Dianne Feinstein

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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, over the past 200 years, almost 2,000 men and women have stood in this Chamber charged with the task of governing the greatest democracy in the world. They were, like us, men and women of ideals and principle. This Chamber is also no stranger to revolutionary winds and radical ideas. Some ideas dissipate quickly; others stand like pillars in our Nation's history. One thing has held true over time, most ideals will not withstand the rigors of the democratic process if they do not hold true to the democratic promise: The promise of opportunity for those willing to earn it, the promise of freedom for those willing to protect it, and the promise of security for those who play by the rules and give their fair share. [[Page S 15024]] And these ideals, once implemented, must also withstand the test of time, which brings us to where we are today: Reexamining institutions and programs, cutting or streamlining where possible, eliminating where necessary. We have done some important work this year, and I commend the party in power for that. But I am deeply troubled by the direction of some of these changes and the extremes to which this Congress seems to be headed. The American people voted for change in 1992 and in 1994. They clearly wanted a smaller, more efficient Government. They wanted a better use of their tax dollars. But they did not vote for the wholesale dismantling of Government. Laws that protect public safety, education, and access to basic health care are all critically needed and supported by the public we serve. Some of the proposals being put forth in this Congress seem less like needed reform and more like revolution for revolution's sake. They go beyond reason and, I believe, beyond the wishes of the American people. If moderation does not prevail, this level of extremism will ultimately take our country backward, not forward, and the damage will be felt not by us, but by generations to come. Examples of the kind of extremism which seems to have gripped some in this Congress are littered throughout major bills we have dealt with this year, from regulatory reform to appropriations bills, to obscure language added to defense authorization bills, and to the upcoming reconciliation bill. But some of the most onerous and most blatant extremism is reserved for the upcoming Medicaid and Medicare plans. Let me give you examples of my concerns. Medicaid is the safety net, a true safety net, for 36 million Americans. Does Medicaid need to be reformed? Yes, but you do not get there by simply cutting off the most vulnerable people from access to fundamental health care. Six million Americans who are disabled rely on Medicaid for their health care. Because they have long-term, complex and expensive health conditions, they cannot buy private insurance. Medicaid is often the only health insurance available for this population. Yet, both the Senate and the House bills could jeopardize coverage for the disabled. Nationally, 15 percent of Medicare beneficiaries rely on help from Medicaid to cover the required copayments. The Senate bill would allow States to remove such coverage, leaving millions of the poorest seniors quite possibly unable to pay their share of Medicare costs. The House bill would also eliminate guaranteed coverage for children whose health insurance is Medicaid. Twenty percent of the Nation's children rely on Medicaid for basic health needs--immunizations, emergency care, regular checkups. This makes no sense to me, fiscal or moral. What is revolutionary about regressing on quality and safety standards in nursing homes? Twenty years ago, Congress reacted to the appalling state of our country's seniors who resided in nursing homes: elderly patients strapped to their beds against their will, patients being fed dog food and drugs, lice-infested bed sheets. These pictures are not even old enough to fade from memory yet. I well remember conditions in the early seventies that my sisters and I found when we went to look at some 40 San Francisco Bay Area nursing homes for my mother who had chronic brain syndrome--a deterioration of the brain that covers memory, reason, and judgment. I remember the stench of urine, seniors strapped to wheelchairs, poor food, and on and on. We were lucky then to find 1 home out of 40 that we visited that had a level of care that was appropriate for my mother, and she lived there for 7 years. The call for national standards then was loud, clear and bipartisan. In fact, the standards now in place were supported by both parties and signed into law by then-President Ronald Reagan. Have we really so soon forgotten these lessons? In our extreme zeal to get Government off our backs, are we really willing to subject the next generation of seniors to the same degradations all over again? Another aspect of the House Republican Medicaid plan that I believe goes beyond the bounds of reason is the repeal of protections against spousal impoverishment. A woman today who cannot afford the cost of nursing home care for her husband with Alzheimer's already must spend down her own resources to low levels in order to qualify for Medicaid. Current law allows her to retain up to $14,961 in income to remain living independently, and prohibits States from imposing liens on homes of nursing home residents. The House bill eliminates these protections, protections which allow her to keep her car, her home, and enough money to pay her heating bills while paying for her husband's nursing home care with Medicaid assistance. Over 10.5 million Californians, nearly one-third of my State's residents, have incomes less than 200 percent of the poverty line. These families are one tragedy, one major illness, one job loss away from not making it. Removing the only thing that stands between these families and bankruptcy is not reform, it is extreme, and it is unconscionable. The Republican proposal cuts Medicare by $270 billion. That is not just extreme, I think it is disingenuous. The $270 billion in cuts is not going to the deficit. It is not being used to save Medicare. It is going to give tax breaks to the wealthy, and it is going to raise taxes for the poor. Only $89 billion is needed to make the part A trust fund of Medicare solvent. That is what becomes insolvent in the year 2002. But cuts are also made in part B, which has nothing to do with the trust fund, and the reason for this is, in part, it would seem, to give a capital gains tax cut. A capital gains tax cut largely benefits people who earn incomes of over $100,000 a year, and I can see reasons for a capital gains tax cut--but not by cutting Medicare. That is simply not moral. The cuts to hospitals in part A will have a devastating impact, particularly on public hospitals and teaching hospitals. In my State, for example, the University of California maintains five big teaching hospitals. According to them last week, under this plan, they would face a net loss of $116.4 million over 7 years. Other California hospitals, already facing strapped budgets, would lose an additional $7 billion. The Senate Medicare plan also includes arbitrary cuts in provider services if spending does not meet targeted levels--indiscriminate cuts in home health, hospital care, doctor visits and diagnostic tests. Providers have already borne the brunt of congressional budget cuts over the last 10 years, and we all know what indiscriminate cuts mean; it means fewer doctors serving Medicare patients, and cutbacks in services for those who do. This is not reform, it is a kind of politics, but these politics will hurt America's seniors and America's indigent. We can do better than that if moderate heads prevail. I am not one that says only $89 billion should be cut. I recognize that we have to look at other things to balance the budget. I recognize that Medicare and Medicaid are culprits in budget balancing. But let us do it in a way that sees the light of day, that has full discussion, that takes into consideration many views, not just the views of one political party and, in fact, one branch of that political party. Some of the extremism that I have seen this past year is not just an isolated case. Much of the legislation we have worked on takes this country back. Let me just throw out some of the areas: environmental protection, safety regulations, abortion rights, education. We are not talking about Federal micro-management that can be done better by States. We are talking about things like clean air, clean water, hazardous waste cleanup, and airline safety. For example, provisions in appropriations bills for the EPA and proposed budget cuts would hinder the enforcement of safe drinking water standards for contaminants like cryptosporidium and arsenic in water. Do the American people want this? No. It would prevent EPA from testing for groundwater contamination at underground storage tanks. Do the American people want this? No. It would reduce hazardous waste compliance inspections at Federal facilities, such as Edwards and [[Page S 15025]] Vandenberg Air Force Bases, the Department of Energy's Livermore Laboratories, San Diego Naval Station, and Sacramento Army Depot. Do Californians want this? No. It would further delay the cleanup of 230 Superfund sites across this Nation, including a dozen or more in my State. One of them that would be delayed is called Iron Mountain Mine, located in Redding. It is interesting. It is a mountain that used to be an old copper mine. It has holes in it the height of a 30-story office building because the mountain was drilled. When it rains, the water mixes with the chemical and it produces sulfuric acid, which drains out into the Trinity River and metalizes the river bed. There are a couple of ways of controlling it, but they are very expensive. It is a big Superfund site. Is it important to do it? Of course. This river eventually becomes part of the drinking water for two-thirds of the people in the State of California. But balancing the budget is not all that this agenda is about, because at the same time many are proposing cutbacks in funds to enforce environmental and safety standards, they want to give away billions of dollars in gold and mineral resources owned by American taxpayers to mining companies at a fraction of what they are worth. They want to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development companies and permit logging on public lands, while waiving environmental laws that protect those lands. This is not budget cutting; it is ``set-back'' political agenda. These proposals place cost above safety in regulatory reform. To me, this means many safety standards can be challenged because they do not meet the least-cost alternative test, including shoulder belts and rear seat belts in cars, airbags in cars, and black boxes on airplanes. It means critical delays in safety regulations for things like commuter airlines and meat inspections. This is not reform; this is an abdication of responsibility. This agenda is not about reducing taxes--at least not for everyone. While some plan to cut Medicare to give a capital gains tax break, they also want to increase taxes for 7.4 million lower income Americans. Republican proposals would