Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the substitute amendment being offered by the senior Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], to the Bumpers amendment. I was pleased to work with my colleagues and the administration in helping draft this important amendment. I support Senator Bumpers' efforts to block the export of Russian nuclear reactors to Iran. However, the amendment misses the target. It threatens to jeopardize a program of great importance to the United States and other Western countries--the international space station-- and it penalizes the Russian Space Agency as opposed to the bad actors in Russia: the Ministry of Atomic Energy, or MINATOM. The Bumpers amendment would withhold funding for the first stage of the international space station program--the space shuttle-MIR cooperative effort--until the President certifies to Congress that Russia has agreed not to sell nuclear reactor components to Iran. As many of my colleagues know, the space shuttle-MIR Cooperative effort is a prelude to implementation of the space station program. It consists of seven shuttle flights to the Russian MIR space station that will reduce technical and scientific risks to the assembly and operation of the international space station. In addition, it consists of U.S. participation in the MIR program. Earlier this month, United States astronaut Norm Thagard was launched on a Russian spacecraft to the MIR space station to perform science investigations. Thagard will be aboard MIR for more than 90 days. The Bumpers amendment, if enacted into law, would put an end to the shuttle-MIR cooperative effort and essentially kill the international space station, a program that, according to NASA, is proceeding smoothly and meeting all cost, technical, and schedule milestones. This amendment would also impact our other international partners in the space station program--Europe, Japan, and Canada--who have already contributed over $8.5 billion to the program. While I cannot support Senator Bumpers's amendment because of its impact on the space station program, I, too, am concerned about the Russian export of nuclear reactors to Iran. That is why I am supporting the substitute amendment being offered by Senator Bond, myself, and others. Instead of punishing the Russian Space Agency--who, by the way, has been cooperating with our efforts to halt the proliferation of missile technology around the world--the substitute amendment would target the bad actors in Russia, MINATOM, the organization that signed the nuclear deal and will actually export the reactors to Iran. While protecting important programs that the United States has with MINATOM--such as the material protection control and counting program, as well as the high enriched uranium contract--the substitute amendment would block any agreement under section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. A 123 agreement is of great interest to MINATOM because it would give Russia's atomic energy agency broad access to United States nuclear technology and equipment, such as reactors, nuclear fuel, and major components for reactors. A 123 agreement would permit MINATOM to modernize its nuclear reactor program, thus making it more competitive internationally. energy agency where it hurts. MINATOM wants a 123 agreement. In fact, it recently submitted a detailed proposal for such an agreement to the U.S. Department of Energy, where it is currently pending. I also believe that by targeting MINATOM instead of the Russian Space Agency, this substitute amendment will have greater influence over Russia's proposed sale of nuclear reactors to Iran. As the Congressional Research Service points out, MINATOM has a: * * * tendency to pursue policies independent of President Yeltsin's stated positions. Many officials suspect that MINATOM is more concerned about making money than about controlling nuclear materials * * *. Many view MINATOM as a largely independent, self-interested bureaucracy. By targeting MINATOM directly, the United States will have greater leverage in trying to block the Russian export. The lack of a 123 agreement could force MINATOM to reconsider the Iranian nuclear reactor deal. Senator Bumpers is right that we must do everything practical to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear-capable nation. Iran is a supporter of state-sponsored terrorism and funnels money to Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups such as Hezbolah; Secretary of State Warren Christopher said that Iran is on a crash program to acquire nuclear weapons; and Though the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, our intelligence agencies believe that Iran is actively pursuing such a program and, according to press reports, is 6 to 8 years away from having a bomb. A nuclear-capable Iran is a very real threat to the United States and the entire world. Even though the proposed Russian export of nuclear reactors to Iran is allowed within the context of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty [NPT], and even though the reactors are light- water reactors, I believe that Iran is a reckless country that cannot be trusted with any type of nuclear technology. The Bond-Feinstein substitute amendment targets the bad actors in Russia that are proceeding with