Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe be added as a cosponsor to the bills and the resolution I have just sent to the desk.

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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe be added as a cosponsor to the bills and the resolution I have just sent to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Conference Report to the Department of Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1996. First, I would like to associate myself with the thoughtful remarks of the distinguished Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn. I continue to believe that this world is not a safe place. I, along with other leaders, had hoped that after the end of the cold war there might be more peace in the world. This has unfortunately not been the case. In fact, there is now more conflagration and more war. The price of freedom continues to be eternal vigilance. This legislation provides for the hardware and force structure that make our Armed Forces strong. It looks forward to our future defense needs by funding increased procurement of weapons systems vital to our war fighting capability and maintains the troop levels necessary to complete our Nation's military missions. Weapons Systems This bill authorizes funding for more Air Force F-15, and F-16 fighters--the backbones of our air attack strategy. It also funds the F-22 next generation fighter. This aircraft is the cutting edge of any fighter aircraft anywhere in the world. The Hellfire air-to-surface missile, used so effectively in The gulf war, are procured for the Army. The Navy received authorization to purchase additional F-18 fighters which are used to protect our aircraft carriers and for attack. These systems provide our soldiers in the field with overwhelming force, thus protecting their lives as they fight for America. Force Structure The troop strength of our active duty forces and guard and reserve forces is maintained in this bill. Our active duty Armed Forces will be over 1.4 million men and women strong and our guard and reserve forces will total nearly 940,000 soldiers. The bill enhances our national security by removing the language which would have lead to a U.S. violation of the ABM Treaty and continues the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program that helps reduce the risk of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons proliferation. It fully funds the research, development, test and evaluation account providing millions in funding to develop a theater missile defense system which will be able to protect our troops deployed overseas from Scud and other ballistic missile attacks. Funding in this account will also allow research to develop new alloys and designs for stronger and lighter fighter plane wings and studies to enhance the electric battery life in vehicles for use in new mechanized infantry equipment and in commercial vehicles. Finally, the conference report for the DOD authorization bill provides many benefits to our men and women in uniform. A much needed 2.4 percent pay raise for our service men and women is included in the bill, as well as increased funding for the family advocacy and the new parents support programs that help military families balance their duty to their country with their responsibility to their family. Unfortunately, it is also in the area of military personnel that the provisions in this bill with which I disagree most exist. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about just three of these provisions. Required Discharge of HIV-Positive Service Members Most of all, I am saddened and angered by one provision of this bill that is the worst type of fear-mongering imaginable. I never imagined that I would live in a time when Congress would blatantly discriminate against a group of people who contract a disease, but that is exactly what this bill does. This conference report contains a provision that blatantly discriminates against an entire group of military personnel simply because they are infected with the HIV virus. The Department of Defense will be required to discharge any service member who tests positive for HIV. There are now more than 1,000 people serving in our military who would be discharged within the first 6 months. The fact that these HIV- positive men and women can still perform their duties as ably as other nondeployable military personnel is ignored. There is no other disease for which a member of the Armed Forces can be forced to separate from service. What message is Congress sending to the businesses of America? It is essentially saying that if someone contracts the HIV virus, they should be immediately discharged regardless of their ability to work. Is this how we intend to treat people who contract a disease? Is this what our country is based upon? I pray that this mean-spirited provision does not move this country back to the dark ages of discrimination, hate, and fear. It is my sincere hope that this provision will be reversed by a future Congress that better respects the plight of those with the HIV virus or that it will be found unconstitutional by the courts. Restricted Access to Privately-Funded Abortions on U.S. Bases Overseas The conferees adopted language that prohibits abortions on U.S. military facilities overseas, even if a woman pays for the procedure herself, except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. This provision is discriminatory and has no place on a defense authorization bill. Elimination of Authorizations for Troops to Cops and Troops to Teachers On the issue of defense conversion, the Senate passed an amendment, cosponsored by Senator Pryor and myself, to authorize $10 million for the Troops to Cops Program and $42 million for the Troops to Teachers Program. These programs greatly assist the difficult transition of service personnel to the private sector in two ways. First, Troops to Cops and Troops to Teachers partially funds the training and hiring costs of local school districts and law enforcement agencies, and second, these programs provide trained and dedicated recruits. I am very disappointed that this provision was eliminated in conference committee. Lack of Competition for Shipbuilding Contracts The conference report provides for the construction of destroyers and submarines at designated shipyards without requiring competition for this workload. Competition among qualified industrial facilities is a procurement contracting fundamental. I am disappointed that this provision remained in the bill. Although I disagree with these provisions, on balance this bill enhances our national defense. Provides for the Purchase of Additional B-2 Stealth Bombers I was very pleased to support the authorization for $493 million in long-lead funding for the B-2 stealth bmber. This most technically advanced aircraft in our bomber fleet gives our Air Force the capability of immediate response to a conflict anywhere in the world without the need for escort aircraft to protect it from anti-aircraft fire. Even with this protection, our non-stealthy bombers are unable to penetrate enemy airspace, as we saw in the gulf war. The B-2 also has the ability to precisely target mobile units unlike any other bomber in the fleet today. The B-2's