reduce the earned-income tax credit for low- income workers and their families, and eliminate it entirely for low- income workers without children. While the Senate proposals would also make cuts in capital gains taxes, a House plan would eliminate $3.5 billion in tax credits for developers investing in housing for low and moderate-income families. Education, without an education and skilled work force this country will be nowhere. We cannot compete in a global marketplace. We all agree with that, regardless of party. Yet, there are efforts to cut the number of students receiving Pell Grants, to eliminate the direct student loan program, to tax colleges for every student that receives a Federal loan, to eliminate the AmeriCorps Program, which provides money for college to more than 4 million youngsters who serve their communities over the next 7 years. This is not about getting Government off of our backs. We see attacks on a woman's right to choose everywhere in these bills--from preventing women in the military from using their own funds to pay for an abortion at military hospitals overseas, to preventing the District of Columbia from using its own locally-raised tax dollars to provide abortions for poor women, to denying Federal employees access to abortion services in their health benefits--an option available to all nongovernment employees--to the most insidious of all: House measures, and an expected Senate measure, to make Medicaid funding of abortion optional for States even in cases of rape and incest. This is not reform, it is a step backward in time to the days we all remember well, where desperate women were forced to seek medical treatment in back allies. I remember it. I remember college dormitory students passing the plate so an 18 year old woman could go to Mexico for an abortion. There is no other way of describing this, except extremism. The irony of the reconciliation bill is that it will contain many of these things. And our process, theoretically, is designed on big issues to have full discussion and debate. That is what this Senate is supposed to be all about. Some of these issues will have little public hearing. They will be limited to 20 hours of debate. These extreme proposals can set back our Nation, and they most certainly will impact the future of tens of millions of Americans. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise not to speak on this bill but to do two things. First, to say a few words and share my respect and admiration for the senior Senator from Georgia. And, second to share some of my reflections of the past year and where I think we seem to be heading with the reconciliation bill. Mr. President, I do not serve on a committee with the senior Senator from Georgia, but I do try to listen to the floor when I am in the office. I have a very simple test, I either turn the sound up or down or off depending on the merit I find in the discussion. I have always turned the sound up to listen to Senator Sam Nunn. And, what I have heard is an intelligent, a reasoned, and a very informed person who has brought a great deal to bear in the debates on the Senate floor. He has been a strong and tireless advocate for a national defense policy that is well thought out, for foreign policy that explores each issue as part of a whole policy situation and not a separate stand-alone issue. His ability, I think, to see individual defense programs or foreign policy actions as part of the total debate has given him the ability to think independently of party and the daily public opinion poll and put forth a policy that is really important. I will miss him greatly. I very much regret his decision to retire from the U.S. Senate. I think it is to the Senate's loss when we lose one of our great minds. The distinguished Senator has been an advocate for a strong national defense, especially pushing for a well-trained and modern force. He has constantly lent his support to support programs which would better prepare our men and women in uniform for war, but moreover for operations-other-than-war including humanitarian missions. His leadership in foreign policy is marked, as well. He has been the single strongest voice for lessening the threat of nuclear proliferation from the States of the former Soviet Union with the policies advanced under the Nunn-Lugar program. And, he has helped our relationship with the new Russia and the nations of Eastern Europe through his ideas on NATO expansion and the Partnership for Peace Program. Senator Nunn will continue to remain a voice of moderation and independent thought throughout the remainder of his term. I will miss his contributions to some of the most important issues of our day and this body will miss his leadership.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have about 12 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. Let me begin by saying that I very much appreciate the job that has been done by the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, and I know it has not been easy to put together this kind of consensus. I am led to believe [[Page S 14872]] this bill will pass the Senate. However, I have to make my own point of view on it clear because what is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander, when you begin to change the formula on which some of these programs are based. I have come to the conclusion that I must oppose this bill. I must oppose it for basically two reasons. The first is that the bill cuts dramatically into the ability of California to provide job training. Let me point this out. While the United States added 3 million jobs from May 1991 to December 1993, California lost nearly 450,000 jobs during that time. As a matter of fact, in the last 5 years, our unemployment rate has never dropped below 7 percent, with a high of 10 percent in 1994. So we have more people unemployed in the State of California than 13 other States have people today. So job training becomes a very important factor. Compared to current funding, this bill shifts funds from California to other States. Under the revised formula in the managers' amendment, almost one-half of all funds of the losing States come from California. This is a proportion that is very high. I think the No. 1 determinant of a job training program should be existing unemployment needs and data. Instead, this block grant consolidation bases 10 percent only on unemployment. This is a major departure from the way these programs were determined in the past. My major concern about this bill is that it gives greater weight to things other than unemployment, and the bill does not give adequate weight to unemployment. So with a 7.2-percent unemployment rate in September, while the national rate was 5.6 percent, California will lose about $7 million in this bill despite the fact that that is just a 4-percent reduction. It translates into $7 million based on the change in formula application. The new managers' amendment drops the 20 percent for AFDC to 10 percent and increases from 10 percent to 20 percent the weight given to poverty. My State, has high rates of AFDC recipients and unemployed people. For example, California is home to 18 percent of all AFDC recipients. That translates into 909,000 AFDC cases. That translates into 2.6 million people on AFDC. By deemphasizing AFDC recipients and unemployment with the low- weighting factor, the bill essentially gives California short shrift. Under current law, we receive 14.8 percent of job training funds. Under this approach, we will only get 14.2 percent. That is the $7 million difference. And it is a big difference. Let me mention what has happened in California by way of Federal policy. California has struggled through the closing or realignment of 9 military bases in this round alone following 22 in previous rounds. In total, these have eliminated more than 200,000 direct and indirect jobs. The closings and realignments have drained about $7 billion out of the California economy. Corporate defense downsizing has claimed 250,000 layoffs in the past 5 years, and that is expected to double. So from defense downsizing alone, before it is through, in the corporate sector and from base closures, California will lose over 1 million jobs. Now, that is something this formula does not take into consideration. I mentioned California has 18 percent of the country's welfare caseload but 12.2 percent of the Nation's population. Now, what does this show? It shows that our need is actually higher than the population-driven formula number. So this formula and the redesignation of formula clearly does not work for California. This is not a case in this bill where as a product of consolidating 80 programs, States are going to be held harmless. That is not true. The money taken from California by this new formula is essentially given to other States that have less poverty and less unemployment. So it is very hard for me, representing California, to turn around and vote for this bill. I am willing to say, sure, we should do our fair share, and I voted for the welfare reform bill despite the fact that I lost on major amendments that addressed the fact that we have a huge immigrant population. That bill will cost California billions of dollars. Republican Medicare and Medicaid plans will cost California billions of dollars. Our own Governor has up to this point indicated he will not accept $42 million in Goals 2000 education funds. I cannot understand that--$42 million for schools when we have schools that are crumbling, elementary schools that have 5,000 youngsters in them, the highest class size in the Nation, and he plans to turn down these funds. I am hopeful he will reconsider. This is one more diminution of revenues to address the needs of 32 million people. In summary, I very much recognize the good work done by both Senators here and by the committee, and I am appreciative of it. It is just when the State takes hit after hit after hit, when other States benefit and California with its needs, as has been referenced earlier--base closures, earthquakes, fires, riots, you name it--all the things that have happened, and when we know that job training is as important as it is, to take a loss of over $7 million in this bill, through the consolidation of programs and see the money essentially go to other States--under a different formula albeit--is very hard for me to do. I appreciate the forbearance of the chairman and the ranking member, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain my vote. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to do that. That will be helpful.