Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, bottom line, this bill as drafted, without this amendment, is a massive cost shift. As I said, the costs are shifted essentially to four States: Texas, Florida, New York, and California. What this bill says presently is no one in this country legally who is not a citizen can send their child to a Head Start Program, can be on Medicaid. It is not prospective. It affects everybody presently. That is why it is a cost shift. It would be one thing if it were prospective and said in the future, but it does not. It says to every legal immigrant's child out there that is in a Head Start class, ``Next year, forget it, you are no longer there.'' That is essentially the bottom line. Or somebody in the State has to pay for it, either the State or the county. California has a huge deficit. According to the General Accounting Office, California also has 38.2 percent of all legal immigrants, but 52.4 percent of all immigrants receiving Federal welfare. New York has 12.6 percent; Florida, 8.9 percent; Texas, 8.6 percent; and other States, 31.7 percent. So you see, there is a huge cost shift in dollars from the Federal Government to the States. That involves adoption assistance, it involves foster care, it involves child protective services. Can you believe it? If a child is being abused, the protective services are not going to be available if they are a legal immigrant? We passed legislation earlier--Senator Exon's amendment--overwhelmingly for people here illegally, and I agree with that. But these people are here legally and, therefore, I find the bill egregious as it stands right now. Again, I am hopeful--and I would say, toughen sponsorship, look at people coming more carefully in this regard. I do not have a problem with that. But this is going to affect large numbers of people who are already in this country. Eighty-three percent of all the immigrants receiving SSI or AFDC resided in the four States. AFDC and SSI are not covered by this amendment. It is only the noncash benefits, and I think I have spelled those out. I do not know if there is anyone who would like to speak on this.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment involves deeming. It is a complicated issue. Let me try and explain it simply. It only involves legal aliens. Presently, deeming only applies to cash programs, AFDC, SSI, food stamps. This amendment would remove the deeming requirements for Federal programs not traditionally considered Federal welfare programs. It would retain the deeming for the three principal Federal cash welfare programs: AFDC, SSI, and food stamps. Under the bill, a child of a legal immigrant would not have access to Head Start; a legal immigrant would not have access to Medicaid, would not have access to child protective services, would not have access to maternal health services, would not have access to foster care, would not have access to custodial care. All of these programs deemed--excuse me, not deemed--but all these programs which are noncash programs would not be available for anyone who was in this country legally. The amendment also provides that no one in this country legally who is a battered wife could ever make use of a domestic abuse program, a battered wife shelter. There are actually some 80 programs that provide noncash assistance, and I have named most of them. The most important one of these is Medicaid. Everyone in this room has heard Governors across this Nation bellow that the Federal Government is not dealing with the costs of immigrants to the States. Every one of them says this, that has the program. Essentially, the way the bill is drafted, it is a massive cost-shift to States because it says that the county then has to pick up these costs. The county would have to pick up the costs of Head Start if a youngster was going to go into it. The county would have to pick up the costs of Medicaid or the State. The county would have to pick up the costs of child protective services or foster care or any of those items. It is a major item. And I will be candid and frank with you; it falls most heavily on four States. It falls heavily on Texas, it falls heavily on Florida, it falls heavily on New York, and it falls heavily on California. And that is because that is where the largest percentages of these legal immigrants are. Now, as I mentioned earlier in the earlier discussion, I believe we should tighten the sponsorship requirements. I believe we should see that they are secure, even verify what they say. And I intend to introduce legislation that would provide that sponsors of immigrants must provide health insurance for those immigrants. But here we are with a situation that exists really creating a massive unfunded mandate, particularly in the area of legal immigration. This amendment is supported by the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the United States Catholic Conference, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Mayor Giuliani, Mayor Riordan, and many other people as well. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the National Governors' Association.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. And I thank the bill manager. Amendment No. 2513

