Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have been listening very carefully to this debate; this discussion. I think it is fair to say that there are some who believe this debate is a battle for the Nation's soul. There are others who believe it is a battle for the Nation's heart. And there are some, I among them, who believe that it is a battle for the Nation's future. At its best, welfare reform can contribute to the work ethic and upward mobility of large numbers of people. At its worst, it can fuel poverty and desperation, and it can take us back to those days best characterized by Charles Dickens in some of his novels. The results of our actions here will be evaluated by generations to come. I truly believe that the ultimate test of a civilization is, as Albert Schweitzer once stated, a civilization is known by how that civilization treats the least among them. So I sincerely hope that one day we will be judged as having met the challenge of welfare reform with light rather than heat and with practical solutions. I know there are many who believe they have all the answers, but the ultimate test of whether we succeed in what we do here is whether more people will be working tomorrow than today, and whether more people will be able to support themselves than today, and whether children will be better off or worse off. Any bill for welfare reform, I think, because of the gravity of the situation in the largest State in the Union--California, must be looked at by how it impacts that State. California today comprises 12.3 percent of our Nation's population, with more than 32 million residents. It has 18.6 percent of the country's welfare caseload. It is home to 38 percent of all legal immigrants, including 42 percent of the Nation's immigrants who receive SSI. It has one-third of the Nation's drug- or alcohol-addicted SSI caseload, and almost one-fifth of the national AFDC caseload. So I believe it is fair to say that any successful welfare bill will have a major and dramatic impact on virtually every walk of life in the State of California. Let me begin by laying out what I think are the necessary components of any successful welfare reform bill and how it relates to California. The first issue is entitlements. I believe that the consensus is broad that the time has come to eliminate the entitlement status of welfare. Our system of entitlements has reached a point where there are more people entitled to benefits than there are people willing to provide them. That is a major difficulty. I have had people, particularly young people, tell me that they believe they have a right to welfare. They interpret the entitlement status as giving them a basic right to this program. I do not agree, and I believe that the notion that welfare is a right has, in a sense, contributed to the collapse of the system. People in need should have temporary assistance, but they are not entitled to a lifelong grant. Anyone who has ever had responsibility for running a welfare system knows the challenges, but one of the biggest challenges is the welfare bureaucracy itself. I remember somebody bringing to the floor a pile of documents that it took to qualify somebody into a categorical aid program and the documents were quite high. The more top down our welfare system has become, the less effectively it has served its purpose. As a former mayor and a county supervisor, and now a Senator, I have dealt with every conceivable layer of bureaucracy in the administration of public benefit programs. But I truly believe it is at the local level, the counties, where welfare has seen some of its most innovative and successful reforms. For example, and it has been mentioned here earlier, specifically with one county, several California counties have instituted a program called GAIN. Everybody is familiar with it: Greater Avenues for Independence. One county, Riverside, has returned $2.84 to the taxpayers for every $1 spent on its GAIN Program. In Los Angeles, the results from the GAIN Program have been equally impressive. Working with 30,000 long-time welfare recipients who have been employed for more than 3 years, the Los Angeles GAIN Program has a current placement rate of 34 percent, which is very high as these things go. Followup studies in Los Angeles reveal a 60 percent retention rate, indicating that the majority have not cycled back to welfare. San Mateo and San Diego Counties have each created successful job search programs, cutting administrative costs and moving people into private-sector employment. San Mateo last year put an unprecedented 85 percent of the people in the program to work. Enforcement of child support obligations, I believe, is the single most important welfare reform measure from the California perspective, because one of the principal causes of poverty in my State is the absence of child support, the last time I looked at this. Almost 3 million people in California receive AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children]. Now, that is a caseload larger than the entire populations of many of the States represented in this body. Currently, the combined annual cost to Federal, State, and local government is $7 billion for the AFDC Program. Since 1980, the total AFDC costs for California have tripled, from $1.9 billion in 1980 to $5.6 billion in 1993. During that same period, births to unmarried teen mothers rose by 76 percent. Now, it is true that this is not a large portion of the caseload. However, mothers who had their first child as teenagers comprise more than half of our entire AFDC caseload. So while teen mothers may be a small number, but the finding of the California experience is that once teenagers enter welfare, it is difficult to get them to leave the program. I believe it takes two people to bring a child into this world, and as a society we must demand that both parents be responsible for supporting the child. So strong child support must be an essential component of welfare reform. Of course, as has also been said by many in this debate, child care remains the linchpin to a successful transition from welfare to work. In the California experience, the shortage of affordable child care is a critical and overwhelming problem for the State and for local communities. Our State spends $840 million annually on child care. Another $200 million of Federal funds goes into this. That is more than $1 billion [[Page S 11831]] for child care, and we still meet the needs of less than 30 percent of the families who are eligible for child care. This is the catch-22 of the Dole-Packwood bill for California. In San Diego, Federal funds provide a total of 1,636 child care positions. Yet, there are 11,663 eligible families on the waiting list. The odds of getting a child care spot in the present system are 1 in 14. In San Francisco, with combined State and Federal funds, there are 8,000 child care spaces. But, there are 6,000 eligible families on the waiting list. So this is one simple issue of common sense. You cannot move millions of mothers into the work force if there are not enough child care options available for them. Let me talk for a moment about welfare fraud, because it is a real problem and it must be addressed, particularly in the Food Stamp Program. My understanding is that an investigation by the Secret Service last year estimated that food stamp fraud alone costs taxpayers at least $2 billion a year. I am very pleased that both bills--the Dole-Packwood bill, as well as the Democratic leadership bill--have built in legislation which I introduced last week to enact strong provisions to permanently disqualify merchants who knowingly submit fraudulent claims, and to double the penalties for recipient fraud. But we also must remove Federal obstacles to an electronic benefit system, so that we can eliminate paper coupons and replace them with the counterfeit-proof debit card. I will certainly support efforts to do so. I think it is fair to say that under the Dole-Packwood bill, my State is the biggest loser. And I cannot vote for the bill in its present form for that reason. First of all, I was surprised to see that the bill does not consider California a growth State. No State grows more than California. Yet, in this bill, California is not a growth State. I was pleased when I learned that there would be a new growth fund in the bill, but I might say that the growth fund excludes one of the fastest growing States in the Nation--that is California--so it is not much of a growth fund. For my State this bill is an enormous unfunded mandate. It requires California to achieve levels of work participation five times higher than the present. Yet, it freezes funding at the 1994 level. The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that to operate the work program plus related child care will cost my State more than $4 billion over 5 years. Yet, funding is frozen at the 1994 level. Meeting the work requirements in this bill will result in a need for an 894 percent increase in AFDC-related child care needs. Yet, funding is frozen at the 1994 level. California, as I mentioned, is home to 38 percent of all legal immigrants. But it is also home to more than half, 52 percent, of all legal immigrants who receive Federal welfare. Fifty-two percent of all legal immigrants who receive Federal welfare are in the State of California. I am one who believes immigrants should not come to this country to go on welfare. But this bill takes a problem created by the Federal Government and simply dumps it on the States. It would deny SSI and Medicaid benefits to almost 300,000 legal immigrants who reside in California, resulting in a $6.3 billion cost shift to my State over 5 years. Los Angeles County alone has estimated a loss of $530 million annually under the Republican bill. We cannot just shift the problem. The impact on States and counties must also be addressed. I have already stated that many of the innovations currently under discussion have been pioneered by California counties. I want them to have the ability to continue the work they have begun. Counties--not the State--are on the front lines in California. The Dole-Packwood bill falls far short for States like mine where responsibility for administering welfare has been delegated to the counties. If we are serious about devolving authority to local communities, I see no reason to sustain a two-tiered welfare bureaucracy where the State simply passes the responsibility through to the counties but keeps some of the funding for its own purposes. I want to see the people closest to the problem--the counties--have full control of the Federal funds being allocated to implement this mandate. In conclusion, the legislation currently before the Senate, I believe, fails to reform welfare in a way which will help California or, I believe, the Nation. I believe the alternative proposal by the Democratic leadership is a more cost-effective vehicle for change in my State. The Daschle bill addresses California's concern in the following ways. It accommodates growth; it provides adequate child-care funding; it allows for local government control; it does not dump a huge unfunded mandate on the States with regard to immigrant benefits. For 60 years now, this Nation has been generous to poor families with dependent children. Originally conceived during the Great Depression, AFDC was designed to keep widows at home with their children at a time when women were not valued in the work force. The 1930's were a time when women and children were accorded respect and compassion if they were poor, because they were economically vulnerable. It seems that time has passed. But our goal in these times has not changed. We still need a plan to assist the economically vulnerable, assist them to work and to be independent. So we must do so with training, with child care, and with incentives to work. Surely a nation which could reach for the stars could also eliminate poverty. I have been very fortunate in my life. I have not known poverty, and I have not known hunger. But I have known failure. To me, there are few human experiences that are worse. Yet, our welfare system has rewarded failure and punished success. In the process, we have created not only a dependency on welfare but a dependency on failure. It is overcoming failure which is the challenge before the Senate. I very much hope that in reform we do not throw the baby out with the bath water, and that we also recognize that the American people are no less generous than they were in 1935. Today, perhaps, they are much more practical. They want to know that their tax-paying dollars are going for good, solid, practical programs. I do not believe there are Americans that really want to see youngsters starving in the streets of our communities. They are still willing to help those in need, provided they are willing to help themselves. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 227, the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation introduced by Senator Hatch, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. This bill will allow the United States to finally join more than 60 nations in enacting this same copyright protection for sound recordings. The bill before us, today, essentially closes a glaring loophole in the Copyright Act which had denied protection to recording artists and record companies ever since the copyright was first extended to sound recordings in 1972. This legislation would create a right to public performance in digital transmissions and give copyright owners the ability to negotiate the use of their works in new technologies. Every other copyrighted work--motion pictures, books, plays, computer software and musical compositions--already has this protection. It is time to bring the law up to date for sound recordings. Senator Hatch and I first introduced a version of this bill in the 103d Congress. Since that time, we have heard from literally hundreds of interested parties from all affected sides. We have had input from broadcasters, cable companies, consumers, songwriters, music publishers, artists, record companies, and more. Many of those affected by the legislation have had suggestions on how to make it better and more responsive to the marketplace. I would like to commend Senator Hatch and his staff and thank them for working so hard with us to assure that all of the legitimate concerns with the original legislation were so thoughtfully addressed. Senators Biden, Leahy, and Thurmond and their staffs deserve credit as well. Every copyright expert who testified before the Judiciary Committee, including those from the nonpartisan U.S. Copyright Office, agreed that this legislation needs to be enacted. The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act helps move our copyrighted industries closer to the Information Superhighway. A road where consumers will have access to new music and exciting artists delivered to the consumer in technology advanced ways beyond what we might have imagined when we first heard the Victrola, or even stereo sound. As these new technologies develop and as we enter this digital and computer age, the protection of America's intellectual property has taken on a tremendous urgency. [[Page S 11960]] The inequities of the current law are best illustrated by a real- world example: when a digital music service, paid for with a subscription fee and available via a consumer's cable TV box, play a piece of recorded music from a compact disc, such as ``White Christmas'' performed by Bing Crosby, the songwriter and music publisher, in this case Irving Berlin, have rights and receive payment for the performance of that work. Yet while Irving Berlin is compensated, Bing Crosby, the recording artist who brought the song to life, and the record company which invested the moneys to record and distribute the album would receive nothing. We have chosen to be forward thinking with this legislation, to enable Congress to close a loophole which threatens to grow immensely in the near future. With new digital technology, a transmission service, simply by acquiring a single copy of a compact disc, can deliver CD-quality sound electronically to millions of homes and cars, without any payment to the creators of that recorded music. The hundreds of thousands of consumers who love new music could make perfect copies of the one CD. Potentially millions of perfect copies of this CD can be made electronically. Why would anyone go to a record store in the future if they were able to receive music this way? Why should the digital transmission businesses be making money by selling music when they are not paying the creators who have produced that music? If this should occur without copyright protection, investment in recorded music will decline, as performers and record companies produce recordings which are widely distributed without compensation to them. This would result in the decline of what presently constitutes one of America's most important, productive and competitive industries. America's copyright industries contributed a staggering 3.7 percent to the Nation's gross domestic product in 1993. That's a contribution of $238.6 billion, Mr. President. Between 1977 and 1993, the number of workers employed by those industries doubled to 3 million, 2.55 percent of our work force. Over the last 5 years, employment in this sector has grown at four times the rate of jobs in other sectors. And, perhaps most significant of all in this context, these industries together achieved foreign sales of $45.8 billion in 1993. Amazingly, that was the second biggest single contribution to America's balance of trade in 1993 among all industries, second only to autos and their parts. My home State of California has been a particular beneficiary of this growth. It is an important home to the music industry, the industry whose copyright protection we are specifically addressing today. California's music community is home to over 100,000 jobs, including recording, manufacturing, distribution and retail. These are the jobs of the future, and I am pleased that this legislation will assure the continued viability of these important businesses and creative endeavors. More than 60 nations, including 9 members of the European Community, provide their rightsholders with a performance right. $150 million is collected worldwide for the public performance of sound recordings. The United States is the world's leading exporter of recorded music, with American artists accounting for 35 percent of all music sold worldwide. However, because the United States does not reciprocate in providing this performance right, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reports that U.S. performers and record companies are denied access to these substantial royalties. Rectifying this disparity will obviously benefit this very important export sector of our economy. Moreover, I'm told that the lack of a performance right has been a major obstacle to the efforts of our trade negotiators to achieve higher levels of intellectual property protection in general. The Senate today can help eliminate this obstacle. This legislation would provide equity, Mr. President. Equity for the digital transmitters who would be assured that new music was available for their services. Equity for consumers who would be assured that new and varied music continues to get recorded and produced. Equity for the creators and producers of music who invest their talent, effort and dollars in sound recordings. In sum, as I detailed in my Record statement of January 13 when we introduced this bill, and at the hearing on this bill in March, passing this legislation is the right thing to do as a matter of copyright policy, it's the fair thing to do, and it is clearly in the best economic interests of the Nation. I urge its adoption. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have a hard time, Mr. President, saying my name now in 30 seconds, but I will try. I basically believe that this is a bad amendment, and the reason I believe it is a bad amendment is because it makes women in the Federal work force second-class citizens. The amount of taxpayer money in this is minimal, maybe $1 per $1,000. The fact is that most private health care plans afford a woman this opportunity. The arguments on abortion on demand, I think, are ridiculous. That is not real life, that is not the way women are. So I believe the amendment that passed earlier this morning is the amendment that we should abide by. And in that respect, I am very hopeful there will be a very strong vote. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Maryland. Mr. President, I rise in support of the committee amendment and in opposition to the motion to table. The reason I do so is because it is my belief, Mr. President, that the motion to table is a first step of a long march to remove a woman's right to choose. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is a network of plans that has been estimated to cover about 9 million people: Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents. About 44 percent of these people are women. According to estimates, about 1.2 million of these women are of reproductive age. So, if we accept the motion to table, we are saying to 1.2 million women, no matter what your circumstances are, ``We, the U.S. Senate, know more about your circumstances than you do, more about your circumstances than your doctor knows.'' If successful, I believe there will be another, and then another attack against a woman's right to choose. If those backing this motion have their way, politicians will once again govern a woman's reproductive system. And that will take us back to the days I remember well, the days of the back-alley abortion. A woman, regardless of her religious beliefs, regardless of her doctor's advice, will be governed by the advice, the will, the law of the U.S. Senate. It does not seem to matter to people that women often find themselves confronted by a myriad of circumstances. It does not happen to matter that if a woman is raped leaving the Hart, the Russell, or the Dirksen Senate Office Building one night, we are prepared to say that she will be forced to carry a resulting pregnancy to term. No matter what the circumstance, no matter how terrible, no matter how traumatic, if she is a Federal employee, she is on her own if she needs an abortion. It is ironic to me that many of the same legislators who opposed national health care reform because they claimed it interfered with a woman's ability or a person's ability to choose their own insurance coverage and health care are the same Members who will vote to deny Federal employees the ability to choose abortion coverage in their insurance plans. These same people who have long advocated that Government get off the backs of the people are willing to put Government right back on when it comes to a very personal decision about abortion. Our Constitution, the highest law of the land, provides privacy rights for a woman to be able to make this basic decision in consultation with a doctor, if she chooses, and basically to control her own reproductive system. And that is what this is really all about. This motion would declare that Federal female employees are second- class citizens. Although women pay for a percentage of their health care plan, no health care plan would be able to contain reproductive planning services if the Federal Government pays any portion of that plan. She is a second-class citizen because, in fact, two-thirds of all private health care plans do cover abortion and 70 percent of all health maintenance organizations, what we call HMO's, do offer a full range of health care services, including abortion. So if a woman works in the private sector, she has access to these plans. If the motion to table were successful, if a woman works for the Federal Government, she would not have access. As a result, she becomes a second-class citizen. So I believe the issue here is very simple. It is the first step in the long march to say who controls a woman's reproductive system. Is it the Congress of the United States or is it the woman, her beliefs, and her doctor? I am one, frankly, who believes we have many more serious problems to tackle than this one. And I am one, frankly, who is really very shocked to see in this day and age when the state of the art of health insurance plans is to offer reproductive family planning services, including abortion, that the Congress of the United States is willing to take this choice away from 1.2 million women who happen to be Federal employees. And the fact of the matter is, the woman who is denied the right to choose is the lowest paid woman. I thank the Chair. I yield the time----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] which would improve the base closure process by giving more control to the local community in reuse and redevelopment decisions. I am happy to be an original cosponsor of this amendment. Last year I helped draft legislation that exempts military bases from the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. This legislation, the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994, passed Congress and was signed into law by the President last October. Under the new legislation, instead of being given the right of first refusal to base property, homeless assistance providers were given a seat at the reuse table with the local redevelopment authority. After a reuse plan is developed on the local level, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development would review the plan to ensure that the needs of the homeless were met. After the HUD Secretary's approval, the Secretary of Defense would dispose of the buildings and property at the closing base. While the new law is a substantial improvement over the old base closure and reuse law as well as the McKinney Act provisions, I think more should be done to empower communities, put base reuse decisions in the hands of local officials, and remove a Federal mandate. The McCain/Feinstein amendment amends the new law by requiring the Secretary of Defense to simply consult with the Secretary of HUD over the reuse plan that is development by the redeveloped authority; it removes HUD's veto power over the reuse plan. Homeless assistance providers would still be guaranteed a seat at the reuse table, and redevelopment authorities would still be required to accept expressions of interest for base property by homeless