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, fifty years ago, the ship's company of the Navy seaplane tender U.S.S. Chandeleur, AV-10, together with the aviators of the ship's squadrons, proudly participated in the acceptance of the surrender of the Japanese military forces in Honshu, the central island of Japan, at ceremonies in the harbor of Ominato, the final end of the global warfare of World War II. They had earned this honor by 3 full years of combat and hard work in service to the U.S. fleet, materially contributing to the victory in the Pacific. The U.S.S. Chandeleur was built in South San Francisco and commissioned in San Francisco on November 19, 1942. It sailed immediately for combat operations in the Pacific, not to return to the Golden Gate until November 1945. During that period, she served as an advanced mobile operating base for several squadrons of seaplanes engaged in bombing, reconnaissance, patrol, search and rescue, and other vital services, extending the ``eyes'' of the fleet commander far beyond the horizons. The aircraft would not have been able to sustain continual operations without her support. The U.S.S. Chandeleur was truly a part of the victory in the Pacific. [[Page S 14771]] For her valiant services, U.S.S. Chandeleur was awarded six bronze engagement stars for operations at Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Saipan, Palau, Okinawa, as well as air operations off the coasts of China, Korea, and Japan, and participation in the early occupation of Japan. During these operations, the ship and crew survived a number of withering attacks by Japanese vessels and aircraft, including a near miss by a Kamikaze bomber off Okinawa, sustaining multiple battle casualties and deaths of her crew members and air crews. Soon after her return from the Pacific, U.S.S. Chandeleur was ``mothballed'' at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, and later scrapped, but the ship's company and aviators have remained close. They have gathered periodically in reunions widely separated across the United States, from Boston to San Diego. For their 27th reunion on the 50th anniversary of the victory they so valiantly helped to bring about, they have gathered in the ship's ``native'' city, San Francisco, where they will be together at the Marine Memorial Club from September 27 through October 1, 1995. It is fitting that on the 50-year anniversary of this historic mission that the ship's companies and aviators gather once again in the ship's home city of San Francisco. And, on behalf of the United States Senate, I would like to extend my most sincere welcome to those gathering to remember the valiant mission of the U.S.S. Chandeleur.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and associate, Gordon Lau. Over the years, I have worked closely with Gordon as San Francisco supervisors and as partners in establishing the first Sino-America Sister City relationship between San Francisco and Shanghai. I am proud of what we have managed to accomplish together. Gordon is a longstanding pillar of the Chinese community in San Francisco and a key leader for crucial non-profits such as the Self- Help for the Elderly and the Chinese Culture Foundation. Since Gordon graduated from the University of San Francisco Law School he has worked as an attorney and spent a great deal of his time in public service. Gordon was appointed to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors by former Mayor George Moscone in 1977. He later kept his seat in district elections becoming San Francisco's first Asian- American supervisor. Gordon also served the city of San Francisco as a past board member for the Legal Aid Society, as founding member of San Francisco Lawyers Committee for Urban Affairs and Civil Rights, and as a former San Francisco Port Commissioner and the San Francisco Planning Commission. I have worked closely with Gordon and the San Francisco-Shanghai Sister City Committee. Since the creation of this sister city committee in 1979, Gordon has played a crucial role in its development and served, virtually uninterrupted, as its chairman. This partnership is very dear to me and nobody has worked harder to make it the success that it is than Gordon. Since 1979, there have been 150 exchanges between San Francisco and Shanghai making it not only the first, but most active, sister city relationship between China and the United States. Sister Cities International ranks the San Francisco-Shanghai relationship as the most active of any cities involved in sister city partnerships. People-to-people relationships are critically important in overall foreign relations. During many complicated times between the United States and China this sister city relationship has provided a strong link between the people of San Francisco and Shanghai. Since its inception, the San Francisco-Shanghai Sister City Committee has produced 150 projects in art, culture, law, economics, medicine, education, development, trade, investments, and public works. One of the highlights has been business management training program in which San Francisco businesses participate in the training of China's new business leaders. This training of midlevel managers has been pointed to repeatedly as one of the most effective in supporting the economic changes underway in China. The success of this sister city relationship culminated with the celebration of Shanghai Week in San Francisco this past July, celebrating a 15-year relationship between San Francisco and Shanghai. [[Page S 14769]] Gordon Lau is truly a model of dedication to a community and to a cause. I join with his wonderful wife Mary, a public school teacher in San Francisco, their remarkable daughters, Stephanie, Diane and Carolyn, as well as the people of San Francisco and Shanghai in thanking Gordon for his devotion and hard work. There are people in life who quietly go about the business of getting things done. Gordon sets a perfect example of what can be accomplished when you believe in what you do and work hard to achieve success. He has worked, year after year, with little fanfare to achieve one of the world's most productive sister city relationships in the world. It is time that we say thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment makes a technical correction to the bill's current language appropriating funds for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, known in short as SCAAP. I was very pleased last year to be part of a bipartisan group of Senators who introduced legislation to establish SCAAP, which was ultimately made part of the crime bill. SCAAP was established in recognition of the burden placed on State and local governments by the Federal Government's failure to control illegal immigration, when State and local governments then find themselves faced with the high cost of incarcerating persons who enter this country illegally and are later convicted of felonies. Unfortunately, a glitch in the appropriations language prevented SCAAP from completely fulfilling its purpose--contrary to SCAAP, local governments were excluded from reimbursement. Even more unfortunately, this mistake has been replicated in the appropriations bill which we now have before us. Specifically, this appropriations bill, like last year's appropriations bill, provides that the funds appropriated for SCAAP shall be available as authorized by section 501 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [IRCA], rather than as authorized by SCAAP itself, which was enacted as section 242(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as part of the 1994 Crime Act. Section 501 of IRCA only provides for reimbursement to States, not to localities. The reference to IRCA, in effect, means that only States and not localities would be reimbursed for their costs from not only the $130 million in fiscal year 1995 SCAAP funds, but also the $300 million in fiscal year 1996 funds that would be appropriated under this bill. It is important to note that not only is the reference to IRCA inconsistent with SCAAP itself, it is also inconsistent with the committee's own report, which references the Crime Bill, not IRCA. My amendment would correct this apparent error and eliminate this inconsistency. It also would ensure that all States and localities would be equitably reimbursed for their combined fiscal years 1995 and 1996 costs at the same percentage rate. Therefore, it corrects for any inequities in the allocation of fiscal year 1995 SCAAP funds to States as well as to localities. It is noteworthy that, because fiscal year 1995 was the first year of the SCAAP program, there necessarily would be start-up delays in setting up procedures to identify criminal alien inmates whose costs are reimbursable. My amendment would ensure that States which could not identify all, or most, of their allowable costs before fiscal year 1995 allotments were made, would not be penalized. It is also important to note, Mr. President, that this amendment neither increases nor reduces the amount of money appropriated for SCAAP, but only affects who can access that money. In expanding access to that money to local governments, we are: First, furthering the goal of Senators who wish to send authority away from the Federal Government, by allowing for direct grants to the level of government closest to the people, local government: and second, removing a level of bureaucracy by not making localities go through State governments. This amendment has important, real-world consequences. Many localities, especially in California, have been hurt more by illegal immigration than have many States. In Los Angeles County, for example, based on the preliminary results of a joint County-INS effort to identify deportable criminal aliens in the county's jail system, the percentage of all county jail inmates who are deportable criminal aliens has increased to 17 percent from 11 percent in May 1990. The growing impact of criminal aliens on the county's criminal justice system not only imposes a major financial burden on the county, which must finance the costs, but also endangers the public's safety. Because of the county's major budget problems, which have been worsened by the impact of criminal aliens, the county had to close three of its jail facilities earlier this year. As a result, many criminals, who, otherwise, would be incarcerated, now are on the streets of Los Angeles. I am pleased to report that this amendment is supported by the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, cities throughout the country, including New York City and Chicago, and by local governments throughout the State of California. I therefore urge my fellow Senators to support their cities, counties, and towns, and vote in favor of this amendment. I yield the floor. amendment no. 2860 On page 85, line 14 add the following new section: Sec. 207. None of the funds appropriated under this Act or any other law shall be used to implement subsections (a), (b), (c), (e), (g), or (i) of section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, (16 U.S.C. 1533) until such time as legislation reauthorizing the Act is enacted or until the end of fiscal year 1996, whichever is earlier, except that monies appropriated under this Act may be used to delist or reclassify species pursuant to subsections 4(a)(2)(B), 4(c)(2)(B)(i), and 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to sections 103 to 105 of the Commerce Justice State appropriations bill. These sections would further undermine the constitutional right to an abortion. The right to an abortion was first articulated by the Supreme Court in the 1973 Roe versus Wade decision. This decision balanced the interests of protecting the fetus with the important interests of the mother, establishing a trimester system under which the right to choice in this country was delineated. Subsequent decisions have held that the Government may not place an undue burden on the woman's