stealth, long-range, and precision munition capability make it a good investment for the money. Provides for Improvements to the Base Realignment and Closure Process The conference report includes several improvements to the base realignment and closure process. I am particularly proud of the amendment cosponsored by Senator McCain and myself which improves the base realignment and closure reuse process for local communities. One provision of this amendment changes the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, by requiring that the Secretary of Defense consult with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development over the reuse plan that is developed by the local redevelopment authority. Homeless assistance providers would still be guaranteed a seat at the reuse table, and redevelopment authorities would still be required to accept expressions of interest for base property by homeless assistance groups and other interested parties. In addition, the Secretary of HUD would still review the final reuse plan to ascertain if the needs of the homeless have been met. However, instead of the Secretary of HUD approving or disapproving the reuse plan, the Secretary of Defense would make the final decision. Furthermore, the local redevelopment plan developed by the local community and local elected officials would be given substantial deference by the Secretary of Defense. This puts the power of base reuse firmly where it should be, in the hands of the local redevelopment authority and the community. Provides for Land Conveyances and Military Construction Projects Finally, this conference report includes many important land conveyances and military construction projects for California and the Nation. The land conveyance provisions will allow many local communities to redevelop and expand many underutilized industrial sites which will enhance economic growth. And the military construction projects will provide many needed housing units and other military facilities that will better enable our men and women in the Armed Forces to perform their duties. I voted for the conference report to the DOD authorization bill for fiscal year 1996, however, perhaps next year, we can concentrate on continuing to make our Armed Forces the best that they can be and restore the rights denied our men and women in uniform.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I will gladly vote for the Kennedy amendment to restore funding for education to last year's level. Education is an area that we should not shortchange. The bill before us today will continue funding for programs that do not yet have year-long funding until March 15. Education programs are cut $3.1 billion on an annual basis, the largest Federal education cut in history. This is a cut our schools cannot sustain. Under this bill, California's elementary and secondary schools could lose at least $169.8 million. For title I, programs for disadvantaged students, service to 1 in 5 students could be eliminated. Schools will have to lay off title I teachers and teaching assistants that provide those extra services that help these students learn. Programs like Safe and Drug-free Schools, Goals 2000, and student loans could lose 25 percent. The University of California will lose $111 million, much of which is student aid. I am also concerned about the stop-and-go pattern of Federal funding that we have undergone this year. This is the ninth short-term bill we've considered. We are almost 4 months into the school year and 3 months into the fiscal year. Once again, we are called on to vote on a short-term funding measure. This bill only funds programs for 49 days, until March 15. These short-term bills are particularly unfair to our schools. Like businesses, they have to plan. In my State, at the end of January, courtesy notices go out to teachers who are likely to be laid off. School districts are beginning to plan their budgets for the next school year. For title I programs, schools are preparing contracts for teachers and other personnel. Our school districts cannot effectively plan with this on-again, off-again funding stream. Our students, teachers, and administrators should not be held hostage any longer. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to restore these education funds and put education funding on a more stable footing.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring some thought and consideration to the 48th anniversary of Sri Lanka's independence from colonial rule. Sri Lanka, which had been dominated by Portuguese, Dutch, and, of course, one and a half centuries of British rule, has emerged in the final decades of this century as a nation firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law. The last few years have brought tremendous gains for democracy and freedom throughout the world, and while we applaud the successes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, we should not overlook the progress this island of some 17 million citizens has made on its own. Since 1982, when J.R. Jayewardene was elected the first post-colonial president, Sri Lanka has held regular national elections notable for their peaceful transitions of power between its two major political parties: the United National Party [UNP] and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party [SLFP], or coalitions led by them. Sri Lanka's third presidential election was held on November 9, 1994 with former Prime Minister Chandrika Kumaratunga winning with 62 percent of the vote. Voter turn-out was an impressive 70.5 percent. The most recent parliamentary elections were held in Sri Lanka on August 16, 1994, with the UNP and the SLFP winning a roughly equal number of seats. President Kumaratunga intends to continue with wide-ranging, significant economic reforms that are moving Sri Lanka away from state controls and subsidies to a more decentralized, market-oriented system. This has allowed Sri Lanka to maintain a significant 5 percent average annual growth rate throughout the last decade. Sri Lanka has also proven its commitment to providing for the basic human needs of its people. Since independence, successive Sri Lankan Governments have maintained a policy of free education from the primary level through the university level. The literacy rate, for both men and women alike, is an impressive 90 percent. The Sri Lankan Government also provides an extensive program of free health care, which includes child immunization. Sri Lanka boasts an average life expectancy of 70 years and an infant mortality rate of 19/1000 which is highly remarkable for this region of the world. The United States has ties with Sri Lanka dating back to the nineteenth century, ties that have greatly strengthened since Sri Lanka's independence. We are now Sri Lanka's biggest trading partner with our annual bilateral trade standing at $1.4 billion. We also maintain ties to Sri Lanka through bilateral educational, information and cultural programs. The United States has a continuing, active Peace Corps Volunteer Program there, and has operated a Voice of America Station in Sri Lanka for more than 40 years. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka continues to experience the tragedies of political violence, resulting primarily from the Tamil insurgency in the North and, to a lesser extent, from a mainly Sinhalese group in the South. The news we hear about Sri Lanka here in the United States all too often focuses only on these ongoing conflicts, which have brought death and suffering to Sri Lanka for over 10 years. It is my hope that Sri Lanka will one day resolve its internal disputes and that peace will return to this nation which has demonstrated such an impressive commitment to democracy. President Kumaratunga has expressed her intention to seek a political solution to the ethnic conflicts and has announced a set of proposals aimed at devolving power to the regions. She has also reiterated her pledge to address minority grievances through dialog and negotiation. On the 48th anniversary of Sri Lanka's independence, I would like to express my support to President Kumaratunga as she works to determine a lasting solution to the ethnic conflicts in Sri Lanka. I share her hope that peace, reconciliation, and a system of nonviolent negotiation between all parties will soon prevail for the people of Sri Lanka.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the welfare reform conference report before us today should be defeated. It should be defeated because it does not adequately address our Nation's needs and particularly the needs of my State; it endangers the Nation's children; it does not help people move from welfare to work. Inadequate Attention to Unemployment, Growth Compared to the bill we previously passed, this bill gives short shrift to my State's needs. First, the Senate bill created a contingency fund of $1 billion to help States with high unemployment. This conference agreement reduces this fund to $800 million. California had an unemployment rate stood of 8.8 percent in November, while the national rate was 5.6 percent. In the last 5 years, my State's unemployment rate has never dropped below 7 percent, reaching 10 percent in 1994. Second, the bill's underlying funding formula fails to recognize high growth rates in poverty. I offered an amendment to redistribute funds by the change in poverty population each year. The conference agreement does not rectify this problem. California's population is expected to grow from 30 million in 1990 to 42 million in 2010 and 49 million by 2020. Third, under this bill, States will contribute less. The Senate bill required States to maintain 80 percent of their 1994 funding of cash assistance [AFDC]. Under this bill, States can drop their funding to 75 percent. Thus, they can reduce their funding by 25 percent. This would allow States to reduce State spending by $5 billion. Protecting Neglected and Abused Children Programs providing services to neglected and abused children are an important part of this bill. These are services that have removed children from unsafe homes, placed them in protective settings, provided periodic reviews of their status, and trained child protection staff. Child protection services are included in a block grant and cut by $1.3 billion over 7 years. These are services like training for foster parents, child abuse emergency response, and other services that try to keep families together and protect children in foster homes. There are at least half a million of these children in California. From 1988 to 1993, nationally, the rate of reported child abuse and neglect rose 25 percent. The foster care caseload grew 50 percent. From 1983 to 1993, the number of children in child protection grew by two- thirds. Los Angeles last year responded to more than 165,000 reports of abused and neglected children. This bill will weaken support for these, our most vulnerable children. Not Helping Mothers Be Mothers The Senate bill allowed States to limit the work requirement to 20 hours a week for mother with children under age 6. This bill requires mothers of small children to work at least 35 hours a week. While work requirements are appropriate for many people, mothers are the most important influence in a young child's life. Work requirements should be compatible with raising a family and guiding young children. I believe a 20-hour work week requirement for mothers with young children, rejected by this bill, is reasonable. No Health Coverage The conference version, unlike the previous Senate bill, ends the guarantee of health insurance or Medicaid for women on AFDC and their children over age 13. In California, 290,000 children and 750,000 parents would lose coverage, according to the Children's Defense Fund. This represents 18 percent of all children in the United States losing coverage. By ending this health insurance, we will add to our State's uninsured population which is already the third highest in the Nation at 22 percent. Without health insurance or the ability to purchase it, sick people end up in hospital emergency rooms and we all pay through tax dollars or our private policies. Work Requirements, Resources Weak The bill's goal, a goal I endorse, is to move welfare recipients from dependency to work. The bill requires States to have 50 percent of recipients participating in work by 2002. But the bill falls short in several ways. First, the conference agreement, unlike the Senate bill, does not require personal responsibility contracts, agreements that obligate the recipient and move him or her toward self-sufficiency. Second, the conference agreement deletes the Senate provision giving bonuses to States for job placements. And third, and most importantly, the bill does not provide adequate funds for child care programs to support the requirements that States put welfare recipients into work. Child Care Child care is the linchpin to self-sufficiency for mothers on welfare. The fact is that mothers cannot go to work without child care programs for their children. There are two serious problems in this bill, the first is funding and the second is standards. Currently in California, 80 percent of eligible AFDC children are unserved. The bill before us exacerbates this already dire situation. To support the work requirements of the bill, the bill falls short from $6 billion to $13 billion. Child care experts in California tell me that this means our State would be $1.3 billion short of what is needed to meet the increased demand caused by the work requirements of the bill. Under current law, to qualify for Federal child care funds, States must set quality standards that address things like caregiver to child ratios, sprinkler systems, plumbing standards, hygiene. The Senate bill retained this requirement, but the conference agreement before us eliminates it. This means that there is no guarantee that young children will be in safe and healthy environments. Innovative Programs California has some of the most innovative welfare programs in the country. We have the GAIN program--Greater Avenues for Independence--in Riverside, that has returned $2.84 to the taxpayers for every $1 spent. In Los Angeles, the GAIN program has a job placement rate of 34 percent. San Mateo and San Diego Counties have successful job-search programs. San Mateo, last year, put 85 percent of the people in the program to work. The Senate adopted my amendment to allow HHS to negotiate directly with large counties to establish innovative programs. Unfortunately, the conferees deleted this provision. Conclusion No one has a right to welfare. Welfare was never intended to be a permanent way of life. It was intended to be a lifeboat for people in temporary emergency situations. In my State, there are almost 2.6 million people receiving welfare or 18 percent of the U.S. caseload in a State that has 12 percent of the population. I want to reform welfare. I want families to be secure and self-sufficient. But this bill does not do it. I cannot support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Victims Justice Act of 1995. Too often, our criminal justice system has overlooked the victim of crime in its zeal to protect the rights of the accused. This bill makes significant progress toward ensuring that the victim is not forgotten. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for the work they have put into this bill, in moving it through the committee and ensuring that it creates a workable system for awarding compensation to victims. It is a sad fact that so many people in our society are affected by crime. In my State of California, 318,946 violent crimes were reported last year. And yet, restitution to the victim is infrequently awarded. In fiscal year 1994, restitution was only awarded in 20.2 percent of Federal criminal cases. The Victims Justice Act may well help this, by making restitution to the victim mandatory in Federal criminal cases where restitution can reasonably be anticipated by a judge. Victim restitution is a matter of simple justice. If somebody has been hurt by a criminal, they should be made whole. Restitution does more than simply compensate the victim for a loss, however. It says to the victim, ``You matter. You have been hurt, and this is wrong. We have not forgotten about you.'' It also speaks to the criminal. It reinforces to them that their crime hurt another person, that they are responsible for the consequences of their actions, and that they have a responsibility to the person they harmed. Mr. President, I recognize that most criminal defendants are indigent, and cannot make complete restitution. But it is important to send this message of responsibility to all criminals. That is why I strongly support mandatory restitution, even if it is only nominal restitution, such as a few dollars a month. Even though this won't make the victim whole, it still sends the message to them that they matter, and still reminds the criminal, every month, about the consequences of his actions and his responsibility for them. And should the criminal come into better financial circumstances later, this will ensure that he is not allowed to sit comfortably while his victim is left uncompensated. I also want to highlight one aspect of the bill which I worked on with Senator Kyl: community restitution in drug cases. Drug dealing is not a victimless crime. As a former mayor, I have seen drugs ravage whole neighborhoods, spurring other crimes, destroying property, and tearing apart communities. That is why I think it is important to permit restitution in drug cases, even where there is no identifiable individual victim. This section of the bill will allow judges to order restitution in these drug trafficking cases. This restitution will go to the States in which the crime occurred, to their Victim Assistance Administration and to their entities which receive substance abuse block grant funds. By making restitution to these funds, drug dealers will be forced to help crime victims and to fight the drug abuse which they have fostered and from which they profited, targeted to the States which they have harmed. I call on Federal judges to implement this section, and not to disregard it. I am hopeful that they will do so, and that future legislation to mandate this restitution will not be necessary. Mr. President, the Victims Justice Act will help victims, will help communities, and may well help to rehabilitate criminals. I urge my colleagues to pass it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, recent studies have indicated that the violent crime rates are decreasing in many cities, but that there is a disturbing rise of violent crimes being committed by teen- agers. I think there is no more important issue facing this Congress than violence. Congress must take steps to reduce violent acts--in the home, in the workplace, and on our streets --that occur with numbing frequency in America. I have been particularly troubled by the content of many programs that air on television networks in this country. Ultra-violent acts appear almost around the clock. While I have spoken out frequently about the problem of television violence, I also wanted to take a moment to praise an upcoming television documentary that details the positive steps taken by many companies to help troubled and disadvantaged kids. ``Everybody's Business: America's Children,'' a network documentary produced by the Oscar- and Emmy-Award winning Arnold Shapiro, will air this Saturday, December 23 from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. This program showcases the volunteer and funding efforts made possible by many American companies and corporations to help troubled and disadvantaged kids. Katie Couric is the host of this special which praises many companies for providing mentoring programs and community support efforts to support our children. During this holiday season, it is particularly refreshing to see a network television program which promotes the good deeds of American companies. As we look ahead into the coming year, it is my hope that more television programs will give this type of positive reinforcement to America's companies that make an investment in our youth. It also gives me pleasure to note the program is produced by one of Los Angeles's leading producers, Arnold Shapiro. He is well known for his quality programs and documentaries, including ``Scared Straight'' and ``Scared Straight: Exposing and Ending Child Abuse.'' He recently won the Peabody Award for his CBS children's special, ``Break the Silence: Kids Against Child Abuse.'' Arnold Shapiro's brand of television--straight forward, informative and educational--is exactly the type of programming I hope to see more of on network television in the coming years.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think that is very important to the cities that are watching this debate. Further, special rules are provided to force proportionally liable defendants to pay more if a particular plaintiff suffers a high level of losses. A significant part of the debate revolves around our concern for poor and potentially vulnerable plaintiffs. Under this bill, if a plaintiff can claim damages exceeding 10 percent of their net worth, and their net worth is less than $200,000, then a defendant remains fully liable for that loss to the plaintiff and no proportional liability can be used to reduce that liability. Additionally, many of us have concerns with the application if this law in instances involving insolvent defendants. If a defendant cannot pay due to bankruptcy, the defendants who would otherwise be only proportionally liable must pay up to 50 percent more to make up the plaintiff's shortfall due to the bankruptcy. What this means is that if the battle comes down to an innocent plaintiff who loses and a proportionally liable defendant who feels it would be unfair to force them to bear the full loss, the defendant loses and the proportionally liable defendants must pay more. These are very important concepts to me, and I wanted to come to the floor to place my understanding with respect to legislative intent in the Record. I am very pleased that the senior Senator and author of this legislation is present and has corroborated these statements. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. As we discuss companies or individuals ineligible for the safe harbor, I would also want to clarify the safe harbor does not apply to brokers or analysts who may have an incentive to oversell a stock to obtain a sale. On this point, the safe harbor would not have applied to the financial concerns we experienced in Orange County, California. If Merrill Lynch is a broker selling derivatives to a county government, in my state of California or any other state, they are not protected by the safe harbor because the safe harbor does not protect brokers and does not address derivatives.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I further understand the safe harbor provisions do not apply to certain companies we may have reason to have some doubt about, such as penny stock companies, initial public offerings known as IPO's, blank check companies, roll-up transactions, or companies recently convicted of specific securities law violations. All of these types of companies are excluded, as I understand it, from the protection of the safe harbor provisions. The provisions are only available to companies with an established track record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut's comments, which, I believe helps clarify the scope of safe harbor. Let me go on. As I understand it, the protections of the safe harbor are not available to reduce the obligations of companies to disclose historical information or current information truthfully and accurately. For instance, if a company makes misleading statements about known facts, the safe harbor does not protect the company.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Or, as a separate test, as I am led to believe, the safe harbor does not apply if the statement is made with ``actual knowledge'' that the statement was ``an untrue statement of a material fact or omission of a material fact necessary to make the statement not misleading.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. If the statement is oral, it is my understanding that the individual must identify the statement as forward-looking; clarify that actual results may differ materially; and, state at the same time that additional information about the forward-looking statement is contained in a readily written available document with additional information which satisfies the same warning standard required of written standards.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to address the securities reform veto override. It is my intention to support the override effort, and I would like to summarize for the Record my views on the legislation and my reasons for supporting the bill. Because the senior Senator from Connecticut is here, I would like to ask him a series of questions, if I might, and see if I am correct in my assumptions, and, if I am not, give him the opportunity to clarify my concerns. As you know, the senior Senator is one of the main cosponsors of this bill. The first involves the so-called license to lie challenge to the safe harbor. I spent about 6 hours with various representatives of the high- technology companies and representatives of the SEC on the safe harbor. At the time the SEC would not sign off on language that they wanted and included in the bill. Subsequently, SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt did sign off on the safe harbor legislation, a decision confirmed by letter from Chairman Levitt, that has already been introduced into the Record. I would like to state my understanding of the safe harbor and see if the senior Senator of Connecticut concurs. To claim the protection of the safe harbor, an individual company officer must clearly identify the statement, either written or oral, as a forward-looking statement. By forward-looking statement, I mean a statement that applies it to economic projections, estimates, or other future events. The safe harbor cannot be claimed by certain groups of individuals--and I will go into that shortly. This statement must be accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements, identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statement. That is to say, the statement must be accompanied by a clear warning that identifies the risk that the future may not turn out as forecast. This warning cannot be routine warning language, but must be specific to the forward-looking statement. Is that a correct understanding of this bill?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might briefly respond to my respected colleague. It is interesting, I guess, in a State as big as California one can have some different constituencies. My mail is, oh, maybe over 100 to 1 for the legislation rather than opposed to it. When I read the letters from the counties, that is when I saw they were functioning under a misimpression of what the safe harbor actually did. That is why, in my colloquy with Senator Dodd, I tried to clarify these concerns. As I stated earlier, first, the stockbroker who sold the derivatives to cities or counties would not gain the protection of the safe harbor because brokers are ineligible; and, second, derivatives would not be protected by the safe harbor. So I tried to straighten that part out. I want to point out that in California we are going through an economic change. High technology and biotechnology is a big source of jobs now and in the future. It is estimated that 62 percent of the high-technology companies that went public from 1988 to 1993 have faced securities lawsuits. And 62 percent of the companies that have gone public in the last 5 years have faced securities lawsuits in the State of California. That alone indicates that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. What has concerned me in the legislation is a desire to address the problem and not throw out the goose that laid the golden egg. I want to protect the small investor, protect the county, and yet do away with the kind of lawsuit that happens because a companies' stock drops, a suit is filed, they press discovery and they move and collect a large settlement from the company, when the suit may be baseless. Those kinds of frivolous suits concern me. I think it is a legitimate function of government to attempt to reform that. I also think it is important that this legislation strikes a balance and protects the consumer. Based on what I have seen, I believe it does. More fundamentally, if it is proven to have a flaw or a problem, that flaw or problem can in fact be corrected. As I understand, it this legislation has taken some 5 or 6 years now to develop. The bill has been refined and refined over time. The bill has finally passes both Houses, the veto override has been supported in the House of Representatives. It seems to me it is time to get on with it and give the kind of necessary reform that I believe this bill provides in an evenhanded manner. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I very much thank the Senator. I would like to go on and specifically address the concerns of cities because I have received exactly some letters from various cities, 26 or so to be precise, indicating their concern. We have taken a good look at it. I think one of the core lessons about Orange County is that cities should not be investing in speculative investments. I know from my tenure as mayor of San Francisco for 9 years, and I served on the investment body which was then the retirement board, these kinds of speculative ventures were prohibited. We have heard some discussion about the financial concerns involving Orange County, CA, but as was discussed earlier, these circumstances would not be altered by the safe harbor under the bill. In Orange County, the treasurer was buying derivatives from Merrill Lynch. Derivatives are not protected by the safe harbor. Further, Merrill Lynch, serving as a broker, is ineligible to claim safe harbor protection. So you have protections built in two different ways. Derivatives are not protected, and a broker is not protected. I believe--and my vote is cast on this belief--that the cities' concern appears primarily to address the proportional liability section of the bill. Under the proportional liability rules adopted in the bill, an accountant from a big accounting company would not risk bearing the full cost of a plaintiffs' loss if it audits the books, certifies them and fraud causing loss to plaintiffs subsequently arises. However, even the proportional liability rule, as I understand it, has a significant protection built in. While the bill adopts a proportional liability rule, proportional liability will not limit the responsibility of a business or an individual who commits ``knowing securities violations.'' I think that is very important. Such an individual would remain responsible to pay, not the proportional loss, but the full loss, as I understand it. I know the senior Senator from Connecticut will correct me if he believes that is inaccurate. ``Knowing securities fraud'' includes any defendant who had actual knowledge, or operated under circumstances in which they should have had knowledge, the fraud occurred. So the provision will not permit accountants who commit knowing securities fraud to eliminate full liability for accountants who deserve to be fully liable. Would the Senator agree with that?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Finally, I wish to clarify for the record that the safe harbor does not affect the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission or the SEC's authority to work with the Justice Department to bring enforcement actions against wrongdoers for fraud, insider trading or any other enforcement action. So, in other words, the safe harbor cannot be used as a defense against the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I understand the safe harbor does not apply to a new company, but only applies to seasoned issuers. For instance, NetScape, a new high-technology company, which saw its stock explode from zero to $120 a share or more, can claim no protection under the safe harbor because it is an initial public offering.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be designated to control time on this side.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume to myself. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill. One year ago, Congress voted overwhelmingly, with strong bipartisan support, to pass a California Desert Protection Act and establish the Mojave National Preserve. This act, the Desert Protection Act, culminated an 8-year-long battle in the Congress to protect some of America's most spectacular and environmentally sensitive wilderness areas, in particular the Mojave National Preserve, often called the ``crown jewel'' of the act. California has about 25 million acres of desert. This act essentially protected around 6 million of those acres, created the Joshua Tree National Park, Death Valley National Mark, and the East Mojave Preserve. The congressional process included literally years of research, public hearings, debate, and every possible consideration and compromise to safeguard the interests of property owners and businesses in the region. The bill passed. Now, rather than carrying out the intent of the legislation, which was to have a national preserve with hunting, which some of the opponents wanted, under National Park Service management, this bill contains an effort to destroy the Mojave National Preserve. All other national parks are being funded. Yet this conference report singles out the newest unit of the National Park System for budget cuts. The President had $2.6 million in his budget for National Park Service management of this new park. The conference report provides no funding for the National Park Service to manage the Mojave National Preserve. Instead, it turns management back over to the BLM, the agency which managed the East Mojave so poorly before enactment of the desert bill and provided the whole enthusiasm for creating a national park. And the bill also provides a totally inadequate amount for the BLM to do the job. The BLM was criticized when it had $1.7 million to run this area. It did not do it adequately with that amount. And now there is no money for the Park Service, with the exception of the $500,000 for planning. I believe this is contrary to the wishes of the people of California. Included in a statewide poll, conducted very recently and just released yesterday, were some new poll numbers with respect to the views of Californians and this park. Statewide, 74 percent of all Californians opposed a limit on the Park Service budget for management of this park. Statewide, 84.6 percent of Californians today support keeping the Mojave a national park. In every region of the State, in this new statewide poll, people overwhelmingly supported keeping the Mojave as a national park. Only 9 percent of the people of the State of California in this Field Institute poll oppose the park. I want to emphasize that the local communities and businesses--this is a very sparsely populated area--and the Barstow, Baker, and Newberry Springs Chamber of Commerce have welcomed the Park Service to the Mojave and support the new park. Let me read what they have to say. The Barstow Area Chamber of Commerce says: ``The National Park Service is graciously welcomed to Barstow and to the Mojave Desert. The chamber hopes that the needed funds will be appropriated in a timely manner so that quality facilities and services will be accomplished as soon as possible by the Park Service's personnel.'' The Barstow Development Corp. writes: ``The park will be beneficial to the majority of business persons in Barstow and to Barstow's economy, therefore being a positive influence to most of the citizens in Barstow.'' The Newberry Springs Chamber of Commerce says: ``Newberry Springs is proud to be so near this unusual and wonderful area. Let it be known that we highly endorse the new Superintendent and staff and we pledge our support and cooperation to this project.'' Little do they know, this bill is taking it all away. The Baker Chamber of Commerce says: ``Our community is the gateway to the East Mojave Preserve. Our