assistance groups and other interested parties. In addition, the Secretary of HUD would still review the final reuse plan to ascertain if the needs of the homeless have been met, and have the ability to consult with the redevelopment authority. However, instead of the Secretary of HUD approving or disapproving the reuse plan, the Secretary of Defense would make the final decision. The Secretary of Defense would simply consult with the Secretary of HUD before making any property disposal decisions. Furthermore, the local redevelopment plan--developed by the local community and local elected officials--would be given deference by the Secretary of Defense. I believe this amendment would substantially improve last year's Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act. Yet, this amendment does not go as far as the House of Representative's version of the Defense Authorization Act, which contains an amendment offered by Representatives Bilbray and Molinari. The Bilbray-Molinari amendment would completely repeal the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act and exempt all military bases from the McKinney Act. In addition to disrupting the base reuse process, the Bilbray- Molinari amendment would prevent homeless assistance providers from acquiring base property at no cost--even when communities want to transfer property for homeless use--and would not guarantee that they have a seat at the reuse table. The McCain-Feinstein amendment still guarantees that homeless assistance providers will have an opportunity to acquire base property, but it puts base reuse decisions in the hands of local officials who know what is best for their communities. This amendment also contains some other provisions that will assist in the base closure and reuse process. These include: Base realignments: This provision would make a technical amendment to the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 by including base realignments, in addition to base closures. Current law requires the Secretary of Defense to dispose of base property in accordance with the sometimes outdated Federal Property and Administrative Services Act regulations. This provision allows the Secretary, in consultation with GSA, to prescribe general policies and methods for utilizing excess property and disposing of surplus property which are unique to base closure situations. Lease back of base closure property: This provision would allow base closure property, that is still needed by the Department of Defense or another Federal agency, to be transferred to a local redevelopment authority provided that the LRA leases back the property to DOD or the Federal agency on favorable terms, that is: long term lease, nominal rent. This provision is needed to improve the planning and redevelopment of base closure property by providing local communities with certainty over the future use and availability of the property should the DOD or Federal occupant vacate. Leasing proceeds: This provision would require that leasing proceeds for property at closing or realigning bases be deposited into the BRAC account, rather than a special Treasury account. This would treat leasing proceeds in the same fashion as sale proceeds from BRAC property. It would make additional funds available to base closure and environmental clean-up activities, thus speeding transfer of property to the local community and, thus, economic redevelopment of a closing base. The McCain-Feinstein amendment makes various changes to existing law to improve the base closure and reuse process, and speed economic redevelopment of closing military bases. I urge my colleagues support of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors in support of this amendment be placed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas which provides $10 million for the Troops-to-Cops Program and $42 million for the Troops- to-Teachers Program. I am happy to be an original cosponsor of this important amendment. Senator Pryor has discussed the Troops-to-Teachers Program, and I would like to focus on the Troops-to-Cops Program. The program--administered by the Justice Department in coordination with the Department of Defense--provides $5,000 per officer for training to local police and sheriffs departments to hire former military personnel as law enforcement officers. This funding can be used to support the following: tuition at a police training academy; costs of local ``compliance'' training if the veteran attended an out- of-state police academy; the costs of specialized training in community policing. Local law enforcement agencies can use Troops to Cops funds to pay for training of eligible recently separated military personnel. Troops to Cops was initially authorized in the 1994 DOD authorization bill. Last year, the Appropriations Committee provided $15 million for this program. The fiscal year 1995 funding will provide training assistance for 3,000 former military personnel who elect to become law enforcement officers. I am proposing to provide $10 million more in fiscal year 1996 to provide training for 2,000 more. For an investment of $25 million over 2 years, Congress has an opportunity to help provide good jobs for our former military personnel and make our streets safer. In my view, few Government programs offer such a win-win scenario as this program does. Troops to Cops fills two important needs: It helps our communities recruit quality law enforcement officers; At the same time it utilizes the tremendous wealth of skilled military personnel who are transitioning to new jobs as a result of defense downsizing. Troops to Cops is a transitional benefit for troops affected by downsizing. In fiscal year 1994 alone, 291,000 troops were separated from the armed forces. The Department of Justice is in the process of administering this program as a part of the overall COPS Program. Applications for the funds are due on August 15, 1995, and the COPS office anticipates making its awards by the end of September. The delay in implementation of this program is due to the emphasis on actually getting the crime bill's funding for officers to the police and sheriff's departments. Troops to Cops is follow-on funding to help make the program work. The Department of Justice is expecting applications for htis program to far exceed the ability they have to provide funding. And, the Department of Defense expects the demand among military personnel to far exceed the funding that is currently available for Troops to Cops. According to the Defense Department's Office of Transition Support and Services, one of the most asked about post-military careers at DOD job fairs is law enforcement. Many veterans want to work in law enforcment, and police and sheriffs departments are often eager to hire them. The $52 million authorized by this amendment en toto is fully offset. According to the Congressional Budget Office, section 431 of the bill contains $52 million more than is needed to implement the military personnel programs of the Department of Defense. So, this amendment does not increase spending over the original Armed Services Committee proposal. The Troops-to-Cops Program is supported by a variety of cities, police departments and veterans organizations, including: National Sheriffs' Association; city of Long Beach, CA; Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association; city of Virginia Beach, VA; city of Los Angeles; city and county of Denver, CO; city of Miami, FL; Non-Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S.; Los Angeles Police Protective League; and The American Legion. Troops to Cops is a win-win program for defense conversion and law enforcement. We can give something back to our military personnel who served their country, as well as to our communities across the country to make their streets safer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which would authorized $10 million to continue the work of the Troops-to-Cops program.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] that would eliminate the defense export loan guarantee provision in this bill. I believe that the loan guarantee provision will help maintain and may help to create jobs as our Nation reduces defense spending here at home. By aiding the sale of ``made in the USA'' military items to our close allies, we can lessen the pain of defense downsizing for hundreds of thousands of defense and aerospace workers across the country. The entire Nation and, in particular, my home State of California, has been hard hit by defense downsizing, not to mention the recent base realignment and closure list. Hundreds of thousands of defense related jobs have been lost in California in the last 2 years, and this number is sadly expected to rise. Continued exports of defense goods is vital to maintaining California's industrial resources. We can help to ease the transition for defense and aerospace [[Page S 11302]] workers by providing these loan guarantees, by establishing defense conversion programs, and through other initiatives. It is our duty to help in any way we can to provide good, high-quality jobs for the hundreds of thousands of dedicated workers who have contributed to U.S. national security. The defense export loan guarantee provision in this bill does not, in any way, eliminate the many existing safeguards that protect against risky proliferation. Loan guarantees would be limited to friendly countries specified in the bill--including our NATO allies, major non- NATO allies, the democratic states of Eastern Europe, and the member nations of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation [APFC]. Further, congressional oversight of these foreign military sales would not be lessened. All foreign military sales would still have to be reviewed by Congress as required by the Arms Export Control Act. This defense export loan guarantee program offers an opportunity to assist our defense workers and improve our economy. I strongly believe that this provision is vital to our defense and aerospace industry and is essential to the preservation of hundreds of thousands of high- quality, good paying jobs in California and throughout the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this provision and oppose the Bumpers amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Levin- Exon-Bingaman-Glenn amendment, to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, to strike provisions of the bill which would directly lead to our violation of the ABM treaty. This treaty is vital to American national security. The Missile Defense Act would lead to violations of the ABM Treaty in two crucial ways. First, it would establish a deployment plan for a national missile defense. If a national ballistic missile defense were deployed, it would blatantly violate the treaty. Second, before any national missile defense system can be deployed, it must be tested. Fully testing this type of system would violate the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty is the diplomatic foundation of our intercontinental ballistic missile reduction strategy. It was possible to negotiate and ratify the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty or START, which is currently being implemented, and negotiate START II, which awaits ratification by this Senate and the Russian Duma because of the strategic groundwork laid in the ABM Treaty. Abandoning or violating the ABM Treaty would threaten the strategic ballistic missile reductions under these two treaties which, when implemented, would verifiably eliminate the intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying two-thirds of Russia's nuclear warheads. Further, abandoning our treaty obligations jeopardizes our future relationship with Russia. The Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations have worked hard to not only strengthen the strategic relationship between our nations, but economic, cultural, and diplomatic relationships as well. We have achieved measurable strategic reductions because of the foundation of trust the ABM Treaty provides. To jeopardize this trust, especially while START II waits precariously for ratification, is simply unwise. If the ABM Treaty is abandoned, the casualty may very well be the future of nuclear arms reductions with Russia. While it is true that the ABM Treaty was ratified at the height of the cold war and that its outlook is bipolar in nature, the fact remains that the greatest ballistic missile threat to the United States is still located in Russia and the states of the former Soviet Union. The ABM Treaty gives a sense of security to the Russian government which allows them to move forward toward reducing their stockpiles of nuclear weapons under both START and START II. Even the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, has felt it necessary to declare that United States abandonment of the ABM Treaty could harm both the prospects for START II ratification by the Duma and our broader security relationship with Russia. In addition, abandonment of the treaty could threaten the continued dismantlement of nuclear weapons under START. Again, if we abandon our commitments under the ABM Treaty, we stand to lose the verified elimination of thousands of nuclear