right, prior to fetal viability, to make a decision whether or not to have an abortion. There is no right to choose without access to choice. Restricting women's choice on these appropriations bills, and on other unrelated legislation, is a circumspect, back-door approach to prohibiting abortions. For women who cannot afford an abortion on their own, for poor women, this back-door approach to limiting abortions is just one more step to a back alley abortion. The many efforts to undercut the constitutional right to an abortion in this Congress, and earlier Congresses, have been documented by the National Abortion Rights Action League in their publication, ``The Road to the Back Alley.'' I recommend that interested individuals consult this publication. Efforts to undercut a woman's right to choose have included: Blanket restrictions on Federal funding for abortions. As an alternative to unsuccessful congressional efforts to prohibit abortion outright, abortion opponents have worked to ban the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions. These restrictions, popularly referred to as ``Hyde amendments,'' have been attached to appropriations bills ever since Roe Versus Wade. The most recent of such measures was Representative Istook's amendment to give States the option of not providing funds to Medicaid recipients in cases of rape and incest. Banning U.S. aid to international family planning groups performing abortions or abortion counseling. In June, the House approved an amendment to a foreign affairs bill that would ban U.S. aid to any international organizations that perform abortions, counsel women on abortions, or lobby on abortion issues. Prohibiting health insurance companies from paying for abortions for Federal employees. On July 19, the House approved reinstatement of legislation [[Page S 14633]] prohibiting the Federal Employees Health Insurance Program from paying for abortions, except when a woman's life is in danger. The Senate approved similar language on August 4, with exceptions for rape and incest. Barring abortions at military hospitals, even when paid for privately. On June 16, the House voted to restore a ban President Clinton had lifted against privately funded abortions in overseas military hospitals. Prohibiting certain types of late-term abortions. On July 18, the House Judiciary Committee reported legislation that would make it a crime for doctors to perform a late-term abortion procedure called intact D&E. This procedure is extremely rare, and almost exclusively limited to cases in which tragic fetal deformities have been detected. This is only a partial list of the back-door assaults on a woman's right to choose. The proposed language is just one more step in the long line of rollbacks on women's reproductive freedoms. I urge my colleagues to strike this language from the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I understand that the joint resolution would continue funding actions during fiscal year 1996, for HUD essentially under the provisions of the fiscal year 1995 VA, HUD, an Independent Agencies Appropriation Act. Funding would continue at a variety of different levels, depending on the circumstances, under the authority and conditions of the 1995 appropriation act. Some of the authority and conditions is in the appropriation accounts themselves, such as the Stewart B. McKinney Act provision in the annual contributions for assisted housing account that permits the proceeds of certain refinancings to be split between PHAs and the Treasury. Other authority and conditions, such as the amendments to the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, at section 8(c)(2)(A), that purports to sunset at the end of fiscal year 1995, are in the administrative provisions. Is my understanding correct that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development will continue under this joint resolution to have the authority to share savings from bond refinancings with State and local bond issuers pursuant to the Stewart B. McKinney Act, and continue to apply the provisions that would otherwise sunset?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As my colleagues know, NASA has offered a plan to consolidate all flight research and science platform aircraft at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in California. While I agree with the goals of NASA consolidation to save taxpayers money, I have strong concerns that this aircraft consolidation plan could cost more than it would save. The current aircraft consolidation plan drafted by NASA considers the costs of moving the aircraft to Dryden Flight Research Center, but does not include the costs to operate these aircraft from their consolidated location.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I do not believe so. The only consolidation plans I have seen move aircraft to Dryden. While, I certainly do not oppose Dryden as the consolidated site, I think that steps should be taken to ensure that this consolidation will truly save the taxpayers money.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, that would be an excellent course of action. Perhaps NASA's justifications should include the costs of and cost savings resulting from this consolidation and the operation of this aircraft from their consolidated location for the next 5 years.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues Senators Bond and Mikulski regarding NASA's plans to consolidate all research and science-based aircraft at Dryden Flight Research Center.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise today in strong opposition to the VA, HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. I would like to focus on just one of the numerous reasons I will oppose this legislation--the lack of any funding for the Travis VA Hospital in northern California. Let me briefly describe the current situation for northern California veterans seeking inpatient health services. A veteran in this service area must drive an average of 4 to 5 hours, sometimes as many as 8 hours, to get to a VA acute care facility. The veteran's family, because they are so far from home, generally must stay in a hotel for the duration of the veteran's hospital stay. Once the veteran is released from the hospital, he and his family must drive back and forth from home to the VA facility again for check-ups. This story could be repeated as many as 450,000 times. That's right, nearly half a million veterans who used to have complete access to inpatient health services are now without adequate care. I am appalled that the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee turned their backs on nearly a half a million veterans by not continuing to fund the replacement VA Hospital at Travis Air Force Base. This facility is desperately needed to replace the VA Medical Center in Martinez, CA which was closed in 1991 because of earthquake damage. While awaiting the replacement facility at Travis, the Veteran's Administration has been forced to piece together a patchwork healthcare system. They have had to borrow bed space at Travis AFB's David Grant Hospital, and have transferred patients to facilities hundreds of miles away. I commend the VA for doing an admirable job in such a bad situation. Unfortunately, since the closure of the Martinez hospital, only 27 percent of that facility's inpatient services have been continued. As bad as the situation has been, our veterans have been exceedingly patient. At the ground-breaking ceremony on June 2, 1994, attended by Vice President Gore, we all were optimistic that northern California's veterans would not have much longer to wait for quality healthcare. More than a year later, the plans are nearly complete and the land is ready to begin construction of the replacement hospital early next year. But instead, that land will stay empty, and nearly a half a million veterans will continue to be unserved. The Travis VA Hospital is not a luxury to these veterans. They must drive between 4 and 8 hours to get inpatient healthcare. Should someone who served this country in war be required to drive from Washington, DC to New York City for healthcare? Now imagine that drive in order to obtain emergency medical care. That is correct. Veterans in northern California have no access to VA emergency services on evenings, weekends, or holidays. Currently, these veterans are forced to go to local health care facilities at either their own cost or at additional cost to the [[Page S 14305]] taxpayers. This situation is simply unacceptable, it is unnecessarily costly and is disrespectful of our veterans. Please consider that this northern California area which would be serviced by Travis VA Hospital is one of the largest, most geographically dispersed, and highly populated veterans areas in the country. More veterans live in northern California than in 27 individual States and the District of Columbia. Would any Senator from those States allow the needs of every veteran in their State be ignored? It is a sad day when the men and women who have served our country without question--and who have the right to expect their government to fulfill its promises--are now being told ``tough luck.'' It is simply unconscionable. I appeal to my colleagues to honor the commitment we as a Nation have made to our veterans, and join me in voting against this bill that so fundamentally fails to address the needs of so many veterans. I also hope that the President will veto this legislation which so flagrantly ignores the needs of America's veterans. watertown, sd

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the international space station and in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Bumpers. The space station is not only a valuable scientific program, but it is a symbol of our Nation's commitment to investing in the future. More than a quarter of a century ago, the most awe-inspiring words were uttered by Neil Armstrong, ``That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' Those words, delivered from the Moon's surface when the Apollo 11 lunar module landed in 1969, resounded around the globe. Each and every American whose ears were graced with that message, was filled with pride and honor. That day in our past served as an inspiration. It showcased the technological leadership of the United States, the great will of the American people, and the courage of our space pioneers which combined to produce a defining moment in history. That mission set the stage for several other Apollo missions which sent astronauts to the Moon. It served as a precursor to Skylab, the first U.S. space station, launched in the early 1970's. And, it led the way for the space shuttle program. With each mission, we learn more and more about life sciences, materials sciences, Earth sciences, engineering research and technology, and commercial development. Also with each new mission we explore the unknown and make discoveries that ultimately help improve life here on Earth. The international space station will have a laboratory to conduct experiments and do research on a wide variety of subjects. Astronauts will be able to conduct long-duration microgravity investigations, which will allow scientists to look deeper into the mechanics of cell