community has embraced the changes that the Preserve has brought. In accord appropriate funding for the East Mojave Preserve would be duly appreciated.'' The Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, San Diego Union Tribune, and the San Francisco Chronicle have all called on the President to veto the Interior appropriations bill because of its attack on the East Mojave. Let me read just a few of the editorial headlines. The San Diego Union Tribune, December 3: ``Starved for funds; Congressman victimizes Mojave Preserve.'' San Bernardino Sun, a paper in the area, November 18: ``Lewis Confuses Park Issue with Flap Over Sheep.'' San Francisco Chronicle, November 17: ``While they are at it, they should strip all environmental riders, including the defunding of the Mojave National Preserve in California.'' San Jose Mercury News, September 25: ``Moan on the range; Republicans Resume the Destruction of Public Lands.'' ``In an insult to California, the bill, this time, appropriated $1 for the management of the new Mojave National Preserve, a way of undoing congressional establishment of the park last year.'' Nobody should think it is anything other than just that. Los Angeles Times, Friday, September 22: ``Clinton Should Reject Sabotage of Desert Act; he needs California and California needs protective law.'' San Diego Union, again: ``Desert Mischief; Veto the Interior Appropriations Bill.'' San Francisco Chronicle, again: ``Veto the Environmental Wrecking Legislation.'' If it counts for anything at all, these are the views of the people of California. Eighty-four percent of the people support the Mojave National Preserve. The chambers of commerce of the small communities right in the area support the funding of the Mojave Preserve. Every major newspaper in the State supports the funding of the Mojave Preserve. Yet, today, we have a bill before us that completely undoes the intent of the last Congress to create what is a beautiful national park and what is a prime and beautiful desert area. The BLM is neither capable nor mandated to manage the Mojave National Preserve. As I say, even with a budget of $1.7 billion, three times the $599,000 the conference has now given to the BLM, the BLM did not adequately manage this 1.4-million-acre area. Without adequate funding for management of the Mojave, not only park visitors but those who live and work in the region will suffer. According to the National Park Service, permits for grazing improvements will not be processed and issued. Requests for rights-of- way will not be processed and approved. Mining plans of operation will not be processed and approved. Search and rescue and emergency medical services will be dangerously underfunded. Trash collection, restroom maintenance, and any hazardous spill cleanup will be cut back or eliminated. The visitors center and camp grounds may be closed. Park resources will receive minimal protection, like protection to Indian hieroglyphics on canyon walls, like protection to the 900 species of flora and fauna. It limits the funding for development of a comprehensive management plan to $500,000, far less than what it typically costs to develop a plan for a new national park. It limits the amount of time the Park Service has to develop the management plan. The California Desert Protection Act required a 3-year planning process and provided for extensive public participation. That is what the community wanted. If the Park Service is to satisfy the conferees' conditions for taking over management of the Mojave next year, that is completing the management plan, the agency will have to expedite the process and limit public participation. That is directly contrary to the intent of the Desert Protection Act. The act specifically mandated an inclusive planning process to ensure consideration of the views of the landowners, the ranchers, local government, and others. This language is unprecedented. Never before has Congress required the National Park Service to develop a comprehensive plan before it can manage a new park. No one can tell me this is not just to kill the action taken by a majority. Let me say I would never do this to any Member or to any project that was approved by Congress--stand in front of it and say, all right, after 8 years, more than a dozen hearings, this is authorized, but we are going to kill it because we are not going to fund it. Some have suggested that the National Park Service has not adequately ensured the continuation of human uses and has jeopardized wildlife recovery efforts. This is a complete misrepresentation of the Park Service's record in the Mojave. Let me set the record straight. The Park Service has been doing a good job of managing the Mojave. In the last year, the Park Service has improved visitors' services. It has opened a visitors center in Baker. It has improved law enforcement; it has helped curtail illegal activities such as closing down two drug labs in the desert that were operating in the area. The Park Service has improved resource protection. Visitation to the area has increased significantly, bringing additional businesses to the surrounding communities. As the Las Vegas Review Journal reported last month, Little Nipton, a small community, has not seen so much activity since its heyday in the early years of the century. Nipton is one of the entry points to the new Mojave National Preserve. Gerald Freeman, the owner of the Hotel Nipton, reports: Since the National Park Service has taken over management jurisdiction, both the volume and quality of visitation is up. For example, the Hotel Nipton occupancy is up between 80 and 100 percent a year. In contrast to what I would call a condescending, indifferent presence of the Bureau of Land Management over the last 35 years, the National Park Service seems genuinely concerned with the welfare of the region. They appear to me--and others out here--to be a comforting and constructive presence. I urge you to support the National Park Service in its mission in the Mojave National Preserve and to do everything to ensure adequate funding is available to maintain the viability of their presence. I am convinced the rewards will be of great and lasting benefit to the region including a strong and vibrant business all around; greatly improving job opportunities for locals and others moving into the area; a major upgrade in the perception of the Mojave in the world at large; thus establishing a major source of pride and revenue for San Bernardino County and the State of California. I cannot understand--we have three major chambers of commerce. We have people writing in, saying visitation has gone up, it is better than it was. Two drug labs have been closed. Yet because of the pique of some on the House Appropriations Committee, we defund it. I cannot understand this. This is not just and fair public policy, particularly when we have 84 percent of the people of the State in support of keeping the Mojave a national park according to a poll done as recently as last week. I hazard a guess that there is probably no new park in America that would get that kind of public support and yet have this body and the other body defund it in its first year of operation. It is bizarre. I do not understand. Let me give another example, the small little restaurant