missiles currently aimed at the U.S. Our national security priority should be to greatly reduce this ICBM threat. My support of the ABM Treaty does not negate my willingness to see a national ballistic missile defense system studied. We should continue our research and development programs for a national ballistic missile defense system and should always look toward our future defense needs. Turning to the issue of theater missile defense, I also believe deeply that we must develop and deploy this type of system which does not violate the ABM Treaty. Development and deployment of this type of system is technologically feasible and is permissible under the ABM Treaty. Most of the [[Page S 11278]] theater ballistic missile defense systems currently in development and being tested are ABM Treaty compliant. In fact, the joint summit statement from the May Clinton/Yeltsin Summit delineates a set of principles that provides that both sides can deploy effective theater ballistic missile defense systems within the framework of the ABM Treaty. Because theater ballistic missile defense is entirely possible under the ABM Treaty, is it not the better path to both maintain the ABM Treaty thus protecting the elimination of thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles under START and START II and to develop and deploy a theater ballistic missile defense system that could both protect future theater ballistic missile threats to American shores and current theater ballistic missile threats to American and Allied troops overseas? Let us continue our research and development programs for a national ballistic missile defense, let us continue to develop and work to deploy a theater ballistic missile defense, but let us oppose abandoning the ABM Treaty and thus lose our opportunity to eliminate thousands of Russia's intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is in our national security interest to continue to support the ABM Treaty until the great threat of Russian ICBMs aimed at the United States is substantially reduced under START and START II. Until this important process is completed, let us work to deploy a theater missile defense system and continue our research towards the development of national ballistic missile defense system.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Earthquake Insurance Availability Act of 1995. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that all 50 States in our Nation are treated equally by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation with respect to special insurance requirements, specifically earthquake insurance. The legislation I am introducing today specifies that earthquake insurance requirements targeted to a specific state, by the Federal Home Loan Mortage Corporation, may be imposed only after the State insurance commissioner for the affected State certifies in writing that: First, reasonable insurance capacity exists in the State; and, second, compliance would not cause undue hardship for citizens of the State. Mr. President, nobody in this Chamber is more aware of the threat of earthquakes than I am. I have seen the devastation they can cause, and I know of the terrible hardships, loss of life, and loss of property they leave behind. Let me begin by saying that I believe everyone should have adequate insurance on their home to protect against hazards--including natural disasters. The problem is, however, that adequate insurance is not always available. This is especially true, in California, with respect to earthquake insurance. The truth is no region of our country is immune to natural disasters. In the last decade, different parts of our Nation have been hit by hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and firestorms, and I believe that it is essential that Congress enact natural disaster legislation as quickly as possible. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Natural Disaster Protection and Insurance Act recently introduced by the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye. In the interim, however, my State of California which has experienced significant earthquakes in recent years--the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989; and the Northridge earthquake in 1994--has experienced a sharp drop in the availability of earthquake insurance. Simply stated, since the Northridge earthquake, many major insurers have pulled out of the California market. Many others have increased their premiums to such a point that they are beyond the reach of many homeowners, and even then there are very steep deductibles. Recently the situation became much worse, for owners of California condominiums, when the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company--commonly known as Freddie Mac--issued a policy requiring earthquake insurance, only for California condominiums, as a condition of purchase of mortgages. I believe this policy, which targets only one State, is inappropriate for a federally chartered corporation which was created by Congress in 1970 to ensure a stable flow of mortgage funds for the entire Nation. This policy which, in a way, redlines my State, is designed to minimize Freddie Mac's loss in the event of a future earthquake in California. I can understand why the corporation feels the need to protect its shareholders from potentially lower dividends. But Freddie Mac, while a stockholder-owned corporation, enjoys considerable tax benefits by virtue of its Federal charter. I believe that those benefits are provided by the American taxpaying public--which includes, I might add, many Californians--to assist Freddie Mac in accomplishing its mission of helping more Americans become homeowners. California still lags the Nation in its recovery, and the economy there is very fragile. In implementing its new policy, Freddie Mac, in effect, is reducing the number of options for California homeowners, and this will have a direct impact on the value of their homes. I believe this sets a dangerous precedent for other parts of the country which are prone to natural disaster. I am not unsympathetic to Freddie Mac's position, and I have indicated a willingness to sit down with them and work out a solution. But that solution must take into consideration the underlying problem-- which is the lack of earthquake insurance availability. In addition, the solution must take into consideration not only the protection of Freddie Mac's investors. It must also include the protection of the homeowners of my State, for it is they whom I was elected to represent.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair very much. Mr. President, I rise to support my colleague and her resolution, which I believe is appropriate, fitting, and not partisan. I do not believe that she had in mind a partisan effect at all. I believe she had in mind being able to conclude a process in a way which gave much fresh air and clarity and credibility to it. So I am pleased to support her. I think every member of the Ethics Committee has worked hard in what has been a very difficult case. None of us likes to sit in judgement of another, and certainly the Senator at issue is one who is competent, who has had great credibility and great standing in this body. Nonetheless, I came here in 1992, and this issue was very much with us in 1992. The allegations and the statements of the accusers have been printed and published all over the United States. The question really is, are they credible statements? And this question can only be answered by a hearing. I heard the distinguished chairman of the Ethics Committee say 264 witnesses had been interviewed but, of course, that is by staff. The Senator from New Hampshire said, well, any member of the committee could sit in and listen to those depositions. That is not likely to happen with the busy nature of the life we lead in this body. Human beings are certainly not perfect, and there may well be mitigating circumstances, but I think sexual misconduct, and particularly sexual harassment, is often misunderstood. It means different things to different people. What is compelling to me is that 9 out of the 18 accusers have publicly asked for public hearings. Generally, this is not true. Generally, women do not want to come forward publicly. However, these women have publicly asked for the hearings. As the Senator from California, my colleague, has pointed out, in every one of these cases, when the investigation has been completed, there has in fact been a public hearing. As I have heard stated on this floor, the reason not to have a public hearing is often to protect the accuser or the person who provides the testimony. However, that is not the case here. I think the only way to successfully conclude this is with a public hearing. Why? Because questions can be asked. Questions can be clarified. Issues can be probed. And the degree of culpability can be established. Perhaps that is very low. Perhaps it is very great. Without a hearing, I have no way of knowing, as a non-Ethics Committee member. Another reason that is important to me is the allegations have all taken place in the course and scope of the individual's duties as a U.S. Senator. This is not private, personal conduct. This is conduct that took place in public service, and many of the people involved are themselves Federal employees. So I think these allegations involve conduct about which a hearing must be held and a decision must be made. Is it acceptable? Is it not? If it is not, to what degree? I think issues revolving around sexual misconduct are issues that need to see the clarity of day and the openness of probing questions, and their resolution. So I am very proud to support my colleague from California and to stand and say that I believe her motives were of the highest. And I am hopeful that this body will conclude the process as rapidly as possible. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, only 48 years old, a veritable dynamo, exuding ideas and proposals, knowing his words commanded attention from the humblest abode to the White House itself, Duane Garrett seemed to have it all. With a loving family, legions of friends, the respect and admiration of the lowly and highly placed alike, Duane appeared boundlessly blessed. Lawyer, businessman, political adviser, art and stamp collector, sport savant, historian for the San Francisco Giants, fishing boat skipper--no one could fillet a salmon with such aplomb--radio talk show host, television commentator, Duane was a talented universalist--the proverbial Renaissance man. Serious and thoughtful in his political analysis, witty and full of fun in conversation, a tenacious fighter for what he believed, yet practical and down-to-earth in his judgments, Duane was a true prodigy. A giving man, always surprising friends with a gift--a stamp to a collector, a baseball card from a hero of long-ago to a young fan--but as only the generous can, Duane brushed aside gratitude. ``It was nothing. Just thinking about you,'' he would say. And he would mean it because he gave from his heart. With him, everything was done with enthusiasm born of interest in people and intensified by an endless curiosity about our world and our place in history. He took to the microphone of his talk show with the same unrestrained gusto as he would enter a private conversation with an old friend. He never held back. He always gave his all. He drew unselfishly from his knowledge and experience. Widely read and deeply thoughtful, he cut quickly and expertly to the heart of issues. Certainly, I benefited from this ability as he advised me over the years, most recently as the cochair of my campaign for the U.S. Senate. His candor could be counted upon. His word was his absolute bond. His thought was as rich and inventive as any person I know. Also, he was a good friend, a person of great warmth and compassion. His mere walking into a room brought a brightness and warmth. His bearish looming over a podium at a political dinner--and he was master of ceremonies at countless of them for me--was sure to give instant vibrancy to festivities. He was a master not only of long range ideas and concerns, but of the moment. Actually, when his many talents and attributes are added together, the sum seems larger than life. That makes his loss all the greater. A giant who suddenly, without hint or warning, silences himself inevitably conjures a mystery. But even in death there can be no detraction from what he contributed to life, no diminution of his love for Patty and his daughters, Laura and Jessica; no devaluation in the worth of the counsel and friendship he gave, or of the affection and respect he received in return. While we may never learn or understand why this ebullient man should end his life, we can never subtract from his accomplishments. We may never fathom the why of death, but we shall always be thankful for the fullness of his life. Outwardly, Duane was the epitome of confidence and elan, seemingly so impregnable. Whatever pain he felt, or doubts he had, remained concealed behind the customary lift of his head and broad smile. What drove him to that final, solitary walk on the Golden Gate Bridge may elude us, but what we shall always know is his love for his family and his zest whenever he was on the other end of the phone, or sitting in the living room or booming his opinion on radio or television. His life is what matters. His death is mere punctuation that makes clear the substance and meaning that came before. Indeed, Duane seemed to have it all, and for those of us who knew him he endlessly seemed to give his all. So very much alive, so bursting with ideas, so expressive, so reaching out to help others, Duane, even now that he is gone, reverberates in our mind in endless reminders of the vigor and principle he brought to politics and other endeavors. Campaign manager, advisor, counselor, invariably shrewd and insightful, always helpful, thoroughly unselfish, unfailingly available and generous with his time, Duane Garrett was always there. And always shall he be.