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is a very hard argument for me because I very much respect the Senator from Wyoming. He is my chairman on the committee. I do not think anyone in this body knows more about immigration. I doubt that he drafted the actual language in this bill. All I can say is our reading, and the reading of others of the bill itself, indicates to us that the way it is worded, it would in fact affect people in this country at this time. The Bureau of the Census has identified 121,000 spouses and children of U.S. citizens who came into this country between 1990 and 1994 who, for starters, would be most definitely affected by this bill. I mentioned earlier that I do not believe that anyone should come to the oath of being an American citizen and take that oath because they want welfare, whether it is cash or noncash. I would support any legislation to toughen the sponsorship requirements to provide for bona fide sponsorship. As a matter of fact, when the immigration bill is on the floor, I will offer an amendment to the bill which will provide that a sponsor must be responsible for health insurance for a person they are sponsoring to this country. So I fully believe that a sponsor should be responsible. Where I have the difficulty is in the creation of two classes of citizens, because once it starts, once the camel's nose is under the tent, it will not end. And the fact is that a naturalized citizen is entitled to all of the rights of citizenship; that is a clearly established constitutional principle. I believe it will really jeopardize the constitutionality of this entire bill. It is a major point, I believe. So I say, toughen sponsorship, toughen the naturalization process, do what you have to do to prevent somebody from using naturalization as a guise for some of these things. But once they get there, it must mean just what it means for every other citizen. It has been said that an affidavit of support is an asset like a child support order. I do not believe that is true, because having assets means one is ineligible for welfare. A child support order is not an asset when determining eligibility for welfare. The welfare caseload is swollen with mothers who cannot collect on child support orders. Approximately 25 percent of the existing caseload is comprised of mothers who cannot collect on child support orders. It has been said that people are not denied welfare because they have this asset. They are eligible for welfare benefits, the cost of which is only recovered if the Government is able to collect from the delinquent parent. If naturalized citizens could receive benefits while the Government attempts to collect from the sponsor, then the situation would be analogous. But that is not what the Dole bill says. And even if it did say that, it would still be treating naturalized citizens differently from native-born citizens. Denying assistance because there is an uncollected asset is not equal treatment under the law. So let me repeat: A native-born citizen is denied welfare benefits only if there are assets available to the applicant. Just as a child support order which is uncollected is not an available asset, an affidavit of support on the naturalized citizen which is unable to be collected would not be an available asset. True, the Government could attempt to collect later, as with a child support order, but in the meantime, under the Dole bill, the applicant who is now a U.S. citizen would be denied assistance. So I believe that is wrong. Let me speak for a moment to the 40 quarters of work and the contribution to the system. This affects the homemaker who does not work in a two-parent family. If the mother does not work, is supported by her husband, and her husband leaves, it is a major problem. Similarly, if you were an infant when your parents immigrated, you would not be eligible for benefits until you reached your 30's. That is hardly equal treatment. Mr. President, I believe I have used my time. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, may I ask how many minutes are remaining of my time?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is supported by the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, as well as several other organizations. I believe that we are essentially a nation of immigrants. I sit as a new member of the Immigration Subcommittee and I know there is a legitimate reason that the Government should try to dissuade, in any way we can, people from becoming naturalized simply to gain welfare. There is no question about it. I believe the immigration bill that we have marked up in the Immigration Subcommittee deals with that. What this bill does is it says that if you are a naturalized citizen--and let me give some specific examples. Take my mother's case and put it in the present day. My mother came to this country at the age of 3. Supposing her mother was naturalized, that would make her a naturalized citizen. Then supposing my mother did want to go to college, which she never had an opportunity to do, she would be eligible for a loan program. Under this bill, as drafted, my mother would never be eligible as a naturalized citizen for a program. Even Medicaid, she would not be eligible for it. Taking my mother again, say my mother came to this country as a spouse, never worked, was naturalized, was a naturalized citizen for 20 years. Say my father left her and she was destitute. She would not have access to any aid program, cash or noncash, the way the bill is presently drafted. The language before the Senate simply deletes this language and keeps a class of ``American citizen'' as one class. If you are naturalized, you are as good as someone who is born anywhere in this great country. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, July 18, 1995. Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Kennedy: This letter follows your question to Attorney General Janet Reno regarding the constitutionality of the deeming provisions in pending immigration legislation at the Senate Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing on June 27. You have asked for our views regarding the ``deeming'' provisions of section 204 of S. 269, Senator Simpson's proposed immigration legislation. Our comment here is limited to the questions raised by application of section 204 to naturalized citizens. We have serious concerns about section 204's constitutionality as applied to naturalized citizens. So applied, the deeming provisions would operate to deny, or reduce eligibility for, a variety of benefits including student financial assistance and welfare benefits to certain United States citizens because they were born outside the country. This appears to be an unprecedented result. Current federal deeming provisions under various benefits programs operate only as against aliens, (see e.g., 42 U.S.C. Sec. 615 (AFDC); 7 U.S.C. 2014(i) (Food Stamps) and we are not aware of any comparable