Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Foreign Operations Conference Report, but I do so with regret because of the provision in this bill relating to Pakistan. There is much in this conference report that I support, and which I believe the conferees have every right to be proud of. The bill maintains our assistance to Israel and Egypt, sending a message of the United States' firm support of our allies in the Middle East, and our encouragement of their efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace. The bill extends the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act by 18 months, allowing the President to continue to provide assistance to the Palestinians and conduct relations with the PLO, while requiring strict compliance by the PLO and the Palestinian Authority with all of their commitments. This is a further demonstration of U.S. support for the peace process. The bill provides assistance for Armenia, Ukraine, and other former Soviet republics to help ensure that democracy takes hold, and the assistance to Russia is appropriately conditioned on Russian cooperation with the United States in various areas. The bill significantly increases the budget for international narcotics programs, demonstrating that controlling the scourge of the international drug trade is among our Nation's highest international priorities. Unfortunately, included in the conference report with all these positive provisions is a provision that I think is extremely dangerous. The House conferees agreed to adopt the Senate language on Pakistan, which was added to the bill as a Brown amendment. Among other things, this provision allows the President to transfer to Pakistan some $368 million worth of sophisticated military equipment at a time when Pakistan is still committed to pursuing weapons of mass destruction. I realize that we have debated this issue at length, but the objections to this provision bear repeating. Sanctions were invoked against Pakistan in 1990 because President Bush could not certify that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. Nothing has changed since that time. To this day, neither President Bush nor President Clinton has been able to make such a certification. Pakistan's commitment to continuing its nuclear program makes it wholly inappropriate--even irresponsible--for the Congress to authorize the release to Pakistan of a significant package of sophisticated military equipment. I realize that this provision has the support of the administration, but I must say that in advocating this proposal, the administration is also acting irresponsibly. An administration that says that nonproliferation is one of its [[Page S 16476]] highest international priorities should not be transferring weapons to Pakistan until Pakistan has made vast improvements on the nonproliferation front. There is a further concern about transferring these weapons. The package of equipment may not be significant enough to substantially alter the military balance in the region, but it is enough to exacerbate an unstable political situation. The political symbolism of the returning equipment will be handing a propaganda victory to the extremist Indian opposition heading in next spring's elections. The Indian Government is already coming under intense domestic pressure to respond to the transfer of these weapons. I very much fear that India will respond by deploying their Prithvi missile, which could launch a bona fide ballistic missile race in South Asia. Pakistan might well respond by deploying the M-11s many believe they have acquired from China. If this scenario plays itself out, the United States will be responsible for fueling an extremely dangerous arms race in one of the most unstable regions in the world. Having said all this, I want to make two additional points. First, I want to urge the government and people of India not to overreact to this turn of events. Indian politicians may exploit these weapons for their own gain and stoke the flames of paranoia in the pursuit of votes. But I want to urge the Government of India not to respond to this weapons transfer by significantly upgrading their military posture, and in particular, not to further escalate the arms race in South Asia. Second, if we must transfer these weapons to Pakistan, we are entitled to expect something in return. As I have said in the past, I favor resuming nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan in order to expand our ability to cooperate on anti-terrorism activities, anti-narcotics efforts, peacekeeping, environmental protection, and other areas. I consider those provisions of the Brown amendment to be helpful in enabling us to rebuild our troubled relationship with Pakistan. But we have every right to expect improved cooperation from Pakistan, not only in these areas, but in nonproliferation as well. Pakistan's unfortunate record of developing nuclear weapons and seeking to acquire ballistic missile technology has exacerbated tensions and contributed to instability in South Asia. As we have in the past, I would urge Pakistan to reverse course and contribute to building a new, more stable South Asia. Mr. President, I believe we have made a mistake with the passage of the entire Brown amendment. With the help of both India and Pakistan, we can help ensure that this mistake does not spawn other, even greater mistakes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to elaborate on some remarks I made yesterday about the objection pending against the short-term extension of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act. Yesterday, the distinguished majority leader came to the Senate floor and said that although he would like to pass the extension, it is being blocked by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The majority leader went on to say that the Senator from North Carolina is within his rights to block this legislation, and indeed he is because every Senator has that right. I want this morning to ask the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to consider changing his mind about holding up the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act. I spoke yesterday and indicated that in July a group of Members of this body joined together, Republican and Democrat, in cosponsoring a bill which would extend the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act for 18 months, and virtually every Member joined in expressing support for that course. Here we are in November, and the act has been suspended as of last night, which means that economic aid to the Palestinians committed to by this Nation has stopped. The PLO office in Washington will be forced to close its doors. And as my colleagues know, this is because of an unrelated issue that is going on. That unrelated issue is the dispute over the State Department authorization bill. Negotiations have been ongoing on that bill between Senator Kerry and Senator Helms. It is my understanding that at present they are stalemated, but because of failure to reach an agreement, the Foreign Relations Committee has been virtually shut down. I think this is wrong in the interest of U.S. foreign policy and of the Senate weighing in on these issues. We have been unable to take up any ambassadorial nominations in business meetings for a period of weeks, to report them out to the full Senate for confirmation. At the present time, there are at least 18 ambassadorial nominees waiting to have their nominations considered by the committee. They include nominees to serve in some of the most important countries in the world. The nominee for China has had a hearing, but is pending action in the committee; the same is true for the nominees for Pakistan and Indonesia. These include Jim Sasser, Tom Simons and Stapleton Roy. Nominees for other countries are waiting. South Africa: James Joseph is waiting. Sri Lanka: Peter Burleigh is waiting. Thailand: [[Page S 16451]] William Itoh is waiting. Cambodia: Kenneth Quinn is waiting. Malaysia: John Malott is waiting. Oman: Frances Cook is waiting. Lebanon: Richard Jones is waiting. The Cameroons: Carl Twining is waiting. The Marshall Islands: Joan Plaisted is waiting. Fiji: Don Gevirtz is waiting. Also on hold are nominations for special adviser on the New Independent States, James Collins, and United States coordinator for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Sandra Kristoff. In addition, 273 Foreign Service officers who have been nominated for standard promotions are on hold. So we have 273 Foreign Service officers on hold. We have 18 ambassadorial appointments on hold, at least 5 of them considered to be critical, like those for Pakistan or China. Now, when we do not have an Ambassador in the country, U.S. interests do not receive the attention that they deserve. In some countries, this is more critical than others. Probably the most critical at this time is China. And Senator Sasser, who could have been in New York this past week to participate in the summit between President Clinton and President Jiang Zemin of China--could have been--was not. I think the American people deserve to have their interests represented abroad. So by failing to confirm Ambassadors, the Senate is not doing its job to help protect U.S. interests abroad. Not only do our interests suffer, but I think the lives of a number of hard-working and dedicated Americans are put on hold. These are people who, often at considerable personal risk, serve the American people with pride and distinction overseas. Last night I had a phone call from one of them. He said, ``Can you just tell me when I might be confirmed?'' And I had to say, ``No, I'm sorry. I can't tell you.'' Earlier, I had another call from a nominee who had his house on the market and had received an offer on the home. Does he sell it or does he not sell it? ``Sorry. I can't help there.'' Mr. President, this is no way to run a railroad, let alone the Government of the most powerful country in the world. There are also two extremely important arms control treaties that are awaiting Foreign Relations Committee action: The START II Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Let me mention what Start II does. The START II Treaty, signed by the Bush administration and not yet ratified by this Congress, is the farthest reaching arms reduction treaty ever signed in the history of this Nation. It will require the United States and Russia to eliminate literally thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles, including those which carry multiple warheads. The treaty would also eliminate missile silos and testing and training launchers. The Foreign Relations Committee held extensive hearings on the START II Treaty both in this Congress and during the 103d Congress. We have heard from the administration, from military officers and from outside experts, virtually all urging that we ratify this treaty. I know of no significant opposition to the ratification of the START II Treaty. Nevertheless, the committee is unable to begin consideration of it. This is wrong. The same is true of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Let me tell you what the Chemical Weapons Convention does. The convention, also signed by the Bush administration, will ban an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. It will make it harder