, and Echelon, urge adoption of a provision prohibiting the FCC from developing overbroad regulations that could impede progress in the computer industry. I was pleased these provisions to allow the computer industry to develop and meet the needs of the market were incorporated. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle don't want to stand in the way of technological innovation or consumer choice. When the Senate initially considered the legislation last May, Chairman Pressler observed that the computer industry has transformed America and that computer industry competition has brought huge benefits to our homes, schools and workplaces. These provisions preserve that competition, and keeps the government away from premature standards setting. Adoption of a stronger role for the Justice Department to review competition in the telecommunications industry: In the years since the break-up of AT&T, the Justice Department has developed the expertise to promote competition in the communications industry and protect consumers. It would be a shame to squander that expertise just as new concerns for competition and fairness arise under this bill. With the passage of this legislation, we will enter a new era of telecommunications policy and the experience of the Justice Department will be critical in protecting strong competition and consumer interests. Important steps to promote universal service: In the 1930's, the nation's universal service goals involved providing telephone service to everyone, but as communications have evolved, the concept of universal service also must develop and evolve as well. The bill recognizes the need to modernize the concept of universal service and will provide for telephone service discounts for schools, libraries and hospitals to protect against our station splitting into the high- technology haves and have-nots. When this legislation came before the Senate last spring, I joined with our colleague Senator Kempthorne raising concerns about the impact on our Nation's cities and counties. As a former mayor, I know how important it is to protect the cities' bridges, roads and other public rights-of-way. I know the local government officials remain concerned about the bill and the preemption provisions. While legislative adjustments addressed some of the concerns of State and local governments, cities, counties and States remain concerned about the future and the possibility they could be brought to Washington before the Federal Communications Commission to defend local laws, regulations or fee. The revised language clarifies that cities can impose fees on communications providers like cable companies, as long as the fees are imposed in a way that does not discriminate between different competitors and the fees are fair and reasonable. Further, the preemption authority only applies to communications issues and if the cities have other authority to regulate communications provider, they may continue to charge fees. I am pleased that section 253(c) recognizes the historic authority of State and local governments to regulate and require compensation for the use of public rights-of-way. It further recognizes that State and local governments may apply different management and compensation requirements to different telecommunications providers' to the extent that they make different use of the public rights-of-way. Section 253 (c) also makes clear that section 253 (a) is inapplicable to right-of- way management and compensation requirements so long as those entities that make similar demands on the public rights-of-way are treated in a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory manner. As for the issue of FCC preemption, while I favored the complete elimination of the preemption provision, I am pleased that the committee could accept the view that authorizes the Commission to preempt the enforcement only of State or local requirements that violate subsection (a) or (b), but not (c). The courts, not the Commission, will address disputes under section 253(c). The overwhelming vote in the House on the amendment offered by Representative Barton and Representative Stupak, as well as the unanimous acceptance of Senator Gorton's amendment in the Senate, indicate that the Congress wishes to protect the legitimate authority of local governments to manage and receive compensation for use of the rights-of-way. I am concerned that mayors, county commissioners, and State utility commissioners, including California Public Utility Commissioner, are concerned that State telephone regulations will be preeempted. This is an important issue in California where 31 companies have applied to begin offering services in July. Under the bill, California's efforts to license more competitors to offer local phone service could be preempted and slowed down if the Federal Government acts or declines to act. Under the bill, the State will be preempted and prohibited from acting contrary to the Federal decision. I am troubled by the significant uncertainty which remains regarding the role of cities, counties, and States who may face added burdens. Earlier, the unfunded mandates legislation was signed into law, yet the Congressional Budget Office acknowledges that the legislation includes unfunded mandates for State and local governments. Further, CBO recognizes it lacks the ability to evaluate the potential cost. I will continue to monitor this issue and, if necessary, Congress may need to return to evaluate the balance between our State and local governments and the Federal Government on telecommunications policy. Mr. President, the legislation raises important issues and represents important progress for the Nation. As a result of the bill, we can move forward with new technology, new products, and new services. The bill will open up exciting new challenges and opportunities and we should embrace them. I look forward to these exciting new challenges. While I remain concerned about mandates and the role of cities, States, and counties in our telecommunication policy, I am pleased by the exciting opportunities presented by the legislation. I am pleased to lend my support.