the export of nuclear reactors to Iran. I believe that this amendment will have a much greater influence on the Russians and will do more to encourage MINATOM not to export the nuclear reactors to Iran. In addition, this substitute amendment will not jeopardize a program that is important to California and the entire Nation--the international space station. I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the Bumpers amendment to rescind funding for the national wind tunnel complex [NWTC]. I believe this project to be a sound investment in the future of the competitiveness of the U.S. commercial aviation industry. NASA is pursuing the development of two new wind tunnels as a part of the NWTC strategy to provide facilities for aircraft testing with technology not currently available in the United States. These facilities would allow the commercial aviation industry to continue to compete on an international level for the next generation of wide-body commercial transportation aircraft. The United States has built only one major wind tunnel in the past 30 years and while the existing wind tunnels have been upgraded over the years, none has been able to keep pace with the state-of-the-art capability, productivity, and technology of new, modern--and largely foreign-owned--wind tunnels. The United States has recently seen its share of the international commercial transport aircraft market fall from 100 percent to an estimated 65 percent. While we still enjoy a commanding presence in this vital industry, we must now prepare ourselves to be competitive in the future. Contrast our actions with those of our European competitors who have invested in six new Government-financed wind tunnels over the last 15 years. These investments pay dividends in the commercial aircraft market as can be witnessed by the increasing marketshare of European companies such as Airbus. The fiscal year 1995 VA-HUD bill provided $400 million as a down- payment to begin construction of these two facilities. This investment follows funding in fiscal year 1994 to study the feasibility of wind tunnels. NASA estimates the final cost of the wind tunnel complexes to be $2.5 billion and has plans for the facilities to be up and running by 2002. I agree with those who are calling for the greater industry involvement in this project and look forward to working with my colleagues and industry officials to help make cost-sharing a reality. I have spoken personally with the CEO's of major commercial aviation manufacturers who all agree with NWTC is needed to ensure their continued competitiveness. Now is not the time to waver in our support for the domestic aircraft industry. In anticipation of the Administration's continued support of the National Wind Tunnel Complex Program, an industry teaming agreement was signed among Boeing, McDonnel Douglas, Lockheed, Northrup-Grumman, Pratt & Whitney, and General Electric to support the development of the facilities. NASA has been in the process of evaluating feasible sites, including the NASA Ames Research Center located in the San Francisco Bay area. The Ames Research Center, which is currently home to several operational wind tunnels, meets most of the technical criterion NASA is looking for and can be a model of government and private industry working together toward mutual interests. While the Administration has not met the condition set forth in the fiscal year 1995 VA-HUD bill, they have, in fact, requested that the funds be carried over to allow for a more complete site selection process. I ask my colleagues to agree with the Senate Appropriations Committee's recommendation to grant the administration time to move ahead with this important investment in the future of domestic aviation technology. I oppose the Bumpers amendment to rescind funding for the national wind tunnel complex and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Associated Press story to which I refer cited two particularly alarming items. First, the owner of a harbor warehouse in Los Angeles who continues to this day to profit from a Customs Service inspection station located on his property, even though he is currently under federal indictment on charges of bribing an immigration agent $10,000 for false documents for himself and employees. Second, the Treasury Department inspector general's office has failed to secure a single indictment of a Federal official in the western region in the last 5 years, despite numerous allegations of wrongdoing. The inspector general's office, which is responsible for investigating criminal offenses at the Customs Service and other agencies within the Treasury Department, has been successful in other regions of the country, having obtained 14 felony convictions in the Northeast region, 8 in the Southern region, and 1 in the Central Division--but none in the Western region where the problem is the most serious. These allegations are very disturbing, and I believe they deserve the full and immediate attention of the Justice Department. Operation Hard Line The Clinton administration recently announced a new Federal initiative to address the problem of cocaine smuggling across the southwest border. This effort, termed ``Operation Hard Line,'' will transfer between 40 and 80 Customs agents to the southwest border, direct new