Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize and pay tribute to a great friend to the Senate. The former Chaplain of the Senate, Rev. Richard C. Halverson passed away last week. For 14 years he tended to the spiritual needs of this body and all the people who make it work. Educated at Wheaton College and Princeton Theological Seminary, Reverend Halverson worked in several places including California, his last place of ministry prior to moving to Washington. As the 60th Chaplain of the Senate most of our Nation knew Reverend Halverson from the prayer he delivered every morning. His respectful and quiet manner was a example to us all for how to conduct ourselves and treat others with dignity. I remember with fondness the mornings when I sat as the acting President of this chamber, and listened to Reverend Halverson speak, urge and console not only the Members of this body but everybody listening throughout the Nation. Besides his duties as Chaplain of the Senate Reverend Halverson also was a minister to the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, MD, and an author of several books. He took a lifetime interest in trying speak to the improvement of the moral being of individuals, and the moral health of our Nation. I will miss Reverend Halverson, our country will miss Reverend Halverson, and this body will miss Reverend Halverson, but we are all better because of his life. I hope the example of his life will continue to set a standard for us all. I know that Reverend Halverson's wife Doris and all the members of his family know better than all of us what an exceptional and spiritual man he was. I want to express my sympathy to them with this loss.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from North Dakota for his comments. I believe they are right on. They are helpful, and I think they are positive. It is my belief that the budget debate could be settled in 20 minutes, if both sides really sat down and did it. I think the Senator from North Dakota clearly gave the main kernel of a solution. The tax cuts that are in the bill--no one benefits from those tax cuts more than my own family does. My husband is an investment banker. The capital gains clearly benefits him. He would love to have those benefits. It would be a nice thing to have, and many Americans feel that way. However, to have those benefits by making deeper cuts in Medicare and Medicaid--in my own State the Medicaid Program pays half a million of the poorest Californians' premiums and copayments whose Medicare would be done away with. We do not need to do that in this bill. You do not need to have the depth of the cuts to balance the budget in 7 years. The issue is not balancing the budget in 7 years. We have all agreed that is now going to be the case. The issue is do we need to have a major tax reduction benefiting largely upper-income people by taking those dollars, by making the cuts deeper in Medicare and Medicaid and social programs that are important to the well-being of this Nation? I think the answer to that, for anyone that looks at this from a moral perspective, clearly has to be no. So my own view is that this thing can be settled very quickly, and that the Senator from North Dakota clearly put forward a kernel of that solution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about Bosnia. Three nights ago the President of the United States went before the American people to make the case for sending 20,000 American soldiers to help implement the peace agreement that was recently drawn up and initialed in Dayton. I listened, as did millions of other Americans, and I heard the President lay out his reasons for doing something no one really wants to do, not even he. The decision that he made was not an easy one. As we have come to know all too well over the past few years, there are no easy answers to end the bloody conflict in Bosnia that has consumed so many lives. Over the past 72 hours all of us have weighed this question, and discussed the options before us with the administration, with our constituents, and deep within our own conscience. I submit to you that when push comes to shove this is going to be a vote of conscience, a vote of conscience here in the Senate, and a vote of conscience in the House of Representatives. While the details of the implementation plan have not yet been finalized, and as the President noted, there are critical questions that still need to be answered about how this mission can be accomplished effectively and with the greatest attention to troop safety, it is now clear to me that the American people and the Congress must and should support the President. To do otherwise, I believe, is to show a divided nation and send a signal throughout a world where 30 wars are now in progress that the American people forfeit our leadership role as the moral force for freedom and responsibility in the world. Over the past 4 years, while America and our European allies have quibbled about responsibility, the war has continued unabated. Amid the often self-inflicted charges of hand-wringing and finger-pointing as to whose war is it, who should lead, whose backyard is affected, two inescapable facts come home to me. One is something that the British statesman Edmund Burke said two centuries ago. We should all listen to what he said. I quote: ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' And, second, in the words of George Santayana, ``Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.'' Mr. President, it is time for good men and women to stand up, and America must lead. To those who know history, this area of the world is no stranger to conflict. In 1878, 117 years ago, Benjamin Disraeli said in the House of Lords in Great Britain: No language can describe adequately the condition of that large portion of the Balkan peninsula--Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and other provinces--political intrigues, constant rivalries, a total absence of all public spirit . . . hatred of all races, animosity of rival religions and absence of any controlling power . . . nothing short of an army of 50,000 of the best troops would produce anything like order in these parts. Disraeli's observation is as astute today as it was in 1878, but over the past 4 years the war in Bosnia has taken an enormous toll: a quarter of a million people dead; the systematic rape and torture of thousands; ethnic cleansing; concentration camps; over 300 graves with more than 1 body in them; war crimes; thousands still unaccounted for; 2 million homeless; and the fear of a spreading conflict. Not since Adolf Hitler has the world seen such atrocities. When our children and grandchildren look back on this day, they should not have to ask, Why did we not act when we had a chance to make a difference? Why did we not learn from the lessons of the Holocaust? America is the strongest nation in the world. As new nations fight for survival, as ethnic groups fight for their rights, as the leaders of fledgling nations fight for democracy and as people suffer atrocities, we must be careful as to how and when and where we make a difference. But if we can make a difference, and if it is important to our interests, I believe we should. We have an interest in this peace. Some might say we did not have such an interest before Dayton, but post-Dayton we most certainly have an interest in this peace. We have brokered this peace. We have a chance for peace to succeed. We cannot turn our backs because if we turn our backs on a chance for peace, what we are going to go back to is the systematic torture and rape and ethnic cleansing and atrocities. When the assault took place on Srebrenica, the moral argument truly hit home. And after all, there are still thousands of men and boys unaccounted for since the Serbs took over Srebrenica. I have used this picture standing next to me in this Chamber before. Today I use it again. This young Bosnian woman from Srebrenica looks very normal--her skirt, her sweater--with one exception: She has hung herself. She is hanging from a tree. Rather than further endure the atrocities, the rape, the torture, the mayhem, she hung herself. What we stand for as a nation is not letting things like this happen. What we stand for is doing something about it. And we have done that before. Our men and women have fought two wars in Europe--World War I and World War II. America was not threatened then, but we fought for some of the same reasons that we brokered a peace in Dayton that now has an opportunity to succeed, if we have the will, the unity, and the disposition to see that peace succeeds. So my argument today is really the moral one. We can have a peace succeed at this time if we have the resolve as a free, strong country to see it through. Once again, I would recall what Edmund Burke said many years ago and paraphrase it: Bad men flourish when good men refuse to stand up. It is true, as many have said, and there is no question that there is a price to pay. The question is, Should we pay that price? And what happens if we do not? Let me begin with what happens if we do not. If we do not, we know that our allies will not go in. Since the arms embargo has just been lifted by the U.N. Security Council, we know that all sides will have greater access to arms. The Bosnian Government most probably will get arms from Moslem nations, and possibly from the United States as well. And the Bosnian Serbs will gain arms from Serbia and quite possibly from Russia. There is a significant danger that what has been a largely self- contained conflict could spread, drawing in Croatia and Serbia as full participants--and we have seen the might of the Croatian Army--and then to nearby nations, such as Macedonia and Albania. From there our NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, could find themselves drawn in. And the threat of a major European conflict will be drastically increased. The mission that has been proposed is not without risk and it is not without cost. No military mission ever is. But it is a risk, I think, the leader of the free world must take. My continued support for the President's plan will be contingent upon the details of the mission. And I want to go