and more costly for proliferators and terrorists to acquire chemical weapons. It will create an intrusive monitoring regime that will make it very difficult for signatories to conceal violations of the convention. The Chemical Weapons Convention has been signed by 159 countries and ratified by 38 to date, yet the U.S. Senate has still not had the opportunity to consider the treaty. The Foreign Relations Committee has had hearings on the convention, and it can be considered at any time. But, once again, the committee has been prevented from carrying out its duty. Should this happen? As I said earlier, it is any Member's right to stop a piece of legislation, but when you have hundreds of Foreign Service officers, 18 Ambassadors, and two treaties held hostage to a piece of legislation that is not related, one has to begin to consider what effects this has. Mr. President, one of the things that I learned in my brief stay here is that what goes around, comes around, and that it does not make good, logical, long-term sense to engage in holds when this can easily be replicated at another time but in the same place by the opposition party. This committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, has been through some of the most painful and hotly contested foreign policy issues of our time: the Vietnam war, aid to Central American rebels and sanctions against South Africa. But never during all that time, to the best of my knowledge, has the committee been shut down and ceased to function. Now, on the basis of a dispute about the bureaucratic reorganization of our foreign policy institutions, the conduct of the U.S. foreign policy is being put on hold. I believe this is wrong. I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it is a dereliction of our duties as U.S. Senators. There simply is no justification for curtailing the entire role of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy over one single reorganizational issue. Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of September 29, Senator Helms and Senator Kerry have been engaging in serious negotiations to try to reach an agreement. Their staffs have met repeatedly over the last month. I am hopeful that progress can be made. So at this time I would like, respectfully, and with a great deal of friendship, to call upon the chairman of the committee to withdraw his objection to consideration of a short-term extension of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, to allow the committee to take action on START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention, to report out the 18 ambassadorial nominations and 273 Foreign Service promotions, and to continue negotiating toward an agreement on the State Department authorization bill. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the need for an extension to the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, which expires tonight, and the majority leader's announcement a short time ago that there will be an objection to passing that bill today. This is very surprising to me. I was sitting in the Judiciary Committee hearings on Waco when I was told about it. I speak today as the ranking member on the pertinent subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee and one who was very concerned about what the repercussions would be in the peace process from the resolution we passed last week on Jerusalem. And now we are confronted this week with a situation that I think, again, has a ripple effect throughout the Middle East if we do not take action. Mr. President, I think we ought to ask, what will one say, what will the Israelis say, what will Prime Minister Rabin say, when they are asked the question about why the Congress has refused to continue funding Palestinian economic development in support of the peace process? Prime Minister Rabin has explicitly asked for this legislation on each of his visits to the United States. Not passing the extension today, it is my understanding, stops not only the funding but the operation of the necessary offices to carry out that funding, including one here in Washington. What is disturbing is that no one here is even arguing for letting the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act lapse. This dispute before us, in fact, has nothing to do with the Middle East. It has to do with conflicting views about whether or not or to what extent to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies of the United States Government. This is a legitimate issue. There are strong opinions on both sides. It seemed to me we had a process for negotiating this issue to reach some agreement. Senator Kerry on our side, the Senator from Massachusetts, and the chairman of our committee, Senator Helms, had been negotiating. While agreement has not yet been reached, I believe it can with continued good faith at the negotiating table. Wherever one stands on the question of consolidation one thing should be clear: The Middle East peace process is too important to be held hostage to disagreements over unconnected issues or to partisan disputes. I wonder if anyone in this body differs with that view? Do any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle believe that the Middle East peace process just does not matter that much? Or that it is expendable enough to be turned into a political football? One of the truly wonderful things about American foreign policy in the Middle East is that it has always been bipartisan. Strong support for Israel and active pursuit of Middle East peace have never been the province of just one party. Indeed, this peace process is the outgrowth of the tireless efforts of President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker. It has been carried forward with skill and dedication by the current administration. The bipartisan nature of United States support for the Middle East peace process was never more evident than on July 21 when I joined a group of my colleagues in cosponsoring Senate bill 1064, a long-term extension of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act. I was proud to stand with Senators Helms, Pell, Dole, Daschle, Mack, Lieberman, McConnell, Leahy, and Lautenberg in expressing strong support for continuing America's leading role in the peace process. I know, too, that the chairman of the subcommittee on which I serve as ranking member, Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, Senator Brown, also supported the sentiments in S. 1064. I ask my colleagues who joined me that day, what has changed? If the Middle East peace process was deserving of strong bipartisan support on July 21, why is it being held hostage to unrelated legislative disputes on October 31? I simply do not understand how we can fail to extend this legislation. It is so important to ensuring Israel's ability to live in peace and security with its neighbors in the future. It is so important to protecting a Israel as a Jewish State, to seeing that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people are recognized and eventually aiming for peace and security in that entire region. I think we owe it to all those who have supported us in that area not to abandon our commitments. American Jews know what the stakes are in keeping the Middle Eastern Peace Facilitation Act in force. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an advertisement from the September 17, 1995, New York Times be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. (See exhibit No. 1.)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The ad begins ``Prime Minister Rabin, we know that pursuing peace is risky. Not pursuing it is unthinkable.'' The ad goes on to endorse this legislation explicitly. It reads: . . . We support the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, the United States legislation which enhanced Israel's security by ensuring compliance by the Palestinians with their agreements and advancing economic development in the West Bank and Gaza, to show Palestinians that peace can improve their lives. This ad reflects nothing less than the consensus of the organized Jewish community in America. It is signed by 29 Jewish organizations. Such a broad consensus of American Jews, Israel's strongest supporters, should not, in fact, be construed as wrong. I hope we will listen to them. I did not think we would be in this position where one person would prevent this act from being extended and effectively cut off all aid to the peace process, all economic development assistance that in good faith America has pledged. On top of what happened last week, when these resolutions and these actions and these nonactions by this body are extrapolated universally and particularly in the Middle East, they very often come to have different meanings. This body went on record in July supporting this process. How can we today turn it off? How can we say what we supported in July, we do not support enough in October to pass a simple amendment to extend the act? Instead, along with ambassadors, along with other treaties, we will hold it hostage? I think it is wrong. I think it is overkill. I think it is a redoubtable action at best. I hope that the majority leader would be able to prevail on those who want to hold this hostage to achieving goals that are unrelated to the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, and that those parties would reconsider. I think it is very important that they do. I thank the Chair for the time. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Sept. 17, 1995] Prime Minister Rabin, We Know That Pursuing Peace Is Risky. Not Pursuing It Is Unthinkable Mr. Prime Minister, as you continue the arduous journey to peace, know that American Jewry stands with the Government of Israel. Overwhelmingly, American Jews say ``yes'' to Israel's current pursuit of peace with security. Every poll reflects this. We know there is no alternative to the peace process except continued violence and continued despair. We support your government and its vision of two peoples living side by side, in peace, so that the children of Israel can look forward to the future without fear. To bring us closer to this goal, we support MEPFA-the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, U.S. legislation which enhances Israel's security by ensuring compliance by the Palestinians with their agreements and advancing economic development in the West Bank and Gaza to show Palestinians that peace can improve their lives. To road ahead will be filled with obstacles. But to turn back would be far more dangerous. It would reward terrorists by giving them precisely what they want: the death not only of peace, but of hope. Mr. Rabin, we say bracha v'hlatzlacha--may you be blessed with good fortune. On the eve of the Jewish New Year 5756, we offer you and the people of Israel our steadfast support and heartfelt prayers in the days ahead. American Jewish Committee, Robert S. Rifkind, Pres. David Harris, Exec. Vice Pres. American Jewish Congress, David V. Kahn, Pres., Phil Baum, Exec. Dir. American Jewish League for Israel, Martin L. Kalmanson, Pres. American Zionist Movement, Seymour D. Reich, Pres., Karen J. Rubinstein, Exec. Dir. Americans for Progressive Israel-Hashomer Hatzair, Naftali Landesman, Pres. Americans for Peace Now, Richard S. Gunther, Co-Pres., Linda Heller Kamm, Co-Pres., Gary E. Rubin, Exec. Dir. Anti-Defamation League, David H. Strassler, National Chair, Abraham H. Foxman, National Dir. Association of Reform Zionists of America, Philip Meltzer, Pres., Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, Exec. Dir. B'nai B'rith, Tommy Baer, Pres., Dr. Sidney Clearfield, Exec. Vice Pres. Bnai Zion, Rabbi Reuben M. Katz, Pres., Mel Parness, Exec. Vice Pres. Federation of Reconstructionist Synagogues and Havurot, Jane Susswein, Pres., Rabbi Mordechai Liebling, Exec. Dir. Givat Haviva Educational Foundation, Fred Howard, Chair, Hal Cohen, Exec. Dir. Hadassh--The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Marlene Post, Pres., Beth Wohlgelernter, Exec. Dir. Israel Policy Forum, Robert K. Lifton, Chair, Jonathan Jacoby, Exec. Vice Pres. Jewish Labor Committee, Lenore Miller, Pres., Michael S. Perry, Exec. Dir. Jewish Women International (formerly B'nai B'rith Women), Susan Bruck, Pres., Dr. Norma Tucker, Exec. Dir. Labor Zionist Alliance, Daniel Mann, Pres. MERCAZ--Zionist Organization of the Conservative Movement, Roy Clements, Pres. NA'AMAT USA, Sylvia Lewis, Pres. National Committee for Labor Israel, Jay Mazur, Pres., Jerry Goodman, Exec. Dir. National Council of Jewish Women, Susan Katz, Pres., Rosalind Paaswell, Exec. Dir. National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, Lynn Lyss, Chair, Lawrence Rubin, Exec. Vice Chair. New Israel Fund, Herbert Teitelbau, Pres. Norman S. Rosenberg, Exec. Dir. Project Nishma, Theodore R. Mann, Co-Chair, Henry Rosovsky, Co-Chair, Edward Sanders, Co-Chair, Thomas R. Smerling, Exec. Dir. The Abraham Fund, Alan B. Slifka, Pres., Joan A. Bronk, Interim Exec. Dir. Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Melvin Merians, Chair, Rabbi Alexander Schindler, Pres. United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Alan Ades, Pres., Rabbi Jerome N. Epstein, Exec. Vice Pres. Women's League for Conservative Judaism, Evelyn Seelig, Pres., Bernice Balter, Exec. Dir. World Jewish Congress, Edgar M. Bronfman, Pres., Israel Singer, Sec. General.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask that I may be permitted to speak for as much time as I may consume.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I understand it correctly, we are in morning business at the present time?

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I applaud the efforts of many in the bay area who moved quickly after the court's ruling to make the necessary modifications to the proposed Tasman corridor extension. This project is even more cost effective and compelling today and reflects creative land use planning and promising joint development opportunities. The bay area congressional delegation has rallied around this important project. A similar colloquy occurred in the House with Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf. Our efforts here today represent an important reaffirmation of the value of local and regional planning and decision making, a focus consistent with the goals of ISTEA and more likely to ensure timely and cost-effective project completion. I look forward to working with you, Chairman Hatfield, in making certain that the plan for the Tasman west extension is financially sound and continues to enjoy the broad-based support it has in the past.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. I have listened carefully to the debate this evening, but I think the simple fact is that no State in the Union is impacted by this amendment and this bill to the extent that California is. Senator Rockefeller asked earlier where the money comes from to pay for this amendment. Mr. President, I'll tell you where the money comes from. $4.2 billion of it comes from Medicaid that in the earlier version went to California. California is the biggest loser in this amendment. This will affect more than 8.6 million people in the State of California. This bill, I believe, is immoral, egregious, and in my 2\1/2\ years I never thought I would stand here on the floor of the Senate and see the largest State in the Union treated the way it is in this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment offered by Senator Graham. The bill before us creates a Medicaid block grant, a blank check, to States with virtually no rules, no specified benefits, no rules of eligibility. The amendment would retain the current Medicaid Program, but impose a spending limit per individual recipient, an individual cap. This approach would hold down cost increases without undermining Medicaid as a health insurance program. Medicaid in California Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in my State, pays for health care for 6 million Californians. Out of these 6 million, 38 percent are children. Medicaid pays the bills of over 60 percent of children in California's children's hospitals. At Oakland Children's Hospital, it pays for 70 percent. Medicaid provides 70 percent of hospital care to the poor in my State. Of total Medicaid dollars, over 59 percent is spent on the elderly and disabled and 41 percent to families. One million Americans are infected with HIV/AIDS. In California, there are over 150,000. Medicaid provides health insurance for 40 percent of all people with HIV/AIDS, including 90 percent of all HIV- infected children. In California, Medicaid pays for 50 percent of all HIV/AIDS care. Medicaid pays for 55 percent of HIV-related public hospital care and 41 percent of private hospital care. In my State, Medicaid paid $719 million for emergency services for illegal immigrants, last year, according to the California Department of Health Services. Medicaid is a fundamental health safety net in California, insuring everything from basic inoculations for poor children to sophisticated advanced treatment for AIDS. Medicaid Cost Increases As a former mayor, I know the difficulty of balancing budgets and keeping costs under control. And there is no doubt that Medicaid costs, along with general health care inflation, have grown at double digits, creating tremendous pressure on government budgets at all levels. The amendment before us reins in Medicaid's growth, but instead of cutting $187 billion, it cuts $62 billion, one-third of the cut in the Republican bill. Why the Graham Amendment is Better than the Roth Bill Why is this approach preferable to the committee bill? First, it does put restraints on spiraling costs. Second, it preserves coverage for those who cannot get health insurance on the private market because of costs or the individual's health condition. Third, a per capita cap can respond to changing conditions-- population growth, recessions, base closings, natural disasters, immigration. California and Fluctuations The per capita cap approach in this amendment would enable my State to respond to all the economic fluctuations that we live with daily. Unemployment in California has not dropped below 7 percent since 1990. While the country added 3 million jobs between 1991 and 1993, California lost nearly 450,000. Base closures and realignments have erased more than 200,000 jobs, sucking $7 billion out of the State's economy. Defense and aerospace industries are downsizing. Some 6.5 million or 23 percent of our nonelderly population are without health insurance. In some urban areas, the uninsured rate is as high as 33 percent. Over half, 58 percent of the uninsured, are children and young adults. Employer-provided health insurance is declining. Two-thirds of Californians employed by firms with fewer than 25 employees do not receive health insurance. California is home to 38 percent of all legal immigrants in the U.S. A flat block grant with a fixed pool of money cannot respond to changing needs like this. A formula that is responsive to numbers of beneficiaries, like this amendment, can. Nursing Home care The amendment before us would preserve nursing home standards, standards that S. 1357 eliminates. Responding to a National Academy of Sciences report, Congress in 1987 enacted nursing home standards to promote quality of life of nursing home residents and to prevent abuse and neglect. This bill repeals those standards, rules designed to prevent bedsores, dehydration, malnutrition, infection; rules designed to protect privacy and human integrity. These standards have reduced injury and cut the use of chemical restraints, which in turn has reduced costs. In California, 65 percent of our 113,000 nursing home residents rely on Medicaid. This is 113,000 elderly and disabled people, patients with, for example, Alzheimer's, AIDS, and ventilator needs. Twenty-one percent of nonelderly nursing home residents are disabled. Seventy-five percent of nursing home residents are women. The typical nursing home resident is an 83-year-old widow with multiple chronic conditions, such as crippling arthritis or osteoporosis. We should not take away these minimal protections for the most frail and make them victims again. Medicaid--a Middle-Class Program Medicaid is health insurance for low-income Americans and the disabled. But it is important to understand the implications Medicaid has for the middle-class. Nursing home standards, which are required as a condition of receiving Medicaid payments, benefit every nursing home resident of whatever income. By cutting Medicaid, we add to the rolls of the uninsured which means that more people show up in emergency rooms with exacerbated illnesses. We all pay for that. Medicaid reimbursement to our public hospitals enables these hospitals to have up-to-date trauma centers and emergency rooms which serve Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients. These are critical institutions in many communities on which we all depend. Indeed, these institutions are at the economic core of thousands of communities and they provide jobs. A Basic Protection The committee bill makes drastic cuts in Medicaid and it revamps the program in a way that cannot respond to the growing needs of California and changes a steadfast program of health insurance to an arbitrary, ill-defined block of Federal funds. The bill purports to transform Medicaid. I'm afraid that it destroys Medicaid. I oppose the committee bill. I commend my colleague from Florida for his amendment and I support him.