functions, combustion, liquid behavior, crystallization, and electro- magnetics. In addition, research that would take place on the space station could lead to cures for life-threatening diseases, lower pharmaceutical costs, and better prepare astronauts for the rigors of space travel. Opponents of the space station argue that these justifications for the space station cannot hold up to scrutiny. They suggest that economic and scientific spinoffs are not applicable for life here on Earth. In fact, the opposite is true. Scientific research and experiments conducted on the international space station do have real life applications here on Earth. Space-based research has led to a variety of innovations and technological advances that have, and continue to benefit people every day. Included among them are: Long- distance telephone networks; international TV broadcasts; car chassis and brake designs; heart monitors for ambulances; structural designs for bridges; laser surgery in hospitals; programmable pacemakers; navigational systems for airplanes; and long-range weather forecasting--just to name a few. Research conducted on the space station will have other important applications in the lives of average Americans. In the biotechnology field, scientists on the international space station will conduct research on tissue culture studies to gain knowledge of normal and cancerous tissue development and to discover treatments and cures to diseases. They will also study protein crystal growth to design pharmaceuticals which block proteins which could lead to the development of an AIDS vaccine or cure. Additionally, research on droplet/pool burning will help improve understanding of fire propagation for improved fire safety. The field of fluid physics will also benefit. Scientists will conduct research on interface dynamics to improve industrial films and coatings, oil spill recovery techniques, tracking of ground water contaminants, and processing of semiconductor crystals. At the same time, their research will cover cloud formation microphysics, which is useful to meteorologists for improved weather predictions. Scientists will study electronic materials to investigate the vapor phase of crystal growth. This will help produce much higher efficiency and density optoelectronics for the communications industry. Also, epitaxy liquid phase molecular and beam vapor phase will be studied to evaluate high speed switching devices and high density memory. This will help to produce smaller, more affordable super computers. Scientists will also study environmental health to develop improved air and water quality sensors, analyzers, and filtering devices. In addition, they will examine automated microbiology systems which enhance identification of bacteria population. They will conduct engineering research and technology development to support enhanced designs for firefighting suits, toxic waste cleanup suits, and deep sea divers equipment. It is clear that scientific research and experiments like those listed above have real life applications here on Earth. At the same time, investments in space create valuable economic returns as well. Each dollar invested in space programs yields up to $9 in new products, technologies, and processes here at home. The international space station program also generates more than 14,000 direct jobs--5,400 of them in my home State of California. Indirectly, 40,000 jobs nationwide have been created because of space station-related activities. At a time when the country--and California in particular--has been impacted by defense downsizing and base closures, the space station is an important source of economic activity. It is defense conversion at its best and creates new jobs for former defense and aerospace workers. Aside from the enormous benefits to science, medical research, and technology, the space station helps to maintain U.S. leadership in space and enhances global competitiveness. It also serves as a source of inspiration and encouragement for our children, fostering the next generation of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. [[Page S 14244]] As a powerful symbol of U.S. leadership in a changing world, the space station represents an international commitment. Our original international partners--Japan, Canada, and Europe--have already committed $9 billion to the space station program, and are counting on America's continued leadership in space. Moreover, with the Russians added to the international partnership, the space station has proven to be a test bed for scientific research and technological development, while uniting former adversaries in peaceful cooperation. Just 6 years ago, this would have been unthinkable. By asking Russia to join the international space station, the United States can channel the Russian aerospace industry into nonmilitary pursuits. This gives us more leverage to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation and enhances the United States goals of private sector development and demilitarization in Russia. In addition, an international space station will use existing Russian space technology, capability, expertise, and hardware to build a better space station for less money. In closing, I would like for you to imagine, if you would, had the early pioneers not forged west to explore the frontier. If, for instance, in 1803 the Louisiana Purchase had not been completed for $15 million--which at that time was a large sum of money. The frontier purchased in that deal now includes 15 States and generates $200 billion in Federal taxes annually. The returns on that investment have more than paid for the original purchase. Let us, for a moment, consider Alaska, which, in 1867, was purchased for $7.2 million. At the time it was purchased, Secretary of State Seward was derided and mocked for negotiating the terms with Russia. Now, we know that Alaska's oil reserves exceed $125 billion, and no one has stepped forward to suggest we reverse that transaction. The United States must continue its exploration in space with the next logical step--a permanently staffed space station. The international space station will lead the world toward great advances in space exploration. At present, all of the returns on our investment in space have yet to reach fruition. We have yet to realize all the treasures that are held within the vast resources of space. We have learned, however, of its benefits to science and medical research. We know that it bolsters global competitiveness and U.S. leadership in space. We are also aware of its economic spinoffs, job creating capacity and source of inspiration to future generations. I am confident that this research will continue to exceed our imaginative grasp and reap real benefits that are applicable here on Earth. For these reasons, I strongly support the international space station and urge my colleagues to oppose the Bumpers smendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to tell you how I look at this. If one were to take the top trouble spots of the world and say which are most likely to have a nuclear confrontation, I would have to name India and Pakistan as one of the top two. So what are we doing? We are adding to the arsenal of one of those two countries at a very sensitive time, at a time which is a few months before a general election in India, when flames of hatred between the two countries are now being fanned by politicians on both sides of the India-Pakistani border. We are taking this time and we are sending several hundred million dollars worth of equipment. The P-3C aircraft capable of sophisticated surveillance; the 28 Harpoon missiles capable of air-to-surface or surface-to-surface launch; 360 AIM-9L surface-to-air missiles; 135 TOW-2 missile launchers; spare parts for F-16's, and other sophisticated equipment, and we are launching that into the middle of this situation. I heard the same experts testify. None of them could answer the question, ``What does India do, then?'' That seems to me to be the central question. I will tell you what I think India does. I think India deploys the Prithvi missile. That certainly changes the balance in the area, if it happens. And that is a very likely result of what we are doing here today. Is Pakistan a friend? Yes. Has Pakistan been helpful in a number of different pursuits? Yes. I say there is a way we can say thank you in an amendment which some of us will offer following this amendment, that will take what I consider to be the good parts of the Brown amendment, the economic help, the military networking, the antiterrorism help, the antinarcotic help, and also carry with it a sense of the Senate that will say, the honorable thing and the fair thing for us to do is sell the F-16's, repay the money to Pakistan, and provide whatever equity requires. That is the right thing to do. That is something that is not going to change the balance of power. So, I believe very strongly that the Brown amendment is a mistake. I have had three security briefings. Those briefings run directly counter to statements made by Pakistan. Let me tell you what they run directly counter to. ``We are a very responsible country and we do not believe in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.'' That is not true. That was a statement made by the Pakistani Foreign Minister in 1994. It is simply not true. ``I want to say categorically and finally that Pakistan has not made nuclear weapons. Pakistan does not intend to make nuclear weapons.'' The Pakistani Foreign Minister, 1994. That statement is categorically untrue. ``We have made a sovereign decision not to produce nuclear weapons.'' Again, a foreign ministry spokesman--untrue. ``We have not detonated one, nor have we got nuclear weapons. Being a responsible state and state committed to nonproliferation, we in Pakistan, through five successive governments, have taken a policy decision to follow a peaceful nuclear program.'' I do not believe, based on three classified briefings, that these statements are true and correct. Therefore, I believe it is a mistake in judgment to add to the proliferation in the area by putting sophisticated weaponry in the hands of one of these countries at a time where there is a very sensitive and very difficult situation between the two countries. I yield my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the proposed amendment to prohibit U.S. assistance to countries that prohibit or restrict the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid. This is a basic matter of principle: No country should have the right to interfere with the delivery of humanitarian assistance anywhere. When the United States provides food, medicine, and clothing to suffering civilian populations, in response to war or natural disaster, there is simply no justification for a country to block this assistance, especially when that country receives assistance from the United States itself. The United States goes to great lengths to ensure that nations in dire need for humanitarian aid receive it in the most expedient and efficient way. Supplying humanitarian aid to people in need is consistent with the basic values of our Nation, and we should not ignore attempts to hinder its delivery. This amendment would apply to all countries which receive U.S. assistance. However, as we all know, the major problem in this area today lies with Turkey's blocking of United States humanitarian aid to Armenia, a contemptible practice which has gone on for over 2 years. While Turkey has made some progress on this issue, agreeing to open an air corridor to Armenia, this does not begin to address the problem of humanitarian assistance which must be transported over land. The bulk of the assistance we send to Armenia requires such land conveyance. It is my hope that the administration will work with Turkey to ensure that all routes available for bringing humanitarian aid to Armenia are opened. Opening an air corridor is only the first step toward resolving this serious problem. Perhaps by working with Turkey on this issue, we can help to avoid ever having to invoke the aid cutoff called for in this amendment. It is important to note that this amendment includes a national security waiver, thereby recognizing the fact that there may be compelling national security interests which require U.S. assistance to countries even when the recipient is blocking humanitarian aid to others. This waiver also appropriately preserves the President's prerogative to conduct U.S. foreign policy. Turkey is an important United States ally, and I realize that assistance to Turkey is an integral part of our foreign policy to ensure regional security in that part of the world. However, we simply cannot continue to assist Turkey, or any other nation, which impedes the delivery of humanitarian aid to others. Again, this is a matter of principle, and it is my hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will support it. Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee has wisely earmarked $350 million for the Office of Population at the U.S. Agency for Development because I understand the extreme importance of family planning program availability and population assistance. Investment in population assistant programs today will save us from much more costly investments in the future when unchecked population growth results in environmental deterioration, scarcity of resources, and pronounced economic hardship. Overpopulation is one of the most serious problems our world faces today. Reducing spending in these areas will have the immediate effect of negatively impacting, in a serious way, the health and well-being of women and children. However, I oppose the attempt to prevent these U.S. funds deemed for population planning assistance from contributing to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities [UNFPA]. I would like to emphasize a few particulars about this international organization. UNFPA is the primary multilateral organization providing global family planning and population assistance programs. UNFPA directly manages one-third of the world's population assistance to developing countries; its work has saved countless numbers of lives since its inception. Programs managed by UNFPA improve the quality and safety of contraceptives available to women which contributes to reducing the incidence of abortion. UNFPA does not support abortion or abortion- related activities. UNFPA helps improve women's reproductive health and provides both maternal and child heath care--basic health care services which are largely unavailable throughout the developing world. I am dismayed by opponents of UNFPA who wrongly submit that this organization is involved in providing abortion services in China or otherwise. This is simply not the case. Let me state again, UNFPA is not involved in abortion services anywhere. UNFPA has proven its expertise in this area since its founding in 1969, increasing availability of contraceptives in the developing world, reducing population growths, and saving lives. I believe that U.S. contributions to the U.N. Fund for Population Activities is appropriate and wise, and I oppose this attempt to prevent funding to be used for this purpose.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Ohio. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Colorado. As the ranking member of the Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have worked closely with Senator Brown, the chairman of this subcommittee, to try to work toward a more productive United States policy in South Asia. I respect him and I respect what he is trying to do. However, while there are some issues on which we are in agreement, there are many on which we differ. Let me first say that I echo the statement of the Senator from Nebraska by saying that I believe the administration is wrong. I have heard two major reasons put forward as to why we should put this $368 million of military equipment in Pakistan's hands now. The first is, they paid for it, it is the honorable thing to do. I agree. I will introduce an amendment which will carry with it Sense of Congress language which will say that the President is asked to try to sell the F-16's and return as much of the equity payment made by Pakistan back to Pakistan as possible. I believe that is the honorable thing to do. The second thing I have heard is that we have to buttress the Bhutto regime. This is what gives me the deepest trouble. If there is anybody that believes that one stabilizes or buttresses a regime which suffers from instability, in an area where there is a tinderbox of hostilities between two countries, and where both countries have the ability in a matter of days to have a nuclear capacity utilized--I think that is the wrong idea. I could not go to sleep at night knowing this equipment went, and that I voted for it, at absolutely the wrong time. I will explain in my remarks why I believe it is the wrong time. 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 that certification. And today President Clinton cannot make that certification. So, despite its remonstrances to the contrary, Pakistan to this day continues to develop its nuclear weapons program and has technology imported from abroad. And I believe even today Pakistan is engaged in developing an indigenous capability to produce nuclear weapons--not to have to get the technology from abroad, but to do it right at home. As late as a couple of months ago, the Prime Minister of Pakistan denied that. That is a problem for me. That is a problem for me, to vote for something which I know will be used for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is probably to attack a neighbor, when I am told an untruth. As Senator Glenn, I believe, will outline, these same statements have been made year after year for the past decade. So, under these circumstances, I believe it is wholly inappropriate for the United States to release to Pakistan [[Page S 13949]] this military equipment. For us to take this step, Pakistan should make vast improvements in the area of nonproliferation. I believe that Pakistan has acquired M-11 missiles in violation of the MTCR. Pakistan is subject to MTCR sanctions. We have alleged that China sold these missiles to Pakistan. China is not a signatory to the MTCR. Recently, as a product of negotiations with our State Department, China has agreed to abide by the MTCR. But Pakistan knows better. They are subject to MTCR rules, and every M-11 has inherent nuclear capability. Let there be no doubt about that. So, if one looks at both India and Pakistan, to add weapons at this time is a big mistake. Let me tell you what the Indian Ambassador has told me. What he has told me is that he believes that the 28 Harpoon missiles which are part of this package, would give Pakistan a standoff capability to which India has no immediate response. What does this mean? If we do this now, India is a few months before an election. It simply fuels the fires within the Indian political structure and perhaps prompts them to deploy a missile known as the Prithvi, which they have, in response to this. That is a scenario that I find inescapable in the transfer of these weapons. We can cloak this in any terms we want. But if we know and honestly believe that this might be the result of the delivery of these weapons, why are we doing it? How can we sleep and do it? The P-3C aircraft can launch a Harpoon. The Harpoon also has a surface-to-surface capability. The Indians believe the P-3C can carry the Harpoon from Karachi to Sri Lanka, so it has the distance. There are certain aspects of the Brown amendment that I support. I certainly share the view that it is desirable for there to be an improvement in the United States-Pakistani relationship. Pakistan is strategically located, has a significant population, it is a good friend in the Moslem world, it is an emerging democracy in a part of the world where we would like to see more democracy. As has been said, Pakistan has cooperated with the United States in a variety of ways. It is the second largest contributor of troops to U.N. peacekeeping operations. I think that is a big deal. Pakistan has been prepared to put its troops on the line to keep peace in the world, and I, for one, appreciate that. It has assisted in our antinarcotics efforts, and it has been helpful to U.S. antiterrorism efforts. And it is helpful right now in a very terrible and tragic situation in Kashmir, where one American is still being held hostage. There is certainly room for more cooperation and the kinds of nonmilitary assistance which would be allowed to resume under this proposal--antiterrorism assistance, antinarcotics assistance, immigration control training, environmental and population assistance, civil aviation cooperation--would not only build even greater cooperation, but they would directly benefit the effort and interests of the United States in a range of areas. Part of the amendment I will offer will do just that: Take the nonmilitary part of Senator Brown's amendment and allow it to go ahead. It is my understanding that these types of assistance were never envisioned to be cut off at the time that the Pressler amendment was adopted, so I see no harm and much good that could come by restoring these types of assistance programs to Pakistan. I was pleased to cosponsor an amendment with the Senator from Colorado in the Foreign Relations Committee to allow this assistance. However, I think we need to tread much more carefully when it comes to military assistance. Returning Pakistan's broken spare parts is, I think, a reasonable gesture of good will--no problem with that. Allowing Pakistan to resume its participation in the IMET military training course will help rebuild the ties between the United States and the Pakistani military, which is important for strategic cooperation. But allowing the transfer of the package of equipment allowed by this amendment is another story. The Pressler amendment sanctions took effect because our Government in effect knew that Pakistan was not abiding by earlier agreements made with our Government, and commitments made to United States Senators on this floor at that time, in the 1980's. They asked for aid contingent on them not pursuing nuclear weapons, and then they turned around and did just what they said they would not do. Pakistan needs to make progress reversing that problem, and I believe we would send a dubious message by renewing our supply line to the Pakistani military. As I mentioned, the package transferred under this proposal would