into that for a moment. Our task over the next few weeks is to ensure that this mission is achievable, and that our troops are given everything they need to allow these highly trained forces--and they are very highly trained--to do what we know they are capable of as the strongest, best-equipped, best- trained military force in the world. There are certain aspects of this plan that are fundamentally necessary to ensure success. First, as I have said, the United States will take the lead, but we will not be alone. We will provide one-third of the troops; our allies will provide two-thirds. Second, the command will be unified and straightforward. U.S. and all other troops will operate under the command of an American general, General Joulwan, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. This mission-- Operation Joint Endeavor--will be an exclusively NATO-led mission. The United Nations will not play a role. Third, our forces will be operating under robust rules of engagement. They will respond with immediate and overwhelming force to any threat. Anyone who threatens our forces will not receive a proportional response. They will, quite simply, be taken out. Here I want to commend the President for his clarity and strength. I echo his words that if anyone threatens U.S. troops, ``We will fight fire with fire--and then some.'' Tomorrow, the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, will hold hearings on the plan to implement the peace agreement. The Armed Services Committee will also have an opportunity. Today, the House International Relations Committee is having that opportunity. We will have an opportunity to examine the terms of the peace agreement in depth, and to discuss the commitment of the parties to the agreement. President Clinton has made it clear that there will be no peace implementation force unless all parties sign the peace agreement. There are other concerns that also must be thoroughly addressed: the precise definition and limits of the mission; the avoidance of mission creep; a well-thought-out exit strategy, and the President has indicated four areas which will be used as the determining factors of when the mission has been successfully completed; the relocation of an estimated 2 million refugees; how to deal with anonymous sniper fire. We now know that there will be an international police task force set up, separate from the peace implementation force, to handle policing duties. There will be a body set up to handle the relocation of refugees. And we now know that the parties themselves will participate in efforts to remove the large number of landmines. All of these questions, though, must have more answers, and I believe they are in the course of being presented. As many of my colleagues have noted in recent days, the President has the constitutional authority to deploy these troops without congressional approval. The President, however, is seeking the support of the American people and of Congress for this mission. We must work with him to ensure that this mission is successful, but we can do no less than to support him. Three weeks ago, as Bosnian, Serb, and Croatian leaders hammered out this peace agreement, in another part of the world a great peacemaker and world leader was felled by an assassin's bullet. I was very sobered by the fact that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave his life for peace. More than anything else, I think this shows the risk that making peace in a historically troubled area carries with it. And so his death serves as a reminder that leadership in the search for peace has a price. I remember something that President Kennedy once said, that ``America would pay any price, bear any burden, and suffer any hardship in the cause of liberty and peace.'' I think that really says it all. We have an historic opportunity to help achieve peace where there has been far too much war. We cannot pass up this chance for peace. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Many of us find very egregious the fact that a $245 billion tax decrease essentially drives deeper cuts in what I view as very vital, safety-net programs. So I would be hopeful that we could end the debate on the size and shape of the continuing resolution, pass a clean continuing resolution, send this resolution to the President, and I would urge him to sign it. I would then urge the parties to reach across the aisle and begin to discuss how we can resolve the differences in the reconciliation bill. I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak this afternoon as one of the seven Democrats who voted for the continuing resolution, House Joint Resolution 122, which passed the Senate on Friday. Essentially, as has been stated, this resolution provided what we have all wanted, a clean continuing resolution. In its third title, it said the Congress and the President, ``shall enact a balanced budget by the year 2002 which is balanced.'' I believe a balanced budget is something that a majority of this body supports--perhaps it draws more support on your side of the aisle, Mr. President, than on our side, but a balanced budget draws support from our side of the aisle as well. It is my understanding this continuing resolution has not yet gone to the President--in fact, that it is still in the enrolling clerk's office of the Senate. It is my hope that this resolution would go to the President for his signature. I would like to take a few minutes and explain why I think it is important that he do the statesmanlike thing, and sign this resolution, put Government back to work, call the parties together, and begin to negotiate on what is really the heart of the debate--the reconciliation bill. As long as we keep Government shut down over the absence of a continuing resolution, essentially all we are doing is talking about the size and shape of the table. Now, there are those who would say, oh, that is not correct because, inherent in the continuing resolution is a very important point. The Congressional Budget Office provides the economic and technical data which enables one to judge the revenues with which one would be able to balance the budget. In fact, many people believe that regardless of whether you use the Office of Management and Budget or the Congressional Budget Office estimates, both will in fact be off and perhaps by some significant amount. The differences could translate into billions of dollars, so it is a significant issue. But we have to keep our eyes focused on the economy. I know in California, for the first time in several years, revenues have begun to move ahead, some $700 million, ahead of estimates in this quarter of the year for the State of California. That is a good omen. It means that perhaps the economy will move ahead at a higher level than has been anticipated. The CBO's estimates then could be amended. For me, it is not a big difference because I think the economic projections will be amended, and they will be figured into the base of the future years as we move along. But I think what is important is that we put an end to what is taking place now because it has gone on now for 5 days and is in fact beginning to hurt people. There are small businesses in my State that are contractors with the EPA or with Defense that are now laying off employees. There are 60,000 Head Start youngsters that now may not be able to attend school. I listened to Senator Stevens quite eloquently outline on the floor of this body yesterday afternoon the impact that this shutdown is beginning to have on the military. He pointed out that in just a matter of a week, there will be no fuel. He pointed out that already people beginning to move on military leave to go home for Thanksgiving are being stopped; that there is no money being paid for many kinds of duties that the military must carry out. We know what is happening with our national parks. The Senator from Arizona very eloquently stated the conditions at the Grand Canyon. At Yosemite National Park, I can tell you that $22,000 a day is unable to be taken in because it is closed. We know that the Securities and Exchange Commission is unable to collect higher filing fees for stocks and bonds because we have no appropriation bill in place, and that has cost United States taxpayers about $10 million on the first day of this stalemate. Then there are the hundreds of thousands of employees that have their house payments, their car payments and additional real facts of life that they have to be able to carry out to exist. This dispute has gone on long [[Page S 17481]] enough and we can simply put an end to it. Another course is to bring back the earlier continuing resolution, move for its reconsideration, amend it, and then send it to the President. The President should be given the opportunity to sign a clean continuing resolution. Let me tell you why I think it is important that the President of the United States make a statement agreeing with the 7-year balanced budget. Let me clarify, I do not believe I am alone on this side of the aisle. Each week, I have a group of constituents for breakfast, and I give them a small handout. It is not blown up and it is not fancy, but it is useful information and I would like to try to explain it here. One pie chart represents 1969 Federal outlays, and the other represents 1995 Federal outlays. So there is a 26-year interval between the two charts. In 1969, military outlays were 44.9 percent of all Federal outlays. Today, 26 years later, we see they are just 16.6 percent of all Federal outlays. We see where discretionary spending in 1969 was 21 percent of all Federal outlays. Today, it has dropped to 17 percent. Now I would like to turn to net interest on the debt, not gross interest, but net interest, which in 1969 represented 6.9 percent. Today, net interest is 14.5 percent of Federal outlays. So, in 26 years, net interest on the debt has doubled as a share of Federal outlays. We also see the major problem. We see entitlements at 26.9 percent of all Federal outlays in 1969 now exceeding the military budget, to 51.8 percent. So that today, in 1995, in terms of Federal outlay dollars, 66 percent of those dollars comprise entitlements and net interest on the