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, all day I have listened attentively to both sides of this debate. Increasingly, I have grown deeply saddened because I see the polarization that is taking place between the two sides of the aisle. I tried to reflect on the profound impact this bill will have on people, specifically, the 32 million people in the State of California. In a sense, it is ironic that this bill is called a ``reconciliation'' bill, for in reality, other than in Washington- speak, it is far from a reconciliation that we have here on the floor today. If one just looks at the size of the Medicaid and Medicare cuts, one cannot help but be staggered by what its impact will likely be. Overall, the $450 billion cut in Medicaid and Medicare, would affect my State of California to the tune of $54 billion in losses during the next 7 years. That breaks down as $36 billion in Medicare cuts and $18 billion in Medicaid cuts. Those cuts will have an enormous impact on the people of California. Let me give you an example of this bill's harsh consequences. In California, 15 percent of the current Medicare recipients are also receiving Medicaid. That is 540,000 of the poorest seniors in the State of California. They need Medicaid to meet their Medicare premiums and copayments. Premiums are being doubled and, under the bill, they will not have the assistance of Medicaid. What is, obviously, the likely result? Without Medicaid to assist these seniors meet their payments, many will lose their benefits and be placed at higher risk. Further, for people suffering with HIV/AIDS, Medicaid is the most important program in the Nation. With these Medicaid cuts, what happens? It puts added stress on the public hospital, the county hospitals, in the State. So let's turn and look and see what is happening to the county hospital. In the 58 counties of my State, county hospitals--like San Francisco General in San Francisco or Martin Luther King, Jr., General in Los Angeles, will lose an estimated $150 million over the next 7 years. Now let's turn to the great teaching hospitals in my State. The University of California system is a great system, probably the best in the world, with five great, major teaching hospitals. They are projected to lose $444 million over the next 7 years. In a letter from the university system, they inform me that, for the first time in history, the University of California's teaching hospitals will go into deficit. Great teaching hospitals going into deficit. Public hospitals not being able to keep up. Medicaid cuts that will prevent the poorest in our Nation from being able to use Medicare. I really had to ask myself the question--is it really necessary to do it this way? This is where the bill becomes, I must honestly say, immoral. Because the answer to the question has to be, no, it is not necessary. When you add it all up, you know that these cuts are as deep as they are for one reason, and one reason alone--to provide an enormous tax cut in this bill, while the poor get hit hard by the changes in the earned income tax credit. I am one Democrat who supports a cut in capital gains, but not on the backs of poor people. It is simply not what we are supposed to do-- either party, Republican or Democrat. I have a basic philosophical belief. What Government should do is those things that the private sector cannot do. So Medicare and Medicaid are an important part of that philosophy. To take these deep cuts at this time, all at once, without any hearings or full knowledge of how these cuts will fall? What does happen to the five great teaching hospitals? When do they have a chance to give testimony and indicate what they can or what they cannot save? What does happen to 540,000 seniors who depend upon Medicaid to make their Medicare premium and copayments? What happens to them? We have not discussed it. Nobody knows. What happens to the county hospitals, already cut deeply, the major providers of indigent care in many areas across California? The DSH payments are not going to be enough. What happens to the affected AIDS/ HIV community, more dependent on Medicaid than any other single program? These are questions that deserve a hearing. These are questions that deserve the wisdom of both parties sitting down and working it out. Mr. President, I am delighted to see the Senator from Arizona in the chair, because we just had an example of where we can work together. He and I both know that the majority leader, and you as a major author, did not have to compromise on the Jerusalem bill we recently considered on the floor. You had the votes to do it without it. And, yet, your feeling was-- and I think correctly so--that it would be a better bill, with less divisiveness, if we sat down and tried to work out our differences. And, Mr. President, you and I and others sat down at least twice and we worked out our differences and we were able to produce a bill that got all but five votes in this esteemed body. I really think that is the way our people--those people who elected us--think that is what they elected us to do. They didn't elect us to be so partisan that we drive a divisive wedge into two of the most important programs, Medicaid and Medicare, that touch human lives in this country. I will tell you honestly--God strike me dead if it is wrong--I do not know how the State of California is going to cope with these cuts. They are deep, they are wide and they are enormous for a State that has a growing poor population, that is the site of 40 percent of all of the foreign born, that has more illegal immigrants in it than all the other States, combined, and has probably the largest number of needy people. We recently considered welfare reform on the Senate floor. I voted for welfare reform, yet welfare reform is a $7 billion cut to California--no question--by any independent analyses. I voted for it because I felt there was a redeeming value in making the necessary changes and moving off chronic dependency. Yet, how can I vote for this budget bill and show up back in California when I know the reason the cuts are so deep is simply to give a tax cut? Who benefits? My husband is a merchant banker. He deals in this kind of financial area. He would love to have a capital gains cut. He pays major income taxes. They went up in 1993, just like 275,000 other families out of 13 million taxpayers in the State of California. But does he want to get a capital gains cut under these conditions? Anybody can call him and he will say no. It is morally wrong. It is not right to do it this way. And that is the gut-level problem that I have with this bill that so saddens me. The Republican Party has been known as the party that is most concerned about the national debt. True, we have a national debt of $4.9 trillion, which has developed, largely, over the past 25 years. But this budget bill will add to the deficit over its 7 years. Under this bill, the Nation's debt will increase by about $670 billion over the next 7 years--about $245 billion more than if no tax cut is enacted. This is not fiscally responsible action. Further, I recently learned that June O'Neill of the Congressional Budget Office reports that, if off-budget items, such as Social Security, where not incorporated into the deficit calculation, the budget would show a $105 billion deficit in 2002 under the Republican leadership's plan, not the balanced budget they claim. Now is not the time for an excessive, and misdirected, tax cut. The current deficit is $160 billion and that is too high and needs to be eliminated. But the deficit has been as high as $290 billion only a few years ago. True, the deficit picks up in the outyears of this decade. And true, Medicaid and Medicare are partially responsible for it and need to be changed. I will support changes in these programs, like an age of eligibility change. I will support means testing of premiums, not because I want to, but because I believe it has to be done. But to take the cuts this way, for the purpose of being able to rationalize a tax cut directing billions to the investment banker types of this country, is absolutely wrong. It is morally wrong. And to go back to California and tell senior citizens, some of whom, in my State are eating dog food--true story, eating dog food, and using Medicaid to pay their premiums, is something I cannot accept. The lower you are on the economic ladder the more difficult it is. I am sure I have exceeded my time. I apologize. I got a bit wound up. But I think it suffices to say that I do not know how anyone can vote for this bill and return to their people and say, ``You are not going to be hurt by it.'' I know I cannot. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join as a cosponsor of S. 1166, the Food Quality Protection Act, introduced by Senator Lugar. This legislation addresses three major issues: the need to ensure that [[Page S 15573]] tolerances of pesticides in food safeguard the health of infants and children; the need to encourage the registration of minor use pesticides; and the need to repeal the Delaney clause and replace it with a negligible risk standard for pesticide residues in both raw and processed foods. The Delaney clause was enacted in 1958 as part of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit any residue of a food additive that has been found to cause cancer, no matter the amount of the risk to human health. In the intervening years, our ability to detect residues has improved, to the point where we can now detect minute amounts, even parts per trillion. Many including the Environmental Protection Agency agree the Delaney clause zero risk standard should be replaced with a de minimis standard. In fact, for a number of years, EPA has used a de minimis standard for regulating pesticide residues on food. However, as a result of the court decision in Les versus Reilly and a consent decree in California versus Browner, the Environmental Protection Agency will have to strictly enforce the Delaney clause the end of this year. Strict enforcement of the Delaney clause will result in the cancellation of tolerances of over 100 chemicals used in California agriculture, even if they pose only a negligible risk of one in a million additional risk of cancer in a lifetime. In order for agriculture to retain use of these chemicals, it is imperative that the Delaney clause be replaced with a negligible risk standards that protects human health, including the health of infants and children. S. 1166 replaces the Delaney zero risk standard with a negligible risk standard. EPA has been defining negligible risk as one additional cancer for every one million people exposed. The issue of food safety is extraordinarily important both to California agriculture and to the health of 32 million Californians. About 20 percent of the agricultural chemicals sold in the United States--about 500 billion pounds of chemicals--are used in the State annually. California has its own pesticide regulation program and in many cases has stricter standards for pesticides than the national standards. A concern that I have about S. 1166 is that it provides for national uniformity and preempts California's more stringent standards. I believe that States should be able to set tougher standards, and will move an amendment to do so. I will work to improve the bill as it goes forward, and to get a bill enacted. It is vital that we reform the Delaney clause this year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want particularly to commend and thank the Senator from Arizona as well as the majority leader, Senator Lieberman, Senator Levin, and in particular Senator Lautenberg, because I believe that together we have effected an agreement which is significant and important. Before I go on, I just want to say I am fully aware that the majority leader and the Senator from Arizona could have proceeded on this issue. Clearly they have the votes. I think the fact that they negotiated with those of us who had concerns about the way in [[Page S 15521]] which the resolution was worded is very significant and important, and I must say I believe that is why the American people sent us here and how they expect us to work. And so to the Senator from Arizona, I would like to offer my deepest respect and thanks for the process which I think worked very well, and I think we now have a bill which can bring about the broadest and I hope even unanimous consensus of this body. Madam