include P-3C surveillance aircraft, capable of providing submarine deterrence, which is a major concern to India; the Harpoon missiles; the TOW missile launchers; the spare parts for F-16's; and other sophisticated equipment. It is not a significant enough package to substantially alter the military balance in South Asia, but it is a change in the military balance of South Asia. Do we want to change the military balance of South Asia shortly before a hotly contested election in India, when we know major candidates running in that race will be forced to respond? They will be forced to respond, and one of the things that has been a goal of American foreign policy is to prevent the deployment of the Prithvi missile. Instead, we are providing the excuse for the deployment of the Prithvi missile, and therefore further escalating and heightening tensions between the two countries. And there is major tension. There is no subject as sensitive, as difficult, on which the sides are more implacable than the Kashmir problem. You have seen the worst results of that tension in terms of the taking of the hostages, the cutting off of the head of one of them, and the rolling of the head down the street. If that does not demonstrate what feelings are, I do not know what will. So, I know the Clinton administration does not want to prop up unstable regimes, does not want to put equipment in the middle of a tinderbox, but that is exactly what this does, and there is no way to say it does not. It does. Anyone who has had the security briefing I think better understands the problem. So I cannot support a resumption of these arms transfers. The greatest threat of nuclear war on the planet today, I believe, rests in South Asia and rests between India and Pakistan. India has contributed to this tension just as much as Pakistan has. But it is there. It is real. It is palpable and it is fueled by a dramatic ongoing debate which one country views as a major assault on its territorial sovereignty. What else does one need as a precipitant to a conflagration? So I urge my colleagues to look carefully at this resolution, to look carefully at the list of equipment, at the rockets, at the missiles, at the parts that are being sent in this $368 million transfer. I hope that the Brown amendment might be defeated and that we would have an opportunity to put forward an amendment which would carry forth the economic and the humanitarian, the antinarcotics and antiterrorism portions of Senator Brown's very well-meaning amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I'd like to take a moment today to pay tribute to someone I consider to be one of my best friends in the world. She is a fireball of energy and someone who has truly touched the lives of many, many people. Rosalind Wyman is an extraordinary friend. ``Politics, arts, sports and my family are my life,'' Roz Wyman once said. Roz has indeed turned her passion into results. A native and resident of Los Angeles, Wyman has been involved in the political world since before she can remember; her baby book includes a picture of 2-year-old Roz smiling happily at a portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Strongly influenced by her parents' belief that you should serve your community, she turned immediately to elective politics following her graduation from the University of Southern California. At the age of 22, Roz became the youngest elected legislator in a major U.S. city when she was elected to the Los Angeles City Council. From 1953 to 1965, Wyman served as a member of the non-partisan council, earning particular recognition for her successful drive to bring the Dodgers to Los Angeles. The late owner of the Dodgers, Walter O'Malley, often said: ``The Dodgers would not be in Los Angeles if it had not been for Roz.'' She also played a major role in the move of the Lakers basketball team to Los Angeles. In the years since she left the council, Wyman has applied her formidable organizational skills to a variety of local, national and international tasks. Among her many other accomplishments, Roz served by appointment of the President on the Independent Commission to Review the National Endowment for the Arts grantmaking procedures. Locally, she became President of the Los Angeles County Music and Performing Arts Commission in 1992. She served as executive chairperson of the Producers Guild of America (1977-1981) and as executive vice chair of the Los Angeles Center Theatre Group, which operates the Mark Taper Forum and the Ahmanson Theatre. She helped direct State and national campaigns and chaired two Democratic Congressional Campaign Dinners, each of which set records by raising over $1 million. Roz participated in the U.S. Delegation to the United National Economic and Social Council (UNESCO) and was part of the American delegation to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Madrid, 1980). But, it was in 1983 that Roz Wyman--this legend from Los Angeles-- walked into my life. Roz became the first woman ever selected to be the convention chair and chief executive officer for a Democratic Convention. She had been selected to chair the 1984 convention in San Francisco. I was Mayor of San Francisco at the time. And I can tell you this: The first time Roz Wyman walked into my office with her list of items that needed to be provided by the city of San Francisco, I knew I had met someone with formidable determination and tenacity. And I knew I had made a friend for life. The convention was a huge success. And every convention since then has been modeled on what Roz made happen in San Francisco. Since then, I always knew that Roz was someone who could get the job--any job--done. When I thought about running for the U.S. Senate in 1992, Roz was one of the first people I turned to and she was one of the first people to volunteer to be a campaign co-chair. For the last 4 years of my life, Roz has been the truly inspirational force who, in spirit, has never left my side. She has opened her home to a tired candidate and staff. She has been the unyielding cheerleader who was always upbeat even in the face of tough times. And she has always been faithful to her vision of what is right for our State and our country. One of Roz's dreams, she told me, was to see a woman elected U.S. Senator from California. I am so honored, and indeed lucky, to be the recipient of Roz's focused attention. Roz will soon celebrate her birthday with her three children, her 5\1/2\ year-old granddaughter, Samantha, and her many, many friends. I am so glad that her family has asked some of Roz's friends to pay tribute in some way to our Roz. There are few people in the world as passionate, as loving, as strong, and as inspiring as Roz Wyman. Many may know Roz because she was the youngest person ever elected to the Los Angeles City Council or because she almost singlehandedly brought the Dodgers from Brooklyn to Los Angeles. But, in my own heart, I will always know Roz because she is that special, life-long friend who helped make my dreams come true.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from California and I thank the President. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the committee amendment. I urge my colleagues to strike the committee language to ensure truthful labeling of poultry and poultry products. Let me say first that the committee language in the fiscal year 1996 agriculture appropriations bill flies in the face of the consumer. It prevents the Department of Agriculture from implementing a new and commonsense regulation on what poultry products can be labeled as ``fresh.'' I might parenthetically say I never thought when I came to the U.S. Senate we would be debating this on the floor. Be that as it is, I must say, Mr. President, I find it astonishing that any business engaged in the processing of food products can call something ``fresh'' when it has been frozen as hard as a rock. The whole thrust of Federal food labeling over the past several decades has been to provide consumers with accurate information about the quality and contents of the food they buy. Existing departmental guidelines regarding poultry are really wrong. They allow consumers to be deceived into thinking they are choosing between two equally attractive pieces of poultry, when in fact one has been frozen to zero degrees and then thawed, while the other has never been frozen at all. The consumer has a right to know if a chicken has been previously frozen. If it has, then it is not fresh. The new Department of Agriculture Food and Safety Inspection Service rule, which is scheduled to take effect next year, ensures that the labeling corresponds with reality. The new rule sets three labeling categories: First, poultry products which have never been chilled below poultry's freezing level of 26 degrees may be labeled as fresh. Second, hard chilled: Poultry products which have been chilled below 26 degrees but above zero degrees must be labeled as hard chilled. Third, frozen: Poultry products which have been chilled at zero degrees or below must be labeled as frozen or previously frozen. It makes sense. However, until this new rule goes into effect, the poultry industry can use the term ``fresh'' on poultry that has been chilled down to zero degrees. In practice, this means that chicken and turkeys are being labeled and sold as fresh when, in fact, they have been frozen rock solid. For example, in California, Foster Farms and Zacky Foods, among others, sell fresh chicken, while previously frozen chicken shipped in from Southern producers can also bear the ``fresh'' label. In the Washington, DC, market, Perdue Farms sells fresh chicken, but labeling does not tell consumers that Tyson and Wampler chickens have been frozen. Similarly, while Farmers Pride in Pennsylvania, Plainsville Farms in New York, and Sunset Acres Farm in Maine sell fresh poultry, their competitors who sell previously frozen poultry can also use the ``fresh'' label. This situation makes a mockery of the label and misinforms consumers about the actual freshness of the product. This most certainly is not reasonable, and it does not meet the expectations of today's consumers. According to a telephone survey conducted by ICR Survey Research Group in June 1994, the vast majority--75 percent--of the public does not think chicken which has been shipped or stored below 26 degrees should be called ``fresh.'' The vast majority of the public questioned, 86 percent, said it was inappropriate to label as ``fresh'' chicken which has been stored below 26 degrees and then thawed out. Four out of five consumers, 81 percent, said yes there is a difference between chicken which has never been frozen and chicken which has been frozen and thawed out. By a margin of five to one, those questioned rated ``never frozen'' chicken as superior to chicken which had been ``previously frozen.'' That is the rub. Clearly, the consumer, if possible, would prefer to buy fresh chicken. According to the Department of Agriculture, once food is thawed, when it is refrozen there may be a loss of quality due to high loss of moisture. Consumers certainly think so. Consumers have a preference for fresh poultry and--this is the rub, as well--they are willing to pay a higher price for it. They should be getting, we