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act, and in so doing I would very much like to thank the Labor and Human Resources Committee. I would like to thank its distinguished chairman, the Senator from Kansas, and the ranking member, the Senator from Massachusetts. And I must say, to the credit of this committee, this reauthorization bill is reported to the full floor unanimously. Mr. President, Ryan White affects 42 cities--7 in my State--and all 50 States. It costs $630 million, and it provides 350,000 people with services they would not be able to get, otherwise, outside of a hospital. It has dramatically reduced the overall cost of the health care delivery system. Let me give you some examples of how Ryan White funding has helped communities in my State. In California, through use of its Ryan White title II funds, the State has reported a 50-percent reduction in hospital stays resulting in over $21 million in cost savings. In San Francisco, Project Open Hand delivers a meal to 1,200 homebound people every day. This is accomplished through the efforts of 2,400 volunteer drivers and food preparers. In Los Angeles, the AIDS Health Care Foundation, which is the largest AIDS organization in California, annually serves approximately 2,400 people living with HIV and AIDS at outpatient clinics. Last year it provided a final home to over 250 hospice residents. In San Diego, the AIDS Foundation uses its Ryan White funding to provide a full range of outpatient clinical and social services to people with AIDS. Let me say that, increasingly, the majority of new cases served under the Ryan White Act are in rural areas. Increasingly they are women, they are minorities, and they are children. And I think the lesson in this is that AIDS really knows no gender or sexual orientation. It is a real and major threat, and, as such, this act is very important in its treatment. Mr. President, I am one who has had quite a bit of experience with AIDS. I would like to take a few moments to tell you what it was like before there was a Ryan White CARE Act. As mayor of San Francisco during the 1980's, I had many challenges. But none was more serious or severe than the emergence of the AIDS epidemic. I remember my first meeting on this subject as if it were yesterday. I think it was 1981. I was told in a meeting in the mayor's office that there was a rumor of a so-called gay cancer which had as one of its symptoms purple skin lesions. I called our director of public health and asked him to look into it. He called the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta and learned that New York and Los Angeles were reporting a similar syndrome that was appearing in gay men. At the time, we had no idea what we were dealing with. We did not know whether this was caused by a virus, a bacteria, or something else. We did not know how widely spread the epidemic had become or that hemophiliacs, Haitians, and intravenous drug users were already infected. We certainly did not know that it had originated in Central Africa, and that it would impact millions of people, and that it was sweeping through sub-Saharan Africa long before it reached this hemisphere. But one thing I did know. We were dealing with something that was deadly. And it is my belief that as an elected official, when one learns of a threat to the public health, one has a responsibility to act. By the end of that first year, there were 76 diagnosed cases in San Francisco. We had allocated $180,000 for the first AIDS program in the Nation. By the time I left office in 1988, January, we were spending approximately $20 million a year, more than the rest of the cities in the country combined and, for most of the time, more than the State of California. There was no Ryan White program then. But I can tell you that I certainly could have used it. We had to fund all those services from the city budget--the first AIDS prevention programs, the first AIDS housing programs, the first preliminary AIDS research efforts, which were pioneered at San Francisco General Hospital by Dr. Paul Volberding, and others. We opened the first AIDS ward. I broke that ribbon. We funded hospice care as well as a full range of support services. San Francisco's response became known as the model AIDS program. Health officials from around the world came to observe it. And many returned home to replicate it. Make no mistake about it, it was hard. But if I had it to do over again, I would do it again. And if I do nothing else in my public life, creation of that model will be among my proudest achievements. Last year it was learned that San Francisco was actually experiencing a decline in the number of new AIDS cases. This was very encouraging. As far as I know, San Francisco is the only major city on the planet that has experienced a decline in its AIDS caseload. When I read in the New York Times that the decline was attributable to one thing, the prevention program put into place in the early 1980's, I felt an affirmation of the principle which I stated earlier, which I will state again. As an elected official, when one learns of a threat to the public health, one has a responsibility to act. Having said that, a lot of cities have sustained devastating losses. No city has been harder hit than my own, a city just 7 miles square, renowned for its beauty and its people. It is a city where 2 percent of its entire population has been claimed by AIDS, and 4 percent of its remaining population is estimated to be infected with the HIV. More than 50,000 young Californians have died from AIDS, approximately the same number as all Americans who died in Vietnam. Almost five times that many young Americans have died from AIDS. While my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have recounted the alarming statistics with which we have become all too familiar, I believe that America has become numbed by the statistics of AIDS. I am reminded of a statement made in a different context: ``A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths are a statistic.'' That is all too true when it comes to AIDS. The young man for whom this legislation is named gave the disease a face and a name to which every American could relate. Ryan White, a youngster, with his courage in fighting prejudice, helped this Nation begin to understand that AIDS knows no boundaries. Many years before the world came to know the name of Ryan White, there were also other names. There were names and faces that will be with many of us in this Chamber for a long, long time. For me, I lost many friends. I can tell you that I have lost many friends, and could recount a long litany of tragedy and suffering. Let me tell you about two because they are recent deaths. The first is police officer Ray Benson whose funeral I attended just a few weeks ago. Ray became a San Francisco police officer in 1980 when I was mayor. And during the next 12 years he became the model police officer. He displayed conspicuous gallantry that personifies the risk of police officers daily when they report to duty. He received many awards during the course of his tenure, most recently the Medal of Valor for his actions while arresting a narcotics suspect. At the time he sustained serious wounds which required more than a 100 stitches in his face. But he shielded his fellow officers from the suspect's knife. Officer Ray Benson was a friend of mine. When I last saw him, his vision was failing, but his same strong spirit stood out. Ray's death from AIDS is but the most recent loss I have personally known. I would like to mention just one other name and, due to the time constraints, I will stop. That name is Brad Wilson. Brad was my scheduler during my campaign for Governor of California and my Senate campaign until he became too sick. He grew up in the Ozarks, graduated from the University of Chicago with top honors, and received his law degree from New York University. After receiving an AIDS diagnosis, Brad fought for 6 more years, struggling to maintain his dignity and working as much as possible until 2 months before his death. In his final days, this brilliant young attorney, 39, was unable to care for himself in any way. Morphine was administered intravenously to deaden the pain caused by a brain infection, but he maintained his dignity until the end. Three of his last visitors at home were my daughter and her husband who took with them my 5-month-old granddaughter to boost his spirits. Both Brad and Ray were able to avail themselves of the services provided by the Ryan White CARE Act, and for this I am forever grateful. I mention these two names as a very personal example of the loss, but they are but two more names out of almost 250,000 who have died from AIDS in the United States. Ryan White's death proved that AIDS is an equal opportunity killer, and there should be no room for prejudice or discrimination toward those it strikes for, in truth, it can strike anyone. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, with Ryan White's memory in mind, as well as the memory of each and every American who has died from AIDS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I might comment through the Chair, what I learned from our caucus is that what my colleague has just stated is true in general, but there is some higher commitment in the Sarajevo area. I am not certain of this, but I believe I understood the Secretary to say that they would defend against the shelling of Sarajevo. I am sure someone will straighten this out for certain later in the debate, but that is what I understood today.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In recent days, we have seen more substantiated reports of atrocities. Dutch peacekeepers present in Srebrenica have reported witnessing summary executions of Bosnian soldiers. The U.N. human rights envoy told reporters that ``what happened (in Srebrenica) cannot be described as moderate violations of human rights, but as extremely serious violations on an enormous scale.'' Yesterday, the Bosnian Foreign Minister called me from Zagreb. He told me that as many as 10,000 people are still missing from Srebrenica, and that of the 6,000 Bosnian men and boys held hostage in a stadium in Bratunac, north of Srebrenica, as many as 1,600 have been executed. Most startlingly, he indicated that last Monday, the Bosnian President offered to peacefully evacuate Zepa. This [[Page S 10610]] offer was turned down by General Mladic. I believe we know the reason. If the evacuation had taken place peacefully and under U.N. supervision, it would have deprived the Serbs of the opportunity to detain and kill all the men of fighting age, and the opportunity to rape, torture, and humiliate defenseless refugees. To me, it is unfathomable that crimes like these can be perpetrated in 1995, 50 years after the liberation of Auschwitz. The names Karadzic and Mladic will go down in history with the greatest villains of our time. They have led a regime that sanctions, promotes, and encourages its soldiers to murder, torture, rape, and humiliate innocent Bosnian civilians. They are evil. Today, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia announced indictments of both Dr. Karadzic and General Mladic for war crimes. It is my hope that both these men, and numerous other war criminals, will be successfully prosecuted. I know that every Member of the Senate is outraged by the barbaric behavior that has taken place. But for the Bosnian victims of these crimes, our outrage is worth little, unless it leads to action. In the face of these atrocities, we must make an important decision. Our choices are clear: we must either dramatically change the U.N. operation on the ground in such a way that it will be able to protect Bosnian citizens from Bosnian Serb murderers and rapists; or, we must lift the arms embargo against the Bosnian Government, unilaterally if necessary, in order to allow the Bosnians to defend themselves. But there is one thing we cannot do, and that is nothing. Last week, Secretary of Defense Perry, Secretary of State Christopher, and General Shalikashvili met in London with our NATO allies. They were attempting to devise a response to the collapse of Srebrenica and Zepa that will prevent and punish further Bosnian Serb attacks on safe areas and defend the civilians in those areas. Before these meetings began, I felt that in order to be successful, they would have to succeed in radically changing the mission