Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the leader for his courtesy, and I want to thank the two authors of the bill. I know they have labored long and hard.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. President, I have listened carefully over the past weeks of this debate--pro and con--on product liability. I am not an attorney, so I have tried hard to work through what is fair and what is not. While I would like to have an opportunity to vote for cloture on a more narrowly crafted bill, I cannot vote for this bill with the Dole amendment included. To do so, I believe, would extend the impact of the bill far beyond the limited field of product liability, and impose major limitations to redress of grievances across the board in all civil actions, without the opportunity of Committee hearings in the Senate and consideration of how the bill would impact other specific areas of the law. Anyone who has read ``The Rainmaker,'' the newest best seller, can see what impact the Dole amendment would have, for example, in insurance cases. Insurance companies would be able to do exactly what was done in that book, act in bad faith. And I simply cannot support this. I believe that Senators Gorton and Rockefeller have worked hard to craft a bill with reasonable reforms that could pass this body. I was particularly pleased with the compromise reached with the Snowe amendment to limit punitive damages to two times compensatory, which is now part of this bill. This replaces the original fixed cap of $250,000, or three times economic damages, whichever is greater. I believe this would be a fair model which takes into consideration both women and children whose earnings may be limited or nonexistent. I find myself in strong support of other major provisions of this bill, as well. Specifically, I support the imposition of a 2-year statute of limitations from the time the injury and its cause are discovered for a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit. This provision is actually more permissive than that in many States, and California. This provision is actually victim and plaintiff friendly. Two, the imposition of a 20-year statute of repose, an outer time limit on litigation involving workplace durable and capital goods. This is a fair standard of repose. The bill would eliminate product seller's liability--including that against wholesalers, distributors, and retailers--for a manufacturer's errors. Sellers would remain liable in cases of their own negligence. For example, if a seller removed the manufacturer's label from a toy that said it is not appropriate for children under 6 years of age, and a child was subsequently injured, the seller would be liable. The bill would preserve a plaintiff's power to sue one defendant, theoretically the deep pocket, for the full amount of economic damages, but eliminate such joint and several liability for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering. It would allow either party to offer to participate in alternative dispute resolution--something that I very much thought and hoped would be part of this bill, and which I believe is an important part, especially for the plaintiffs who have small claims. The bill would bar recovery of a plaintiff who is more than 50 percent responsible for causing their accident a fair measure of the degree of culpability on a plaintiff in an action. It would reduce the amount of the judgment against the defendant if the product user is found to have misused or altered the product. I believe this is a just and fair provision. It would eliminate liability of raw material suppliers for medical devices, such as the supplier of teflon/dacron, products often used to coat a medical device. Finally, the bill would deny an employer at fault in causing a workplace injury the right of reimbursement for workers compensation benefits from an employee who wins in a suit against a manufacturer. The tort liability system has been a particular source of concern to many, and that includes everyone: consumers, professional service providers, manufacturers, and public agencies, all of whom, in recent years, have faced increasing liability insurance costs. Over the last 40 years, general liability insurance costs have increased at over four times the rate of growth of the national economy. American manufacturers and products sellers generally pay product liability insurance rates that are 20 to 50 times higher than those of their foreign competitors. In a global marketplace, that becomes a real barrier to competition. Many believe that the tort liability system of delivering compensation is seriously flawed, requiring high transaction costs to deliver compensation that some see as inadequate and others as too generous, but which most agree is uncertain and unpredictable. Putting aside the size of the judgment for a moment, the transaction costs associated with the current product liability system--including plaintiff's attorney's fees, defense legal fees, court proceedings and other public expenditures, the time of the litigants--are enormous. The Rand Institute found that overall transaction costs of the tort system actually exceed compensation to plaintiffs. Critics of product liability reform, on the other hand, argue that however well or poorly the system performs its compensation function, it must be preserved and indeed strengthened because of its importance as a means of deterring unlawful, careless, negligent conduct in the manufacturing of a product. I believe the basic bill provides a fair and reasonable balance. Many of its provisions are either consistent with or based on California law. The two key features of the bill that have raised the most concern are the cap on punitive damages and the joint and several liability provisions. I was pleased to work with and support Senator Snowe's amendment on a modified punitive damages formula that is responsive to the concern raised about the impact on women and children of the punitive damages cap in the original bill. Instead of linking the punitive damages cap to a formula that is lopsided in favor of those with high amounts of lost wages, the modified formula links punitive damages to what I consider a fairer measure--the full compensation received by the plaintiff. This formula is substantially that recommended by both the American College of Trial Lawyers and the American Law Institute, and both bodies have given a great deal of study and attention to the issue of punitive damages. Although I would support a bill without a punitive damages cap, I have concluded that some reform of this area is needed. The American College of Trial Lawyers, for example, commented that punitive damages awards ``* * * often bear no relation to deterrence and merely reflect a jury's dissatisfaction with a defendant and a desire to punish, often without regard to the true harm threatened by a defendant's conduct.'' They further note that ``* * * punitive damages should be more difficult to obtain and that the amounts of such awards should be subject to more control.'' The Supreme Court, as well, has expressed concern about punitive damages that ``run wild,'' and have clarified that it is the job of judges to review awards for their reasonableness. In a recent law review article, it was noted that in recent years, the scope of punitive damages law has broadened considerably as the courts have applied them in new fields of law--such as product liability, mass tort litigation where punitive damages can be awarded repeatedly, and contract law--all areas of the law where punitive damages did not traditionally apply. As a result, the number of awards has increased significantly. In my own State of California, between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 1994, there were 86 punitive damage jury verdicts in State courts that were equal to or greater than $1 million, out of several hundred cases, resulting totally in judgments of $1.7 billion. California has one of the largest number of punitive damages awards and size of awards in the Nation. The Gorton substitute amendment, as modified by the Snowe amendment, I believe is the right approach. It retains punitive damages, which are a powerful tool for deterring conduct which society finds offensive and flagrant and, at the same time, ensures that more reasonable awards will be set. Another area that has been of great concern are the provisions on joint and several liability. This provision in the bill is actually based on reforms enacted in California in 1986 by ballot initiative. It neither appears reasonable nor fair to hold a defendant liable for more than their share of the fault just because they are the deep pocket or the only available party to be sued. The public policy has been that in selecting among parties to bear the burden, pick the deep pocket. I do not agree with that. Again, I think the approach of the bill, as in California, is the fairest compromise, allowing for full economic compensation, but an apportioning of noneconomic losses among responsible parties in proportion to their level of fault. I want to speak for a minute on biomaterials, which impacts the growing