restrictions on citizen eligibility for federal assistance. As a matter of policy, we think it would be a mistake to begin now to relegate naturalized citizens-- who have demonstrated their commitment to our country by undergoing the naturalization process--to a kind of second- class status. The provision might be defended legally on the grounds that it is an exercise of Congress' plenary authority to regulate immigration and naturalization, or, more specifically, to set the terms under which persons may enter the United States and become citizens. See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976); Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1982). We are not convinced that this defense would prove persuasive. Though Congress undoubtedly has power to impose conditions precedent on entry and naturalization, the provision at issue here would function as a condition subsequent, applying to entrants even after they become citizens. It is not at all clear that Congress' immigration and naturalization power extends this far. While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted [constitutional eligibility for President], becomes a member of the society, possessing all the [[Page S 13591]] rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simply power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 166 (1964) (internal quotations omitted) (statutory restriction on length foreign residence applied to naturalized but not native born citizens violates Fifth Amendment equal protection component). Alternatively, it might be argued in defense of the provision that it classifies not by reference to citizenship at all, but rather on the basis of sponsorship; only those naturalized citizens with sponsors will be affected. Again, we have doubts about whether this characterization of the provision would be accepted. State courts have rejected an analogous position with respect to state deeming provisions, finding that the provisions constitute impermissible discrimination based on alienage despite the fact that they reach only sponsored aliens. See Barannikov v. Town of Greenwich, 643 A.2d 251, 263-64 (Conn. 1994); El Souri v. Dep't of Social Services, 414 N.W. 2d 679, 682-83 (Mich. 1987). Because the deeming provision in question here, as applied to citizens, is directed at and reaches only naturalized citizens, the same reasoning would compel the conclusion that it constitutes discrimination against naturalized citizens. Cf. Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 9 (1977) (``The important points are that [the law] is directed at aliens and that only aliens are harmed by it. The fact that the statute is not an absolute bar does not mean that it does not discriminate against the class.'') Invalidating state law denying some, but not all, resident aliens financial assistance for higher education. So understood, the deeming provision, as applied to citizens, would contravene the basic equal protection tenet that ``the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.'' Schneider, 377 U.S. at 165. To the same effect, the provision might be viewed as a classification based on national origin; among citizens otherwise eligible for government assistance, the class excluded by operation of the deeming provision is limited to those born outside the United States. A classification based on national origin, of course, is subject to strict scrutiny under equal protection review, see Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), and it is unlikely that the deeming provision could be justified under this standard. See Barannikova 643 A.2d at 265 (invalidating state deeming provision under strict scrutiny); El Souri, 414 N.W.2d at 683 (same). The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, Andrew Fois, Assistant Attorney General. Exhibit 2 City of New York, Office of the Mayor, New York, NY, September 12, 1995. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feinstein: As the Senate moves to consideration of welfare reform legislation, I want to share my serious concerns with you about the legal immigrant provisions included in this bill. As the Mayor of New York City, a city that has benefited immensely from the economic, cultural, and social contributions of immigrants, I am particularly troubled by unprecedented efforts to limit benefits to legal immigrants and unfairly target them. The Senate welfare reform package, for the first time, would impose extraordinary restrictions on qualified immigrants' access to many federal benefit programs. The Senate proposal would also extend sponsor deeming to a broad range of programs not presently covered by deeming restrictions. This proposal is likely to restrict benefits to some legal immigrants even after they become naturalized citizens, thereby creating a second class of U.S. citizenship. Like yourself, I believe that extending deeming beyond citizenship is unwise public policy and may prove unconstitutional, and I support your efforts to end deeming upon citizenship. In addition, I also support your attempts to limit deeming to cash assistance programs only and not to Medicaid or other non-cash assistance programs. While the denial of benefits to legal immigrants is patently unfair to taxpaying residents, it will also result in considerable cost-shifting to local and state governments. Because the federal government has sole responsibility over immigration policy, it must bear the concomitant responsibility of serving the legal immigrants it permits to enter states and localities. I am deeply concerned that denying benefits to legal immigrants or extending deeming beyond citizenship will not eliminate needs and, subsequently, force state and local governments to bear the financial consequences of unwise policy decisions. The Senate welfare reform package fails to provide states and localities with funding for expected high administrative costs associated with implementing this proposal, and is an unfunded mandate that New York and other cities should not have to bear. Finally, I am concerned about potential efforts to amend