and mandate of the allied troops on the ground in Bosnia, giving them the wherewithal and command structure to fight effectively that they have lacked thus far. Unfortunately, I do not feel that the agreements reached in London meet that test. I have spoken with the Secretary of State. I have spoken with our Ambassadors in London and Paris. And I have spoken at length with the Foreign Minister of Bosnia. All of these conversations have solidified my view that there has not been a sufficient change in the situation on the ground. The London meetings only addressed the enclave of Gorazde. It is true that a fairly resolute statement was issued regarding a Serb offensive on Gorazde. Substantial allied airstrikes will be ordered in response to any attack on Gorazde. What constitutes a Serb assault on Gorazde? Is this present shelling that has been going on since the London Conference enough to provoke action? Does a siege that cuts off the flow of humanitarian aid warrant airstrikes? Gorazde has in fact been shelled continuously since the London conference. Why have the airstrikes not begun? Unfortunately, the promised defense of Gorazde only means that the Serbs will continue their attacks at Zepa, which I understand has finally fallen, Bihac, then Sarajevo, and Tuzla, and then what? In fact, the fate of Bosnia is sealed if the enclaves fall--for only 30 percent of Bosnia remains in government hands today. As we debate this resolution, Bihac is surrounded and under attack. In this offensive, the Bosnian Serbs are receiving assistance from their Croatian Serb brethren--25,000 Croatian Serbs are coming over the border to augment the attacking forces. Bihac has received no food convoys for two months, and relief flights have been suspended because of the shelling. There is virtually no food left in Bihac, and residents are able to eat only what they can grow. As for Sarajevo, it is perhaps the most important of all the enclaves. Its fall would mean the end of Bosnia. Yet, Sarajevo was hardly mentioned in London. It is true that since the conference, British and French troops from the Rapid Reaction Force have deployed around Sarajevo to respond to Serb shelling. But their mission, it seems, is primarily to protect U.N. forces. Earlier, in our caucus, the Secretary of State indicated that these troops would respond to Serb attacks on the civilian population. I certainly hope so. As the Bosnian Foreign Minister told me, drawing a line in the sand around Gorazde alone is like drawing a line in the sand around one solitary sunbather on a beach. It may protect that one sunbather, but it ignores everything else on the beach. Third, it is not at all clear that the United States and our allies have the same understanding about the agreements reached in London. While British Foreign Secretary Rifkind, promised a ``substantial and decisive'' response to any Serb attack on Gorazde, only U.S. officials mentioned the certainty of airstrikes. Furthermore, it is entirely clear that Russia does not support a policy based on the use of airstrikes to contain the Bosnian Serbs. Foreign Minister Kozyrev went out of his way to say that ``no consensus'' had been reached in London. How Russia would respond to a policy that it does not support is uncertain. This uncertainty may well prove dangerous. I had hoped that the London meetings would have initiated a genuine change to the situation on the ground in Bosnia. I wanted to be convinced. But with the weight of all the evidence, I am afraid the London conference appears inconclusive, and that the status quo will continue. The London meetings do not produce a new course of action, and did not commit the allies to protect the Bosnians. I am convinced that we have no choice but to lift the arms embargo against the Bosnians. I prefer that it be a multilateral lifting. It has become painfully clear now that no one will defend the Bosnians except the Bosnians themselves. If no one will defend them, we can no longer deny them the right to defend themselves. And so, I intend to support the Dole- Lieberman resolution. Last year, I opposed a similar resolution, in large part because it contained a policy of ``lift and leave''. It would have forced the President to lift the arms embargo unilaterally before any effort had been taken to extract UNPROFOR from Bosnia. I felt that was unfair to our allies, who have troops on the ground there. The resolution before us has gone a long way toward addressing those concerns. It now contains a ``leave and lift'' sequence, which is very important. The President would not be required to lift the arms embargo until 12 weeks after UNPROFOR began its withdrawal, and that period could be extended in 30 day increments if the withdrawal took longer than expected. I believe that this change alters the effect of the resolution considerably. This is a time for the entire world to feel outraged at the atrocities now being carried out with merciless abandon. And where is the conscience of the world? In fact, much of the world genuinely wants to help. Today, for example, a joint delegation from Israel and Jordan are meeting in Bosnia to see what they can do to help. Let there be no mistake--we are watching the development of a ``Fourth Reich'' dedicated to the genocide of a people simply because they are different. To me, after the events of the past 3 years, there is little difference--except in size--between the drive for a pure Aryan nation 50 years ago, and that for an ethnically cleansed Greater Serbia of today. The Bosnian Foreign Minister put it to me so eloquently yesterday when he said: No one has taken on the job of defending the Bosnian people. UNPROFOR is not a substitute for our defense, and the Rapid Reaction Force is committed only to defend UNPROFOR. We must know that somebody is going to defend us--and that somebody is only us. An afflicted people must have the right to defend themselves. This resolution signals no more and no less. Exhibit 1 United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) Preliminary Protection Report No. 1 July 18, 1995 The following is a report based on initial interviews conducted with displaced people who fled Srabrenica after it was overrun by Serb forces. [[Page S 10611]] i. chronology of events 11 July--Serb forces overran Srabrenica after days of intense artillery and mortar shelling. Residents and displaced people flee burning houses and head for the Dutch UNPROFOR Battalion in Potocari, about 10 km north of Srabrenica. Others escape toward Sagna Finger on foot heading for Tuzia. Serb forces enter Potocari in the afternoon and disarm Dutch troops. 12 July--Serb forces began moving by bus people who had escaped to Potocari to Klandanj, about 70 km away. From there, the displaced were forced to move across 6 km of no man's land. They were met across the other side by Bosnian trucks and transported to the Tuzla Air Base. As the number of people swells, UNPROFOR opens a camp settlement inside the base. 13 July--Thursday Bosnian government agrees to move displaced people massed outside the air base to collective centers. 14 July--Government says the first elements of a column of 15,000 Bosnian soldiers, some of them accompanied by their families arrive in the village of Medjedja after walking across the forested Sapna finger. Four days later, the number of people had reached 8,000. The arrivals were wearing rags and mostly barefooted after their shoes were torn apart during the march. The government says it expects more soldiers and civilians to arrive in Madjedja and requested UNHCR for food and non-food items. 18 July--ICRC evacuates to Tuzla 87 wounded from a hospital in Bratunac and the Dutch medical facility at Potocari. ii. summary of narratives 2.1 Random interviews were conducted among arrivals at the tent camp at the Tuzlaa airbase. At the outset, it must be explained that none of the accounts could be independently confirmed. The accounts include incidents of rape, robbery and execution stories were told of families being separated of men and women being taken away by Serb soldiers. Soldiers who escaped across the Sapna finger say the encountered heavy shelling, mine fields, ambushes and massacres along the way to Sapna in which hundreds were either killed or captured. iii. interviews 1. From Potocari to Kladanj. 1.1 As civilians, mostly women and children, were fleeing advancing Serb forces, shells fell everywhere along the road to Potocari. One woman claims she saw scores of people killed and wounded in the mortar and artillery barrages. Upon reaching Potocari, the civilians gathered in and around the Dutch battalion camp and in the surrounding abandoned factories. Serb soldiers walked inside the camp and started separating families. Men of fighting age and young women were taken away, according to uniform accounts of the people interviewed. 1.2 One woman says her husband was stabbed dead before her eyes. She was dragged away to a bus but she managed to go back to look for her husband. Later, she found his body at the garage of a factory. Seven other bodies were lying there. Other women say that as they were waiting to be boarded in buses to Kladanj their husbands were taken away and that they did not know what happened to them. 1.3 Two women interviewed say men were separated from women as people were being loaded in the buses. They claim that Serb soldiers demanded money from them, but gave nothing since they didn't have any. One woman was separated together with the men because she is a relative of a senior Bosnian army officer. 1.4 The buses were stopped a number of times along the road to Klandanj. Men who were allowed to leave after the first screening were picked out of the buses and taken away. They include boys aged 12 years and upward and young women. 1.5 A 60-year-old man and his wife say that in their bus, four young women were taken out into the woods. An hour later, only three of the women returned to the bus. The fourth woman showed up in Kladanj naked with only a blanket wrapped around her. 1.6 Not only were incidents of robbery narrated before the people were put on the buses, but also as the convoys moved toward Klandanj. Along the route, Serb soldiers would demand the meager belongings and money from the passengers. One Serb soldier slashed the upper lip of a woman who could not produce money. Robbery also was allegedly committed as the people were offloaded at Kladanj. 1.7 One man says he counted 11 bodies as he walked toward Bosnian-controlled area along a six-kilometer stretch of no man's land. He says they apparently were victims of robbery attempts by Serb forces operating across the no-man's land. 1.8 Dead Bosnian men in civilian and military clothes were seen scattered along the route to Kladanj. Groups of hundreds of captured Bosnian soldiers, their hands behind the back of their head were all along the route. 2. Escape to Sapna Finger. 2.1 Four soldiers interviewed say they were among a column of 15,000 people, including 6,000 women and children, who broke across Serb-controlled areas after Srebrenica fell. They walked through 70 km of forests and faced heavy shelling, land mines and ambushes. Hundreds were reportedly killed and hundreds more were captured. 2.2 One soldier said the first ambush took place in Jaglici, the day the column left Srebrenica. He says more than 60 people were killed. At Konjevic Polja, the column encountered Serb soldiers in UNPROFOR uniform and using UN vehicles. One Serb soldier with a loudhailer called on the Bosnians to come out. Between 20 to 30 Bosnians, mostly children and women, who emerged out of hiding were lined up on the road. Then the Serbs opened fire with machine guns, killing all of them. The same soldier says he saw about 50 Bosnian bodies beside a road toward Cereka. And in another place later on, soldiers stepped on mine fields and that 150 were reportedly killed there. At Udrio, 300 to 400 were allegedly killed in an ambush. Another 300 to 600 were reportedly captured. Three other soldiers gave similar stories. 3. MEDEVAC. 