medical technology sector in my State. In April of last year, the New York Times reported that big chemical companies and other manufacturers of raw materials, used to make heart valves, artificial blood vessels, and other implants, began warning medical equipment companies that they intended to cut off deliveries because of fears of being joined in lawsuits. In essence, many biomaterials suppliers simply will not provide their product to medical device manufacturers because such transactions involve low returns and a high risk of substantial losses. Ms. Peggy Phillips, an attorney with a life-sustaining medical device, testified before a Commerce subcommittee and told me personally, of her own story. She suffers from sudden cardiac death syndrome--a disease where the patient's heart will unexpectedly stop beating for no apparent reason. As a result, Ms. Phillips had a life- saving device implanted in her body called an implantable defribillator. Essentially, it functions to shock her heart back to life and to maintain a constant heart beat. This device and others like it, however, are in jeopardy, because, as Ms. Phillips noted, it does not make sense for biomaterial suppliers to continue providing those materials for device manufacturers. She related a story of one supplier who spent $8 million annually defending itself in cases involving an implantable device even though that supplier had no role in the design, manufacture or sale of the device. She noted that sales by all suppliers to the device ``totaled $418,000 while sales of this same raw material to all other markets totaled $282 million.'' The provisions of this bill, both preserve access to essential supplies and shorten the liability chain so that those who are truly responsible for the design, manufacture or sale of a product will be the party hauled into court to be held accountable. The current State-by-State system of product liability is ever changing and filled with conflicting rules it presents, today, I believe, an unfair barrier to competition, and creates an unpredictability which is neither fair to business nor consumers because it translates into less development of new products and higher product costs for the consumer. It is my hope that I will have an opportunity to vote on a narrow bill have stated my support, but which does not include the Dole amendment crippling punitive damages in all civil actions.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last Monday, April 24, marked the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian genocide. I rise today to acknowledge and commemorate this terrible chapter in our history, to help ensure that it will never be forgotten. On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman authorities began rounding up hundreds of Armenian political and religious leaders throughout Anatolia. Over the ensuing months and years, some 1.5 million Armenians were killed at the hands of the Ottoman authorities, and hundreds of thousands more were exiled from their homes. For its devastation and barbarism, the Armenian genocide stands out as one of the most horrific events in human history. As the 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide passes, it is vital that we remember and speak out about the systematic persecution and murder of millions of Armenians by the Ottoman government. I urge my colleagues to join me, the Armenian-American community, and people across the United States in commemorating the genocide and paying tribute to the victims of this crime against humanity. Americans, who are blessed with freedom and security, can never allow oppression and persecution to pass without condemnation. By commemorating the Armenian genocide, we renew our commitment always to fight for human dignity and freedom, and we send out a message that the world can never allow genocide to be perpetrated again. Even as we remember the tragedy and honor the dead, we also honor the living. Out of the ashes of their history, Armenians all across the world have clung to their identity and have prospered in new communities. Their strength and perseverance is a triumph of the human spirit, which refuses to cede victory to evil. The best retort to the perpetrators of oppression and destruction is rebirth, renewal, and rebuilding. Armenians throughout the world have done just that, and today they do it in their homeland as well. A free and independent Armenia stands today as a living monument to the resilience of a people. I am proud that the United States, through our friendship and assistance, is contributing to the rebuilding and renewal of Armenia. genocide; let their deaths not be in vain. We must remember their tragedy to ensure that such crimes can never be repeated. And as we remember Armenia's dark past, we can look with hope to its future, which is bright with possibility.

Mr. FEINSTEIN

Mr. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, leadership grounded in common sense and compassion and elevated by imagination and vision is the hallmark of Richard Clarke's 30-year career at Pacific Gas & Electric Co. [PG&E], the last 8 as chairman of the board and chief executive officer. As his retirement nears, I should like to salute him. Over the years, first as mayor of San Francisco and now as U.S. Senator, I have worked closely with Richard. Not only on questions involving utility service, but on a broad range of community issues, I have known Dick as a person who quickly gets to the heart of issues and directly speaks his mind. Even further, he has been involved in a wide range of charitable and civic activities, and gives meaning and substance to the accolade ``civic leader.'' During his tenure as PG&E's CEO, Richard Clarke made environmental improvement a company priority and created programs that implemented policies to conserve energy. So effective were these innovations that PG&E received the President's Environment and Conservation Challenge Award in 1991, the Nation's highest recognition for corporate environmental excellence. In that same year, then President Bush named him to the President's Council of Sustainable Development. At the same time, Richard, as chair of the Bay Area Council and the Committee on Jobs, worked to bring together other business leaders of San Francisco business and focus their collective knowledge and talents on ways to make government more efficient and the economy stronger. Under Richard Clarke's guidance, PG&E has won national recognition for improving the workplace by establishing child day-care centers for employees and advancing opportunities for women and minorities. His sense of community concern and compassion is reflected in his effort of such worthwhile efforts as Francisco Food Bank and Project Open Hand, which provides nourishing meals to people living with AIDS, to United Way and the San Francisco Symphony, where he serves as a board member. He personally developed and championed programs that encourage PG&E employees to become mentors to disadvantaged young people and to provide guidance to small, developing businesses in the inner city. As he retires, Richard Clarke leaves behind a remarkable record of accomplishment--success in business and community affairs. He takes with him the admiration and respect of all those who have worked with him, and who wish him all the best in retirement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, much has been said and written in the last 8 days since the bombing in Oklahoma City. And we have all been shocked and angered by the panoply of images dominating our television screens and newspapers. One hundred and ten dead have so far been recovered from the rubble, and there is fear that many more lie beneath slabs of cement and twisted girders. So many of those killed or injured were public sector employees, and I believe we should take a moment to consider their sacrifice. All too often, its easy to abuse those who work in Government jobs. They are called bureaucrats and accused of on their desk. But the blast offers another image--as survivors huddled on the sidewalk waiting amid the smoke and debris, as investigators swarmed to the site and rescue workers began probing through the chasm that had been the Alfred T. Murrah Federal Building. In the faces of that day we see Federal employees devoted to their jobs. We see them as people who deserve great respect. They were already hard at work that Wednesday morning when the bomb exploded at 9:04 a.m. They were serving the public in 1 of 15 Federal agencies, including Social Security, Secret Service, Veterans Affairs, Customs, the Drug Enforcement Agency, housed in that Federal building. Among those who gave their lives was a Secret Service agent who worked for five Presidents and a Department of Defense special agent who happened to stop by the Federal building shortly before 9 a.m. In fact, at the Oklahoma Office of Housing and Urban Development, 35 out of 100 employees in the office at the time of the blast are either dead or missing and believed dead. Of course, Federal employees were not the only casualties. There was the 37-year-old nurse who ran into the building after the explosion to save