President, I think we all must recognize that Jerusalem is a city of vital importance to people all over the world--not just Israel, not just Arab peoples, but people all over the world. Its layers of history and importance are symbolized best perhaps by the Temple Mount where the Dome of the Rock and the El-Aqsa Mosque, shrines holy to Moslems, sit atop the remains of the Temple of Solomon, while down below Jews worship at the Western Wall, the last remnant of that temple. One can stand in the Old City and hear simultaneously the Moslem call to prayer from the minarets of the mosques, the sounds of the Torah being read down by the Western Wall, and church bells ringing in the distance. It is truly a special city, and Israel is fortunate to call Jerusalem its capital. The bill we will pass today, as modified by the leader and the Senator from Arizona, is a good bill, and I believe it is one the President can sign. We worked hard Friday and again yesterday to produce a compromise that protects the President's prerogatives to conduct foreign policy. This was a crucial point because without these protections there was a good chance that this bill would be vetoed, which would be a tragic outcome. Under our compromise, the President would have to establish that it is in the national security interests of the United States to postpone establishing the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem in 1999. This is a tough but fair standard for any President to meet. As I said yesterday, it is my belief that if a successful conclusion to the Middle East peace process could be imperiled by the implementation of this act, then the President would be able to invoke the waiver on national security grounds. I am sure that many of my colleagues agree. But the inclusion of the waiver should not obscure the achievement reached by this bill. For the first time ever, Congress will pass legislation that will mandate moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and I believe the President will sign it. This represents a major advance in our cause of moving the Embassy. And through this message we will send word that Israel, like every country in the world, has the sovereign right to designate its capital and to have that capital recognized by the nations of the world. I congratulate my colleagues on this achievement, and I look forward to it passing with overwhelming support. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Delaware.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak only on S. 1322.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Nevertheless, despite our differing interpretations, we must face facts, and the fact is that the State Department has determined that the President should veto the bill in its current form. As I said before, the damage that would result to Jerusalem, first and foremost, and to our common cause of moving the Embassy there from passing a bill that could get vetoed cold be irreparable. So I am hopeful that this bill will not be vetoed. Mr. President, with a sufficient waiver, we can pass a bill that mandates the moving of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, but allows the President to waive the timing of the establishment of the Embassy in Jerusalem if national security interests are involved. This would be first-time legislation, the first time a bill on this issue has been passed, and I think that is extraordinarily important. I must say, I have never conceived of this issue as a litmus test of one's support for Israel. I find deeply committed friends of Israel holding a wide variety of views on the question of when and how to move the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, and on these bills. As for the debate in Congress, let us establish a basic understanding that all participants in this debate agree on one fundamental truth: that united Jerusalem is and will remain as the capital of Israel. So Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital has never been in question here. The debate is, instead, focused on a side debate to the central issue, the placement of the Embassy, and I, like my colleagues, believe there is basic agreement in this body, and I share the view of my colleagues, that the United States Embassy in Israel does, indeed, belong in Jerusalem. It is elementary that a sovereign nation, as I have pointed out, has that right to place an Embassy at the site of a nation's capital with whom it enjoys diplomatic relations. So this should not in all logic, in all reason, in all sovereign power be privy to negotiations having to do with peace and security between the Palestine Liberation Organization and the State of Israel, or between the State of Jordan and the State of Israel, or between any of the Arab neighbors and the State of Israel. However, there is one important point, and I think this is where we need to be very careful that we are not provocative. There was a letter sent to Secretary of State Christopher sponsored by the two distinguished Senators from New York, Senator Moynihan and Senator D'Amato, last March. I joined with 92 of my colleagues in signing this letter in which we said, and I quote: We believe that the United States embassy belongs in Jerusalem. It would be most appropriate for planning to begin now to ensure such a move no later than the agreements on permanent status take effect and the transition period is ended which, according to the Declaration of Principles, is scheduled for May 1999. This letter, I believe, reflected a true consensus on this issue in the Senate and, to a great extent, in the community affected. In a letter to the Jewish Press on April 7, 1995, Senator Moynihan explained why the letter was written, and I quote: Senator D'Amato and I chose to write a letter rather than to introduce legislation because we wanted to secure maximum public support for the proposition that united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the appropriate home of our embassy. So when legislation was introduced on this issue in May, however, the consensus cracked and then, as we know, with the earlier bill, 62 Senators signed on. There was one point in that earlier bill that very deeply concerned me, and that was the provision that the commencement of construction on the Embassy site in West Jerusalem would begin in 1996, and I felt that that could truly be provocative, be disturbing to the peace process at this very difficult time, particularly in view of the fact that Palestinian elections for the first time have not yet taken place and are about to take place. And we now know that the date agreed to is prior to Ramadan or in January of next year. Therefore, to mandate the beginning of construction in 1996 could be, I think, unintentionally, but very realistically, provocative and something that we would not want to do. The leader, in his wisdom, and I am grateful and thankful for this, and Senator Kyl agreed, did remove that section and, hence, that laid the basis for the new legislation which is before us today, entitled Senate bill 1322. So my major concern has really been addressed, and I am very pleased and grateful for that. The concern expressed then that the original bill might precipitate a difficult situation I think has been remedied. There was also a lack of consensus at that time in statements that were issued by a number of major American Jewish organizations who felt that the objectives of the legislation were good but hoped that everybody would come together and agree on a piece of legislation that would not be provocative to the peace process but could establish the intent with the clarity of law, in this body and the House, for the first time in the history of debate over this issue. I believe that if we can agree on waiver language that does not limit the constitutional authority of the President, that we will have given the bill the necessary features to meet a variety of needs. For the first time, we will have mandated in law the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, an important achievement, and a variety of preparations for that move spelled out in the timing of report language. We will have also provided the President with the flexibility to postpone the actual move if events in the Middle East peace process or other U.S. National security interests warrant it, and I believe this is a responsible way for the Congress to legislate in this area. I think that, as we vote on this bill, we should be aware that some of the leading Middle East experts in the administration do worry, still, about its impact on the peace process--not in 1999, but today. I think this Government is so privileged to have one of the most skillful and determined young negotiators I have met, in the person of Dennis Ross. His perspicacity, his energy, his undying commitment to this process has really been helpful in America playing the role of the honest broker, in sitting down with the two sides, and in being responsible for bringing the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the State of Israel, the President of Egypt, the King of Jordan, and a host of other dignitaries from the European Union, [[Page S 15468]] together recently at the White House to witness what was an unbelievable signing. I, for one, during many times in the past decades thought we would never see that day. But, Mr. President, we did see that day, and a lot of it is due to the skill and dedication of Dennis Ross. I think that has to be said. Mr. Ross has warned that passing this legislation could now complicate the already-difficult implementation of the recent agreement on redeployment in the West Bank. He is also concerned that Jerusalem could become a central issue in the upcoming Palestinian election now scheduled for January, which would likely play to the radical faction and put Chairman Arafat in a very difficult position. Martin Indyk, our Ambassador to Israel, at his confirmation hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee, at which I was present, has echoed many of these concerns. Mr. President, I raise these issues simply because I believe we should be aware of what people in the administration--in an administration that has been extremely supportive of Israel--are thinking about this legislation. This administration has achieved something that has never in the history of the area been achieved, and that is an agreement which may guarantee safe and secure borders and peace between the small, tiny State of Israel and the Arab nations that surround it. And its importance cannot be overlooked in that regard. So I am looking for a way that we can indicate the rights of the sovereign nation by saying that we should place our Embassy in Jerusalem, that it should be the policy of the Congress that Jerusalem is the capital and that Jerusalem should remain undivided, without presenting a provocation in what I think is the most important process for peace ongoing, certainly, in the history of the Middle East. I am hopeful that the negotiations now ongoing will be able to provide that form of waiver. I think it is vital--a waiver that does not in any way compromise the President's constitutional authority. So at this time I would like to yield the floor, and I will have more to say when those negotiations are completed. At this time, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Washington, DC, May 16, 1995. Memorandum for Abner J. Mikva, Counsel to the President. From: Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General. Re Bill to relocate United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This is to provide you with our views on S. 770, a bill introduced by Senator Dole and others, ``[t]o provide for the relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and for other purposes.'' The provisions of this bill that render the Executive Branch's ability to obligate appropriated funds conditional upon the construction and opening of the United States Embassy to Israel in Jerusalem invade exclusive Presidential authorities in the field of foreign affairs and are unconstitutional. The bill states that [i]t is the policy of the United States that-- (1) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; (2) groundbreaking for construction of the United States Embassy in Jerusalem should begin no later than December 31, 1996; and (3) the United States Embassy should be officially open in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. Section 3(a). The bill requires that not more than 50% of the funds appropriated to the State Department for FY 1997 for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Building Abroad'' may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that construction has begun on the site of the United States Embassy in Jerusalem. Section 3(b). Further, not more than 50% of the funds appropriated to the State Department for FY 1999 for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' may be obligated until the Secretary determines and reports to Congress that the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has officially opened. Section 3(c). Of the funds appropriated for FY 1995 for the State Department and related agencies, not less than $5,000,000 ``shall be made available until expended'' for costs associated with relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Section 4. Of the funds authorized to be appropriated in FY 1996 and FY 1997 for the State Department for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad, ``not less than $25,000,000 (in FY 1996) and $75,000,000 (in FY 1997) ``shall be made available until expended'' for costs associated with, respectively, the relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, and the construction and relocation of the Embassy. Section 5. The Secretary is required to report to Congress not later than 30 days after enactment ``detailing the Department of State's plan to implement this Act.'' Section 6. Beginning on January 1, 1996, and every six months thereafter, the Secretary is to report to Congress ``on the progress made toward opening the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.'' Section 7. It is well settled that the Constitution vests the President with the exclusive authority to conduct the Nation's diplomatic relations with other States. This authority flows, in large part, from the President's position as Chief Executive, U.S. Const. art, II, Sec. 1, cl. 1, and as Commander in Chief, id. art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 1. It also derives from the President's more specific powers to ``make Treaties,'' id. art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2; to ``appoint Ambassadors . . . and Consuls,'' id.; and to ``receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers,'' id., art. II, Sec. 3. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the President's authority with respect to the conduct of diplomatic relations. See, e.g., Department of Navy v. Egan 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988) (the Supreme Court has ``recognized `the generally accepted view that foreign policy was the province and responsibility of the Executive' '') (quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 293-94 (1981)), Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 705-06 n. 18 (1976) (``the conduct of [foreign policy] is committed primarily to the Executive Branch''); United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1, 35 (1960) (President is ``the constitutional representative of the United States in its dealings with foreign nations''). See also Ward v. Shannon, 943 F.2d 157, 160 (1st Cir. 1991) (Breyer, J.) (``the Constitution makes the Executive Branch . . . primarily responsible'' for the exercise of ``the foreign affairs power''), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1558 (1992); Sanchez- Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 210 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Scalia, J.) (``broad leeway'' is ``traditionally accorded the Executive in matters of foreign affairs''). Accordingly, we have affirmed that the Constitution ``authorize[s] the President to determine the form and manner in which the United States will maintain relations with foreign nations.'' Issues Raised by Section 129 of Pub. L. No. 102-138 and Section 503 of Pub. L. No. 102-140, 16 Op. O.L.C. 18, 21 (1992) (preliminary print). Furthermore, the President's recognition power is exclusive. See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 410 (1964) (``[p]olitical recognition is exclusively a function of the Executive''); see also Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States Sec. 204 (1987) (``the President has exclusive authority to recognize or not to recognize a foreign state or government, and to maintain or not to maintain diplomatic relations with a foreign government''). It is well established, furthermore, that this power is not limited to the bare act of according diplomatic recognition to a particular government, but encompasses as well the authority to take such actions as are necessary to make the power of recognition an effective tool of United States foreign policy. United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 229 (1942) (The authority to recognize governments ``is not limited to a determination of the government to be recognized. It includes the power to determine the policy which is to govern the question of recognition.''). The proposed bill would severely impair the President's constitutional authority to determine the form and manner of the Nation's diplomatic relations. The bill seeks to effectuate the policy objectives that ``Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel'' and that ``the United States Embassy should be officially open in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.'' ``To those ends, it would prohibit the Executive Branch from obligating more than a fixed percentage of the funds appropriated to the State Department for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' in FY 1997 until the Secretary determines and reports to Congress that construction has begun on the site of the United States Embassy in Jerusalem. It would also prohibit the Executive Branch from obligating more than a fixed percentage of the funds appropriated for the same purpose for FY 1999 until the Secretary determines and reports to Congress that the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has ``officially opened.'' By thus conditioning the Executive Branch's ability to obligate appropriated funds, the bill seeks to compel the President to build and to open a United States Embassy to Israel at a site of extraordinary international concern and sensitivity. We believe that Congress cannot constitutionally constrain the President in such a manner. In general, because the venue at which diplomatic relations occur is itself often diplomatically significant, Congress may not impose on the President its own foreign policy judgments as to the particular sites at which the United States' diplomatic relations are to take place. More specifically, Congress cannot trammel the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs and to recognize foreign governments by directing the relocation of an embassy. This is particularly true where, as here, the location of the embassy is not only of great significance in establishing the United States' relationship with a single country, but may well also determine our relations with an entire region of the world. Finally, to the extent that S. 770 is intended to affect recognition policy with respect to Jerusalem, it is inconsistent with the exclusivity of the President's recognition power. [[Page S 15469]] Our conclusions are not novel. With respect to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 1994 & 1995, which included provisions purporting to require the establishment of an office in Lhasa, Tibet, the President stated that he would ``implement them to the extent consistent with [his] constitutional responsibilities.'' Statement by the President at 2 (Apr. 30, 1994). The Reagan Administration objected in 1984 to a bill to compel the relocation of the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, on the grounds that the decision was ``so closely connected with the President's exclusive constitutional power in responsibility to recognize, and to conduct ongoing relations with, foreign governments as to, in our view, be beyond the proper scope of legislative action.'' Letter to Dante B. Fascell, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, United States House of Representatives, from George P. Shultz, Secretary of State, at 2 (Feb. 13, 1984). Again, in 1987, President Reagan stated that he would construe certain provisions of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 1988 & 1989, including those that forbade ``the closing of any consulates,'' in a manner that would avoid unconstitutional interference with the President's authority with respect to diplomacy. Pub. Papers of the Presidents: Ronald Reagan 1542 (1987). Indeed, as long ago as 1876, President Grant declared in a signing statement that he would construe legislation in such a way as to avoid ``implying a right in the legislative branch to direct the closing or discontinuing of any of the diplomatic or consular offices of the Government,'' because if Congress sought to do so, it would ``invade the constitutional rights of the Executive.'' 7 James D. Richardson (ed.) Messages and Papers of the Presidents 377-78 (1898). Finally, it does not matter in this instance that Congress has sought to achieve its objectives through the exercise of its spending power, because the condition it would impose on obligating appropriations is unconstitutional. See United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 74 (1936); Issues Raised by Section 129 of Pub. L. No. 102-138 and Section 503 of Pub. L. No. 102-140, 16 Op. O.L.C. AT 30-31 (``As we have said on several prior occasions, Congress may not use its power over appropriation of public funds `to attach conditions to Executive Branch appropriations requiring the President to relinquish his constitutional discretion in foreign affairs.' '') (citation omitted). For the above reasons, we believe that the bill's provisions conditioning appropriated funds on the building and opening of a United States Embassy in Jerusalem are unconstitutional.