debt. What has been predicted is that in the next 20 years, absent an effort to balance the budget, entitlements and net interest will absorb all of that, leaving a crushing burden of debt on those who follow us. That is really the message of why a balanced budget is so important, and why a 7-year balanced budget, I believe can be reached. In the reconciliation bill, once we get to it, we have to resolve conflicting priorities, and I think that is where there are differences on both sides of the aisle. But, I believe those differences can be met. I listened to Senator Chafee, whom I greatly respect, speak yesterday afternoon on this floor on some of the changes that could be made in Medicare. I happen to agree with the Republican premium levels on Medicare. I also happen to strongly disagree with the Republicans on what they have done with quality care involving the poorest Medicare recipients and the abolition of the Medicaid Program that would allow the poorest seniors to be able to pay their Medicare premiums and copayments through Medicaid. That is a point of difference. But I think reasonable people can sit down at the table and solve these problems, particularly if the majority is willing to delay a tax decrease. Many of us find egregious the fact----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the conference report on the National Highway Systems bill. As my colleagues know, I am a strong supporter of infrastructure development, and am an especially strong supporter of the transportation infrastructure provided for in this bill which is so vital to my State. I appreciate the hard work of the Senators from Virginia, Rhode Island, and Montana, and I want to thank them and their staffs for their work in the difficult crafting of this legislation. This conference report will provide California with $569 million in much needed and long overdue Federal highway funding for essential transportation projects. Unfortunately, however, the public safety measures included in the legislation compel me to oppose this conference report. My specific concerns are with the repeal of the 55 miles per hour speed limit for automobiles, the lack of a national speed limit for trucks, and the repeal of Federal motorcycle helmet laws. repeal of national speed limit According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, one third of all fatal crashes are speed related, and 1,000 people are killed every month in speed-related crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration predicts elimination of the national speed limit on nonrural interstates and noninterstate roads will increase deaths by 4,750 annually at a cost of $15-$19 billion in additional insurance costs. This amounts to an increase of $2 billion per year in California. Almost 25 percent of all accidents in California are speed related. In California, the Highway Patrol reports that in 1994 there were 436 fatal accidents and 48,877 injuries that were speed related. speed limit for trucks During initial consideration of this bill, Senator Reid offered an amendment to retain a national speed limit on trucks. I supported this amendment because, according to the California Highway Patrol, the State of California has seen a steady reduction in the number accidents, injuries and fatalities relating to accidents involving trucks since 1989. In 1989, 647 people lost their lives and 17,703 people were injured in California as a result of 12,159 truck-related accidents. By 1994, 451 people were killed and 13,512 injured in California as a result of 9,225 truck-related accidents. I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues in the Senate to address the growing problems associated with making these big rigs safe. motorcycle helmet repeal Since enactment of California's motorcycle helmet law in 1992, the California Highway Patrol estimates that motorcycle fatalities have decreased by 41 percent and motorcycle injuries have decreased by 35 percent. I believe helmets save lives, and our Nation's highways will be a little less safe for all of us without their use. In closing, let me say that I cannot support legislation that will very likely put greater numbers of traveling public at risk. Were this only an infrastructure bill, it would very likely have my support. Only time can tell if my concerns will be realized. If they are, I hope this body will take immediate action to remediate some of the changes this bill makes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We want to bring to the attention of the managers the need for a new courthouse in Fresno. The current U.S. courthouse in Fresno is at its full capacity and would require extensive modifications to meet seismic, fire and security standards. The current courthouse, the B.F. Sisk Building, opened in 1968 as an office building with only two courtrooms and a small amount of support space designated for the courts. Now, the court and related support agencies occupy 92 percent of the building with additional space being leased on the outside. There are currently four district, two magistrate and two bankruptcy courtrooms in the building, which is used by two district judges, two senior district judges, one visiting judge from Sacramento, two bankruptcy judges, two magistrate judges and visiting magistrate judge. Within the next year, there will be an additional senior judge. Five of the current courtrooms have been built out in previous office space. There is no room for future expansion. A recent seismic evaluation on the current building found that the cost of seismic retrofitting would be more than the cost of the building. Also, serious concerns have been raised about the safety and security standards in the building relating to its use as a court facility. Given the current situation and projected future growth, the city has been working with the courts, the General Services Administration [GSA] and the subcommittee to obtain funding for a new structure for the past few years. However, I understand that due to budget constraints, there is no funding provided for new start courthouse projects, including the Fresno project, in the conference report for the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. We thank the chairman and ranking member for their understanding and thoughtful responses.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations, Senator Shelby, and the ranking minority member, Senator Kerrey, if they would engage in a brief colloquy with myself and my colleague from California, Senator Boxer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in deep sorrow to pay a tribute to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated in Tel Aviv 10 days ago. It is difficult to imagine the State of Israel without Yitzhak Rabin. His last years as Prime Minister were so momentous that it is easy to forget that Yitzhak Rabin was not just present, but played a central role, in virtually every major event in Israel's brief, but dramatic, history. For many Israelis, Yitzhak Rabin was a father figure--a constant presence throughout their lives, and a source of strength. The profound love, admiration, and respect that his compatriots felt for him was made clear by the tremendous, spontaneous outpouring of grief upon his sudden death: Candlelight vigils cropped up all across the country; men and women stood crying in the streets in shock and disbelief; and 1 million Israelis--20 percent of the population--filed past his coffin in a 24-hour period to pay their last respects. For Israelis, Yitzhak Rabin had simply always been there. Born in 1922 in Jerusalem to recent immigrants to Palestine, the young Yitzhak Rabin was part of the generation that built the foundation of the Jewish state. He studied in an agricultural school, with the expectation of working the land with his bare hands. But Rabin felt a sense of duty to the cause of building Israel, and he put his own ambitions aside to fight for its birth. He joined the Palmach, the forerunner of the Israel defense forces, to fight for Israel's establishment. A fine soldier, he was quickly elevated to command-level positions, and he led the battalion that secured the crucial Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road during Israel's War of Independence in 1948. After Israel's founding, Rabin rose through the ranks of the Israel defense forces, finally being named Chief of Staff. To Israel's good fortune, he held that position in June of 1967, when he led Israel to a stunning victory in the Six-Day War over three Arab armies threatening the Jewish State. He was one of the first Israelis to walk the streets of the reunited city of Jerusalem, and the pictures of him arriving at the Western Wall of the Temple are to this day among the most moving images in Israel's history. In the aftermath of this great victory, he retired from the military and became Israel's Ambassador to the United States. He sought this post, he explained, because he felt that Israel's future could best be secured by a strong partnership with the United States. More than any other individual in either country, Yitzhak Rabin envisioned the deep friendship that now exists between the United States and Israel, and worked to make it a reality. It is fitting that in his final years as Prime Minister, he enjoyed a relationship with an American President that surpassed perhaps what even he had imagined possible. In 1974, in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War that brought down the government of Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin became Prime Minister of Israel. During his tenure in office, he forged an early path in Middle East peacemaking by negotiating disengagement agreements with both Egypt and Syria. Following the Labor party's defeat to Likud in 1977, Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat built on the successful disengagement negotiations to reach a full peace treaty. In 1984, Yitzhak Rabin returned to the Cabinet as Israel's Defense Minister. In the first year, he helped to arrange the withdrawal of the Israeli Army from most of Lebanon, following a costly and painful invasion. In 1987 and 1988, he was confronted by the Palestinian uprising, or