lives only to lose hers. There were those in the Social Security office to enroll a 3-month- old, and, then there were the children in the day care center. Who shall ever forget the picture of the infant in the firefighter's arms? The men and women who worked in the Murrah Building did not take their jobs for the money, for these were not high-paying jobs. They did not take these positions because they were glamorous, for these positions often meant simply trying to solve everyday problems of ordinary Americans. I submit to you that the unsung heroes of the public sector--the many workers who perished in this terrorist attack--were doing their best to serve the public. It is their memory I honor today. among the dead At least six agents from the Secret Service agency, located on the ninth floor of the Federal building: Donald Leonard had helped protect seven Presidents in his 25-year career. Before joining the service, he was an Army military police officer and worked for the Treasury Department. Agent Alan Whicher, 40, had protected President Clinton and just 2 months ago had taken a promotion to assistant special agent in charge of the Oklahoma City office. Agent Cindy Campbell Brown had married a fellow agent 40 days earlier. Her new husband was still working in the Phoenix, AZ office. They were waiting for transfers so they could work in the same office. Agent Mickey Maroney worked his entire career for the agency and that morning he had swapped shifts. The Social Security Administration, located on the first floor allowing for easy access for constituents, was another agency with severe casualties: Sharon Louise Wood-Chesnut, 47. Julie Welch, 23, worked with Spanish-speaking customers at the Social Security Administration. She was engaged to marry an Air Force lieutenant who was assigned to Tinker Air Force Base, east of Oklahoma City. Ethel Griffin, 55, was a service representative for the Social Security Administration. She was an avid craftswoman and loved her hobby. She is survived by her husband, Bruce, two sons, and three grandchildren. Other agencies, too, lost valuable workers: Drug Enforcement Agency office assistant Carrol J. ``Chip'' Fields worked on the ninth floor of the building. She is survived by her husband and a 21-year-old son. Highway safety inspector Michael Carrillo, 44, had just returned to Oklahoma to raise his three children. He was a veteran of the Vietnam war. Department of Housing and Urban Development's five attorneys, many supervisors and support staff. Army Recruiter Sgt. Lola Rene Bolden. Her two children, ages 13 and 11, will now go to Alabama to live with their grandmother. Marine Corps recruiter Sgt. Benjamin Davis, 29, was at the recruiting station when the bomb exploded. He is survived by his wife and one daughter. Building inspector Steven Curry, 40, who worked for the General Services Administration. He leaves behind his wife and two teen-age children. Department of Defense special agent, Larry Turner, was heading out of town on assignment. He stopped by the Oklahoma City office shortly before 9 a.m. He, too, was among those killed. Federal Credit Union loan officer Robbin Huff, who was expecting her first child in June, was killed. Other credit union employees who died included: 32-year-old Christi Jenkins and 23-year-old Frankie Merrell. Many other Government workers who survived saw their lives shattered: Edye Smith works as a secretary at the IRS office located just five blocks away from the Federal building. That morning, she took her two sons--3-year-old Chase and 2-year-old Colton--to the child care center located on the first floor of the Federal building. Her 2-year-old ran up to her as they said goodbye and said: ``I love you, Mommy.'' It was the last time Edye ever could see her children. Edye's brother, police officer Daniel Cross, found the two young boys. Both had been killed. Twenty-year-old Aren Almon had just taken a new job at an insurance company. On April 18, her daughter, Baylee, had her first birthday. The next morning, at 7:45 a.m., Aren took her daughter to the child care center. Her daughter was the child wearing yellow booties who was carried out by a young firefighter shortly after the bomb exploded. The photo of the young victim and the firefighter, Chris Fields, appeared on newspapers all across the country and--without words--conveyed the horror of this attack. Still, too, innocent taxpayers looking to the Federal Government for help also saw their lives taken away: Mike and Kathleen Turner left their 4-year-old daughter, Ashley, with Mike's parents that Wednesday morning. At first, when news of the explosion was reported, neither parent worried since their daughter was safely tucked under the care of doting grandparents. Mike's parents, however, had made a morning appointment at the Social Security office. They, of course, would have made sure to take Ashley with them. Ashley's name appeared on the list of those killed by the bomb. Ashley's grandparents appear to have died as well. Thirty-six-year-old Pamela Argo worked hard--during the day as a hospital administrator and moonlighting as a caterer. Seven weeks before, her husband died. On Wednesday morning, she had gone to apply for SSI benefits. She, too, died. Cheryl Hammon accompanied her daughters, Felicia and Dana, to the Federal building to get a Social Security card for Dana's 3-month-old son Gabreon. Cheryl, Gabreon, and Dana's daughter, Peachlyn, were presumed dead. Dana survived after having her lower right leg amputated. Joe Mitchell was about to turn 65, so he and his wife of 30 years, Leigh, headed down to the Social Security office in Oklahoma City. Shortly after 9 a.m., a Federal worker took Joe to a back office in the Social Security office to fill out some paperwork. His wife stayed in the lobby. The building was then rocked by the explosion. Joe survived. There has been no sign of his wife since then. The list, of course, goes on and on. For many, there is no final word about a colleague or loved one as the gruesome work continues in Oklahoma City. One survivor who worked at the HUD office in Oklahoma who has already spoken at the funeral of colleague, Susan Ferrell, recently remarked: [Susan] was one of our attorneys, a beautiful blonde who twisted her hair when she talked to you; who was so full of energy; who fed the birds with sacks of seed; who named the stray cats; who planted a million plants. That's what makes us so mad. We're not faceless bureaucrats. We're people like you and me, with kids and families. As mayor and now as Senator, I have seen the hard work of public workers--paving our streets, serving in hospitals, fighting fires, patrolling our neighborhoods, assuring Social Security checks arrive on time, serving in our armed services, assisting our veterans. those who were busily working in the public's interest at the moment of that terrible blast.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned the Gun Free Schools Zones Act, a 1990 law sponsored by Senator Kohl and others that made it a felony to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. The case revolves around a San Antonio youth who was tried for bringing a .38 caliber to school, and the decision has ignited widespread debate because it reverses decades of Supreme Court precedent. However, as a result of this controversy, it is extremely important to clarify the status of a separate, recently passed law, which has a similar name--the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994--but remains firmly in place. Parents, teachers, and school officials must know that gun possession on campus cannot be tolerated, that the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 remains in place, and that in order to receive Federal education funds every school district in the Nation must soon have in place and functioning a policy that assures that any youngster who brings a gun to school will be expelled for not less than 1 year. The following points must be clearly understood: First, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 was not struck down by the Supreme Court yesterday. Instead, the Court struck down a 1990 criminal law with a similar- sounding name--but a different legal status. Second, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 will not be swept away by the Court's decision. By simply requiring schools to have a zero tolerance policy as a condition of receiving Federal education funds, the Gun-Free Schools Act does not rely on the commerce clause for its authority. Third, the Gun-Free Schools Act remains in place, and zero tolerance policies are already showing positive results. and San Diego that have already implemented zero tolerance policies are seeing fewer guns brought to school, and as a result fewer student expulsions. In San Diego, gun possession on campus was cut in half during 1993, the first year of that district's policy, and there have been only 5 gun possession cases during this year. Under the Gun-Free Schools Act, States have until October 1995 to enact or revise their own zero tolerance policies for school districts, requiring that students caught with guns on campus be expelled