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the legislation before the Senate, S. 1322, a bill that essentially expresses the sense-of- Congress that Jerusalem should remain undivided and be the capital of Israel, and that it should be the site of the location of the United States Embassy at a date certain, namely May 1999. Mr. President, many people have participated in this discussion. And I know Senator Lautenberg, with whom I have been working, wishes to speak. I want to thank the majority leader for working with those of us that have concerns on this legislation. I know that there are discussions ongoing. Senators Lautenberg, Lieberman, Levin, and I just had a discussion. And I believe Senator Lieberman is going to talk with Senator Kyl and Senator Dole on what our conclusions are. For the purposes of these comments, I would like to make some general comments about the intentions of this legislation. Let me state what I believe some basic truths to be. The first basic truth is that the United States of America has an absolute right to place its Embassy in a capital city, any capital city. Clearly, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. We need no one's permission to do so, and we need no piece of legislation to do so. This issue has been one that has percolated for a long, long time with a great deal of impatience on the part of many people who say, ``Why hasn't the Embassy been relocated to Jerusalem prior to this time?'' Having said that, we have another basic truth, and that is that Israel can survive long-term as a Jewish democratic state only if there is peace, if that peace is recognized and bought into by Israel's neighbors, and that there are safe and secure borders. Therefore, the peace process now ongoing is key and critical to the long-term survival of the State of Israel. Jerusalem is many things to many people. All one has to do is spend some time there to see the Mount of Olives, the concept of the promised land, the Garden of Gethsemane, the home of more than 40 Christian denominations, the home of the Moslem religion, the home of the Armenian Patriarch, the Western Wall, a magical and mystical place, a source of religion throughout the world. The only democracy in the Middle East rests within the State of Israel; and yet it has been the site of hatred, war, and conflict dating from the Crusades and even back before that time. So it is a difficult and complicated subject. However, I want to say this, that I, like most Americans, believe that the U.S. Embassy should be located in Jerusalem. But as this bill was originally presented, there were concerns about the bill. Originally, the bill that was introduced had 62 Senators on it. This bill has 69 Senators. So there is a very strong bulwark of support for the bill. Some concerns remain even about the new text of the bill. Chief among these concerns for all of us is what the Chief Executive of this Nation will do. Many of us believe that whatever the politics surrounding this bill, we can all agree that to have a divisive vote on an issue around which there has always been consensus and to go through the unpleasantness of a veto confrontation, even with a successful override vote, would not be to anyone's benefit. Most of all, going through that process would be to the detriment of Jerusalem and Israel, as doubts about the U.S. commitment on this issue would certainly emerge. So for all those for whom Jerusalem is important and vital, I cannot imagine a more devastating outcome to the first legislation ever sent to a President mandating moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem than to have this legislation vetoed. For that reason, I think it is imperative that we try to address the concerns that exist about the bill. And we have tried to do that in conversations that have taken place on Friday and taken place today as well. One of the administration's concerns is that the bill in its current form does not provide a degree of flexibility in the end date by which an Embassy must be established in Jerusalem. We are hopeful that waiver language can be agreed upon by all the parties concerned that would allow the President under certain key conditions, best defined as national security interests, to suspend any necessary provisions of this bill related to the timetable if there was a determination that it was in the national security interest to do so. I suspect we can all agree that the President should, whenever possible, be granted this kind of flexibility. As a matter of fact, it is within his own constitutional responsibility to be able to do so. One of my concerns, for example, is that the move of our Embassy could overlap with key events unfolding in the Middle East peace process. In the opinion of this Senator, and perhaps some others would agree, the conclusion of a comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbors is in the national security interests of the United States. The bill, in its current form, would require the new Embassy to be opened by May 31, 1999, regardless of what is happening in the peace process. May 1999 is, of course, also the deadline Israel and the Palestinians have set for themselves to complete final status talks and also the transition period. But we all know that despite good will on both sides and a series of important agreements, Israel and the Palestinians have missed virtually every deadline they have set during the course of the peace process. First, the agreement on withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho, scheduled to be signed in December 1993 and implemented by April 1994, was signed and implemented in May 1994. Second, Palestinian elections were supposed to take place in July 1994. They have not. Now the commitment is that they would take place prior to Ramadan, hopefully in January 1996, a year and a half later. Third, for weeks leading up to the recent agreement on Israeli redeployment in the West Bank, the negotiators set numerous deadlines for themselves that went unmet. With all of this background, can we accurately predict that a peace process will definitely conclude on May 4, 1999, as scheduled? Of course not. It is a difficult, fluid process, but it is working. The President should have the ability and the flexibility to postpone actions [[Page S 15467]] that might have an impact on the negotiations if they were taken at a sensitive moment in the talks. The waiver, we hope, will be forthcoming as a product of these discussions and would provide, we believe, that kind of flexibility. Another purpose of a waiver amendment is to address the administration's constitutional concerns about this bill. The State Department has made it clear that they will recommend against the signature of a bill that they deem interferes with the constitutional prerogatives to conduct foreign policy. They have also indicated their strong objection to a specific date for location or establishment of the Embassy in Jerusalem. Specifically, the President interprets this bill to infringe upon his constitutional prerogatives by forcing him to establish an Embassy by a specific date, at a specific location. But by providing a sufficient waiver, renewable, if need be, the President has the opportunity to temporarily delay implementation of section 3(b), the timetable under this bill, should he find that it harms the peace process, to the extent of violating what we hope will be in the waiver, national security interests. There is no question that Congress and the executive branch frequently have differing interpretations of the constitutionality of particular statutes. I do not expect all of my colleagues to agree with every aspect of the President's interpretation. Indeed, there are aspects of his interpretation with which I disagree. But, in the interest of allowing the administration's views to speak for themselves, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a legal analysis of the earlier version, S. 770, prepared by the Justice Department, and a June 20, 1995 letter from the Secretary of State to the majority leader.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce the James Guelff Body Armor Act which would ban the mail order sale of bullet-proof vests to all individuals except law enforcement or public safety officers including paramedics. This legislation would require that the sale, transfer, and receipt of bullet-proof vests to anyone other than a law enforcement or public safety officers be conducted in person. This Act will make it more difficult for criminals to obtain this body armor which hinders law enforcement's ability to disarm and capture them. For those who may not have heard the story of Officer James Guelff, I would like to provide just a few details about this tragic story. On November 13, 1994, Officer James Guelff, a 10-year veteran of the San Francisco Police Department, was shot to death in a fire-fight by a heavily [[Page S 15343]] armed gunman wearing a bullet-proof vest on a major street corner in the middle of San Francisco. Captain Richard Cairns was the commanding officer on the scene. Earlier this year, Captain Cairns participated in a roundtable discussion with me about the violence of assault weapons. This is how Captain Cairns described the scene: (The assailant) was firing as fast as you could pull the trigger. He had semi-automatic assault weapons. He had an AK 223 rifle, with 30 round clips. He had a Steyr AUG which is a sophisticated weapon, that he didn't get to. The officers managed to keep him away from that. He had an uzi that jammed, and he had two other semi-automatic pistols, and he had thousands of rounds of ammunition that were in magazines. And they were all in 30-round magazines already. He didn't have to stop and load magazines. We ended up having 104 officers at the scene and he probably had more ammunition than all 104 officers put together. And our officers did run out of ammunition and they got more ammunition from other responding units to try and keep him down. He was finally killed by the SWAT teams that got there, who got above him . . . Captain Cairns continued: He had a bullet proof vest, he had a Kevlar Helmet on and he was hit by our officers twice in the helmet and six times in the vest. He was finally killed by a shot that came through his shoulder and into his chest and killed him. Officer Guelff was hit several times and then killed with a bullet through the left eye out of the assault rifle. Officer Guelff fired off six of his rounds and when he went to re- load--the suspect fired on him and killed him. That story, simply put, is the reason this legislation is being put forward today. California is not the only State to experience assailants--including heavily-armed gang members--who are wearing bullet proof vests and other body armor. In Colorado, a man entered a grocery store where his wife worked, killed her, the store's manager, shot a bystander and then fatally shot a sheriff's sergeant before being physically tackled from behind and brought to the ground. Gunfire from law enforcement was to no avail because of his body armor. In Long Island, NY, an armed high school student after being pushed out of his girlfriend's house by her father, shot 12 rounds into the house before a sheriff's investigator shot the young man in the shoulder, just avoiding his bullet-proof vest, killing him. The sheriff who shot the gunman commented after the incident that the bullet-proof vest the young man was wearing was `` * * * better than anything we've got now, other than what's in the SWAT locker.'' How are law