3.1 Interviews were conducted with four male and five female civilians who were evacuated by car from Srebrenica-- the Dutch facility at Potacari and the hospital in Bratunac-- by ICRC. They were among 87 brought to Tuzla at the Norwegian medical center. The males were mostly soldiers who were wounded during the fighting before the fall of Srebrenica and were confined at the hospital there. After the Serbs took control of the town, the patients said they were mistreated. Serb soldiers and civilians entered their rooms a number of times and kicked and beat them up. One 60-year-old man says he was hit by a rifle butt in the chest. Alvin Gonzaga, Protection Officer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia. Mr. President, I rise today to indicate my intention to vote for the Dole-Lieberman resolution. I want to state what my intent is, and what it is solely. My intent is solely to allow an afflicted people to defend themselves. Last week I stated that I had hoped that a specific course of action would result from last weekend's meetings in London. The actions taken, unfortunately, are limited to one enclave, Gorazde. They are not well defined, and as we have seen, the shelling of Gorazde has been ongoing since last weekend. Also, last week I spoke about the devastating photograph of a young Bosnian woman who decided she could not go on and hung herself from a tree. This anonymous image spoke eloquently to me of the desperation facing the Bosnian people as they endure rape, torture, summary execution, and a litany of war crimes. However, no one knew who this woman was, and to this day we still do not. But now at least we have an idea of what might have driven her to take her own life. According to one witness, a young mother tried in vain to trade her life for her 12-year-old twin boys who were taken from her and had their throats slit by the invading Serbs at Srebrenica. Later the mother tied a scarf to a tree limb and hung herself. Was this young mother the woman in the photograph? We may never know. But this story tells us all we need to know about what drives a person to such an extreme. As the stories of the Srebrenica survivors have emerged, the picture of the suffering endured by the refugees and the atrocities committed by the attackers has become increasingly clear. I want to lay some of these out because in recent days news reports and other sources have revealed the true extent of the horror. Here are just a few examples. On July 17, the New York Times reported several accounts of atrocities related by refugees. Two women, Hava Muratovic and Hanifa Masanovic, told nearly identical stories of Serb soldiers, dressed in uniforms of U.N. soldiers, breaking into a factory where some refugees were staying and hauling away a group of teenage boys. According to Mrs. Muratovic: ``The next morning I saw a pile of bodies next to the water fountain. There were about ten of them, all with their throats cut. There was a tree next to the fountain, and two other bodies were hanging from the branches.'' Another woman, Sveda Porobic, told of three apparent rapes. In another factory where refugees were gathered, Bosnian Serb soldiers, dressed as U.N. peacekeepers, no less, came through the factory and dragged away two girls, ages 12 and 14, and a 23-year-old woman. After several hours, the three returned. They were crying, naked and bleeding, covered with scratches and bruises. One said, very simply, ``We are not girls anymore.'' On July 16 the Washington Post reported that a teenage girl found a stack of bodies of young men behind a factory. They had been shot with their hands tied behind their backs. Near the same factory, two other teenagers witnessed 20 men gunned down by a Serb firing squad. Three days later, on July 19, just last week, USA Today quoted a Bosnian refugee, Zarfa Turkovic, who said she witnessed a brutal gang rape at the U.N. camp in Potocari, where refugees had gathered. She said that four Serb soldiers grabbed a young woman from among the sleeping refugees. ``Two took her legs and raised them up in the air,'' Turkovic said, ``while the third began raping her. People were silent. No one moved. She was screaming and yelling, begging them to stop.'' The rapists stuffed a rag in her mouth and continued raping her. Since the day that Srebrenica fell, the U.N. High Commission for Refugees has been caring for Bosnian refugees fleeing the Serb armies. In Tuzla, UNHCR has been responsible for providing food and shelter to thousands of refugees in the last week and a half. On July 18, the U.N. High Commission for Refugees released a report describing the experiences of a number of refugees, based on interviews with those who arrived in Tuzla. I would like to relate a few of the most disturbing examples. A 60-year-old man and his wife described how the bus that was carrying them to Tuzla was stopped by Serb soldiers. The soldiers took four young women off the bus and into the woods. An hour later, three of the women emerged from the woods. The fourth woman appeared later in the town of Kladanj, naked, with only a blanket wrapped around her. Buses were stopped by Serb soldiers a number of times along the road to Kladanj. Men and boys over age 12 were taken away, along with many young women. Most have not been seen since. Most alarmingly, a group of refugees fleeing Srebrenica on foot through the woods encountered a group of Serb soldiers wearing the uniforms and blue helmets of UNPROFOR troops and using U.N. vehicles. One Serb soldier called out on a megaphone for the Bosnians to come out of the woods. Between 20 and 30 Bosnians, mostly women and children, emerged from hiding. The Serb soldiers lined them up on the road, and opened fire with machine guns, killing them all. None of these reports has been independently confirmed, but based on the facts available, these stories are compelling, believable, and consistent with documented Serb behavior. There have also been many instances of refugees telling identical stories independently. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the UNHCR report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in 1965--30 years ago this week--in Independence, MO, Medicare was signed by President Lyndon Johnson, with Harry Truman looking on. Over the last 30 years, Medicare has become one of the largest public health insurance systems in the world, having grown from 19 million seniors at a cost of $3 billion to 37 billion seniors costing over $159 billion last year. In 1995--30 years later--Medicare is at a turning point. In fact, some would say the Medicare is under attack, because Medicare is slated for $270 million in cuts over the next 7 years under plans which are scheduled to be enacted later this year. This proposed 14 percent cut in Medicare spending is the largest Medicare ever proposed and makes up over 20 percent of the $1.2 billion in cuts in the Republican resolution. the benefits of medicare While there are many disagreements about which direction Medicare should go in the future, there is no doubt about the benefits and achievements of the current program. Before Medicare was enacted in 1965, health care for seniors was expensive and often unavailable, due to the lack of insurers willing to cover seniors and the fact that, even with Social Security, seniors have been one of the highest-poverty age groups in America. Only 50 percent of seniors had health insurance, and so an illness could quickly force a senior into a charity ward or consume a lifetime of family savings. In comparison, the benefits of the current Medicare program are clear to millions of individuals and the families of those who are enrolled; health coverage is provided for 37 million seniors--including 3.6 million Californians. Ninety-nine percent of the elderly population is covered through Medicare, giving seniors the highest rate of health coverage for any age group in the United States; The average lifespan for older Americans has increased 3 years since Medicare began, and quality of life has been improved by procedures and treatments such as hip replacements developed through Medicare. problems facing medicare Nonetheless, there are some clear problems with Medicare that must be addressed, including; the anticipated bankruptcy of the Medicare Part A Hospital Trust Fund, which is projected to occur in the year 2002 at current spending rates; high annual increases in spending of 10 percent, which have helped cause the program to go from $3 billion in 1965 to $160 billion in 1994; fraud and abuse that eat up $44 billion in total health care costs annually, according to a GAO report, and result in $140 million in excess charges paid by consumers each year; the lack of potentially cost-saving managed Medicare, which enrolls only 10 percent of Medicare participants even though additional dental and prescription drug benefits are sometimes available (the rate is 25 percent in California). In short, the current Medicare Program pays out much more in benefits than it is taking in from premiums and payroll contributions. Without reform, Medicare will continue to grow out of control. Costs for new technologies and procedures continue to increase rapidly, and about 1 million additional Medicare participants each year will add to costs. reasonable medicare reforms To address these problems and lower Federal spending, I support a number of tough-minded Medicare reforms, including tightening controls and preventing fraud in Medicare; using successful State and Federal models such as the California Public Employee Retirement System [CalPERS] and the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan as a basis for cooperative, market-based systems. I support asking the wealthiest Medicare recipients to pay more into the system than they do now; making managed care plans more beneficial to the Federal Government and more easily available to seniors, only 10 percent of whom are currently enrolled in HMO's. To help solve these problems, I voted in favor of $54 billion in Medicare cuts and reforms contained in the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, and I supported national health care reform such as the mainstream coalition proposal. republican budget proposals cut medicare too far, too fast However, I strongly oppose destructive Medicare reform proposals that go too far, too fast, without any certainty as to the results, including those that would force all Medicare enrollees to change doctors, give up their choice of doctors, or join HMO's involuntarily; steeply raise Medicare cots to participants, who already spend a national average of 21 percent of their incomes on health costs; rely almost entirely on appealing but untested changes to the current Medicare system, such as private vouchers and medical savings accounts; target the 3.6 million Californians who participate in Medicare for an unfair share of the deficit-reduction burden. As a result, I voted against the Republican budget resolution, which cuts $270 billion from the current baseline for Medicare over the next 7 years. unknown effects of medicare cuts What exactly do health care cuts of this size really mean? Well, no one really knows, but health care experts tell us that the options for cuts of this size are few, and estimates by the Health Care Finance Agency, which runs these programs, have projected dramatic effects. Under the Republican budget proposal--and the initiatives that are being considered for enactment later this fall--more will be taken out of seniors' Social Security checks, because that is where the Medicare part B premium is deducted. Medicare premiums and Social Security checks are linked together because under the integrated Social Security check-issuing system, Medicare premiums are automatically taken out of Social Security checks. Cuts to Californians on Medicare would total over $36 billion over the next 7 years--13 percent of the $270 billion total cut despite the fact that California only has 9.5 percent of the total population-- Health Care Finance Administration. Costs to seniors will have to be steeply increased, even though over 80 percent of Medicare goes to seniors with less than $25,000 in income, who already pay over 20 percent of their income for health costs. Managed care could be implemented on a large scale without any real assurance that there will be more benefits to seniors and increased savings to the Federal Government. The current demonstration of managed Medicare has not yielded savings to the Federal Government, according to recent studies. Popular but untested ideas such as private voucher systems and medical savings accounts, which have not been tried at anywhere near this scale, could once again allow insurance companies to discriminate against older, sicker seniors, or force families to spend their savings in order to provide care. Relatively small-scale purchasing pools, such as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which covers only 9 million people nationwise, will be expanded enormously without any clear knowledge of the potential effects on care for the elderly. Conclusion There is no argument that Medicare needs to be strengthened and improved, and I have supported reasonable Medicare reform in the past. But cutting $270 billion out of the program and implementing reforms that have yet to be [[Page S 10654]] tested is not really reform, it's dismantling the program. The effects of cuts on this scale may not be felt immediately, and the plans for how to achieve them are certainly being kept under wraps until the last minute, but sooner or later it will be clear that cutting $270 billion out of Medicare goes too far, too fast. I only hope it is not too late to save the program before the American people realize it, and that 30 years from now this Congress is known for having reformed but not reduced the Medicare Program that has gotten us so far.