think, what they are paying for. As in many issues of national importance, California has taken the lead on truthful labeling of poultry products. In 1993, California enacted a law restricting the use of the term ``fresh'' on labels of poultry that have been chilled at or below 25 degrees and to allow the use of the term ``fresh'' only on poultry that has been kept above 25 degrees. However, the court subsequently ruled that California law was preempted by Federal law, which prohibits States from imposing labeling requirements that are different from, or in addition to, the Federal requirements. California is preempted, even though California says what is fresh is fresh, and what is frozen is frozen, and never the twain will meet, and we will show you with our law. Bingo--they are preempted by the Federal Government. In response to the consumers' continued demand for truthful labeling, the U.S. Department of Agriculture accepted its responsibility, and after a 15-month rulemaking process, the Department is prepared to implement truthful labeling. The Department of Agriculture's new poultry labeling rule, we believe, is reasonable and fair to both consumers and the poultry industry. Not only does it ensure truthful labeling of fresh poultry and protect the consumers' right to know, it provides a new category of ``hard chilled'' and gives the industry 1 year to comply, allowing ample time to use up inventories of existing labels and make the necessary changes. Accurate and truthful labeling is strongly supported by national consumer groups--the National Consumer League, the Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, and the Consumer Federation of America. The committee language, on the other hand, will prohibit the Department from proceeding with its own order. Unless the Department of Agriculture is permitted to implement its new poultry labeling rule, frozen poultry products will continue to be falsely labeled. We do not allow fish which has been frozen to be labeled as fresh. We should not allow poultry to be mislabeled, either. Let us, Mr. President, make the Federal Government be honest about what is fresh and what is frozen. Otherwise, we face the prospect of allowing the American public to be conned into going to Antarctica to lie on the beach. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Bryan amendment to eliminate funding for the Market Promotion Program. The Market Promotion Program helps promote U.S. agricultural commodities abroad and build foreign markets for American agricultural products. I support the Market Promotion Program. And here is why: First, the Market Promotion Program has been a very successful program. It has significantly benefited agriculture and expanded markets. There have been scores of success stories. For California agriculture, MPP moneys have boosted exports of almonds, asparagus, prunes, citrus, avocados, kiwi- fruit, canned peaches, canned pears, canned fruit cocktail, pistachios, strawberries, table grapes, tomatoes, walnuts, wine, raisins, cotton and cotton products, and more. The California avocado industry, for example, used MPP moneys to increase Japanese consumers' awareness of the higher quality of California avocados as opposed to lower priced, lower quality foreign sources. In 3 years, using MPP funds California avocado growers were able to increase exports to Japan by 200 percent. Similarly, the U.S. cotton industry effectively used to promote the higher quality of products made with U.S. cotton. In the 5 years preceding the Market Promotion Program, exports of American cotton averaged only 5.3 million bales of raw cotton. This year, U.S. cotton exports will exceed 10 million bales. U.S. cotton exports have averaged $437 million more per year since the Market Promotion Program began. Second, the Market Promotion Program is a cost-shared program. Recipients of MPP funds must contribute funds of their own as well. But the Federal funds serve as seed money that attract the private funding and bring diverse segments of an industry together on export promotion that would not otherwise be possible. Third, the Market Promotion Program helps American agriculture compete in a global market. It is a GATT legal program. Agricultural exports now account for nearly one-third of total U.S. agricultural production and over $40 million in sales. But our competitors in world markets are aggressively supporting export and promotion of their agricultural products. We need to ensure that our growers are given the same support that their foreign competitors receive. Mr. President, the Market Promotion Program works. We should not eliminate it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 2 years and 6 days ago, on September 13, 1993, my colleagues and I were privileged to witness an historic moment on the White House lawn: the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles. Last week, on behalf of myself, Senator Brown, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Pell I submitted S. Res. 171, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on this important anniversary. Today, I am pleased to welcome this resolution's adoption by the full Senate. This is an important demonstration of the Senate's continued support for the Middle East peace process, and a note of encouragement to those working to bring it to a successful conclusion. From time to time, it is worth taking a moment to recognize the remarkable progress that has been achieved in the Middle East in such a short time. The Middle East has changed so much in the last 4 years that we often take the changes for granted. But reviewing the changes makes us realize that we are witnessing a true transformation in the region. Think of it: Four years ago, before the Madrid Conference in October 1991, Israel had never sat face-to-face in peace talks with most of its Arab neighbors. Today, meetings between Israeli and Arab officials--from Israel's immediate neighbors, from the Persian Gulf States, and from North Africa--are so routine and so numerous that they scarcely receive mention in the news media. Just over 2 years ago, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators remained locked in a fruitless stalemate, and direct talks between Israel and the PLO were deemed impossible. Today, there is Palestinian self-rule in Gaza and Jericho, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are on the verge of reaching an agreement on Palestinian elections and further Israeli troop redeployments in the West Bank, and handshakes between Israeli and PLO leaders are commonplace. Just over 1 year ago, Israel and Jordan remained officially in a state of war. Today, thanks to the courage and leadership of King Hussein and Prime Minister Rabin, Israel and Jordan have signed a full peace treaty, enjoy full diplomatic relations, and are continually expanding their cooperation in security, economic development, tourism, the environment, and many other areas. Mr. President, no one would deny that peace has not yet been secured in the Middle East. Much, much work remains to be done. Although the Israeli-Syrian negotiations have at times showed promise, with senior Israeli and Syrian military officers holding substantive talks on the security arrangements that must accompany an agreement, these talks currently seem caught in a stalemate. Clearly, many hard rounds of negotiations remain. Israel's talks with Lebanon are essentially on hold until there is an Israeli-Syrian deal. Israel and the Palestinians must continue to overcome obstacles to the implementation of their agreements, and their negotiations will get no easier once final status talks begin next year. In addition, the peacemakers of the Middle East face continual opposition from those who would use terrorism to upset the peace process. We were reminded of this once again on August 21 when a suicide bomber blew up a bus in Jerusalem, killing five Israeli civilians. Like the suicide bombings that preceded it, this was a heinous and unforgivable act of terrorism. All who are committed to peace must do everything in their power to prevent acts of terrorism. Nowhere is this more true than in the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. While the performance of Chairman Arafat's Authority in security matters has improved with time, it must do even more to prevent and punish all terrorist acts. Suicide bombers and other extremists must not be allowed to succeed in their goal preventing the arrival of peace. But, the obstacles and the hard work ahead do not change the fact that real peace in the Middle East is today genuinely within reach, as it never has been before. The long-held dream of Israelis to live in peace with all their neighbors, in secure borders, is now a real possibility. To bring this process to a successful conclusion, the parties themselves must make all the difficult decisions. But the support of the United States has always been essential to Middle East peacemaking, and it remains so today. Presidents Bush and Clinton, and Secretaries of State Baker and Christopher, deserve enormous credit for their unyielding commitment to pursuing a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and their efforts have earned them the respect and gratitude of parties throughout the region. The Congress has also been consistent in its strong support of all efforts to advance the peace process, and expressions of that support help bolster the parties in their efforts. One recent expression of that support was the introduction of S. 1064, the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995, which I was proud to cosponsor along with Senators Helms, Pell, Dole, Daschle, Mack, Lieberman, McConnell, Leahy, and Lautenberg. This bill would allow the President to continue to provide assistance to the Palestinians and to conduct relations with the PLO, but it includes strict new language mandating compliance by the PLO and the Palestinian Authority with all of their commitments. This bill is now part of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, which will be considered by the full Senate shortly. This past weekend, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat met to try to finalize the agreement on the second phase of the Declaration of Principles. While substantial agreements have been reached on Palestinian elections, the redeployment of Israeli troops, and the expansion of Palestinian self-rule in the West Bank, differences remain over security arrangements in Hebron and the distribution of water resources. Both sides reiterated their commitment to return to the negotiating table to complete this phase at the earliest possible date. In adopting this resolution today, the Senate lends encouragement to Israel and the Palestinians as they seek to finalize the second phase of the Declaration of Principles. In doing so, we also mark an important milestone on the long road to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. As we take note of these achievements, let us also reiterate once again that the successful conclusion of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East is in the United States' national interest, and that we in the U.S. Senate stand firmly behind all those who are committed to achieving that peace.