Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will right away, in just 1 second. What the Senator from Utah is saying is the explosive company that makes the explosive does not intend--that is clear--that it be used for criminal purposes. I agree. The intention of this is not to get at the explosive company. The intention is to get at the person who misuses or mispackages, and who does it all for the purposes of committing a criminal act. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment, the amendment very specifically says so that safety would not be impaired; in other words, in the study that would be done in the ensuing 12 months that there not be an adverse environmental impact, not impair the stability of the explosive materials, and that safety not be impaired. Those are the three criteria in the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, may I move to amend?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The answer to the question is yes. I was just talking to the committee chairman, the floor manager on this subject.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, thank you very much. Change of Vote

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to change my vote on rollcall No. 220, amendment numbered 1190, from a ``yea'' to a ``nay.'' It will not make a difference in the vote count.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this emergency disaster supplemental conference report. We are faced with a difficult decision: Parts of the Nation, including California, desperately need the emergency disaster funds contained in this bill, yet many of the cuts in this legislation, such as the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program and the Summer Youth Employment Program, will harm many of those very people we are intending to help the most. However, emergency spending is just that, and American families affected by natural disasters cannot wait for us in Washington to get our acts together to begin providing relief. Since the beginning of this year, there have been seven new disaster declarations, including two floods in California, flooding in South Dakota, tornadoes in Alabama, the great tragedy of Oklahoma City, and flooding in Louisiana and Mississippi. FEMA has also undertaken preliminary damage assessments in Tennessee and Kentucky as a result of the tremendous rain and hail storms that recently swept through that area, and in South Dakota as a result of flooding. Also, and more recently, the specter of the Mississippi River's recent cresting and the snowpacks melting in California reinforces the urgency for this timely assistance. I note with trepidation and concern that tornado season in the South and Midwest, and hurricane season in the Gulf and East Coast States will both soon be here. In addition to this year's disasters, this funding will also go to continue or closeout the disaster assistance accounts in 40 other States for over 280 separate Federal disaster assistance obligations. I understand President Clinton has said he will veto this bill. I welcome the recent comments by Chairman Hatfield and Chairman Livingston which would indicate at the very least a willingness to work toward providing this needed relief. I urge the administration and the leadership of both parties to work together toward a speedy resolution of the impasse we will soon face. I fully support efforts to cut spending and reduce the deficit and look forward to working with my colleagues in the future toward that end. However, there are other vehicles for deficit reduction; we spent most of this week on the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution. Very soon we will also begin considering the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills. I respectfully submit to my colleagues that these are the proper vehicles for controlling spending and deficit reduction and I pledge to work with them at the appropriate time to make those difficult decisions. Let me reiterate that this is a national disaster relief bill. Now is the time for the Congress to come through for Americans who have been affected by national disasters. Let us not allow this obligation to get mired down in partisan bickering over which programs to cut and when to cut them. We will have the opportunity to make these cuts later; this emergency assistance, however, cannot wait. I urge my colleagues to pass this conference report and to work with the administration toward formulating a disaster assistance bill that can both pass [[Page S7407]] the Congress and be signed by the President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the proposed Medicare and Medicaid amendment, and would like to take a few minutes to explain my reasons for taking this position. We all know that Medicare and Medicaid spending cuts are necessary. There is no argument that Medicare and Medicaid must be reformed, that the Medicare trust fund must be restored to balance, and that entitlement spending must be slowed. Let me give you just a few examples of the need for reform: The current cost of Medicare alone is a staggering $176 billion, and the program increases about 10 percent annually. At over $803 billion, Medicare, Medicaid, and other entitlement programs already eat up over 50 percent of our annual budget. 