intifada, and the daily battles between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian youths. Finally, in 1992, Yitzhak Rabin returned victorious to the Prime Ministership. He quickly recognized the opportunity to achieve a breakthrough in the stalled negotiations between Israel and its neighbors. The results included the historic agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, the peace treaty with Jordan, and many unforgettable images, such as the famous handshake with Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn, and the appearance with King Hussein of Jordan at a joint session of Congress. The common thread through all these various experiences was an unshakable commitment to the security and well-being of the State of Israel. At every stage of his life--from young soldier fighting for his nation's survival, to confident commander of a strong army, to diplomat reaching out to broader ties with the world, and finally to statesman leading his nation to make peace with old foes--he was motivated by a desire to build a better, more secure, more peaceful life for his people. Yitzhak Rabin was a man of great integrity. He spoke plainly and made no pretense about his overriding concern: the security of the State of Israel and its people. But, blessed with strength of character and a keen intellect, he was able to adjust his understanding of what Israel's security required according to changing conditions. In 1948 and 1967, for example, he knew that Israel's survival required an all-out military effort. In later years he understood the need to maintain Israel's world-class military and the imperative of a strong alliance with the United States. For many years after the Six-Day War, he had been an advocate of Israel retaining all of the West Bank and Gaza. But as the intifada went on, the destructive effects of the continuation of Israeli control over a hostile, embittered population of nearly 2 million Palestinians became clearer to him. Over time, and not without difficulty, he came to the understanding that Israel's long-term survival as a Jewish state would be jeopardized by the continued domination of another people. He was not naive. He recognized that there were risks involved with reaching out to old enemies. But his pragmatic understanding of Israel's own needs led to the historic agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. In his final speech to the Israeli people, at the peace rally where he was cut down, Yitzhak Rabin explained how he had come to reassess Israel's situation. He said: I was a military man for 27 years. I fought so long as there was no chance for peace. I believe that there is now a chance for peace, a great chance. We must take advantage of it for the sake of those standing here and for those who are not here--and they are many. I say this to you as one who was a military man, someone who is today Minister of Defense and sees the pain of the families of the Israel Defense Forces soldiers. For them, for our children, in my case for our grandchildren, I want this government to exhaust every opening, every possibility to promote and achieve a comprehensive peace. Yitzhak Rabin was a pragmatist, not a starry-eyed idealist. But through his pragmatism, he reached a visionary conclusion. This man, who cared so deeply for every Israeli soldier who fell [[Page S 17040]] in battle, for every victim of terror, knew that when an opportunity for peace presented itself, he must seize it. A pragmatic conclusion to be sure, but also a morally-centered one. I was privileged to attend Yitzhak Rabin's funeral last week in Jerusalem, the city of his birth. He is buried among Israel's fallen heroes on Mount Herzl, and there could be no more appropriate place. He was a patriot and hero for Israel as a soldier and a leader, in wars of survival and in the struggle for peace. The funeral was a powerful testimony to his achievements. Yitzhak Rabin, the military hero, was saluted by weeping soldiers, and buried with full military honors. Yitzhak Rabin, the peacemaker, was honored by the entire world. Dozens of heads of state and foreign dignitaries, from every corner of the globe, came to pay their respects. There could be no greater evidence of the incredible progress made by Yitzhak Rabin toward peace and ending Israel's isolation. Most inspiring of all was the presence of leaders from seven Arab countries--Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Qatar, Oman, and Mauritania--and the Palestinian Authority. Such a thing could not have happened even 3 years ago. The peace that Yitzhak Rabin was striving to build was brought to life by the presence of President Mubarak of Egypt, on his first visit to Israel, and by Jordan's King Hussein, who called Rabin ``my brother.'' It now falls to Shimon Peres, Israel's acting Prime Minister, to continue the work of his partner, Yitzhak Rabin. Israel is fortunate to have such a wise and capable leader ready to step in to the void created by this tragedy. Shimon Peres has served Israel with distinction over many years as Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, and many other posts. Shimon Peres is in many ways the architect of the Israeli-Palestinian agreements, and his commitment to achieving a comprehensive peace that protects Israel's security is unquestioned. If there is any consolation in this time of grief, it is that Yitzhak Rabin's partner, Shimon Peres, who shared Rabin's vision, will be able to carry that vision forward. As the tributes to Yitzhak Rabin continue to flow forth from around the world, we must rededicate ourselves to supporting Israel in its pursuit of peace. It is a sad irony that at the moment of Yitzhak Rabin's death, Congress had allowed the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act--which Rabin considered essential to the success of his peace policies--to lapse. While this problem was rectified following the funeral, we know that Congress will have many future opportunities to express support for the peace process. When we fail to do so, we undermine Israel's peace efforts and dishonor Yitzhak Rabin's legacy. Let us commit to one another and to the memory of Yitzhak Rabin, that we will place support for Israel's peace efforts above partisan or political disputes. Bringing peace to Israel and the Middle East--which was Rabin's life's work--deserves to be such a priority. If we fail to do this, all our words and tributes in praise of Yitzhak Rabin will ring hollow. Let us also commit ourselves to condemning violence and the incendiary rhetoric of extremists, wherever we find it. The painful lesson of Rabin's death is that violent words can indeed have violent consequences. Tragically, ``Death to Rabin'' was not just a slogan. It is up to all of us to isolate those who use such words. Israel and the world have lived 10 days without Yitzhak Rabin, and we are far poorer for his loss. While the pain does not fade easily, his memory can be a source of comfort. This past Sunday night, at the conclusion of the 7-day mourning period, tens of thousands of Israelis returned to the site of his assassination--renamed Yitzhak Rabin Square--and sang songs of peace in his honor. For Israel, for the Jewish people, and for all who loved and respected Yitzhak Rabin, may his memory be a blessing. In death as in life, may he give hope and strength to his people.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to address an issue of tremendous importance to our Nation. It does not involve the arcane details of the Federal budget, but does touch directly the lives of every one of our citizens. Mr. President, it is the issue of personal safety. It is the issue of reducing crime on our streets by imposing swift and appropriately strong punishment on those who prey on our streets. Last June, I spoke to my colleagues in support of the habeas corpus provisions included in the anti-terrorism bill. I think it is unfortunate that I must say again, five months later, that habeas corpus reform is still needed, now, just as much as it was then, in the immediate aftermath of the tragic and reprehensible bombing in Oklahoma City. Habeas corpus reform is still needed because our streets are still unsafe and those who commit the most heinous crimes still abuse the court system to prevent their sentences from being carried out. It is needed because swift punishment--including the death penalty where appropriate--is critical in our efforts to ensure the personal safety of all of our citizens. It is needed because the deterrent effect of the death penalty is weakened when it cannot be imposed swiftly after a verdict has been reached in a fair trial. Mr. President, habeas corpus reform is needed because since the death penalty was reinstated in California in 1978, more prisoners on death row have died of natural causes than have been executed. Let no one doubt the magnitude of this problem. For example, in California there are currently 428 convicted criminals on death row-- that is 18 more than when I last spoke to the Senate on the immediate need for habeas reform. This problem is not unique to California, however. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, during the year ending June 30, 1995, there were 14,637 prisoner petitions for habeas corpus review in U.S. district courts alone. 