for not less than a year. Fourth, the Court's decision to revoke Federal law does not affect State laws outlawing gun possession on campus. Forty States, including California, have their own criminal statutes making gun possession on or near a school a State crime. California's statute, signed into law by Pete Wilson, makes possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school a felony crime. The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, which I have strongly supported, was passed last year in response to the increasing gun violence on school grounds, and the failure of many schools to respond clearly and forcefully to the presence of guns on campus. In 1993, a Los Angeles high school student was shot waiting in line for lunch, and two other California high school students were killed within a 1-month period. Over 100,000 guns are brought to school each day, according to several recent surveys and national projections. There have been 105 violent school-related deaths in just the last 2 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control--caused by guns, knives, and other weapons. In a nationwide survey, the CDC also found that 1 in 12 students brought a gun to school in 1993--up from 1 in 24 just three years before. However, in too many school districts students who bring guns to school are simply given a short suspension, counseling, or transferred to another school. By requiring that offenders be expelled from the regular school program, the Gun-Free Schools Act mirrors policies in a growing number of State education codes and urban school district policies. School violence--especially deadly violence--must be the Nation's top educational priority. Sixty-five students and six school employees were shot and killed at U.S. schools during 1985-90, according to the Center To Prevent Hand Violence. Without being safe in school, neither teachers nor students can be expected to focus on learning. In conclusion, there must be no uncertainty about the status of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. Gun possession on campus cannot be tolerated, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 remains in place, and in order to receive Federal education funds every school district in the Nation must soon have in place and functioning a policy that assures that any youngster who brings a gun to school will be expelled for not less than 1 year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I respectfully submit into the Congressional Record a statement from Mayor Richard J. Riordan of Los Angeles on the issue of the Davis-Bacon Act and Prevailing Wage laws. Mr. President, I ask that Mayor Riordan's full statement be printed in the Record. The statement follows: Invest Now, or Pay More Later (By Mayor Richard J. Riordan) ``You can pay now or pay later'' is more than grandmotherly advice. It is a healthy dose of financial wisdom which all levels of government ought to heed. In fact, the pay now approach is a goal-oriented investment strategy that considers current and future needs. The pay later scenario is highly reactive, unpredictable and void of strategy. Unfortunately for Angelenos and our local businesses community, Los Angeles city government is too reliant on the pay later approach, which really translates to ``pay more later.'' The cost to the city by failing to invest is hundreds of millions of dollars in deferred maintenance and the taking of precious investment dollars for short-term crises. For example, due to years of inadequate funding for street maintenance, 111 miles of Los Angeles City streets are beyond repair and must be totally reconstructed at an estimated cost of $150 million. It costs five times as much to reconstruct a street as it does to maintain it. Investment in affordable housing, streets, sidewalks, parks, library buildings, schools, water storage, railways, airports and port facilities is good business. Directly, this investment in infrastructure generates tens of thousands of construction jobs. Over the long-term, it creates a climate where businesses will stay and come out of their own self- interest because the quality of life is better--streets are safer, long term economic available. But it takes a lot more taxpayer dollars to build infrastructure. It takes investment in human capital, too, and the same ``invest now or pay more later'' logic should apply. There are some existing strong partnerships between the public and private sectors and organized labor which have wisely adopted a goal-oriented strategy. Prevailing wage laws--created by the federal, state and local governments, in partnership with the building trades and business--have attracted skilled labor with the expertise and experience to complete projects on time and within budget. The Santa Monica Freeway is a shining example; it was reconstructed to the highest quality standards, ahead of schedule and under budget in the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake. Public infrastructure projects have also expanded career opportunities for young people. Some of the best technical training in our region is available through the organized building trades. The facilities are first rate, and the curriculum is fully up-to- date and forward looking. Against the strong arguments for pay-now versus pay more later, those in the Washington beltway who would eliminate the Davis Bacon Act are shortsighted in their thinking. According to a recent study by the University of Utah Economics Department, in the nine states which have repealed prevailing wage laws, the pay more later rule has kicked in, with the net result being reduced wages for construction workers, increased workplace injuries and deaths, a decline in job training, a loss of tax revenue to the state and increased cost overruns. Retaining the Davis-Bacon Act and our prevailing wage laws is critical to the public private partnership which has worked so well in developing our public infrastructure and the highly skilled workforce upon which it depends. In so doing, we can continue to build great projects, produce the good paying jobs and careers our economy must have, and save millions of taxpayer dollars in the process. And we can all rest a little easier knowing that the next time the earth moves, we will still have skilled contractors and construction workers needed to get the job done.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great team, a great school, and a great State. It is fair to say that California has had its share of troubles, but it is also fair to say that we have had our share of victories. We had a great victory last night, when the UCLA Bruins defeated the University of Arkansas Razorbacks for the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship. The victory was all the more impressive because they did it without the play of Tyus Edney, their little floor general. In his absence, the rest of the team stepped up to the challenge. They broke the aggressive defense of the Razorbacks, which has been described as 40 minutes of Hell. They won with a combination of youthful enthusiasm, guts, teamwork, and stamina. And they won under the watchful gaze of the Wizard of Westwood--the legendary retired coach, John Wooden. UCLA pulled down 50 rebounds, 21 of them at the offensive end. Ed O'Bannon, the senior who battled back from knee injury, played the entire game last night and was named Most Outstanding Player. Toby Bailey, the freshman phenomenon from Los Angeles, had 26 points. It was a masterful performance against a great opponent. This is the 11th championship by UCLA, and the first for Coach Jim 12 years between 1964 and 1975. Now, for the first time in 20 years they will be able to hang a national championship banner at Pauley Pavilion. Being the Senator from California, it is with great pride that I point out that four out of five starting players are from California: Tyus Edney from Long Beach, the sensational brothers Charles and Ed O'Bannon from Lakewood, and freshman Toby Bailey from LA. Other Californians on the team are J.R. Henderson, Bob Myers, Kris Johnson, and Kevin Dempsey. I am proud to say that not only is it a California school, it is a California team. Other players contributing to last night's victory were sophomore Cameron Dollar and senior George Zidek, an Academic All-American. The players on this team are worthy successors of the greats of a generation ago: Alcinder, Goodrich, Johnson, Walton, and Hazzard. I would like to extend my sincere condolences to President Clinton and the Razorbacks. Obviously, they made a good show. But this win is particularly significant because California has been through a period of fire, flood, earthquake, and major grief. And when teams like the San Francisco '49ers win a Super Bowl and the UCLA Bruins win the NCAA Championship, it brings people together and it shows the spark and spirit of what made this State so great in the first place. It was a special win. My sincere congratulations to UCLA. I know I am joined by my colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, and by every Member of this Senate in saying it was a job truly well done. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have been trying to understand the substitute amendment versus the underlying Daschle amendment. I would like to say what I believe, based on about 10 minutes of study, this does. As I understand it, what the amendment of Senator Daschle, the minority leader, does is it takes $1.3 billion from FEMA, fiscal year 1997, and it restores certain cuts that have been recommended for children and educational programs. What I understand the majority leader's amendment to have done is it restores fiscal year 1997 FEMA funds, $1.3 billion, and it cuts even more deeply. It cuts the children's and the education programs, plus it cuts a whole series of programs including Radio Free Europe, legal services, foreign operations, the biological survey, libraries, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, airport and airway trust fund, highways, AmeriCorps, and the youth bill. So, essentially, as I understand it, we have two rather clear choices on the floor of the U.S. Senate, one of which is the Dole approach which is much deeper, and the Daschle approach that says let us make cuts but what we cut, let us not cut the most vulnerable in our society, the future of our society--children and education. I want to take a couple of minutes and speak to that because I think it is a worthy attempt, even as rescissions are being made, to take a good look at what we are doing and saying as we talk about investment in the future. As we talk about investing in economic infrastructure, should we also invest in our human infrastructure of which the most important part is our children? In order to secure the future of our children, the most important part is their education. I would like to speak specifically to the Dole amendment. We all know that, regardless of what version it is, there is going to be welfare reform in this session of Congress. We all desire it. And so to people in this Nation, as time has come for people to get out of the cart and help push it. In order to push it, it means go to work. But if you are poor, if you are female, if you have children, and if you are on welfare, you are going to need child care to go to work. So, does it make sense as we talk about investment in our future to cut child care? I think it does not because we just complicate the problem downstream. So I believe that rescission, that cut, is not a prudent investment in our future. Head Start--what is Head Start? Head Start is a concept. We have 16 million youngsters in this Nation growing up in poverty. The concept is that if we can get children young with their parents to come in at a very early age, if we can counsel with those parents--these are poor parents, poor children--if we can counsel with them, if we can begin early on to teach them the discipline and structure of learning that when they get into the grade they will be able to keep up with their class instead of what so many know happen, that there is an emotional dropping out followed by an intellectual dropping out, followed by a physical dropping out of children in the elementary school years--guess what? What has been found is that, if you apply the Head Start concept well, not sloppily but well--which involves bringing in the family-- children do better. They graduate with higher grades. Guess what? By the age of 19 they are much more likely to get a job. That is the investment in the future. That is what Head Start speaks to. Properly carried out it works. So I ask the question: Does it then make sense in this rescission package to cut back on Head Start? I answer that question by saying no, it does not. Let us take another one that has been bandied with on the floor. AmeriCorps. I have just heard AmeriCorps is not just for people who are struggling. It is not for the middle class, it has youngsters and adults in it, and it has youngsters whose parents are doctors, or so on. It is my understanding that over 75 percent of those admitted to AmeriCorps thus far have incomes of under $50,000. Do I believe that 100 percent of the parents of the youngsters going into AmeriCorps should have incomes of under $50,000? The answer is, yes, I do. But the vast majority of participants come from moderate- to low-income families, and AmeriCorps is clearly a worthy program. Let me speak as a mayor who more than a decade ago took $1 million of community development block grant money in San Francisco and began a new program, the first urban conservation corps in this Nation. It has since been replicated by 22 big cities. You can imagine the pride I had when I had Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles come up to San Francisco to learn from us how we took youngsters age 16 to 23, very fragile youngsters with no work ethic, with a background of juvenile delinquency and began to teach them a work ethic and put them to work building bike paths, restoring park areas, painting over graffiti, doing public works projects, repairing places in housing authority projects. And those youngsters learned a work ethic. They went out at the end of the year and could get a job. I think it was the most successful program I did. This is what AmeriCorps is built on. It is built on the concept of a conservation corps where you take young people, where you teach them a work ethic and whereas they work, they can earn, and in this case earn a college scholarship. It is a vital program. Again, is it as important an investment in our economic infrastructure as free trade may be? I think it is. Because again, it is teaching our young people a skill which they are able to use and then further their education. Let us take WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children Program. When I was mayor I used to go down to where food was given out in San Francisco. I would see pregnant women come in, again many of them undernourished, again many of them troubled, many of them not able to provide a nutritious meal. Sure. They would go out and buy a bag of potato chips. They would eat high-fat food. But they were not nutritious meals. What WIC has done is offer an opportunity to develop a cost-effective birth system for people who are poor and deprived in this Nation because they are able to get some foods that are nutritious during the term of pregnancy and produce youngsters who come into this world with a chance. In a way, it is a cost-effective investment in our future. Let me talk about cuts in education. Today, all across the United States of America we graduate kids from schools that cannot read or write, multiply, divide or add, recognize China on a map, fill out an employment application, or follow a bus schedule. These are actual examples. They are not made up. They are true. It is called the failure of American public education. Where American public education fails the most is in the elementary school. That is where Head Start and that is where chapter 1 comes in. Chapter 1 again are funds that go to States for basic remedial and primary education. It is reading, it is writing, it is arithmetic, and it goes to those school districts that have poor children in them. It is a very big ticket item for California, the largest State in the Union. For me this cut for California schools means a loss of $8.7 million of the anticipated $729 million in fiscal year 1995. If these rescissions are cut, the county of Los Angeles loses $2.5 million for reading and writing and arithmetic for poor children. That is what chapter 1 does. One of the things that I have believed in is that we should go to a decentralized public education system. We should allow schools to float free. We should provide standards of education for young people. What is the degree of proficiency you should have in reading, in writing, in math for promotion? What is the knowledge of social service? What is the knowledge of science programs that you should have to promote? What Goals 2000 did was provide a voluntary mandate to schools to establish tough curriculum standards. Is that an investment in our future in terms of building a young work corps of youngsters that are able to get a job in an economy that is becoming more and more high-technology, where you have to understand computers to work in factories? I think the answer clearly is yes, this is the future. So Goals 2000 spoke to that, spoke to tougher education standards. Chapter 1 talks to basic reading skills. I think these cuts are not necessary. The bottom line is, as I look at the majority leader's amendment and the minority leader's amendment, what I see is the possibility of putting together an amendment that is bipartisan, that could achieve additional cuts, if that is what people are looking for, and not impact children and not impact education. Now, there are those who believe that education and children are the fuzzy issues in our society. I am not one of them. I speak as a former mayor. I speak as somebody who has seen a lot of trials and a lot of tribulation, who knows the streets. I think the future of America is our kids. I think it is wrong to cut from our kids at this point in time. Pick up a newspaper today and see where another youngster in Los Angeles is shot in the head standing at the side of his home. That kind of thing must stop. Drug-free and safe schools are cut in this rescission package. If there is anything we should be doing it is ending drug use at school, it is making schools safe. To do it, you have to start early. If you start late, it is too late. If you start in the middle school, it is too late. You must start in the elementary school. Mrs. Reagan said, ``Just say no to drugs.'' And guess what? If kids believe that early enough, it works. If you wait until it is too late, it does not work. So why at this point in time do we cut drug-free and safe schools? Is that a prudent investment in the future? I think not. So what I say in a summary sentence or two, just having heard what has happened on this floor this morning, there are things in the substitute amendment that I could buy. There are things in the rescission package that many of us cannot buy. Why not sit down and try to put together a package that protects our future, protects our young people, and protects our education? I think it can be done if there is a will in this body to do so. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the tradition and success of collegiate athletics in California is as deep and rich as our academic excellence. Three different California universities have won the national championship in both men's and women's basketball in the past 53 years, and over a century of football competition has been played. Over the years our universities have been equally adept in producing winners of Olympic medals as Nobel prizes. California is home to more division 1 schools than any other State. So it should come as no surprise California has sent a team to both the men's and women's college basketball Final Four. It also should not be a surprise that those two teams are the University of California, Los Angeles, and Stanford University, my alma mater. These two teams are not unique among Golden State colleges, rather they are representative of numerous schools with great academic and athletic traditions. In this past year California has provided the national champions in men's tennis, men's water polo, women's volleyball, and men's golf. California's universities and colleges have produced such sports legends as Jackie Robinson, Bill Walsh, Matt Biondi, Jackie-Joyner Kersee, Marcus Allen, Cheryl Miller, Arthur Ashe, Bill Russell, Dwight Stones, Rafer Johnson, and Kathy Jordan. The UCLA basketball program is one of the finest in the Nation, and is currently the No. 1 ranked team. It has won more national championships than any other school. More than Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, or Indiana. Under the leadership of John Wooden, the UCLA men's basketball team won 10 national titles in 12 years. To follow in Wooden's footsteps has been difficult at UCLA. The last time they went to the Final Four was 1980, where they lost to Louisville, coached by Wooden protege Denny Crum. Coach Jim Harrick has returned them to the Final Four now, for the first time in 15 years. But, maybe what is more impressive, at least to the Senator from California, is that it is a team of Californians. Four out of five starting players are from California, Tyus Edney from Long Beach, the sensational siblings Charles and Ed O'Bannon from Lakewood, and freshman Toby Bailey from Los Angeles. Other Californians on the team are J.R. Henderson, Bob Myers, Kris Johnson, and Kevin Dempsey. I am proud to say that not only is it a California school, it is a California team. Rounding out the team are Cameron Dollar, George Zidek, Ike Nwanko, omm'A Givens. The players on this team are worthy successors of the greats of a generation ago Alcinder, Johnson, Walton, and Hazzard. In fact Marques Johnson's son, Kris, is a member of the current team. Stanford women's basketball Coach Tara VanDerveer is creating a legend of her own. In the 10 years since she took over the Stanford program they have gone to the Final Four four times and won the national championship twice. Rachel Hemmer and Anita Kaplan are the senior low-post players who lead the way with aggressive defense and consistent offense. Kristin Folkl, a two-sport star who was part of the national championship Stanford volleyball team this fall, got her first down ``clutch'' three pointers for her team to advance to next weeks game against the No. 1 ranked women of the University of Connecticut. Kate Paye paces the team from the guard position, while Kate Starbird leads the team in scoring. Also contributing to the team effort are Olympia Scott, Jamila Wideman, Vanessa Nygaard, Regan Freuen, Charmin Smith, Bobbie Kelsey, Tara Harrington, Naomi Mulitauaopele, and Heather Owen. Their 30-2 record this year is a mark of dedication and talent. The trip they make to Minnesota to be in the Final Four is a deserved reward. I salute these two teams and all the student athletes from California, and wish them the best in both competition and scholarship.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced and spoke on the Illegal Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 1995. As I indicated then, I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on the Immigration Subcommittee, Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate to craft comprehensive legislation in this session of Congress to stop illegal immigration. I believe that the widest possible dissemination of my bill, and of all other responsible proposals, will help us meet that goal. I ask that the text of my legislation, S. 580, be printed in today's Record. The bill follows:

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, and now send to the desk, the Illegal Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 1995. This bill incorporates many of the concepts in the immigration package that I introduced in the last session of Congress. New proposals have been added, however, after consultation with many, including California's law enforcement officials and others interested in curbing illegal immigration. Mr. President, I offer this legislation not to compete with Senator Simpson's S. 269, which he introduced on January 24, but rather to complement it. Little in this bill is duplicative of Senator Simpson's legislation. I am convinced that, combined, these two bills could offer a strong, straightforward program to stop illegal immigration. There simply is no time to lose. The crisis of illegal immigration continues in California and throughout the Nation. Too many people are still able to illegally cross our borders, and too few States, most notably California, carry the burden of having to support, educate, and often incarcerate the hundreds of thousands who enter this country illegally each year. There is no doubt in my mind that our border enforcement has improved in the last 2 years and I want to thank this administration for an unprecedented commitment to that end. I am equally convinced, however, that steps already taken have been insufficient to fully address the problem. Despite its major flaws and probable unconstitutionality, proposition 187 in California was overwhelmingly approved by voters last November. The message was clear: Stop illegal immigration. If Congress does not heed this warning, I fear an even more serious backlash nationwide against all immigrants, including those who want to come to our country legally. Impact on California One reason proposition 187 passed by such a large margin is that Californians know the impact of immigration on our State. According to 1993 INS statistics, 45 percent of the Nation's illegal immigrants are now in California. That means between 1.6 and 2.3 million illegal immigrants now reside in our State; 15 percent of California's State prison population--or almost 20,000 inmates--is comprised of incarcerated illegal immigrants; 45 percent of all persons with pending asylum cases reside in California; 35 percent of the refugees to this country claimed residency in California in 1993; and almost 30 percent of the legal immigrants in this have country chosen to live in California. According to the Governor of our State, illegal immigration in fiscal year 1995-96 will cost California an estimated $3.6 billion, including an $2.66 billion for the federally mandated costs of education, health care, and incarceration. By anyone's estimation, that is a staggering sum, and a tremendous burden on just one State. The Need for Immigration Reform I believe our Federal response to the problem of illegal immigration must address four key goals: First, control illegal immigration at the border; second, reduce the economic incentives to come to the United States illegally; third, deal swiftly and severely with document forgers and alien smugglers; and fourth, remove criminal aliens from our Nation's prisons and jails, while assuring that their sentences are served in their countries of origin. Border Control This legislation requires that at least 700, and up to 1,000, new Border Patrol agents be hired in each of the next 3 fiscal years. It differs from the crime bill in one critical respect. The crime bill authorized the hiring of up to 1,000 new agents in each of Fiscal Years 1996, 