enforcement officers to protect the public when the criminals have better body armor than do the police? States and localities have already begun the effort to control the sale of body armor. The State of Michigan, for instance, has a law which increases the sentence of a criminal who wears body armor during the commission of a crime. And, in Baltimore, MD, the city council reacted quickly and severely to a billboard advertising the sale of bullet-proof vests as ``Life Insurance for the 90's'' with a 1-800 number printed at the bottom by introducing a city ordinance which bans the sale of bullet-proof vests to anyone unless they have the permission of the police commissioner. Not only have States and localities begun to control the sale of body armor, at least three Nation-wide stores have already pulled bullet- proof vests from their shelves. Those stores that responded to the requests of law enforcement officials to cease the sale of body armor are The Sharper Image, Wall-mart and Sam's Club. There were over 200 rounds of ammunition fired by the gunman that killed Officer James Guelff before other police officers were able to injure the assailant. I cannot say that Officer Guelff would still be alive if this criminal had not been wearing a bullet-proof vest. I imagine, however, that law enforcement would have more easily shot and disabled this gunman if he had not been protected by body armor. I attended Officer Guelff's funeral. Maybe, if these bullet-proof vests were not so accessible, Officer Guelff would be entering his 15th year of service. At this time, I wish to acknowledge the leadership of Representatives Stupak and Pelosi who have introduced similar legislation, H.R. 2192, in the House of Representatives. I also ask that following my remarks, my legislation be printed in the Record .

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce the James Guelff Body Armor Act which would ban the mail order sale of bullet-proof vests to all individuals except law enforcement or public safety officers including paramedics. This legislation would require that the sale, transfer, and receipt of bullet-proof vests to anyone other than a law enforcement or public safety officers be conducted in person. This Act will make it more difficult for criminals to obtain this body armor which hinders law enforcement's ability to disarm and capture them. For those who may not have heard the story of Officer James Guelff, I would like to provide just a few details about this tragic story. On November 13, 1994, Officer James Guelff, a 10-year veteran of the San Francisco Police Department, was shot to death in a fire-fight by a heavily [[Page S 15343]] armed gunman wearing a bullet-proof vest on a major street corner in the middle of San Francisco. Captain Richard Cairns was the commanding officer on the scene. Earlier this year, Captain Cairns participated in a roundtable discussion with me about the violence of assault weapons. This is how Captain Cairns described the scene: (The assailant) was firing as fast as you could pull the trigger. He had semi-automatic assault weapons. He had an AK 223 rifle, with 30 round clips. He had a Steyr AUG which is a sophisticated weapon, that he didn't get to. The officers managed to keep him away from that. He had an uzi that jammed, and he had two other semi-automatic pistols, and he had thousands of rounds of ammunition that were in magazines. And they were all in 30-round magazines already. He didn't have to stop and load magazines. We ended up having 104 officers at the scene and he probably had more ammunition than all 104 officers put together. And our officers did run out of ammunition and they got more ammunition from other responding units to try and keep him down. He was finally killed by the SWAT teams that got there, who got above him . . . Captain Cairns continued: He had a bullet proof vest, he had a Kevlar Helmet on and he was hit by our officers twice in the helmet and six times in the vest. He was finally killed by a shot that came through his shoulder and into his chest and killed him. Officer Guelff was hit several times and then killed with a bullet through the left eye out of the assault rifle. Officer Guelff fired off six of his rounds and when he went to re- load--the suspect fired on him and killed him. That story, simply put, is the reason this legislation is being put forward today. California is not the only State to experience assailants--including heavily-armed gang members--who are wearing bullet proof vests and other body armor. In Colorado, a man entered a grocery store where his wife worked, killed her, the store's manager, shot a bystander and then fatally shot a sheriff's sergeant before being physically tackled from behind and brought to the ground. Gunfire from law enforcement was to no avail because of his body armor. In Long Island, NY, an armed high school student after being pushed out of his girlfriend's house by her father, shot 12 rounds into the house before a sheriff's investigator shot the young man in the shoulder, just avoiding his bullet-proof vest, killing him. The sheriff who shot the gunman commented after the incident that the bullet-proof vest the young man was wearing was `` * * * better than anything we've got now, other than what's in the SWAT locker.'' How are law enforcement officers to protect the public when the criminals have better body armor than do the police? States and localities have already begun the effort to control the sale of body armor. The State of Michigan, for instance, has a law which increases the sentence of a criminal who wears body armor during the commission of a crime. And, in Baltimore, MD, the city council reacted quickly and severely to a billboard advertising the sale of bullet-proof vests as ``Life Insurance for the 90's'' with a 1-800 number printed at the bottom by introducing a city ordinance which bans the sale of bullet-proof vests to anyone unless they have the permission of the police commissioner. Not only have States and localities begun to control the sale of body armor, at least three Nation-wide stores have already pulled bullet- proof vests from their shelves. Those stores that responded to the requests of law enforcement officials to cease the sale of body armor are The Sharper Image, Wall-mart and Sam's Club. There were over 200 rounds of ammunition fired by the gunman that killed Officer James Guelff before other police officers were able to injure the assailant. I cannot say that Officer Guelff would still be alive if this criminal had not been wearing a bullet-proof vest. I imagine, however, that law enforcement would have more easily shot and disabled this gunman if he had not been protected by body armor. I attended Officer Guelff's funeral. Maybe, if these bullet-proof vests were not so accessible, Officer Guelff would be entering his 15th year of service. At this time, I wish to acknowledge the leadership of Representatives Stupak and Pelosi who have introduced similar legislation, H.R. 2192, in the House of Representatives. I also ask that following my remarks, my legislation be printed in the Record .

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that would overturn a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Adams Fruit Co. versus Barrett and restore workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy for loss under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act where a State workers' compensation law is applicable and coverage is provided. This legislation embodies an agreement worked out by the National Council of Agricultural Employers and the Farmworkers Justice Fund and other farm worker advocacy groups. In the House this compromise will be offered as a substitute amendment to H.R. 1715, sponsored by Congressmen Goodling, Fazio and others. By way of background, in 1985, 19 migrant farmworkers employed by the Adams Fruit Co. suffered injuries in an accident while they traveled to work in an Adams Fruit van. The company was found liable and the injured farmworkers were awarded damages to the fullest extent under Florida's workers' compensation system. In addition, 10 of the workers filed suit against Adams Fruit for motor safety violations under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. In the Adams Fruit decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the injured farmworkers could bring an action for damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act even though they were covered under State workers' compensation for the same injuries. In so ruling, the court disregarded one of the basic concepts of workers' compensation, the assurance of a prompt remedy in exchange for limited liability on the part of the employer. As a result, agricultural employers who pay the cost of workers' compensation for farmworkers are not receiving the protection from lawsuits that all other employers providing workers' compensation receive. The legislation I am introducing today would reverse the effects of the Adams Fruit decision and restore the exclusivity of workers' compensation. Specifically, the bill: Amends the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act to provide that where workers' compensation coverage is provided under a State workers' compensation law for a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker, workers' compensation will be the farmworker's exclusive remedy and the employer's sole liability under the act for bodily injury or death; Provides for increased statutory damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act in cases where actual damages are precluded because the worker's injury is covered under a State workers' compensation law and the court finds the defendant's actions meet certain criteria set forth in the legislation, such as the defendant knowingly permitting a driver to drive farmworkers while under the influence of alcohol; Provides for tolling of the statute of limitations on actions brought under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act during the period of time a claim under a State workers' compensation law is pending; Requires disclosure of information regarding workers' compensation coverage to migrant farmworkers and upon request to seasonal farmworkers, [[Page S 15235]] helping ensure that farmworkers have adequate information to file timely claims for workers' compensation; and Allows the Secretary of Labor to determine the appropriate level of liability insurance required by employers engaged in transporting farmworkers, helping increase the ability of persons to obtain insurance. Mr. President, the appropriate relationship between workers' compensation benefits and benefits available under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act has been debated at great length since the Adams Fruit decision. Many have tried to reconcile the legitimate interests of both agricultural employers and farmworkers in this issue. In the 102d Congress I sponsored legislation, and I worked very hard, meeting with representatives of agriculture from around the Nation, with representatives of farmworkers, with Congressman Fazio, with Congressman Berman and others, in an effort to achieve consensus. I am pleased to say that there is now agreement. I hope the Senate will be able to move quickly to approve this agreement and pass this legislation.