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, there are about 1 million additional Medicare participants each year, and managed care efforts for Medicare and Medicaid participants have not yet yielded significant savings to the Federal Government. For those reasons, I have supported deficit reduction efforts and changes in Medicare in the past, and believe that we must all be willing to enact health care reform legislation, including measures such as means-testing the Medicare part B premium, raising the age of eligibility for new Medicare enrollees over time, and expanding a competition-based managed Medicare Program. However, $400 billion in cuts from Medicare and Medicaid is a huge amount, which goes too far, too fast, without any assurances that our health care system won't be significantly undercut. The real questions are how much to cut, how to make sure the cuts are distributed fairly, and how to make sure the cuts can work? The proposed resolution cuts over $400 billion out of Medicare and Medicaid over the next 7 years--almost a third of the entire $1.3 trillion in cuts. These health care cuts include $256 billion from Medicare and $176 billion from Medicaid, along with cuts in other public health areas. 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 these fiscal impacts: First, $256 billion in Medicare cuts will almost certainly increase seniors' out-of-pocket health care costs for premiums, deductibles, and copayments. This will lower 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. An increase in the Medicare premium leads directly to a decrease in the Social Security check. Second, in addition, $176 billion in Medicaid cuts will force States to spend more, undercut the efforts of our safety net hospitals, increase the numbers of uninsured persons, and shift even more costs to the private employer-based health care system. Do we really want to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $400 billion, based upon what we know about the effects of these cuts? The impact of these cuts on would affect California enormously--more than almost every other State. California will be particularly affected by these cuts because it has a large and growing population of 31 million residents, a high--20 percent--Medicaid rate, a high--23 percent--uninsurance rate, an extremely large--2 million--population of illegal immigrants, and high health care costs despite the spread of managed care and the tremendous success of group purchasing alliances. For California, $256 billion in Medicare cuts could cause $34 billion in total cuts to California hospitals and patients over the next 7 years, according to the Health Care Finance Administration. Despite having only 9.5 percent of the Nation's Medicare population, California would pay for over 13 percent of the Medicare cuts. These cuts could include a $4,300 increase in out-of-pocket costs-- premiums, deductibles, and copayments--to each of the 3.6 million Medicare recipients in California, according to the Health Care Finance Administration. Out-of-pocket costs are a critical issue for Medicare recipients, who already pay an extraordinary 23 percent [[Page S7070]] of their incomes on health care--compared to an average of 8 percent for those under 65. This increase would be 40 percent higher for Californians than cost increases to the rest of the Nation. For California, $176 billion in Medicaid cuts could cause $15 billion in lost Federal funding--12 percent of the total cut, second only to New York, which can afford to spend thousands more than California on each Medicaid patient. In reality, cuts of this size are only necessary to help pay for a Republican tax cut. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that balancing the Federal budget will create an economic dividend of $170 billion. If the budget is balanced and the dividend is certified by the CBO, Republicans plan to use this dividend for tax cuts. Over $345 billion in tax cuts have already been included in the House version, and a similar proposal will soon be debated here in the Senate. But the dividend could equally be used to soften the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, which is what the Rockefeller amendment proposes, and how I believe it should be used. This amendment would direct the Finance Committee to restore $100 billion, of the proposed $400 billion cut, to Medicare and Medicaid programs in order to ensure that 36 million Medicare recipients, our system of world-class hospitals, and those who still have their own private insurance are not adversely or disproportionately affected. Here is the impact of the Rockefeller amendment on California: While the budget resolution is projected to cut $34 billion in Medicare from California seniors and hospitals over the next seven years, the Rockefeller amendment would restore roughly $13.4 billion of that $34 billion. While the budget resolution is projected to increase each of California's 3.6 million Medicare recipients' out of pocket costs as much as $4,300 per person over the next seven years, the Rockefeller amendment would specifically direct the Finance Committee to lower those increases. While the budget resolution would cut $15 billion in Medicaid payments to California, the Rockefeller amendment would protect the most vulnerable populations, lessen the burden on state resources, and support the safety net of California hospitals. Medicaid funding is included not only because it protects poor women and children, but also because so many seniors receive long-term health care and other supplemental ``safety net'' services from Medicaid, along with doctor and hospital coverage from Medicare. This amendment is fully paid for. It does not lessen the deficit reduction in the budget, and still leaves significant cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. It is paid for out of the same bonus that Republicans would use for a tax cut. If CBO does certify a $170 billion bonus when the budget reconciliation bill goes through, then those funds would go back into Medicare, not into tax cuts. Without this Medicare and Medicaid amendment, the budget resolution makes huge amounts of cuts, with no real assurance that they can be achieved in 7 years without destroying our health care system or imposing a crushing burden on seniors. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate passage of the Medicare Select bill, H.R. 483, which as passed by the House would extend the current demonstration program beyond its June 30, 1995 cutoff date and expand it from 15 States to the entire Nation. While it has thus far been just a small 3-year demonstration program, the Medicare Select Program has been a tremendous success in the 15 States where it is offered, especially in California. Medicare Select provides supplementary insurance--for copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs--for 100,000 California Medicare recipients (roughly 440,000 nationally). Seniors enroll in the low-cost Medicare Select Program in exchange for participation in a loose-knit managed care plan. This network of providers are used to cut premium costs by 10-37 percent over fee for service medigap products, which translates into savings on medigap premiums of up to $25 per month, or $300 per year. In California, more than 2,200 new enrollees are being added per month, because the Medicare Select Program can provide low-cost, high- quality health benefits, while still retaining a high degree of choice over their physician. There is no additional cost to the Federal Government. However, under current law, no new Medicare recipients will be able to enroll in the program after July 1, 1995, when the demonstration program that was authorized in 1990 and extended for 6 months last year will end. To make sure that select is continued in California, I joined Senator Chafee and others in introducing Medicare Select legislation earlier this year, and am pleased that the House was easily able to pass legislation that would extend the program for 5 years and expand it to all 50 States, with a bipartisan vote of 408 to 18. This Medicare Select legislation should not be confused or dragged down with other, more contentious health care insurance reform issues. Certainly, there are problems with the current medigap insurance program that must be addressed. However, this is a simple, straightforward bill that should not be used for those purposes. The Medicare Select Program is entirely voluntary, and should not be confused with programs and proposals that would require seniors to join HMO's to get their Medicare. No seniors are being forced or fooled into joining, Medicare Select seniors can still receive service outside their plans, and no insurers are being forced to sell this type of product. In fact, Consumer Reports has listed Medicare Select products as among its highest rated values, and extension of the Medicare Select Program has been endorsed by the California Commissioner of Insurance as well as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Certainly, managed Medicare programs like Medicare Select must be implemented carefully, in order to ensure that Medicare enrollees are appropriately informed of the benefits of this program, provided with high-quality services, and ensured access to highly trained physicians. However, the matter at hand is straightforward, and the most important thing is that Medicare Select be extended. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Medicare Select legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 395, title II, which would allow for the first time the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil to foreign markets. Mr. President, I have struggled long and hard over this bill. Constituents from my State have mixed views on the benefits of exporting ANS crude oil abroad. After discussing this bill with all affected parties and weighing the pros and cons, I am convinced that this legislation, as now drafted, satisfies the problems that have been identified and, on balance, presents a win-win solution. Let me briefly go over the concerns I have had, including the possible impacts on jobs, on crude oil supplies for the west coast, and on the environment. jobs First, for this legislation to be a success, it must not eliminate jobs in one place while adding them somewhere else. That is why I support its requirement that any ANS crude exported abroad must be carried in American-flagged and American-crewed ships. Otherwise, crude oil that now comes to American refineries in American ships would instead be going to overseas refineries in foreign ships. But I am also concerned that the ships carrying this crude be built in American yards. While I understand why such a requirement cannot be included in this bill, I have received assurances from BP America, the company that is most likely to be exporting the crude overseas, that it is committed to building any new ships needed for this trade in American yards. I received the following letter from BP America on this issue: Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feinstein: Further to discussions with you held September 30, 1994, if the ban on Alaska exports is lifted, BP will commit now and in the future to use only U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, U.S.-crewed ships for such exports. We will supplement or replace ships required to transport Alaskan crude oil with U.S.-built ships as existing ships are phased out under the provisions in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. I hope that this commitment satisfies your request that Alaska oil exports be carried on U.S.-built, U.S.