called the Bun Boy in Baker. Owner Willis Heron writes: I have lived in and been in business in Baker, CA for over 40 years. I write to express my strong support to fully fund the National Park Service. Not adequately funding the National Park Service is a disservice to the thousands of people living in the towns of Baker, Barstow, Needles, and Nipton and to the County of San Bernardino. The preserve and the local communities will suffer if the proper funding is withheld. Again, I cannot understand it. The support is there. Roxanne Lang, a resident of Nipton says: The National Park Service has done more for our local area in the last nine months without much funding than the BLM did in ten years I have been here. The National Park Service has managed to eliminate some undesirables--i.e. drug dealers-- come into our schools and educate the children living in the desert about the environment; and give locals a generally good feeling that we have protection. This body defunds it. I do not understand it. The Overson family, the largest private property owner and ranchers in the preserve, also report that management is much improved under the Park Service. Let me read their statement: In the past 7 years under the Bureau of Land Management, crucial water replacement projects, pipelines, tanks, and troughs, have been put on hold. It has come to the point of having to get an attorney to sue the BLM to do the environmental assessments on the projects before funding will be allocated. Since the National Park Service took over management of the desert, many changes are apparent. We have been able to work with management for a yes or no answer. Projects are being worked on. The effects of the rangers are also apparent. They have wrote numerous speeding tickets, deterred drunk drivers, closed an illegal drug lab, and have policed this isolated area. Because of these reasons, we feel we would be better off under Park Service management. That is from the largest property owner in the Mojave Preserve, and this bill defunds it. I do not understand it. Mr. President, Congress established the national preserve. There was already a concession to the opposition who wanted a national preserve with hunting. They got their national preserve with hunting, but under the Park Service so the environmental protections could be provided. Guess what they did? They then turned around and defunded it-- something that has 84 percent support throughout the entire State of California after the first year in operation. It is absolutely bizarre. I have spoken to the administration. I am convinced they will veto this bill, and one of the reasons they will veto this bill is this kind of subrogation of the will of Congress. It is selfish, it is vain, it is wrong, it is not good policy, and it should not happen. I thank the President. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to lend my support to the compromise version of S. 908, the State Department Authorization bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, and their staffs, for the many hours they devoted to the long, hard negotiations that were necessary to reach this compromise. In particular, I want to recognize the efforts of the Senator from Massachusetts. He inherited a difficult, perhaps even thankless, task, and pursued it with his usual diligence, dedication, and wisdom. He had to balance the concerns of many of his colleagues, and of the Administration, while negotiating a very controversial bill. I believe the consolidation compromise he has struck with the Chairman is a good one, a workable one, and a fair one. I want to thank him for his efforts and commend him for his work. The plan that emerged from the negotiations is a reasonable one. It requires the Administration to submit a plan to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies, but it gives them flexibility to decide how to do so effectively and responsibly. They are tough standards that the Administration must meet. Within six months they must submit a reorganization plan to the Congress which achieves $1.7 billion in savings over five years. If Congress deems the plan to be unsatisfactory, we can pass a resolution of disapproval and force the Administration to submit a more acceptable plan. But most importantly, the compromise does not require the Administration to eliminate USAID, USIA, or ACDA. They may decide to do so. But this bill gives the Administration an opportunity to figure out a way to achieve real savings and reform, without necessarily abolishing three valuable agencies that do important work: development and disaster assistance, negotiating and monitoring of arms control agreements, and international broadcasting and exchanges. This flexibility is the key. The passage of this bill today will produce some other positive developments, many of them long overdue. With the disposition of S. 908, the Senate will be able to confirm 18 ambassadorial nominations and hundreds of foreign service officer promotions. We will also be able to consider the START II treaty before the end of this session, and the Chemical Weapons Convention in the spring. Of all embassies that are waiting for ambassadors, I think none is more important than the one in Beijing, China, where our former colleague, James Sasser, will become United States Ambassador. I am confident that our country will be well served by the job that he, and the other nominees, will do in their new posts. Finally, I do want to note that even with the consolidation compromise, there remain a number of provisions in S. 908 that I find deeply troubling. Several of them have to do with China. Section 606 declares that the Taiwan Relations Act should supersede the three U.S.-China joint communiques as the basis of U.S. policy toward China and Taiwan. Section 608 calls Tibet an ``occupied sovereign country, and Section 609 requires that the President appoint a Special Envoy for Tibet. Section 415 requires USIA to submit a plan to create a Radio Free Asia. Section 611 erects an unnecessarily labyrinthine procedure for screening products that may have been produced by forced labor in China. These provisions and others combine to create an unnecessary provocation in our relationship with China, at a time when the relationship is still recovering from a recent crisis. They threaten to undermine our One China Policy, which is the basis of the relationship, and to exacerbate tensions when we should be trying to ease tensions. I look forward to working with my colleagues who will serve on the House-Senate conference on this bill, with the goal of removing or rewriting these provisions. I consider the successful resolution of these matters to be critical to my consideration of whether or not to support the conference report on this bill. I am also hopeful that the consolidation plan will not be modified in conference. I am aware that the plan in the House bill does require the elimination of USAID, USIA, and ACDA. If the Senate compromise agreement is substantially altered in conference to reflect the more draconian House plan, it will be difficult, if not impossible for me to support the conference report. Having said that, I believe it is important to get the State Department Authorization bill to conference, and I intend to support the bill today.