the Senate bill and federalize many of the harshest provisions from California's Proposition 187. Such an approach would deny services to illegal immigrants without regard to the dangers it would create for American cities. The problems of illegal immigration in our country is the result of the federal government's inability to patrol its borders and implement an effective deportation strategy. Adoption of a federal Proposition 187 will do nothing to address the overall problem of illegal immigration, but instead will further highlight the federal government's failure to enforce adequately our nation's immigration laws and policies. If California's Proposition 187 becomes the law of the land, the results for cities heavily impacted by illegal immigration, such as New York, would be catastrophic. I urge you to consider these possible scenarios. Faced with the threat of deportation, many families would forego needed medical care, keep their children out of school, and refuse to report crime, or act as a witness in criminal cases. Immigrant children kept out of school would be denied their only chance at assimilation and productive futures, and, as a result, many turn to the streets, and illegal activities. Communicable diseases might well would go untreated if immigrants are denied access to treatment. In addition, many crimes would go unreported by illegal immigrants desperate to avoid contact with the police. As the Senate debates welfare reform legislation over the coming days, I am hopeful that the Senate will approve your amendments and remove the bill's burdensome restrictions placed on legal immigrants, and oppose any efforts to federalize Proposition 187. Thank you for your good work on this bill and for your consideration of New York City's views on this important legislation. Sincerely, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mayor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is supported by the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the American Bar Association. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Bar Association and the Governors' Association be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared on both sides. What the amendment does is require procedures for a child support order for the child of minor parents, where the mother is receiving assistance for the child, to be enforceable against the paternal grandparents of the child. For just a moment--what the Dole bill does is require a minor mother and her child to live at home with her parents, so the maternal parents are responsible. What my amendment would do is say, where it is possible, a child support order should be obtained against the parents of the male involved. It takes two to tango in this instance, and the responsibility for the care of the child should not only belong to the maternal grandparents but the paternal as well. So this solves the other half of the problem.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I rise to oppose this Graham-Bumpers formula. I must say--and I say it respectfully--this formula is sudden death for California. It will cost California about $1 billion. It is enormous in its impact. There is no fiscal year in which California comes close to what is offered in the Dole bill, and I think the Dole bill formula is bad for California. So that is why I say this is sudden death. Frankly, I respect the Senator from Arkansas very much, but how a formula can be justified, which essentially says we will reward States who do very little for their poor people and we will seriously disadvantage States that are willing to do more for their poor people, I have a hard time understanding that logic. This is a Government that has practiced devolution. This is a Government that has said more and more that it is the responsibility of the State. Yet, in this bill, they seek to punish those who have a high maintenance of effort. For California, over the 5-year period, this bill will cost $1 billion. The impact is enormous. There is no amendment that has been proposed that has a greater negative impact on the State of California than does this. I thank the Senator and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 2 years ago today, my colleagues and I were privileged to witness a historic moment on the White House lawn: the signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles. Today, on behalf of myself, Senator Brown, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Pell I am submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on this important anniversary. This resolution very simply expresses the Senate's support for the declaration of principles, its recognition of the progress that has been achieved in the Middle East peace process, and its commitment to help the process reach a successful conclusion. The Middle East has changed so much in the last 4 years that we often take the changes for granted. But it sometimes bears reviewing how much has been achieved in such a short time. 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, Israeli and 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 on August 21 when a suicide bomber blew up a bus in Jerusalem, killing one American and four 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 of 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 not 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 [[Page S 13547]] 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. The resolution I am submitting today presents an opportunity for the Senate to mark an important milestone on the long road to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. As we take note of this day, 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia, because I believe this is a very important amendment. Let me quickly sum up how my amendment, I believe, improves the underlying bill. In the Dole bill, 31 States have their funding frozen at fiscal year 1994 levels for the next 5 years. Funding is frozen despite very tough mandates to States which require a minimum work participation rate, which CBO says, as late as