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized to speak as if in morning business.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. D'Amato pertaining to the introduction of S. 1547 and S. 1548 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last week, President Clinton opened a new front in America's war on drugs with his appointment of Gen. Barry McCaffrey as the Nation's new drug czar. In doing so, President Clinton has once again demonstrated his commitment to put the full weight of his office and the American Government behind efforts to stem the tide of drugs flooding America's streets, and I commend him for that. The measures my colleagues and I are introducing today are meant as a shot across the bow to the Government of Mexico. This legislation by the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and myself, a Republican and a Democrat, will hopefully send a strong message that this Congress is prepared to back up the President's efforts in the strongest possible terms if Mexico's actions do not match their words in this war on drugs. One year ago, the United States provided $20 billion in loan guarantees to Mexico in an unprecedented economic assistance package. That loan guarantee agreement expires next month with the option to extend it for another 6 months. Today, based on the seriousness of the drug problem, the volume of drugs flowing into the United States, and the ineffectiveness of Mexico's efforts, I am joining with Senator D'Amato in introducing three pieces of legislation, two bills and one sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which, among other things, would link extension of the loan guarantee to Mexico to specific actions that Mexico must take to demonstrate greater cooperation with the United States and international anti-narcotics efforts. Let me explain for a moment the depth of this problem. The Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that 60 to 70 percent of all the illegal drugs that enter the United States are smuggled through Mexico; 75 percent of the cocaine and 60 to 80 percent of all foreign-grown marijuana in the United States originates in Mexico. DEA testified that it has become commonplace to have 727 cargo-style jets each carrying 10 to 20 tons of cocaine at a time fly into Mexico and return to Colombia with $20 to $30 million of United States currency aboard. Colombian drug cartels are using Mexico as a safe haven to store as much as 70 to 100 tons of cocaine to be smuggled into the United States. The United States Customs officials estimate that almost 70 percent of those arrested for drug smuggling at border stations in the United States are Mexican nationals. Mexican drug cartels have taken over the methamphetamine drug trade. This is a very dangerous drug, also known as crank or speed. The DEA estimates that 90 percent of the precursor chemical, ephedrine, used to make methamphetamine is smuggled into the United States from Mexico, much of it originating from China. Methamphetamine is an exploding problem in the United States, and particularly in California. The California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement figures show that from 1991 to 1994 seizures jumped 518 percent in just these 3 years. In 10 years, from 1983 to 1993, methamphetamine abuse has skyrocketed in some California counties by more than 1,000 percent. Hospital emergency rooms admissions from amphetamine abuse have jumped by 366 percent. California is infested with literally hundreds of clandestine and highly mobile methamphetamine labs. State drug officials indicate that these labs are most often run by Mexican nationals who are here illegally. Mexico's efforts to date are simply not good enough. The recent arrest of Juan Garcia Abrego is a step in the right direction, but overall Mexico's efforts have simply not been enough. The United States currently has 165 extradition requests pending with Mexico, 56 of those involving Mexican nationals. The United States has had an extradition treaty with Mexico since 1978, yet Mexico has not allowed the extradition of a single Mexican national to the United States for prosecution as any close ally would. Juan Garcia Abrego was not extradited. He was deported as a U.S. citizen. He held dual citizenship. The drug cartels still operate in Mexico with impunity. Leaders of two of the most powerful Mexican drug cartels, Amado Carillo-Fuentes and the Arellano-Felix brothers, have outstanding United States warrants for drug trafficking. They have been seen in public repeatedly with no fear of arrest, and there apparently has been no serious effort to apprehend them. Money laundering. Mexico has become a haven for money laundering. Under Mexican law, money laundering is not a crime. No reporting requirements for large cash transactions exist. Jose Antonio Ramirez, director of Mexico's Association of Exchange Houses, has said it is common for cartel operatives to show up at unregulated money centers with literally suitcases stuffed with cash. The centers then write money orders or wire the funds to Colombia. I understand that the Mexican Congress has asked the National Banking Commission to examine ways of preventing money laundering, but whether any concrete changes will result remains to be seen. Let me give you some examples of government corruption: Colombian jets unloading tons of cocaine in remote desert areas with the possible cooperation of Mexican Federal Police. Reports that in a single weekend last November, 20 tons of cocaine destined for the United States were flown into Mexico in two large cargo plane shipments. And the investigation involving connections between the drug cartels, Swiss bank accounts, and the brother of former President Carlos Salinas de Gortari only serves to reinforce the belief that drug-influenced corruption may reach the highest levels of Government. Based on Mexico's efforts to date, Senator D'Amato and I believe that extraordinary measures are required. The legislation coauthored by Senator D'Amato and myself would do the following: One, link extension of the loan guarantee to Mexico