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Illinois for some very thoughtful, and I believe, sound comments. I find myself in agreement, Senator, with virtually everything that the Senator said. I also thank the Senator from Connecticut for what has not been easy for someone on our side of the aisle, to take this level of leadership on the issue. I heard the Senator last night so eloquently put forward these facts. Perhaps, in 1878, Benjamin Disraeli said it best when he offered these words in the British House of Lords: No language can describe adequately the condition of that large portion of the Balkan peninsula--Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and other provinces--[the] political intrigues, constant rivalries, a total absence of all public spirit . . . hatred of all races, animosities of rival religions and absence of any controlling power . . . nothing short of an army of 50,000 of the best troops would produce anything like order in these parts. And that was said 117 years ago. We know that when Marshal Tito governed what was known as Yugoslavia, the strong central control kept down these 100-year-old animosities. Today, they have boiled to the point of no return. Many have characterized UNPROFOR as a complete failure. I believe that exaggerates the case. After all, there has been a dramatic decrease in civilian casualties in Bosnia--from 130,000 in 1992 down to 3,000 in 1994. UNPROFOR deserves much of the credit for this decrease. However, it is undeniable that UNPROFOR has major shortcomings that have been exposed with increasing regularity. [[Page S 10277]] We saw it on May 25, in Tuzla, a so-called U.N. safe-area, when 71 young people, all under age 28, were killed by a single Serb shell--one of many instances when Serb forces have eroded safe areas with attacks--without any retaliation, despite a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing such responses. We saw it when 377 U.N. troops were taken hostage in June after a NATO airstrike on a Serb ammunition dump. We saw it when Capt. Scott O'Grady's F-16 was shot down without a response, as scores of U.N. hostages were still held captive. We see it every day, as U.N. peacekeepers attempt to protect innocent civilians, sometimes successfully, but often not. And we saw it on June 10, when the U.N. mission in Sarajevo announced it would not respond to protect Moslem enclaves from attack without the consent of the Bosnian Serbs--the attackers. I believe it is fair to say that U.N. forces have neither the mandate, the training, the equipment, nor the rules of engagement, to allow them to respond sufficiently to attacks against them or against civilian populations. They are meant to be observers to keep corridors for humanitarian aid open--not fighters. These problems have taken their toll on public and congressional support for the present course. And they have taken their toll, I think unfairly, on support for UNPROFOR troops. In Congress, there has been continuing debate over whether a unilateral or a multilateral lifting of the arms embargo against Bosnia, or the withdrawal of UNPROFOR troops altogether is the humane or the inhumane action to take. And because the United States has no troops on the ground in Bosnia, we have less leverage in influencing nations that do have troops on the ground. But during the past week, events have reached a terrible watershed, and we have seen a startling and devastating turn: The three Eastern enclaves, Srebrenica, Zepa, and Gorazde, are falling to Serb aggression. Ethnic cleansing has taken a giant step forward. Mr. President, 42,000 civilians from this area of Srebrenica have been separated from their families, and many of them are at this moment still being held hostage in a stadium in nearby Bratunac up here. Literally, thousands of refugees from Srebrenica remain unaccounted for, perhaps up to 20,000. We have heard ominous stories of women being taken hostage and raped, of summary executions, and of bodies lining the nearby roads. A second safe area, Zepa, with some 16,000 Bosnian residents, is in the process of being overrun. Today, it is reported in the Los Angeles Times that Bosnian Government soldiers have said, they would use the 65 Ukrainian peacekeepers in Zepa as human shields against Serb attacks unless the United Nations called in NATO air power. What we see is that now the Bosnian forces are beginning to use the Serb tactics of taking hostages. It has been shocking to see the ease with which these areas have and are falling. Dozens of U.N. observation posts have been abandoned, leaving unarmed Bosnian Moslems to try to defend themselves. The third area, Gorazde, will be next, unless there is a will to use major airstrikes. Airstrikes were successfully employed in April 1994, to prevent a Serb invasion of Gorazde. However, such airstrikes are now made unlikely by the fear that Bosnian Serb forces will retaliate by taking more U.N. troops hostage. UNPROFOR weapons and equipment in the safe areas are being taken by Bosnians and used to fight the Serbs since the world has decided that the Bosnians cannot arm themselves. This past weekend, I opened the New York Times, and saw photographs of elderly refugees in wheelbarrows, being wheeled over rough roads. I saw sobbing mothers and children. I also saw this picture. To me, it was a call for change. I do not know this 20-year-old woman's name. She was a refugee from Srebrenica, and as she neared Tuzla, where the first camp was set up, this young woman decided she could not go on. She climbed a tree, tied a rope around her neck, and jumped. A photographer captured the image of her lifeless body hanging from the tree. It is an image that haunts us. We do not know what humiliations and deprivations this woman suffered. Perhaps she saw a loved one killed. Perhaps she had been raped. Perhaps she simply could not bear the pain of being forced out of her home. We only know that she could take no more. We only know that finally, the pain was too great. We only know that she could not endure any more suffering, any more indignity, any more barbarism. This was the act of a defenseless, vulnerable, beaten person. It was not the act of someone who had the ability to fight in self-defense. Just as the anonymous white-shirted young man facing down a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square a few years ago conveyed the unspeakable message of oppression to the world, so did this photograph point eloquently to the world's failure in Bosnia. The conscience of Europe and America must examine and reverse this terrible downhill slide now. As the distinguished majority leader said yesterday at the beginning of this debate: This debate is not just about Bosnia. This is not just about a small European country under attack. This debate is about American leadership and American principles, about NATO strength and credibility, and about our place in history. I have been a supporter of this administration's policy to this point, but recently certain things have been made clear: First, the involved allied powers have stood against ethnic cleansing, and yet ethnic cleansing is taking place unabated on a continuing basis, as an unrelenting Serb military is allowed to rape, maim, and kill innocent people who cannot defend themselves, and whose military the world's powers are preventing from gaining access to sufficient arms. Although the Bosnian Government forces have a significant manpower advantage over the Serbs, they face more than a 3-to-1 disadvantage in tanks, more than a 2-to-1 disadvantage in artillery, and a nearly 3-to- 1 disadvantage in fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Second, UNPROFOR's well-intentioned--and in some parts of the country successful--efforts have been shattered by a mandate that does not let them fight back, but has allowed them to be taken hostage, and allows their weaponry and equipment to be taken from them. Third, beginning this past weekend, we have seen the fall of one of so-called safe areas; this week--the likely fall of a second; and shortly--the probable loss of third. With 70 percent of Bosnia in Serb hands, we must conclude that the present course needs to be changed. I agree with those who have argued that the Dole-Lieberman resolution is not perfect. It probably will offend allies we do not want to, and should not, offend. It may contribute to an escalation of the war, and it may increase the likelihood that U.S. troops will be deployed to help UNPROFOR withdraw. But I believe this resolution, in the absence of any other viable course of action, has one overriding redeeming value: It will establish unequivocally that the U.S. Senate believes that an afflicted and decimated people should be able to defend themselves. Let me just give an example of the effects of the arms embargo. Earlier this week, I met with the Bosnian Foreign Minister in my office. He explained to me that despite their lack of heavy weapons, the Bosnian Government forces, who outnumber Bosnian Serb forces, have improved their battlefield performance in recent months. But, according to the Foreign Minister, the Bosnian troops still suffer a lot of casualties, the vast majority of which are fatal shrapnel wounds to the head. Why is this significant? Because the arms embargo prevents the Bosnian Government from buying helmets for its forces. Helmets--one of the most essential pieces of equipment a soldier can have. And without them, many Bosnian soldiers are dying from shrapnel wounds to the head. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have tried to learn as much as possible, to listen to and be advised by the experts. But I have not yet seen any viable plan to deal with and prevent the imminent taking of Gorazde. This weekend, the United States will confer with its NATO allies in Europe [[Page S 10278]] on this situation. This meeting, in my view, is key and critical, and I hope that a course of action and a change of mandate will be presented. It is my hope that those attending these meetings will think about a scenario which could create an incentive for the parties to agree to a last cease-fire and cooling off period for a specific period of time, perhaps 3 to 6 months. The cease-fire would be enforced by three powers, using NATO troops under NATO command, employing aggressive air strikes to deter violations. The three powers would obviously be France, Britain, and the United States. During the cease-fire, UNPROFOR troops and Moslem civilians would be allowed to safely evacuate the remaining indefensible--termed by the experts, everyone I have talked to, as indefensible--eastern enclave without interference, and be relocated to safe areas of Bosnian Government territory in central Bosnia or elsewhere. At the same time, UNPROFOR troops could be reconfigured to only those areas where they can protect themselves and others, and carry out their mission of keeping open humanitarian aid corridors and facilitating the distribution of aid. But one thing is clear. If UNPROFOR is to remain in Bosnia at all, their mandate and their mission must be changed. They must be able to defend themselves and fight back under a clear, decisive and expedited field command. In return, during the cessation of hostilities, the Bosnian Government, the Bosnian Serbs, and the Croats must agree to one last effort to negotiate a fair apportionment of disputed lands. If an agreement on land apportionment is not reached by the end of the cease-fire period, Britain, France, and the United States would agree to lift the arms embargo multilaterally. Throughout this period, economic sanctions would be maintained and strengthened where possible against Serbia, with the understanding that they will not be lifted until a settlement in Bosnia is reached. Perhaps--I say ``perhaps''--a scenario like this could have merit. I presented it last Thursday night to the Secretary of State, I presented it to the minority leader, and I have discussed it with the majority leader. I do not know whether it has merit. But I do know that in the absence of any other course of action, people must be able to defend themselves. And in the absence of any other constructive, precise, and well-defined effort, it will be my intention to vote for the Lieberman- Dole resolution. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The point I was trying to make is the back seat seatbelts are quantifiable. Therefore, it would not apply.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield for just a moment? The Senator had one question he asked, his first question for the list of 80 to 100 reasons. I have 144, some of which have been remedied. I would like to enter this into the Record, if I may.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Right.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Termination of the rules, page 34: If the head of an agency has not completed the review of a rule by the deadline established in the schedule published or modified pursuant to subsection (b) and (c), the head of the agency shall not enforce the rule and the rule shall terminate by operation of law as of such date.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I just read the section on its face? Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. But they would have to face the challenge, because the cost-benefit risk assessment that they were doing is different from the one that would be required.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator was asking me a question, let me answer it with this question back to the Senator. Are they still subject to the petition process? [[Page S 10119]]

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. But it is quantified in that only 10 percent of the people die in the back seat. The problem is in the front seat.