last night, only 10 to 15 States will be able to meet. Those States that cannot meet the minimum work participation rate will have a penalty of 5 percent with another 5 percent from the State, or a 10-percent cut in funds, and all but 19 States are locked out of the so-called growth formula. So this is major. What I would like to say to my colleagues who represent the 31 States that are frozen out of the Dole bill is this: Not only will your State be required to meet that mandate, not only will your State receive no additional funding for child care or job training to meet the mandate, and even though your State will almost definitely experience an increase in poor population, your funding is frozen. This bill, my amendment, takes the language of the House which says that the poor population of the State, as reflected by the census, will be used to determine the growth allocation. And, in fact, 27 States increase their funding under my amendment over the Dole bill. Those charts have been distributed to you, and I urge, if you are one of those 27 States, that you vote for this amendment. The amendment is fair. It is as the House does it. It simply says the census determines the numbers and the money for growth is accommodated in that way. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. [[Page S 13317]]

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. These tables show how 28 States would gain as a difference between what the Dole bill would give and what this amendment would provide. For the most part, many of these are States with a higher benefit level. These States have decided they were going to spend what they needed to spend to have a poor family be able to exist in their States. What I object to about the Dole bill is that a State is locked out because a State has had a high benefit level and a maintenance of effort and has been willing to provide for their people. Now, they are frozen out of the growth fund. California, the biggest State, with the most poor people: there is nothing in the growth fund for California. And the reason that is being given is, well, you do not deserve any money because you fund half of $607 a month from California taxpayers to support poor people. So, because California and these 27 other States have had a higher maintenance of effort, and said we are going to fund poor people, suddenly they are left out of any growth fund. There is no hold harmless. They are left out. They are locked out, and that is what I object to in this language. You can come to California, or any high cost-of-living State, and attempt to live. And it is very much tougher. This is the way the formula has been figured now for over a half century--based on a state match. The Hutchison formula is a stark change from that. But it is a penalty. And it says if you have funded your poor people in the past, as a State, you are now not going to figure into the growth formula. So let me say another thing. The House of Representatives in its wisdom has passed a formula which is straight across the board based on growth in a State. The only difference in what they did and what I am suggesting we do is base it on growth of poor people. If a State wants to support their poor population, I think that is fine. If they do not, what we are saying, if the Hutchison language is accepted, is, therefore, the Federal Government should reward them for not doing it by providing a growth fund for them. And I frankly cannot agree as someone who has participated in local government helping make some of these decisions. I simply cannot agree that that is the fair way to do it. So we have presented this. Again 28 States benefit, I have given the amounts. Twenty-two States lose money in this way. But I believe it is fair. It is based on a census as ratified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. How much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield my 33 seconds. Amendment No. 2501

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In deference to my opponents on this issue, and I very much respect them, there is really a difference in viewpoint here. Let me explain where I am coming from. For more than a half a century, the way the Federal allocation has been determined has been based on a State determination of benefit level, so a State decides what its cost of living is, how much it needs to sustain a poor family, and sets that amount. And then the Federal Government matches that amount. Suddenly, what is being said, as I hear it, is those States that had low benefit levels or what amounts to a very low maintenance of effort are now going to be rewarded with a growth fund. California's grant is $607 a month because California decided that the basic cost of living necessary for a family was at least that. And California would put up one half of it. If a State like Alabama, for example, decides that they only want to put up $164, then the Federal Government only matches a percentage of that amount. Where the arguments made on the other side of the aisle do not ring true to me is only 19 States are benefited in the Dole bill with the growth fund. That means any other State that has growth is not going to get any money under this bill. In the Feinstein amendment, 28 States have a net benefit over the language. Let me tell you which they are and what the additional annual amount is, over and above the Dole bill, by the fifth year. Alaska, $2,029,000; California, $64,922,000; Delaware, $1,217,000; Hawaii, $2,840,000; Idaho, $289,000; Illinois, $9,062,000; Indiana, $6.627 million; Iowa, $2.164 million; Kansas, $3.381 million; Kentucky, $4.058 million; Maryland, $6.763 million; Michigan, $5.275 million; Minnesota, $5.816 million; Missouri, $4.058 million; Nebraska, $1.758 million; Nevada, $2.488 million, New Hampshire, $812,000, New Jersey, $5.545 million; New York, $1.217 million; North Dakota, $135,000. Ohio, $7.709 million; Oklahoma, $2.840 million; Oregon, $7.304 million; Pennsylvania, $5.004 million; Vermont, $271,000. State of Washington, $16.095 million; West Virginia, $541,000. Wisconsin, $6.492 million; Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the comparison tables be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak for as much time as I may use.