1997 and 1998. This bill further requires that a minimum of 700 agents per year be hired. It thus adds a floor to the crime bill which will assure that no fewer than 2,100 new agents, and up to 900 support personnel, will be on board by the end of Fiscal Year 1998 for a total of 7,082 Border Patrol agents. It mandates the hiring of sufficient INS border inspectors to fully staff all legal crossing lanes at peak periods. The bill also provides for improved border infrastructure and Border Patrol training. Reducing Incentives Second, this legislation substantially expands existing employer sanctions and wage and hour law enforcement programs to reduce the biggest incentives for undocumented persons to come to this country, namely jobs. Central to this effort is the creation of a counterfeit-proof work and benefits authorization verification system. Any employer--and any provider of federally funded benefits--ought to be 100 percent certain that a candidate is here legally. A counterfeit-proof verification system is the only way this can be achieved. In addition, this bill dramatically increases the civil fines for anyone who knowingly hires, recruits, or refers illegal aliens for hiring. This is important because today the civil penalties for illegally hiring an illegal immigrant are very low. Fines range between just $250 and $2,000--per alien hired--for a first offense. This bill would increase that range from $1,000 to $3,000 for the first offense. Second offenses would carry per alien fines of between $3,000 and $7,000, and third or later offenses would cost $7,000 to $20,000 per alien--that is more than double the current $3,000 to $10,000 liability. It dramatically increases the criminal penalties for a pattern or practice of hiring illegal immigrants. This bill doubles the maximum criminal fine, and triples the maximum jail sentence, for anyone who facilitates a fraudulent application for benefits by an unlawful alien by counterfeiting the seal or stamp of any Federal agency. If this bill is enacted, the new maximums will be $500,000, or 15 years in jail, or both. It provides for additional INS and Department of Labor inspectors to enforce existing laws and provides for the hiring of additional assistant U.S. attorneys to more aggressively prosecute these crimes. Smuggling and Document Fraud Shutting down false document mills, counterfeiters, smugglers, and smuggling organizations is the third priority at the core of this legislation. Smugglers and forgers will find this to be a very tough bill indeed. This legislation broadens current Federal asset seizure authority to include those who smuggle or harbor illegal aliens, and those who produce false work and benefits documents. It imposes tough minimum and maximum sentences on smugglers, and it imposes those penalties for each alien smuggled. At the moment, penalties are assessed per transaction, no matter how many illegal immigrants a smuggler takes across our borders. This bill increases the penalty for smugglers in the event that an alien is injured, killed, or subject to blackmail threats by the smuggler. It makes it easier to deport so-called weekend warriors--legal permanent residents, green card holders, who are in the United States, smuggle illegal immigrants for profit, and then try to use their immigration status to avoid being deported from the United States. It dramatically increases penalties for document forgers or counterfeiters. First offenders will be sentenced to 2\1/2\ to 5 years, 5 to 10 years with any prior felony conviction, and 10 to 15 years with two or more prior felonies. Currently, document forgers can receive as little as 0 to 6 months for a first offense. Criminal Aliens This legislation is intended to once again signal that the President must have the authority, by treaty, to deport aliens convicted of crimes in this country for secure incarceration in such aliens' home countries. Although we have prisoner transfer treaty agreements with many nations now, they are subject to the consent of the prisoner to be transferred. If the prisoner does not consent, he is not transferred. This legislation eliminates that obstacle. It also would speed up the deportation process and make more criminal aliens deportable by broadening the definition of an aggravated felony for which aliens may already be deported to include document fraud crimes not now independent grounds for deportation; it classifies as aggravated felonies certain offenses punishable by 3 years, rather than for which an alien has actually been sentenced to 5 years or more. As a result, it would definitely increase the number of criminals who would qualify for deportation as having committed aggravated felony. In addition, courts would have the authority to require that, in order to receive a sentence of probation rather than a prison term, an illegal alien convicted of a crime would be required to consent to being deported as a condition of probation. This would give prosecutors the option of ejecting from the country relatively low-level offenders after trial without going through an additional, and often lengthy, deportation hearing. Sponsors of Legal Immigrants Before concluding, let me note just one other feature of the bill which pertains to immigrants who have lawfully come to the United States on the basis of a citizen's--usually an immediate relative's-- sponsorship. The legislation would require anyone who sponsors a legal immigrant for admission to the United States to make good on their promise of financial support should the citizen. In addition, past proposals to strengthen sponsorship agreements typically exempted sponsors from liability for medical costs. This legislation would make sponsors responsible for the costs of medical care, requiring them to obtain health insurance for the immigrant they have sponsored. The insurance would be of a type and amount to be specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and would be required to be purchased within 20 days of an immigrant's arrival in this country. A safety valve is built into the bill, however, for sponsors who die, or who become impoverished or bankrupt. Border Crossing Fee This bill also provides a funding mechanism for this package with a border crossing fee of $1 per person, which could yield up to $400 million per year. The border control, the infrastructure, the training, the additional narcotics abatement efforts provided in this bill all could be underwritten by such a fee. Conclusion In conclusion, Mr. President, immigration is too much at the core of what America means to each of us individually, and to our society collectively, to politicize and polarize the coming debate. If we are to map common ground together, it is the spirit of compromise that must prevail. We owe America--America the Nation and America the idea--no less. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the chairman of my subcommittee, Senator Simpson, with Senators Kennedy and Simon, and with all of my Republican colleagues on the subcommittee to present the full Judiciary Committee and the Senate with the best possible comprehensive illegal immigration legislation as quickly as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague on the Judiciary Committee and the Senator from Alabama for his very thoughtful statement and constitutional amendment. I would very much appreciate being listed as a cosponsor of that amendment. I thank the Senator for his words because I think they were cogent. I also believe they reflect the views of the American people.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S. 580 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe that what a line-item veto essentially does is encourage caution on the part of both the Chief Executive and the legislative body. I think the time has come for fiscal discipline. As I said, I sincerely believe the line-item veto can help us achieve that goal. Let me give an example. When I was mayor of San Francisco, the budget did not correspond with the size of the Federal budget, but there were 52 departments, and the budget was over $1 billion. Yet, it was very difficult to get down to the actual line items. There was one line for salaries. As a chief executive, I really had no opportunity to go through every salary to make judgments about how many people should be continued and how many people should not. A line-item veto gives the chief executive this opportunity, and I think the blue pencil is a necessary tool of government for a Chief Executive in a modern day. I also believe that tax breaks and appropriations should be treated similarly. They may be two different items, but the results are very much the same: they benefit a small segment of the population at the expense of the greater good of all the people. Regardless of the item, they both reduce the amount of money in the U.S. Treasury. Currently, debates are raging at every level of government about the institution of a line-item veto. Maryland, as I said, is now debating it. Fresno, CA, has just granted it. I believe that the people of this country understand the benefits of a line-item veto and are expanding the use of it. I believe we ought to give this power to our President. So I am very pleased to be able to support the legislation before this body. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me respond to that. The fact is, I do not care what department it is; any $11 million item for furniture should certainly be looked at a second time, whether it is courts or agricultural offices or Interior or anything else.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is a very short statement. I do appreciate the opportunity to make it. I rise today in support of the substitute amendment to S. 4. For more than 100 years now, arguments both pro and con have been made revolving around whether a President should or should not have a line-item veto. As a matter of fact, since 1876, more than 200 resolutions have been introduced on this subject. Presidents, Democratic and Republican, have asked for this special blue pencil. This President has asked for the strongest possible bill, and I believe that there are several Democratic Senators prepared to vote for this legislation. Basically, the arguments on a line-item veto are either philosophical or constitutional. But regardless, the trend on many levels has clearly been toward a stronger chief executive in both State and local jurisdictions. Today, 43 States have a line-item veto, and mayors of cities, big and small, as well as county executives, are being granted this authority. In California, the latest city to grant a line-item veto to a newly strengthened mayor is Fresno, a major city with a population of 667,000 people in California's Central Valley breadbasket. The Fresno mayor will have this authority beginning in 1997. In Maryland, the State legislature is this year considering granting this authority to the county executive. In California, the line-item veto has been used 254 times in the last 4 years. The Governor has had this authority since 1908, and a recent survey found that 92 percent of all current and former State Governors believe that the line-item veto would help curb spending. Before New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman signed a $15 billion supplemental budget into law this past year, she used the blue pencil to cut $3.17 million from the bill. The most powerful line-item veto is probably that provided in Wisconsin, where the Governor cannot only veto lines but also individual words. Governor Thompson has used it over 1,500 times since 1987, sometimes to change actual policy. It is my understanding that this is not the case in the legislation being considered today. Virtually all businesses' and corporations' CEO's or CFO's have this authority. But the President of the United States, who runs the largest combination of major governmental enterprises in the world, does not have this authority. Today, the President has little recourse to fine tune a budget passed by the Congress, except to shut down entire segments of the Government by vetoing an entire appropriations bill. In 1992, the General Accounting Office estimated that a line-item veto could have pared $70.7 billion in pork-barrel spending between 1984 and 1989. That is just 5 years. If in the next 5 years a similar amount could be cut, then the line-item veto will have done its job. Enacting a line-item veto will, of course, give the Executive more authority, and I recognize that that is a problem for some. And even though a President may not use that power frequently, the threat of such action may be the impetus needed to force Congress to be more responsible in the formulation of the budget. I believe the line-item veto will increase positive relations between the executive and legislative branches because Members will no longer have the ability to insert special projects that have little overall merit in appropriation bills without the concurrence of the Chief Executive. The line-item veto can force executive-legislative cooperation and agreement before the bill reaches the White House for signature or veto. It also encourages caution on the part of the Chief Executive who would use it sparingly in order to prevent his veto from being overridden. Really, what a line-item veto is all about is deterrence, and that deterrence is aimed at the pork barrel. I sincerely believe that a line-item veto will work. In our caucus today, some papers were passed around which showed a paragraph from a bill involving the Patent and Trademark Office, and there were several subsets attached--items which were certainly not reflected in the paragraph of the bill. One of these stated: * * * of which not to exceed $11 million shall remain available until expended for furniture and furnishings related to new space alteration and construction projects. Now, if I were President, I would say to my staff--take a look at this. Does the Patent and Copyright Office really need $11 million in furnishings? I think it is worth a look.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me apologize. The papers were passed out together at our caucus, and I made perhaps the mistaken and inadvertent, but not surprising, conclusion that since they were passed out together they related to one another. Now, if I might finish my statement----

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The same Los Angeles Times story states that not 1 single pound of cocaine was seized at three of the major points of entry into the United States in 1994. Not 1 pound. One local official reportedly said: Obviously, we're in an area of international trade. We're not in a situation where we can just stop traffic for the sake of narcotics risk. . . We examined three percent of all the laden trucks that crossed. That is a lot of trucks. Right? Wrong. My view is quite different. Increased commerce does not justify increased drug smuggling. It is time to close down our border to illegal immigrants and to illegal drug smuggling. It is unacceptable to have a Federal program in place that comprehensively checks just 3 percent of the trucks coming across the border where we know the highest level of drug smuggling occurs. Let me give you an idea of one incident in California. This past November, 5 tons of cocaine was headed to a home in Rialto in San Bernardino County. I am not talking about bags of cocaine. I am not talking about pounds of cocaine. I am not talking about kilograms of cocaine. I am talking about tons--5 tons in 1 shipment going to one house in Rialto, California. That is the level on which drug smuggling is now taking place. On February 27, 1995, I sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Rubin asking the administration to discontinue the line release program in California pending an immediate evaluation of its capability to seek out and confiscate drugs coming across the border. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that I may speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment that would protect military bases recommended for closure or realignment in 1995 from the proposed rescission in the Defense Environmental Restoration Account [DERA]. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. As many of my colleagues know, DERA funds are used to clean up environmental contamination at open military bases. Because, the military is subject to Federal and State environmental laws and regulations just like private parties, the Department of Defense has an obligation to clean up its military bases, whether the bases will remain open or will close due to the base realignment and closure process. I strongly support DERA efforts and am concerned about the proposed $300 million rescission in this appropriation bill. But, I understand that the supplemental funding is extremely important to ensure the readiness of our Armed Forces and protect U.S. national security. Because the Appropriations Committee has decided to fully offset the increase in funding with spending cuts, difficult decisions need to be made. I remain hopeful, however, that the severe cut in DERA funds can be mitigated in conference. I am particularly concerned about the impact of the DERA rescission on bases that have been recommended for closure or realignment in the current base closure round. Normally, cleanup at closing military bases is funded out of the base realignment and closure [BRAC] account. However, in the first year of a closure--before BRAC cleanup funds are available--environmental cleanup at closing military bases is funded from DERA. Military bases slated for closure must be closed within 6 years of the closure decision, therefore, it is important that environmental cleanup not be delayed to ensure the timely and effective reuse of bases. Environmental cleanup is vital to assisting impacted communities with economic redevelopment efforts. This amendment would protect bases recommended for closure or realignment in 1995 from any funding cuts in DERA. The rescission would still take place, but at least for the first year until BRAC funding kicks in, closing bases would not be impacted. This amendment would simply ensure that the timetable for cleaning up and closing a military base is not adversely impacted. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.