-flag ships, manned by U.S. crews. Yours sincerely, Steven Benz, President, BP Oil Shipping Company, USA. oil supplies Second, the loss of ANS crude oil supplies from the west coast of the United States must not create a situation where gasoline prices at the pump go up in our western States, or where our western refineries that now depend on this crude oil supply must close their doors because they are unable to replace it at a reasonable cost. This bill specifies that the President shall determine on an annual basis whether independent refiners in the Western United States are able to secure adequate supplies of crude. If not, he is to make recommendations to Congress. Further, the bill requires that the GAO conduct a broader assessment of the impacts of the export of ANS crude after 5 years, including gasoline prices at the pump, and make any recommendations necessary.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I could have a couple of minutes to think about this I would appreciate it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my deep dismay over the defeat of the Murray-Gorton amendment. Frankly, it was my intention if the Murray-Gorton amendment were successful, to move an amendment which would be a slight change to take California's situation into consideration. I cannot help but note that there have been a number of specific amendments to deal with a number of States. Nine States have received some preferential treatment in this bill. For my State, and I speak for Senator Boxer, as well, California has a unique situation. We have a State law which mandates a 50-percent reduction in solid waste by the year 2000. How can a State do that if it does not have some flow control over its waste? Eight local governments in my State, based on last year's bill, made agreements and incurred debts totaling $125 million which are unaddressed by this bill. Those counties are very concerned. The California Association of Counties had asked that if the Gorton- Murray amendment were successful, an amendment be introduced based on that amendment which would clarify certain gray areas in the bill. The gray areas are contracts and franchises that have been consummated after the grandfather date, but based on last year's bill. I very much regret that these issues are not taken into consideration, particularly by a Congress that is very concerned about States' rights. I, for one, and Senator Boxer as well, will have to vote against this bill, based on the fact that we believe our State is seriously disadvantaged by it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, that is correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Alaska another question. It is essentially about jobs. After looking at this very carefully and talking with independent oil producers and the Department of Energy, I believe that this legislation will, as the Senators from Alaska have stated on the floor earlier, be helpful in producing jobs in the State of California. The Department of Energy has some very generous estimates in their report. I am not sure I believe the totality of this, but suffice it to say that they predict 5,000 to 15,000 new jobs very quickly and as many as 10,000 to 25,000 jobs by the decade end, most of which they identify as taking place in Kern County, CA. I ask the Senator from Alaska if he concurs with this energy observation and would he agree that this would be job-producing for the State of California?

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. It is also my understanding, Senator, that this bill specifies that the President shall determine on an annual basis whether independent refiners in the Western United States are able to secure adequate supplies of crude, and if not, he can so indicate and make further recommendations to the Congress; is this not correct?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that, Mr. President. It is very important to me that this U.S.-flag and crewed and, to the extent we can, built ships be used. I take this commitment from BP, however they are going to do it, that the oil that they transport will be in U.S.- flagged, crewed, and built vessels. I thank them for that. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Alaska will yield for a question.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I want to commend the two Senators from Alaska for their work on this measure. I also want to thank them for seeking my support. Early on in the discussions, because of concerns, I took the time to discuss this with virtually all of the parties involved. In a meeting in my office in September of last year, one of those parties was British Petroleum. British Petroleum would be a major supplier or purveyor of Alaskan crude. One of the concerns that I had was that we not create jobs somewhere else and take jobs from our people, specifically the merchant marine. The two authors have been good enough to see to it that the legislation reflects that the oil must be transported on American-flag and American-crewed vessels and has secured that as a part of the legislation. There is another part to this, and that is American-built vessels. But because of a GATT problem, it is not possible to put this in the legislation. In September, I received a letter and I would like to quickly read this letter and ask the Senator directly the question. The letter is addressed to me and it says: Further to discussions with you held September 30, 1994, if the ban on Alaska exports is lifted, BP will commit now and in the future to use only U.S.-built, U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed ships for such exports. We will supplement or replace ships required to transport Alaskan crude oil with the U.S.-built ships as existing ships are phased out under the provisions in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. I hope that this commitment satisfies your request that Alaska oil exports be carried on U.S.-built, U.S.-flag ships, manned by U.S. crews. Yours, sincerely, Steven Benz, President, BP Oil Shipping Company, USA. My question to the Senator from Alaska is: Is this agreement still in effect?