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. Mr. President, I withdraw my reservation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me try to be succinct as to how this amendment would change the Dole bill. Essentially what the Dole bill does, as drafted, is present a growth fund for the next 5 years of $877 million. It then submits a formula under which that growth fund is disbursed. The formula would provide funds only to 19 States. You cannot convince me that only 19 States are going to grow in terms of poor families in this Nation. So what I have tried to do is come up with a fair formula that measures the growth of poor families. The House bill has a formula in it which measures the growth of people and then applies that to this bill. Ours is very similar to the House, with one distinction, and the distinction is that it would use the census data to count the increase in poor families to determine how the growth money is spent. The House uses the census data to count the increase in the general population. Then, the way in which the growth money is spent is simply: The percentage of growth is divided into the overall total growth. In that way, every State is accommodated, and the growth funds are distributed to each state proportionate to its share of the total growth. Specifically, it would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publish every 2 years data relating to the incidence of poverty. The methodology employed mirrors title 13 of the United States Code, section 141(a) of the census statute, and as I have said, is the same as the House welfare reform bill. So people should know that what we are doing is simply following the way the census produces the material, under current law, and then empowering the Secretary of Health and Human Services to disburse funds according to the results of that data, and proportionate to each state's share of the total growth in poor people. There is no additional cost associated with this amendment. I would like to add that all States are being held harmless; in other words, no State's grant would be reduced if that State experiences a decline in poor population. According to the present population projections, four States are expected to experience an actual decline of population. They are Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. These States are all held harmless in this amendment. If, of course, the projections prove wrong and those States do experience an increase, because no one can actually predict future growth, they will receive their fair share of the growth formula. If I may, I would like to contrast this with the approach taken in the underlying bill. Eight hundred seventy-seven million dollars over 5 years is authorized in this bill to accommodate growth. As I said, only 19 States are funded with this growth formula. Under the Dole bill, the 19 States receive automatic additional funding, 2.5 percent of their 1996 grant, in each of fiscal years 1997 to 2000 if, one, their State's welfare spending is less than the national average level of State spending and, two, their rate of population growth is greater than the national average population growth. For reasons which are unclear, certain States are deemed as qualifying if their level of State welfare spending per poor person is less than 35 percent of the national average level of State welfare spending per poor person in fiscal year 1996. So Federal taxpayers are being asked to spend almost $1 billion over 5 years in the name of growth. But, in fact, the result is that States that, until now, have spent less than the average level of State spending in assisting their poor will now be subsidized by taxpayers from all 50 States. I think that is plain wrong. The State with the greatest growth--and that is California--is significantly disadvantaged because its funding is frozen for the next 5 years. I have distributed a letter with our proposal, with the Dole-Hutchison formula in it and with the difference. So there are three charts on everyone's desk tonight so everybody can look up their State. Certainly, the 19 States recognized in the Dole bill--and I know Senator Hutchison will comment on this--will be cut back somewhat so that everybody could have a fair share of the growth fund based on the actual growth of poor people in their State as determined by the Bureau of the Census. What could be fairer than that? If in the census you achieve more people, the growth fund is there to give you your percent share of the total growth fund. So I will yield the floor for the moment. I know Senator Hutchison would like to debate this.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank you for the recognition, and I speak to amendment No. 2469, which was earlier offered, which has to do with the growth formula provided for in this bill. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor to the legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I returned from a 6-day trip to China, during which time I spent more than 20 hours in meetings with top-level Chinese officials, including 4 hours with the President of the country, Jiang Zemin, Vice Premier Zhu Rongji, and senior Foreign Ministry officials. We held wide-ranging discussions on a number of important issues in the United States-China relationship, including several issues which have caused the most serious strain between our two countries since relations were established in 1979. I believe that these talks were informative and constructive for both sides. And I would like to share with my colleagues some of the major elements of those discussions and my observations as a result of this trip. I first met the President of China while I was mayor of San Francisco. In 1979, the first of my 9 years as mayor, I forged a sister city relationship with Shanghai, the first such relationship between an American and a Chinese city. Jiang Zemin became mayor