156 of these cases were death penalty cases. On June 7, on the same day the Senate overwhelmingly passed habeas corpus reform as part of the anti-terrorism bill, the longest serving member of California's death row population, Andrew E. Robertson, marked the 17th anniversary of his incarceration. Five months later, he still avoids punishment. Mr. President, that is unconscionable. Another case deserves scrutiny as well. Seventeen years ago, Keith Daniel Williams was convicted of fatally shooting Miguel and Salvadore Vargas and Lourdes Meza in Merced, CA while stealing a $1,500 check that he and his friends had used to buy a car from Miguel Vargas. Williams was found guilty of planning the killings and, after shooting the two men, raping Lourdes Meza in the back of the car before shooting her and leaving her naked body in a field. This vicious killer told a psychiatrist that after one of his accomplices broke down when Williams had ordered him to shoot the woman, Williams intended to kill him, too, but decided not to when, and I quote, ``the dude started sniveling and crying.'' Keith Daniel Williams admitted killing these three innocent people, but 18 years of courtroom maneuverings have kept this cold-blooded murderer from receiving the punishment he deserves for his horrible crimes. Just last spring, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Williams was not denied a fair trial by the actions of his lawyer--who failed to hire a psychiatrist, obtain Williams' medical records or present any favorable evidence at the penalty phase. Following this decision, his lawyer said he would seek a rehearing before an 11-judge panel and, if that failed to stop the execution, appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. According to California's Deputy Attorney General, those appeals could take a year to 18 months, even if no new hearings are granted. A newspaper article on this case published 7-months ago was titled, ``Triple Killer a Step Closer to Execution''. Mr. President, that final step may take another year. That is just plain wrong. Sadly, there are many other cases similar to the one I just described and their crimes are among the most horrific imaginable. I will not burden my [[Page S 16913]] colleagues with the gruesome details, but I do believe the Senate, and the American people, need to know of the abuse of the legal system by individuals convicted in courts of law for the most vile and violent crimes and I think it necessary to mention one more example. Bernard Hamilton murdered a woman--the mother of two boys, one of whom was only 3 weeks old--in San Diego in May 1979. His victim disappeared on her way to class. She was last seen in her van in the parking lot of the school she attended. Her body was later found with the head and hands removed; they have never been recovered. The body was clothed only in bra, underpants, and socks. Bernard Hamilton was arrested in Oklahoma in possession of his victim's van and had been using her credit cards. He was convicted of first degree murder for this brutal crime. After his first State habeas petition was denied he went to Federal court and last year two judges on the 9th Circuit ordered the sentence vacated on a claim that was rejected by six Justices on the California Supreme Court and one dissenting judge on the 9th Circuit. This cold-blooded killer is now in the midst of a new penalty trial-- more than 16 years after the murder. To add insult to injury, Hamilton represented himself at his penalty retrial and blamed the victim's husband, who never recovered emotionally from the death of his wife before his own death last year. For the victims of the kind of violent crimes I've just described, justice will not fully have been done until those responsible have been tried, convicted and the death penalty imposed and swiftly carried out. I am very pleased to say that the habeas provision included in the bill currently under consideration by the Senate is designed to do just that. The habeas corpus provision is identical to those included in the anti-terrorism bill passed the Senate by a vote of 91 to 8 last June, and one I believe which strikes an appropriate balance between the need to assure due process to those convicted of both capital and non- capital crimes and the need of any rational judicial system to bring cases to closure. Indeed, Mr. President, that is particularly important not only the integrity of our judicial system, but for the victims of capital cases. Most importantly, Mr. President, this bill provides habeas petitioners with ``one bite at the apple.'' It assures that no one convicted of a capital crime will be barred from seeking habeas relief in Federal court, and appropriately limits second and subsequent habeas appeals to narrow and suitable circumstances. Furthermore, Mr. President, the bill requires States which provide for counsel that habeas appeals must be filed within 6 months of when a State prisoner's conviction becomes final, or in States where standard for the adequacy of counsel are not adopted, such appeals must be filed within 1 year. Third, Mr. President, time limits are also imposed upon courts. The bill requires that Federal courts must act promptly on habeas appeals and establishes a mechanism by which courts of appeals will screen habeas petitions before they are permitted to go to a Federal District Court for resolution. Finally, Mr. President, unlike the crime bill proposals that I and the Nation's law enforcement officials opposed two years ago, this bill does not dictate to the States precisely what counsel competency standards are adopted. Rather, it properly provides states with an incentive to formulate their own plans by making expedited time tables I have just described available for states to do so. Mr. President, the time for habeas corpus reform is long overdue. Too many of our streets are dangerous, too many of our citizens are scared, too many of our courts are clogged with endless, meritless prisoner appeals. I urge my colleagues to support the habeas corpus reform provisions in this bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will do my best.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I rise to support the motion to commit to the Judiciary Committee, and I do that as the only woman in the U.S. Senate on the Judiciary Committee. This is a matter which basically affects women, and I think it really is appropriate to have the hearings that have been requested and to come to grips with some of the problems that are inherent in this legislation. I would like to give you my major reasons for suggesting that hearings in the Judiciary Committee are appropriate. I believe that the language in this bill is unduly vague. It is not based on medical terminology. The bill holds a doctor criminally liable for a procedure that is defined not in medical terms but in a description devised by legislators. I think we need to come to grips with that and find out exactly which procedures would be impacted by this legislation. Second, Roe versus Wade already provides for States to legislate in the third trimester. And, in fact, 41 States do already have statutes on the books which govern abortions in the third trimester. There are also very strong writings and beliefs that this bill would violate the Constitution. I think that is worthy of a hearing. Finally, there is a very real human dilemma in this. Unfortunately, the genetic code which carries out God's creation is sometime's tragically faulty. And this produces heartbreaking circumstances in which children have developed in the fetus without brains, children have developed with the brain outside of the skull, children develop without eyes or ears, whose stomachs are hollow, and the materials having to do with intestines and bladder are created outside of the physical structure of the individual. When we consider the nature of these heartbreaking pregnancies, these very dire circumstances, we must also consider the life and health of the mother. So I believe very strongly that this is the correct action to take, to have these hearings and to report this bill back to this body within a specified period of time. Let me just very quickly speak to certain issues. In 1973, in Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court established a trimester system to govern abortions. In that system, in the first 12 to 15 weeks of a pregnancy, when 95.5 percent of all abortions occur, and the procedure is medically the safest, the Government may not, under Roe, place an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion. In the second trimester, when the procedure in some situations poses a greater health risk, States may regulate abortion, but only to protect the health of the mother. This might mean, for example, requiring that an abortion be performed in a hospital or performed by a licensed physician. In the later stages of pregnancy, at the point the fetus becomes viable and is able to live independently from the mother, Roe recognizes the State's strong interest in protecting potential human life. On that basis, States are allowed to prohibit abortions, except in cases where the abortion is necessary to protect the life or the health of the woman. I repeat, the life or the health of the woman. Contrary to the many myths put forward by opponents, abortion in the latest stages of pregnancy is extremely rare and performed almost exclusively under the most tragic of circumstances--to protect the life or health of a woman who very much [[Page S 16775]] wanted that pregnancy, or in the case of a severe and fatally deformed fetus. As I said, 41 States have enacted laws restricting abortions in the later stages of pregnancy. Even when such abortions have been restricted, States have, in nearly every case, made exceptions to protect the life and the health of the mother. States such as Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah--all these States, and many more, have recognized the crucial need to consider risks to a woman's health, in addition to risks to a woman's life, in balancing the important considerations of both the fetus and the mother. To do otherwise would be to fail to accord consideration to the safety and well-being of our Nation's women. To do otherwise would be callous, and cruel. Certain States have chosen to remain silent on the issue--most likely because these abortions are so rare and considered so tragic, that new laws are not necessary to interfere with what many believe is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I have 1 minute?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator very much. I would like to enter a letter into the Record from a physician, an obstetrician, a surgeon, who served as chief of the Abortion Surveillance Branch at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, where he did some preliminary work in evaluating third-trimester abortions, and finds this issue to be largely a smokescreen for those opposed to abortion. He points out the rarity of these abortions. He points out that in a study in Atlanta, the rate of third-trimester abortions was 4 per 100,000 abortions. I think this letter provides some accurate and vital testimony. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S. 1389 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, I would very much like to commend the Senator from Wyoming for his work on immigration. I am privileged to serve on his subcommittee on immigration on the Judiciary Committee, and it has been very wonderful for me to be able to watch him work out various problems in what has been a most difficult arena in which to legislate. So I would just like to say to him, I am delighted he has presented his bill. I look forward to reading it. I hope I will be able to cosponsor it. I look forward to work with him in the committee as this bill is moved. I think, Mr. President, that the Senator from Wyoming understands the need to move a bill in this session of the Congress. So I would like him to know that I am very respectful and grateful for his work in this area.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of great concern and importance to me, and I believe, to the integrity of our democratic system of Government: campaign finance reform. I supported the legislation introduced and passed by this body in 1993, and I came back to Washington in 1995 [[Page S 16658]] with renewed commitment to pursuing meaningful reform of our Nation's campaign finance laws. Mr. President, I completed in November my 10th political campaign--10 of them. Three of them were very big. One was for Governor of the State of California, and two were for the U.S. Senate. I would like to tell you what I raised in just those three campaigns: In 1990, for Governor, $19,770,062; in 1992, $8,540,222; and in 1994, $14,407,179. That totals in three campaigns $42,231,463. Mr. President, I am a walking, talking, case exhibit for campaign spending reform. And I would like to submit that the time has come for the Senate and the House to rally to the challenge, and produce some legislation which can reduce the impact and the need for fundraising and dollars in American political national House and Senate campaigns. I supported the legislation introduced and passed by this body in 1993. And I came back to Washington after this last campaign really with a renewed commitment. I raised $14 million. My opponent outspent me by better than 22 to 1. That should not be the case for a U.S. Senate seat, even in a State as big as the State of California. The bill I introduce today addresses what I believe are the areas most in need of reform: curbing the astronomical amounts of money that flood campaigns today, creating a level playing field between wealthy candidates who finance their own campaigns and candidates who cannot, and honesty in campaign advertising. Among the bill's key provisions are: Voluntary spending limits based on voting-age population; Provisions relating to spending from personal funds and creating a level playing-field for their opponent; and Disclosure requirements for political advertisements. spending limits For almost 20 years now this Congress has studied and debated the issue of campaign spending reform. Last year in the Senate, we passed out a bill. It did not move forward in the House. During that time, though, spending in Senate races has increased more than 500 percent while the cost of living has roughly doubled. The last election cycle exemplifies the absurd levels campaign spending has reached. According to the Federal Election Commission, congressional candidates in 1994 raised and spent over $724 million-- the highest amount ever recorded in any election cycle in the Commission's 20-year existence. The fundraising pressure on candidates to meet ever-growing demand is enormous. I know it firsthand. It increases with every election cycle, and it clearly discourages otherwise qualified candidates from running. So the legislation which I put forward today is very limited and very simple. Not a lot of it is new. There are a few new twists. But it really is combining three things that were presented before that I think go to reduce spending, create that level playing field, and particularly to reduce the inordinate costs of media. Voluntary spending limits would be based on each State's voting age population ranging from a high of $8.2 million in a State like California to a low of $1.5 million in a smaller State like Wyoming. The rules are the same as those that were sent out by the Rules Committee in the Senate bill of last session. In return for voluntarily controlling spending, a candidate receives a bonus. This is the carrot to go along with the voluntary limit. In return for voluntarily controlling spending, a candidate would be entitled to receive: 30 minutes of free broadcast time, a proposal which is based on a bill Senator Dole introduced in the 102d Congress; a 50-percent discount on television time over and above the free time, and a reduced postage rate on two pieces of mail to each voting-age resident in their State. These latter two benefits were in the bill passed by the Senate in the last Congress. Previous spending limit proposals have been seen as pro-incumbent measures and a barrier to challengers who have to spend more money to compete against an incumbent with high name recognition. This bill evens the playing field a little by making critical advertising time available to challengers and incumbents alike--30 minutes of broadcast time free, and the rest at half the price. With 30 to 40 cents of every dollar raised--sometimes well over half--going to media advertising, free media time and a 50-percent broadcast discount rate will not only reduce campaign costs but will also serve as a powerful incentive for candidates to agree to voluntary spending limits. personal funds This legislation, which mirrors parts of the campaign finance bill introduced by the majority leader, Senator Dole, in the last Congress, attempts to limit the ability of a wealthy candidate to buy a seat in Congress. This is where the provisions are a little different than anything anybody has introduced prior. But let me say what they are. Under this bill, after qualifying as a candidate for the primary, a candidate must declare if he or she intends to spend more than $250,000 of their own funds in the election. If the candidate says, Yes, I am going to spend more than $250,000 of my own money in this election, then the contribution limits on his or her opponent are raised from $1,000 to $5,000. If a candidate declares that he or she will spend more than $1 million on the race from their own pocket, then the contribution limit on his or her opponents are removed entirely. As with my case, where somebody came forward and said, I will spend $30 million of my own--that still is disbelief to me to even say that huge amount of my own money on this race--there is no way, no matter how proven a fundraiser you are, that you can compete with that amount of money. This would enable an individual to compete because the spending limits are off of them. I believe this requirement will minimize the advantage of enormous personal wealth in campaigns, while maximizing the opponent's time to pursue a campaign on the issues, rather than being caught in a quicksand of fundraising. Let me speak for a moment about honesty in campaign advertising, which I really did not believe that we should deal with. I really thought that, well, campaigns are freewheeling. They are rough and tumble. I participated in very hard mayoral races, rough and tumble in San Francisco. But I never saw the degree to which negative ads permeate the campaign spectrum as I did in the last campaign. So honesty in campaign advertising is of great interest to me. I think it is critically important to the voters who are now saying, well, a pox on both their houses, and I do not believe any of them, as we restore some level of credibility and respect to the political process. Honesty will do it. Honesty in campaign ads will go a long, long way. One issue of great concern to me and one that, I believe, is critically important to restore some level of credibility and respect to the political process, is honesty in campaign advertising. In recent years, the amount of negative advertising and personal attacks in campaign ads has exploded. And all the experts are predicting in the next set of races that it is going to get even worse. You see it beginning to start with someone who may be a probable or possible Presidential candidate even before he gets into the race. Campaigns that rely on unchecked character assassination--with no regard for the validity or truth of the charges--have contributed to unprecedented voter cynicism and apathy. In the 1994 campaign, negative ads, groundless attacks on character, distorted facts dragged political advertising to this new low. In my campaign, at least two televisions stations and one radio station ran a disclaimer before my opponent's ads in an attempt to absolve their station of responsibility and liability for the content of the ads and noting that the reason they ran the ads is because they were required by law to do so. Campaign advertising has become a virtual arms race, and in some cases is based upon a deliberate strategy of alienating voters to degrees voter turnout. The result again is this public turn-off, the cynicism, the pox on both your houses, and the enormous disaffection people feel with political leaders and the political process itself. Most of us would like but we are limited in our ability to curtail negative [[Page S 16659]] advertising because of first amendment considerations. We can hold candidates and campaign committees more responsible for what they do or we can individually just decide not to do it ourselves. I resolved not to do it myself, not to respond, and my poll numbers went like this. And when we did the focus groups, what we found was that the negatives blasted through and the positive credentials did not. People just did not believe them. They tend to believe the negatives, but they would not believe the positives. And that is a sad, sad case in American political affairs. So what has happened--and I believe this is fairly typical across the United States--is campaign consultants are finding