funds toward needed resources and technology, and focus with greater intensity on intelligence-gathering and assessment. It is too early to say if Operation Hard Line will have an impact. But I am very skeptical. The problems at the border are simply too great for Band-Aid solutions. Enforcing the border is a Federal responsibility and the fact is that the job is not being adequately performed. The Federal Government must take strong action and make a long-term commitment to go after drug traffickers. The administration must demand that Mexico assist the United States in this effort in every way, as this Nation is assisting Mexico in so many other areas. Forty 727-size planes constantly land in northern Mexico, offload tons of cocaine, and move them through our borders. How this happens and how we are going to stop it is something we must address. We cannot tolerate corruption at high levels in the Government of Mexico as is now being written up on the front pages of our newspapers, where a Mexican official responsible for stopping narcotics has a bank account of several million dollars. Where do we believe that money came from? As a member of both the Judiciary and the Foreign Relations Committees, I intend to take an aggressive oversight role of Federal efforts to stop drug smuggling across this Nation's borders and will report regularly to my colleagues in the Senate on the progress. I will also begin to explore legislation to deny United States foreign aid to countries such as Colombia, who do not take appropriate steps to control the flow of contraband out of their own countries. This administration has just sent $20 billion in loan guarantees to Mexico, of which $6 billion has already been drawn down. I think the United States deserves cooperation from the highest levels of the Mexican Government in what is a major scourge on the relationship between our two countries, the trafficking of large amounts of cocaine. Shortly, I hope to see for myself the Customs Service's surveillance efforts at the border. Recently, it was described in a television report on NBC's ``Dateline.'' What the story showed was a former Customs agent pointing out a truck, a huge container truck, going right through a Customs' checkpoint, and saying, ``This truck is a known drug smuggler. Watch what happens.'' And the truck went right through under the ``line release'' program. I find it hard to accept that the Federal Government is so desperate to increase commerce that it will allow drugs to freely enter the United States. Mr. President, I thank you for providing me with this opportunity to update my colleagues. I will report further on developments. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 12, 1995] Border Inspections Eased and Drug Seizures Plunge (By H.G. Reza) customs: corruption probes focus on u.s. policy to promote mexico trade. few trucks are examined. San Diego.--The amount of cocaine seized from Mexican trucks and cargo at the border plummeted last year, as U.S. Customs Service officials pressed on with a program to promote trade by letting most commercial cargo pass into this country without inspection. Not a single pound of cocaine was confiscated from more than 2 million trucks that passed through three of the busiest entry points along the Southwest border where federal officials say most of the drug enters the country. Of the 62,000 pounds of cocaine that Customs seized from commercial cargo nationwide, less than a ton was taken from shipments along the border with Mexico. One reason for the sharp decline in seizures is that Customs officials appear to be doing a poor job of identifying and inspecting those trucks and cargo containers being used for drug smuggling, according to an internal report obtained by The Times. ``The target selection methods are * * * critical and apparently in more need of improvements given the huge number of examinations without success,'' said the Dec. 13 report by a Customs analyst. Officials say liberalized importing procedures have dramatically increased the number of trucks crossing the border from Mexico, producing trade benefits for both countries. And now the Customs Service is considering new measures to speed up the entry of air and auto travelers into the United States. But, according to records and interviews, the facilitation policy also has become the focal point of wide-ranging corruption probes at a number of Southwest border crossings and inspection facilities. been looking into allegations that corrupt Customs officials and inspectors are tipping smugglers that certain shipments and vehicles have been targeted for narcotics inspections. Sources said investigators also are examining allegations that: Some inspectors and officials in San Diego were bribed by Mexican drug rings to remove intelligence information from Customs computers. Investigators also are focusing on allegations that smugglers are transporting drugs in the uninspected trucks that bring cargo from Mexico. A principal target, sources said, is an inspector who in 1990 attempted to release a propane tanker although drug- sniffing dogs had sounded the alarm. The tanker later was found to be carrying four tons of cocaine. Inspectors and officials in the Long Beach area were bribed to allow trucks from Mexico and contraband, including