of Shanghai in 1985. And we became good friends as we negotiated agreements and overseas projects between our two cities. As partners in this endeavor, we vowed to shrink the vast Pacific Ocean that divides us into a small river across which communication, trade and an exchange of ideas could easily flow. That was 10 years ago. Jiang Zemin is now President of China, and he leads a nation of 1.2 billion people. Over the last 20 years, I have visited China many times and spent a great deal of time studying its people, its culture, and its political dynamism. I have talked with China scholars and read avidly about this complicated country and its rich 5,000-year history. Few nations rival China's strategic importance to the United States. China is the largest country in the world, one of the largest economies, one of only five declared nuclear powers, and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The cold war Soviet axis of power has dissolved in the last 5 years, and as Russia struggles with democracy and works to regain its military and economic stability, China's emerging presence will most certainly shape the balance of power in Asia and in the world. I wrote to President Jiang on July 11 and expressed my deep concern about the state of United States-China relations. Issues that divide the United States and China today have increasingly prevented a productive exchange of views. And the detention of human rights activist Harry Wu, now an American citizen and resident in my State, had effectively blocked all lines of communication between our two countries. In my letter, I offered to come to China to discuss the case of Mr. Wu and other matters. President Jiang wrote back and accepted, saying he would welcome my visit to Beijing. My husband and I left on August 17 for Beijing and Shanghai. We met privately with President Jiang for 2 hours and then were joined by Senator and Mrs. Johnston for dinner with the President. Our discussions with President Jiang were very frank and candid on matters pertaining to relations between our two countries, particularly the issues of Taiwan, the recent visit of Lee Teng-hui, and the detention of Harry Wu. I delivered a message to President Jiang from President Clinton that he would be most appreciative of any assistance that the Chinese President could provide in the matter of Harry Wu, that Mr. Wu's release would remove an obstacle of communication between the United States and China, and that President Clinton looked forward to meeting with Jiang Zemin to chart a new and mutually beneficial course for Sino-American relations. President Jiang sent an emissary to me on the morning of my departure from Shanghai with the message that Harry Wu would be released, quite possibly before I left China later that day, which did, in fact, happen just that way. As I left from the Shanghai airport, I saw the Air China flight that was being held for Harry Wu, who was right then on a flight from Wuhan, although I did not know it for sure at that time. With the status of Mr. Wu resolved, the United States, and President Clinton in particular, now have a historic opportunity to chart the course of United States-China relations into the 21st century. This will not be an easy road. China and the United States have many differences in culture, in our political systems, in our economic and legal structures. However, what many Americans may not understand is that today we also have many common interests. But the opportunity to bridge our differences and build on our common interests is wholly dependent upon dialogue, something sorely lacking at this time. At this moment the United States and China have no ambassadors in each other's country, although I understand that this situation will now be partially remedied with the announcement that Ambassador Li Daoyu will soon return to Washington. One example of the effect of a lack of diplomatic communication is the visit of Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui to the United States in June. Although, as a U.S. Senator, I understood that there is no more important policy for China than the status of Taiwan as part of China, I and other Senators voted to allow the visit. I never heard from China that what we considered to be a personal visit by an alumnus of an American university would cause such a rift in our relations, and I was stunned by the intense reaction of the Chinese officials. President Jiang told me that he learned of the decision to allow Lee Teng-hui's visit by reading it in a newspaper. The Chinese were, in turn, stunned by the insensitivity and lack of communication from the United States on what they saw as a major shift in policy toward their country, particularly since they were assured as late as mid-May that U.S. policy would be to refuse such a visit. In an action that further convinced China that they were seeing an emboldened Taiwan, the day Lee Teng-hui left for the United States, Taiwan held joint military army, navy and air force exercises off the coast of China. Also, Lee Teng-hui broached a Two Chinas Policy in a speech at Cornell, further inciting Beijing. And no one should think that Beijing did not take this seriously. All of this may have been avoided with consistent and frank dialogue between Beijing and Washington. Reopening and strengthening diplomatic channels of communication is but one, albeit critical, step in building a new relationship with China. As important as what we seek from China in the way of human rights, open markets and Democratic reform is how we communicate ideals. Americans have a tendency to tell China what to do instead of trying to understand what China needs and how it is to China's interests to do some things. And it is time that we learned that this will not be the most effective method of encouraging change in China. Much has changed in China since I first visited in 1979. People speak much more freely. Consumer goods from China and all over the world are available more than ever before. The standard of living is up. And privatization of formerly Government-controlled