that the negative ads blast through and the positive ads do not, so the tendency on an increasing basis is to go to negative campaign advertising. The provisions of my bill would set minimum standards for disclosure in print, on radio, and on television. The bill would require disclaimers in TV ads to appear for at least 4 seconds with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the background and the printed statement. It requires a clearly identifiable photograph or other image of the candidate if the ad is paid by a candidate or the candidate's committee by the candidate, and the statement at the end of the add by the candidate saying, ``This is Dianne Feinstein. I have approved the content of this ad.'' The thrust of this is to connect the responsibility between the consultant who does the ad and the candidate whose campaign runs the ad. After all, the candidate is eventually responsible. The bill also would require sponsors of other advertisements such as independent campaigns to indicate in a statement that they are responsible for the veracity of the content of the ad. Now, what is not contained in this bill? What is not contained in this bill is public financing of campaigns. It is my belief that the American people are not ready to accept public financing of campaigns. Tax dollars are hard fought for, and that situation is not going to get better; it is going to get worse. Therefore, even a checkoff for public financing of campaigns I think is unworthy of the priorities that we face as legislators. So there is no direct public financing in this legislation. Some have opposed spending limits as contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley versus Valeo which rejected mandatory limits unless they are imposed--for example, in exchange for public benefits. This bill attempts to strike a balance called for in that decision by making the spending limits voluntary and tying them to public benefits. I supported initial campaign spending reform that would curb the influence of political action committees, and in the $14 million that I raised in the last campaign, about 16 percent was from political action committees. But I believe distinctions need to be made to protect small contributors who pool their resources, share information, and involve themselves in the process by supporting candidates or causes in which they believe. A blanket ban on all political action committees in a sense throws the baby out with the bath water. I think we need to be encouraging people to be involved in politics, not discouraging them. And virtually every legal scholar I know who has examined this question believes that a complete ban is unconstitutional. The Congressional Research Service has advised the Senate: A complete ban on contributions and expenditures by connected and nonconnected PAC's appears to be unconstitutional in violation of the first amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that campaign contributions and expenditures are a form of political speech protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. While the activities of some political action committees certainly need to be scrutinized, others give the small person, the ordinary person a voice in politics. They allow many people who cannot afford to make only small contributions to band together so that their voices can be heard. For those PAC's whose practices violate the letter or intent of Federal election law, the full weight of the FEC enforcement should be brought to bear. But I do not believe we should silence the voice of small contributors in our efforts to curb the influence of big special interest PAC's. One example is the League of Conservation Voters. The average contribution to their PAC is $40. Individually, these donors cannot take out ads supporting environmental legislation or candidates. But by pooling their resources, they can purchase an ad announcing their support. Surely this is not the type of political influence that warrants an outright ban on political action committees. Yet, other legislation being considered by this body would do just that. And that is where I split. I was encourage when President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich agreed to set up a bipartisan commission to study and perhaps finally act on campaign finance reform. But apparently that agreement seems to have since become bogged down with political baggage. This issue has been studied and studied and studied not only by this Congress for 20 years but by a bipartisan commission whose recommendations were made to the Congress in 1990. I think it is time for Congress to act. And what we have tired to do in this legislation is take concepts that have stood the test of time, put them together in a limited package of three major areas where I believe there is a consensus in both political bodies and around which I think there can be forged no real opposition that is credible and worthy to taking these three steps as a first and meaningful step in campaign spending reform. So I submit the legislation, and I welcome the discussion and the debate. I thank the forbearance of the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would very much like to commend the Senator from Wyoming for his work on immigration. I am privileged to serve on his subcommittee on immigration on the Judiciary Committee, and it has been very wonderful for me to be able to watch him work out various problems in what has been a most difficult arena in which to legislate. So I would just like to say to him, I am delighted he has presented his bill. I look forward to reading it. I hope I will be able to cosponsor it. I look forward to work with him in the committee as this bill is moved. I think, Mr. President, that the Senator from Wyoming understands the need to move a bill in this session of the Congress. So I would like him to know that I am very respectful and grateful for his work in this area.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of great concern and importance to me, and I believe, to the integrity of our democratic system of Government: campaign finance reform. I supported the legislation introduced and passed by this body in 1993, and I came back to Washington in 1995 [[Page S 16658]] with renewed commitment to pursuing meaningful reform of our Nation's campaign finance laws. Mr. President, I completed in November my 10th political campaign--10 of them. Three of them were very big. One was for Governor of the State of California, and two were for the U.S. Senate. I would like to tell you what I raised in just those three campaigns: In 1990, for Governor, $19,770,062; in 1992, $8,540,222; and in 1994, $14,407,179. That totals in three campaigns $42,231,463. Mr. President, I am a walking, talking, case exhibit for campaign spending reform. And I would like to submit that the time has come for the Senate and the House to rally to the challenge, and produce some legislation which can reduce the impact and the need for fundraising and dollars in American political national House and Senate campaigns. I supported the legislation introduced and passed by this body in 1993. And I came back to Washington after this last campaign really with a renewed commitment. I raised $14 million. My opponent outspent me by better than 22 to 1. That should not be the case for a U.S. Senate seat, even in a State as big as the State of California. The bill I introduce today addresses what I believe are the areas most in need of reform: curbing the astronomical amounts of money that flood campaigns today, creating a level playing field between wealthy candidates who finance their own campaigns and candidates who cannot, and honesty in campaign advertising. Among the bill's key provisions are: Voluntary spending limits based on voting-age population; Provisions relating to spending from personal funds and creating a level playing-field for their opponent; and Disclosure requirements for political advertisements. spending limits For almost 20 years now this Congress has studied and debated the issue of campaign spending reform. Last year in the Senate, we passed out a bill. It did not move forward in the House. During that time, though, spending in Senate races has increased more than 500 percent while the cost of living has roughly doubled. The last election cycle exemplifies the absurd levels campaign spending has reached. According to the Federal Election Commission, congressional candidates in 1994 raised and spent over $724 million-- the highest amount ever recorded in any election cycle in the Commission's 20-year existence. The fundraising pressure on candidates to meet ever-growing demand is enormous. I know it firsthand. It increases with every election cycle, and it clearly discourages otherwise qualified candidates from running. So the legislation which I put forward today is very limited and very simple. Not a lot of it is new. There are a few new twists. But it really is combining three things that were presented before that I think go to reduce spending, create that level playing field, and particularly to reduce the inordinate costs of media. Voluntary spending limits would be based on each State's voting age population ranging from a high of $8.2 million in a State like California to a low of $1.5 million in a smaller State like Wyoming. The rules are the same as those that were sent out by the Rules Committee in the Senate bill of last session. In return for voluntarily controlling spending, a candidate receives a bonus. This is the carrot to go along with the voluntary limit. In return for voluntarily controlling spending, a candidate would be entitled to receive: 30 minutes of free broadcast time, a proposal which is based on a bill Senator Dole introduced in the 102d Congress; a 50-percent discount on television time over and above the free time, and a reduced postage rate on two pieces of mail to each voting-age resident in their State. These latter two benefits were in the bill passed by the Senate in the last Congress. Previous spending limit proposals have been seen as pro-incumbent measures and a barrier to challengers who have to spend more money to compete against an incumbent with high