AK-47 rifles and ammunition from China, to be smuggled into the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in ship containers. The investigation is concentrating on private warehouses in the Long Beach area where cargo containers are examined by Customs inspectors for contraband, drugs and compliance with importation laws. The warehouses are customarily paid a fee for use of their facilities and assisting in the inspections. But sources said importers allegedly were charged up to $425 per container for hundreds of examinations that were never done. Investigators have been told that two Customs officials received kickbacks. In interviews, Justice Department officials declined to confirm or deny the existence of the investigations. ``If anyone has information regarding corruption within the Customs Service, we would certainly be interested in receiving that information,'' said Assistant U.S. Atty. Michael Flanagan in Los Angeles, who is overseeing some of the investigations. Customs officials declined to comment on the investigations. They also defended their low seizure rates and the ``facilitation program'' that since the late 1980s has allowed increasing numbers of trucks and cargo containers to go uninspected at the border. Lou Samenfink, Customs cargo control branch chief in Washington, said he does not know why seizures have fallen off and pointed out that the Customs Service instituted a new and improved random system in October for identifying shipments to be inspected. ``It could just as easily be that [drugs are] not there,'' he said. ``It could certainly mean that our targeting policy is wrong, or that it's so effective that the smugglers aren't using commercial cargo to bring drugs in.'' The Drug Enforcement Administration reports that 244,626 pounds of cocaine were seized nationwide by federal law enforcement agencies in 1993, the most recent year for which statistics are available. And officials estimate that only about 10% of the cocaine smuggled into the country is seized. Joaquin Legarreta, spokesman for the DEA intelligence center in El Paso, said most cocaine enters the United States across the Mexican border, and most comes through regular ports of entry in commercial trucks and passenger vehicles. In 1986, Customs began a ``facilitation'' policy to speed up the shipment of cargo from Canada, and the program was expanded to the Mexican border in recent years. As part of this policy, ``low-risk'' U.S. importers are allowed to ship commodities from a Mexican manufacturer virtually without inspection, after passing a rigorous background check. Under the so-called ``line release'' program, some importers go months without having their shipments inspected. Former Customs Commissioner William Von Raab, who helped establish the program on the Canadian border, said he was shocked when it later was used on the Mexico border. ``It's terrible. [This] was developed to be used at a border with the highest level of integrity and lowest level of risk,'' Von Raab said. ``I certainly would never have deployed it at the Mexican border.'' The San Diego district has the lowest inspection rate for commercial trucks, records show. Only 3.7% of the laden trucks are inspected at Otay Mesa, Calexico and Tecate in California and Andrade in Arizona, compared to an average rate of 11.4% along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. ``Obviously, we're in an area of international trade,'' said Rex Applegate, port director of the San Diego district. ``We're not in a situation where we can just stop traffic for the sake of narcotics risk. . . .We examined 3% of all the laden trucks that crossed. That is a lot of trucks. That is a lot of intrusion.'' Sources said inspections are conducted randomly, once every 500 to 2,500 entries, and certain shipments are targeted based on intelligence information. The facilitation program has resulted in increased truck traffic all along the border, especially last year when records show that laden trucks increased 51% and empty trucks increased 38%. In anticipation of the North American Free Trade Agreement a year ago, U.S. and foreign investors opened new manufacturing plants on the Mexican side of the border, triggering an increase in cargo shipments to this country. Numerous inspectors and agents have told The Times they believe that the facilitation policy has provided narcotics smugglers with an easy way of bringing tons of cocaine into the U.S. ``The smugglers know our system as well or better than us,'' said Jay Erdmann, an inspector for 25 years who is retiring next month. ``Why should they smuggle the dope through the desert when they can use line release?'' San Diego port director Applegate said the importing and drug targeting procedures are ``very sophisticated.'' ``Quite frankly, the line inspector is not aware of this,'' Applegate said. ``These guys are like platoon sergeants questioning the war strategy.'' But he also said inspectors have a responsibility to target vehicles, based on behavioral analysis of the drivers. ``This risk assessment * * * depends a lot on the inspector's own knowledge,'' Applegate said. A Dec. 13 document entitled ``1994 Port Tracking Report'' said Customs concentrates its drug enforcement efforts on shipments from 16 ``high-risk'' countries in