with cooperation in antidrug efforts. The United States-Mexico loan guarantee agreement expires next month. But the parties share an option to extend the agreement for an additional 6 months. And most likely they will be renewed after that. This bill would prohibit the extension of the repayment terms for any of the currently outstanding loans to Mexico. It would prohibit the use of any of the remaining loan guarantees not obligated unless certain conditions with respect to antidrug efforts are met. Second, we are introducing a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that Mexico should not be certified under the Foreign Assistance Act as fully cooperating with the United States and international antinarcotics efforts. Failure to certify as cooperating with these efforts would jeopardize Mexico's eligibility to receive foreign aid. Sanctions for failure to be certified are mandatory, requiring that the United States withhold 50 percent of all foreign aid, with the exception of humanitarian and drug enforcement funds. The third bill prohibits the approval of applications from Mexican trucking companies applying for cross-border permits under NAFTA until the Secretary of Transportation can certify that the trucks meet United States safety standards, the President certifies Mexico is taking sufficient steps to combat international narcotics trafficking, and the Congress approves the applications via a joint resolution. These are strong steps, but I truly believe that this problem is so serious that strong steps are required. Evidence that would show Mexico's commitment to address these issues would include action such as the following: One, compliance with all outstanding requests for extradition by the United States. Two, enactment and implementation of effective money laundering laws. Three, action to prevent Mexico's drug profiteers from taking advantage of plans to privatize formerly public assets such as banks. Four, enactment of effective laws to inspect and license trucks, cars, and aircraft as well as their owners and operators to assist drug crime enforcement. Five, enactment of effective laws to curtail the importation and export of major precursor chemicals for methamphetamine production and other narcotic production. Six, specific action to effect the arrests of Mexican drug cartel leaders and other individuals involved in organized crime. Seven, adoption of a comprehensive program for drug enforcement and assistance to United States law enforcement to take effective action. Eight, specific action dedicated to detecting and halting the large- scale air transportation of narcotics. Nine, specific action to prosecute graft and corruption among civilian, government, and military officials that assist drug production and smuggling. And, finally, passage of asset forfeiture laws which enable the confiscation of property derived through narcotics trafficking or fraudulent use of the loan guarantee funds. Without tangible evidence that Mexico is willing to work toward these goals, I am prepared to support the strong steps I have outlined. Mr. President, earlier Senator D'Amato and I, at a press conference, indicated our joint action to press forward with these bills. Mr. D'Amato indicated that his Banking Committee would be holding hearings on these bills in March. We earnestly and sincerely invite other Members on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this legislation. Mr. President, I have seen firsthand a major tunnel under the Mexican border that goes from a warehouse in Mexico, to a warehouse on the California side, that was air-conditioned and electrified to facilitate the smuggling of drugs from one country to another. Mr. President, not too long ago in Rialto, CA, San Bernardino county, an arrest was made with the seizure of 4.5 tons--4.5 tons of cocaine. That amount of cocaine did not come across the border in backpacks. Mr. President, I have been to the border. I have seen trucks going back and forth with very little or no inspection in the line-release program. For the past year, I have advocated a tightening of that program. Now, under NAFTA, an even greater number of trucks would be able to cross the border with no inspection. What is the guarantee, when we know there is up to 100 tons of cocaine stored on the other side of the border awaiting transfer across this border, that it will not come in these trucks? In every city, whether it is New York City, whether it is Los Angeles, or whether it is San Francisco, we have all seen people dying in the streets from drugs and drug deals gone awry. We have all seen the evolution of gangs around the trafficking of narcotics. We have all seen the street prices of cocaine drop and the problem get worse. We have seen the major spread of methamphetamine labs throughout the largest State in the Union, California. The time has come to say, Enough is enough. To the Government of Mexico, close ally of the United States, we say ``This is $20 billion in loan guarantees plus other guarantees from the Monetary Fund--you must work hand in hand with us.'' We must stop the 727 cargo jets from landing on Mexican soil, from offloading drugs which then disappear before onloading United States currency for transport back to Colombia. We must see that cartel leaders are extradited, that American extradition requests are honored, and that there are effective laws on the books to preclude money laundering in Mexico. In general, we must see that there is vigorous enforcement in Mexico to abate and stop the large flow of chemicals, cocaine and other contraband substances into the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters be printed in the Record: One letter signed by Senator D'Amato and myself, dated January 26, to the Secretary of State urging denial of certification; a letter sent by myself on December 6 to Ambassador Kantor pointing out problems in cargo trucks coming from Mexico; another letter to Ambassador Kantor, Secretary of State Christopher, Secretary of Treasury Rubin, and Attorney General Reno addressing continuing problems with drug enforcement that are presented by Mexico.