name recognition. This bill evens the playing field a little by making critical advertising time available to challengers and incumbents alike--30 minutes of broadcast time free, and the rest at half the price. With 30 to 40 cents of every dollar raised--sometimes well over half--going to media advertising, free media time and a 50-percent broadcast discount rate will not only reduce campaign costs but will also serve as a powerful incentive for candidates to agree to voluntary spending limits. personal funds This legislation, which mirrors parts of the campaign finance bill introduced by the majority leader, Senator Dole, in the last Congress, attempts to limit the ability of a wealthy candidate to buy a seat in Congress. This is where the provisions are a little different than anything anybody has introduced prior. But let me say what they are. Under this bill, after qualifying as a candidate for the primary, a candidate must declare if he or she intends to spend more than $250,000 of their own funds in the election. If the candidate says, Yes, I am going to spend more than $250,000 of my own money in this election, then the contribution limits on his or her opponent are raised from $1,000 to $5,000. If a candidate declares that he or she will spend more than $1 million on the race from their own pocket, then the contribution limit on his or her opponents are removed entirely. As with my case, where somebody came forward and said, I will spend $30 million of my own--that still is disbelief to me to even say that huge amount of my own money on this race--there is no way, no matter how proven a fundraiser you are, that you can compete with that amount of money. This would enable an individual to compete because the spending limits are off of them. I believe this requirement will minimize the advantage of enormous personal wealth in campaigns, while maximizing the opponent's time to pursue a campaign on the issues, rather than being caught in a quicksand of fundraising. Let me speak for a moment about honesty in campaign advertising, which I really did not believe that we should deal with. I really thought that, well, campaigns are freewheeling. They are rough and tumble. I participated in very hard mayoral races, rough and tumble in San Francisco. But I never saw the degree to which negative ads permeate the campaign spectrum as I did in the last campaign. So honesty in campaign advertising is of great interest to me. I think it is critically important to the voters who are now saying, well, a pox on both their houses, and I do not believe any of them, as we restore some level of credibility and respect to the political process. Honesty will do it. Honesty in campaign ads will go a long, long way. One issue of great concern to me and one that, I believe, is critically important to restore some level of credibility and respect to the political process, is honesty in campaign advertising. In recent years, the amount of negative advertising and personal attacks in campaign ads has exploded. And all the experts are predicting in the next set of races that it is going to get even worse. You see it beginning to start with someone who may be a probable or possible Presidential candidate even before he gets into the race. Campaigns that rely on unchecked character assassination--with no regard for the validity or truth of the charges--have contributed to unprecedented voter cynicism and apathy. In the 1994 campaign, negative ads, groundless attacks on character, distorted facts dragged political advertising to this new low. In my campaign, at least two televisions stations and one radio station ran a disclaimer before my opponent's ads in an attempt to absolve their station of responsibility and liability for the content of the ads and noting that the reason they ran the ads is because they were required by law to do so. Campaign advertising has become a virtual arms race, and in some cases is based upon a deliberate strategy of alienating voters to degrees voter turnout. The result again is this public turn-off, the cynicism, the pox on both your houses, and the enormous disaffection people feel with political leaders and the political process itself. Most of us would like but we are limited in our ability to curtail negative [[Page S 16659]] advertising because of first amendment considerations. We can hold candidates and campaign committees more responsible for what they do or we can individually just decide not to do it ourselves. I resolved not to do it myself, not to respond, and my poll numbers went like this. And when we did the focus groups, what we found was that the negatives blasted through and the positive credentials did not. People just did not believe them. They tend to believe the negatives, but they would not believe the positives. And that is a sad, sad case in American political affairs. So what has happened--and I believe this is fairly typical across the United States--is campaign consultants are finding that the negative ads blast through and the positive ads do not, so the tendency on an increasing basis is to go to negative campaign advertising. The provisions of my bill would set minimum standards for disclosure in print, on radio, and on television. The bill would require disclaimers in TV ads to appear for at least 4 seconds with a reasonable degree of color contrast between the background and the printed statement. It requires a clearly identifiable photograph or other image of the candidate if the ad is paid by a candidate or the candidate's committee by the candidate, and the statement at the end of the add by the candidate saying, ``This is Dianne Feinstein. I have approved the content of this ad.'' The thrust of this is to connect the responsibility between the consultant who does the ad and the candidate whose campaign runs the ad. After all, the candidate is eventually responsible. The bill also would require sponsors of other advertisements such as independent campaigns to indicate in a statement that they are responsible for the veracity of the content of the ad. Now, what is not contained in this bill? What is not contained in this bill is public financing of campaigns. It is my belief that the American people are not ready to accept public financing of campaigns. Tax dollars are hard fought for, and that situation is not going to get better; it is going to get worse. Therefore, even a checkoff for public financing of campaigns I think is unworthy of the priorities that we face as legislators. So there is no direct public financing in this legislation. Some have opposed spending limits as contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley versus Valeo which rejected mandatory limits unless they are imposed--for example, in exchange for public benefits. This bill attempts to strike a balance called for in that decision by making the spending limits voluntary and tying them to public benefits. I supported initial campaign spending reform that would curb the influence of political action committees, and in the $14 million that I raised in the last campaign, about 16 percent was from political action committees. But I believe distinctions need to be made to protect small contributors who pool their resources, share information, and involve themselves in the process by supporting candidates or causes in which they believe. A blanket ban on all political action committees in a sense throws the baby out with the bath water. I think we need to be encouraging people to be involved in politics, not discouraging them. And virtually every legal scholar I know who has examined this question believes that a complete ban is unconstitutional. The Congressional Research Service has advised the Senate: A complete ban on contributions and expenditures by connected and nonconnected PAC's appears to be unconstitutional in violation of the first amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that campaign contributions and expenditures are a form of political speech protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. While the activities of some political action committees certainly need to be scrutinized, others give the small person, the ordinary person a voice in politics. They allow many people who cannot afford to make only small contributions to band together so that their voices can be heard. For those PAC's whose practices violate the letter or intent of Federal election law, the full weight of the FEC enforcement should be brought to bear. But I do not believe we should silence the voice of small contributors in our efforts to curb the influence of big special interest PAC's. One example is the League of Conservation Voters. The average contribution to their PAC is $40. Individually, these donors cannot take out ads supporting environmental legislation or candidates. But by pooling their resources, they can purchase an ad announcing their support. Surely this is not the type of political influence that warrants an outright ban on political action committees. Yet, other legislation being considered by this body would do just that. And that is where I split. I was encourage when President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich agreed to set up a bipartisan commission to study and perhaps finally act on campaign finance reform. But apparently that agreement seems to have since become bogged down with political baggage. This issue has been studied and studied and studied not only by this Congress for 20 years but by a bipartisan commission whose recommendations were made to the Congress in 1990. I think it is time for Congress to act. And what we have tired to do in this legislation is take concepts that have stood the test of time, put them together in a limited package of three major areas where I believe there is a consensus in both political bodies and around which I think there can be forged no real opposition that is credible and worthy to taking these three steps as a first and meaningful step in campaign spending reform. So I submit the legislation, and I welcome the discussion and the debate. I thank the forbearance of the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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