industries is taking hold. When I was there 2 years ago, only 8 percent of the industries were in private hands. Now 20 percent are either in joint venture or private hands, about 40 percent controlled by the central Government, and 40 percent in state cooperatives. A Western-style marketplace in the form of an economic democracy is, in fact, taking place. The question we must ask ourselves is, Can an economic democracy exist long term without a social democracy following? I believe the answer to that is no. But make no mistake, China today is a Communist country. But by encouraging open markets and privatization of industries, we are exposing China to democracy in a much more effective manner than by calling for it on the front pages of our newspapers or by [[Page S 13309]] making threats we cannot afford to carry out. The effects of China's move to a free market economy can already be felt in Chinese social life. Shanghai television, for example, has had programs that include a show similar to America's ``All in the Family,'' which ran for 180 episodes, with the Chinese version of Archie Bunker, a stodgy Communist Party official, something I never thought I would see. Also, there is a ``60 Minutes'' type Shanghai program that exposes Government institutions to questioning--unique in the context of China's long and complicated history. I believe we will witness even greater changes in the next decade, which can bring China even closer to the West. China's legal system and concept of individual rights is still primitive by western standards. I believe that the most consequential influence on the human rights situation in China will be the evolution of an independent judiciary and the development of a new set of civil and criminal laws. Today in China, judges are not independent, either from individual or party persuasion, and there is no real criminal statute on the books to make it a crime to interfere with a judge. So this needs change. China has asked for help in the evolution of its legal system. The development of due process of law, which in this country guarantees that no one can be picked up by the Government in the middle of the night and simply disappear, is something that is going to make a huge difference in China, and a new civil and criminal code could go a long way toward meaningful human rights advances. While I was in China, the China daily front page carried articles saying that China welcomed help in evolving a new system of civil and criminal codes. This could go much further in securing major human rights advances, constitutionally and legally, than any rhetoric in this country. Those in the West who care should utilize this opportunity in a sensitive way to bring many of the virtues of a western legal system to Chinese attention. I believe it is the most significant thing we can do long term. There are those in this country, I believe, who are unconsciously pushing Sino-American relations into an adversarial position, reminiscent of the days of the Soviet Union. The world was, in a sense, much simpler then: Two major conflicting powers, with smaller nations lining up in each camp. This was good for weapons sales, it repressed many smaller national and ethnic rivalries which are now emerging in the form of civil wars, and it provided a clear role for China as a major geopolitical buffer. Those days, however, are gone. China has emerged from these changes as a booming economy with the highest rate of economic growth in the world, gradually reducing centralized control of its economy and opening its doors to western entrepreneurship and thought. All one has to do is contrast Russia today and China to see how centralized control in China has been gradually reduced, keeping stability, opening up entrepreneurship, creating an economic democracy and doing it in a much more successful way. So I believe that how America develops its relationship with China is critical for world peace and stability. Ever since President Nixon traveled to China in 1972, the United States has maintained a one-China policy. It has been the foundation of Sino-American relations. That policy essentially says that there is only one China and Taiwan is part of China, and it recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. This policy was stated in the 1972 Shanghai communique, the 1979 joint communique on the establishment of diplomatic relations, and the 1982 United States-China joint communique. The one-China policy was and is essential to United States-China relations. It remains essential today. If China has any doubts about our commitment to this policy, our ability to conduct normal relations with China will be severely curtailed. For China, the question of Taiwan is an issue of sovereignty, and we must understand it as such. Taiwan has developed well, even within these constraints and, in fact, Taiwan interests have the largest dollar amount of investment on mainland China. Communication has been established and a special across-the-straits initiative has been developed under the leadership of another friend and former Shanghai mayor, Wang DaoHan and Tang Shu Bei, former consul general in San Francisco. The one-China policy has been beneficial for all three parties: China and the United States have been able to pursue a normal diplomatic relationship, while Taiwan has become economically strong and prosperous. Meanwhile, Taiwan and China have both encouraged the development of extensive economic and cultural ties across the Taiwan Straits. There are many issues still to resolve with China, as we develop our relationship in the post-cold-war era. Consistent and open dialog is key. President Jiang told me of an old Chinese proverb: When water flows, there will be a channel. I truly believe that President Clinton now has the unique opportunity to craft a new course which can result in a stable and secure Asia, free of nuclear proliferation, a serious commitment to arms control, and one that sees China takes its rightful place as a leading nation at the world table. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.