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. I have one last question, and I would like to place a statement in the Record. One of the refineries is located right in my area and, of course, that is Tosco in the San Francisco Bay area. Among the parties that I discussed this with, Tosco was one of them. It is clear that they had some reservations about the legislation. I did discuss this with the Senator from Alaska, and I know he mentioned this earlier on the floor. I would like him, if he would, to repeat it. It is my understanding that Tosco has been assured reasonable supplies of oil even with this agreement in place. I would very much welcome the Senator's response to this in the affirmative or negative, whichever it may be.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Missing Service Personnel Act of 1995, introduced by Senators Dole and Lautenberg earlier this year. The Missing Service Personnel Act is a significant and an appropriate piece of legislation. It would establish new methods for determining the status of missing service personnel and improving the means by which full accountability is achieved. Due in part to the handling of POW/MIA cases by the Department of Defense and the United States Government since the Vietnam war, existing procedures have been criticized as being unresponsive to the not adequately address issues that have emerged over the past 25 years regarding how missing persons and their families are treated by Government officials. S. 256 would implement procedures which foster a sense of trust and credibility between the Government and families of missing personnel, while attempting to ensure fairness to all involved. Considering the tremendous sacrifices our men and women make when facing combat, maintaining credibility and trust are crucial. Soldiers face the terrible prospect of capture and, in turn, their loved ones face the horrible possibility of intense anguish and heartache. We must assure our armed services personnel and their civilian counterparts that the United States will do everything possible to return them home safely in the event they turn up missing in action. At the same time, they must also be assured that more open and fair procedures will be established to determine their exact status. S. 256 takes concrete steps to achieve these objectives. There are, however, some issues with the bill that I think still need to be reviewed. For instance, S. 256 restricts identification of recovered remains to licensed practitioners of forensic medicine. Utilization of personnel in disciplines other than medicine which may be appropriate are not permitted. According to DOD, such a requirement would be unreasonable during combat operations or on the battlefield. Moreover, as this legislation would be retroactive to World War II, DOD may be required to review thousands of cases. The Defense Department has indicated that it does not have the personnel or budget to handle such a workload. These are some issues that I hope the Senate Armed Services Committee will look into when reviewing this legislation. Overall, I believe that S. 256 is an important and noteworthy bill. The Government has been perceived as being unresponsive to the needs of families whose loved ones are classified as missing in action. This legislation would safeguard the rights of missing armed service members while addressing the concerns of their effected families and the Federal Government. I am pleased to cosponsor the Missing Service Personnel Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, today, May 8, is V-E Day, which stands for Victory in Europe, and it marks the end of one front of the most disastrous event in modern human history. The war in Europe was one in which 50 million civilians and military personnel alike died. It was not only a war, but a major crime against humanity. Two out of three Jews in Europe were scientifically exterminated--a total of 6 million--along with 5 million other victims. In the Soviet Union, 27 million people lost their lives. I visited Leningrad where you see 25,000 people in one mass grave, and these are plot after plot after plot. No country lost as much as did the people of the former Soviet Union. The war spread death across six of the seven continents and all over the world's oceans. In the end, much of the heart of Western civilization lay in ruins. Sixteen million one hundred twelve thousand Americans served in the U.S. Armed Forces during World War II, and they knew the ravages of war. Of these, more than 1 million were Californians; 408,000 Americans never came home. To these Californians and these Americans, I want to say you have my deepest respect, and I know I join with all of my Senate colleagues in saying thank you. For me, I was one of the lucky ones: I was 11 years old, a girl, living in a flat in the Marina District of San Francisco. I remember the blackout shades, the submarine nets under the Golden Gate Bridge, troops shipping out from Fort Mason 6 blocks from my home and the Nike gun emplacements on the marina headlands and in the Presidio. As a lucky one in the land of the free and the home of the brave, for me there was no Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen. V-E Day represents a victory over fascism, paranoia and the most devastating war in history, all sparked and guided by one man. Probably the most infamous demagog the world has ever seen, Hitler was described by one of his early associates, Otto Stresser, as a speaker ``who touches each private wound on the raw, liberating the unconscious, exposing its innermost aspirations, telling it most what it wants to hear.'' Jews and Slavs were referred to as ``untermenschen,'' subhumans. Moscow, Leningrad, and Warsaw were hard hit, their industries left in ruins. In ``Mein Kampf,'' Hitler described what