South and Central America and the Caribbean. The report said that, although most ``high-risk containers pass through the Mexican border, ``substantially less'' cocaine was seized there last year than the previous year. Nationwide, customs inspectors and agents seized 62,850 pounds of cocaine from commercial land, air and sea haulers last year--only 2,000 pounds less than in 1993. But along the Southwest border, 1,765 pounds was confiscated in 1994--all at Calexico--compared to 7,708 pounds in 1993 and 234 pounds in 1992 when truck traffic was lighter. Customs statistics show there was a similar decline in marijuana seizures, from 17,736 pounds in 1993 to 9,459 pounds last year. Officials were unable to provide statistics for cocaine seizures in previous years along the entire border. At the Otay Mesa commercial port--third largest on the border and located seven miles east of San Diego--there were no cocaine seizures in the past three years. There also were no seizures during the period at El Paso, the second largest commercial border crossing. Laredo, Tex., the biggest commercial port, had no cocaine seizures last year. Inspectors there found 5,027 pounds of drug in 1993 and none in 1992. Meanwhile, Customs officials have two new proposals to make it easier for airplane and auto travelers, not just trucks, to enter the United States, The Times has learned. One plan under study, called Airport 2000, would require airline employees to input the names of passport holders into Customs computers. Customs inspectors would then check the names for criminal records or ties to drug smuggling. If the name used by the traveler does not arouse suspicion, he would be allowed to leave the airport without having to go through Customs inspection. ``Airport 2000 is a concept developed here and is passenger oriented,'' said Dennis Shimkoski, a Customs Service spokesman in Washington. A plan being studied in San Diego would make optional the now-mandatory license plate check of every vehicle entering this country from Mexico. Like Airport 2000, the plan was conceived to cut costs and ease entry into the United States. Computer checks of license plates have led to the seizure of hundreds of stolen vehicles and thousands of pounds of drugs. The computer checks also tell an inspector if the vehicle is suspected of being used in smuggling and if the driver has a criminal record. Applegate dismissed complaints from inspectors and Customs agents that the plan signals a retreat from the drug war and invites corruption in the ranks of inspectors. ``The issue is very simple. Our land border traffic is increasing, and our budget is not,'' Applegate said. ``There would be a certain number of inspectors who would view this as the grossest sellout in customs history. [But] how much is it costing the Customs Service to input all this data and what are we getting for it?'' Von Raab, the former Customs commissioner, said he believes that the proposals will weaken enforcement efforts. ``I have always seen Customs as a regulatory agency to guard borders and collect tariffs,'' he said. Customs inspectors and agents have complained for years about what they call a loophole in the facilitation program. They alleged in interviews that drug rings are paying unscrupulous truck drivers and trucking companies to smuggle cocaine and other drugs--but Customs officials do not subject drivers and trucking companies to the same background checks as importers and manufacturers. A veteran investigator who has worked on several high- profile drug cases in San Diego said that ``you can have the biggest drug dealer in Mexico drive a truck through the compound * * * and the [line-release program's] computer would never tell you who he was, even if he used his real name.'' ``That's correct,'' said Barry Fleming, who supervises the line release program in San Diego. ``Right now, I have to agree with the inspectors. [The problem is] the carriers. How do we operate in the unknown where we don't know the risk of the driver, the tractor [truck] or the trucking company?'' When asked why there were no cocaine seizures at the Otay mesa commercial port between 1992 and 1994, Fleming said: ``Is it [because of faulty] targeting? Probably it is. We don't have enough intelligence.'' Carolyn Goding, president of the San Diego Brokers Assn., agreed that there is ``nothing some cocaine underneath the seat.'' However, she said the program ``is working well for the honest importer by helping facilitate the movement of cargo.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Recently, I asked the Customs Service, particularly the Director of Customs, for a complete list of the more than 10,000 individuals and companies that have been approved to participate in this so-called line release program. I have yet to be provided with that list. In addition, this past Friday, I wrote to Secretary Rubin regarding a March 10 story in the Associated Press. I ask unanimous consent that this letter and the Associated Press story be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, held a very interesting hearing on drug trafficking and the increase of drug use in the United States. I would like to say a few words on the subject. California has now replaced Florida as the major point of importation of cocaine in the