history has shown to be correct. He said: The masses more readily fall victim to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies * * * it would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Millions, indeed, did fall victim to the big lie. Fanatical in his quest for personal power, Hitler withdrew Germany from the League of Nations, aproclaiming that the European powers will ``never act * * * they'll just protest * * * and they will always be too late.'' In fact, the West's hesitance in the face of this evil has sullied the word ``appeasement'' for all time. By 1943, Hitler held the power of life and death over 80 million Germans and more than twice that number of vanquished people. After Hitler took his own life on April 30, 1945, and the end of the war [[Page S6231]] was in sight, devoted followers professed their determination to continue. A Nazi-controlled newspaper said at the time: The heart which beat only for us, the will which blazed only for us, the creative genius which thought and acted only for us, the voice which so often galvanized us--all this no longer exists! However low fate has brought events, Hitler's achievements will illuminate, far into the distant future, the epoch which began with him. Now, 50 years later, these words offer an ominous warning. Modern-day paranoia, built upon elaborate conspiracy theories and fears, I am sorry to say, is still very much alive today. For several years, we have seen an escalation in fundamentalist- inspired killings in Egypt and Algeria, the rise of neo-Nazism in Germany, nationalistic fervor in former Communist States, severe anti- immigrant backlash in France, and poison gas attacks in Japan. The rise of fanaticism and the terrorism it spawns is ever increasing right here in the United States as well. I think no event embodies this more than the Oklahoma City bombing. Whatever the final outcome of the investigation into the bombing, a new--and, I believe eye-opening--look at the growing trend of extremism is taking place across the world. In this country, so-called militias are growing in numbers, stockpiling vast arsenals, preaching hate and violence against this Government. Here are some examples: The Federal Emergency Management Agency has orders for Hispanics and African-Americans to be ``rounded up and detained'' in the event of a State of domestic national emergency. That is false. They say tax protesters, demonstrators against Government military intervention outside United States borders, and people who maintain weapons in their homes are the next targets. That is false. They say that FEMA advocates ``the rounding up and transfer to `assembly centers or relocation camps' of at least 21 million American Negroes.'' That is false. They say there are black helicopters with no markings spying on citizens. They say police officers were met by ``armed men in black uniforms,'' reportedly from the Federal Government. That is false. They say U.N. troops are training to suppress America's people. That is false. They say Somalia was simply a practice run for occupying the United States. That is false. They point out that Russian trucks and personnel carriers are being imported as well as ``100-car trains filled with United Nations equipment.'' That is false. They even say that Crips and Bloods--gangs that dominate some urban areas--are being trained to serve as something called ``shock troops'' and ``cannon fodder'' for house-to-house searches conducted by ``New World Order officers.'' That is false. So theories about black helicopters, modern day concentration camps, and mass raids abound, we find, throughout this land of the free and home of the brave. Even on Internet, this system is used to spread conspiracy theories across our land. Even a terrorist handbook is run on the Internet on how to build a bomb. I read this handbook, and they tell you how to break into university chemical labs, how to find the chemicals you need, and how to steal those chemicals. Finally, we see neo-Nazism, even signs popping up here and there saying ``whites only,'' and on and on and on. One must ask the question on this very special day: Will the threats, the fear mongering, and the paranoia eventually fuel major bloodshed? Was it responsible for encouraging the terrible Oklahoma City bombing? Two years ago, militia members warned about U.N. troops poised along the United States-Canadian border, ready for invasion. Thirty years ago, the John Birch Society warned of Chinese troops in box cars along the Mexican border. Fifty years ago, the most deadly of all wars ended. History can teach us lessons if we want to learn. Or we can be doomed to repeat history time and time again. We all pray that the Oklahoma City bombing is a one-time-only event. Yet, as a country, this is a time for us to come together, to heal, to begin anew, to straighten with truth vicious lies, to look for what unites us and strengthens us as a people, an American people, to strengthen these bonds, rather than to seek what divides us. The wounds of the past can guide us in the future. We simply need the determination and the political will to fight the fear and the paranoia that is still so strong in our society. V-E Day is a chance to celebrate the conclusion of one of the darkest eras in our history. It is a chance to say thank you to those who gave their lives so that we might remain a free people. Let us use this day to also look deeply at America as it exists today. There is a great deal of work to do to sort it out, to pull this country together before fear and intolerance rips us apart. It is with the loving memory of the millions and millions of victims of World War II--and the hundreds of victims of the Oklahoma bombing-- that I make these remarks today. And I give thanks to those who fought and died in Europe so that we may know freedom. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senator from New Jersey in this legislation to rescind the appropriation for the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I do so for a number of reasons, and I want to briefly cite them. At a time when our Government and this body is cutting virtually every program that benefits people all across the board, I think the Civilian Marksmanship Program is one program that is truly expendable and can be rescinded. As was pointed out, the military has said this program is not necessary. The General Accounting Office in 1990 found the program unnecessary and not related to the military mission. In March 1994, the Department of Defense testified before the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations that the Civilian Marksmanship Program was not related to our Nation's military readiness and had no effect on our national security objectives. About a week ago, Mr. President, I had a group gathered of major law enforcement organizations to talk about the intended repeal of the assault weapons legislation, and the head of a Federal law enforcement organization handed me a copy of the National Rifle Association's letter, a 6-page direct-mail piece that went out, and said to me this was received by one of our law enforcement people who was, frankly, amazed that this kind of rhetoric could appear on an NRA direct-mail piece. I took a look at it, and I was astonished by what I saw. Since that time, a number of Members of the Senate have commented in the Chamber on their concern about this piece. It was that it was hyper hyperbole and that it seemed to have a purpose to incite people to take action against the Federal Government, and it made statements which were in effect libelous; they were untrue; they were slanderous; statements like it did not matter to those of us who support the assault weapons ban that it gave ``jack-booted Government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.'' Mr. President, I have had a lot of things said about me but never that. That is untrue. It is a lie. It is patently false and it is said for one reason and one reason only, and that is to incite people. Then it goes on to say, ``President Clinton's army of antigun Government agents continue to intimidate and harass law-abiding citizens. In Clinton's administration, if you have a badge, you have the Government's go ahead to harass, to intimidate, and to even murder law-abiding citizens.'' On its face, that is slanderous and in writing it is libelous. It is factually untrue. It is said but for one reason and one reason only. And that is to incite and develop hatred against the Federal Government and the very people who carry out the intent of the laws that we in this body and the other body pass and are signed by the President and become the law of the land. I do not think this body can condone this kind of rhetoric. Now, is this connected with the Civilian Marksmanship Program? Not directly. Not directly. But indirectly it is, because the NRA effectively participates in this program--it is estimated by some to the extent of $1 million out of the $2.5 million appropriation. Moreover, given the association's refusal to recant this letter, a letter which is blatantly political and inciting, certainly not one of a nonpolitical organization, should Federal funds benefit a political organization of this type? I would come down and say no, Federal moneys should not go to benefit an organization that openly admits it plays a major political role in the election and in the unelection of Members of Congress and members of other local bodies. I believe letters of this kind really defeat its purpose as a so- called nonpolitical organization. In addition, I am disturbed about recent reports, such as the ABC ``PrimeTime Live'' episode and a Boston Globe article, that describe how militia members brag that they have received ammunition, surplus weaponry, and training on Army bases through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I do not know whether this is true or not. I have no way on my own of verifying it, but the fact is they did brag that this was the case. In fact, my staff was recently told by the Department of Defense about a recent incident where a military security patrol monitoring an Army rifle range saw that club members were using the range and wearing Michigan militia patches. These club members were asked to leave the range, which is located at Camp Grayling, MI, on April 27. As DOD staff admit, there is nothing in the regulations of this program to prevent militia members from joining civilian marksmanship clubs and receiving ammunition, weaponry, and access to military training facilities, because--and I stress this--the program does not check members for their membership in other organizations or limit the number of adults that can join. So in light of these reports, which suggest this possibility to train, supply, or subsidize anti-Government extremist militias, and the letter which seems to indicate to me, and I think to other reasonable readers of the letter, that the National Rifle Association is willing to go a step further to raise the level of the rhetoric, to increase the hostility, one can certainly question the wisdom of Federal dollars going to provide weapons and bullets and training to groups who may-- and I say may and I say might--use these weapons and use that training against the very people that this body empowers to carry out our laws. So I believe the time has come to take definitive, direct action and, by that action, to send a message that we will not, in fact, tolerate this. That is why I am cosponsoring this legislation, and I hope this body will be receptive to its passage.