United States. The California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement reports that 80 percent of the clandestine methamphetamine manufacturing labs seized and dismantled in the United States are in California. More illegal drugs are coming into this Nation today than ever before. And Federal efforts at stopping the flow of drugs into this Nation are simply inadequate. Last week, I met with the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Thomas Constantine, who told me that the DEA knows of at least forty 727-sized planes controlled by the Cali drug cartel in Colombia being used to smuggle cocaine into this country--forty 727- sized planes. Most of these planes are offloaded in northern Mexico, and drugs are moved across the California border and other Southwest borders. Mr. Constantine also indicated to me that the Cali drug cartel's net profit last year was $7 billion, that the cartel controls the air traffic control system of Colombia, that they control the phone company, which allows them to backtrack and tape all phone calls, and that they are first-rate practitioners of intimidation and violence. Consider just some of the following, Mr. President. Cocaine smuggled across the California line accounts for at least 70 percent of the drugs sent over the entire Southwest border by rings based in Mexico, making the State the prime staging area for the shipment of cocaine from cartels in Colombia and other South American countries. Last year, the amount of cocaine seized coming across the United States-Mexican border plummeted, and not a single pound of cocaine was confiscated from the more than two million trucks that passed through three of the busiest entry points along the Southwest border--Laredo and El Paso in Texas, and Nogales in Arizona. According to the Los Angeles Times, only 3.7 percent of laden trucks are comprehensively inspected at three San Diego-area ports of entry. The average rate along the entire Southwest border is 11.4 percent. However, last year, laden trucks crossing the border increased 51 percent, and empty trucks increased 38 percent. Let me say clearly, I believe current Federal efforts to stop the entry of illegal drugs are not working. The Line Release Program Let me describe one example of the failure of the Federal Government to stop drug smuggling. It's called the line release program. I believe this program should be discontinued immediately pending an evaluation of its effectiveness. Three weeks ago, I wrote to Secretary Robert Rubin making that recommendation. The line release program was created in 1986 to expedite commerce entering the United States from Canada. In recent years, the program was expanded to the Mexican border as well. Under the line release program, so-called low-risk United States companies are permitted to ship goods from Mexican manufacturers without inspection. But the line release program has had a major unintended effect. In the single-minded pursuit of increased commerce, more trucks and commercial vehicles are being waved through border checkpoints without being inspected. The result: The amount of illegal drugs coming across the border is higher than ever before. According to a Los Angeles Times story from February 13, 1995, since the line release program was implemented, shipments of goods have increased dramatically at four critical points of entry along the United States-Mexico border--Laredo and El Paso in Texas, Nogales in Arizona, and San Diego in California. Yet, even as the number of shipments increased, the rate of inspections and drug seizures decreased dramatically. I ask unanimous consent that this Los Angeles Times story be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I ask the Senator from Kentucky to yield for an additional statement?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I speak as in morning business?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I also would like to correct the record, to the fact again that the Senator from Mississippi submitted a portion of my floor statement from balanced budget debate last year and incorrectly described the context of my remarks, and I would like to put those remarks in context. The Senator claims in the Congressional Record that the statement was made in response to the balanced budget amendment as submitted by Senators Simon and Hatch. In fact, there were two proposals last year on the balanced budget amendment. The statement that is attributed to me was made in reaction and in support of the balanced budget amendment proposed by Senator Reid, which would have protected the Social Security trust fund. I would like to put the statement submitted by the Senator from Mississippi in context by briefly reading a couple of paragraphs from my floor speech made on February 24, 1994. I am here to speak on behalf of the Reid amendment. I believe it is improved over the Simon amendment. This amendment would protect Social Security. I do not believe that the trust fund should be used to balance the budget. It would allow the creation of a capital budget (that is this amendment), just as many cities and States do now. It would allow flexibility in times of recession. And it would keep the courts from mandating actions that are legislative prerogatives. These changes make this amendment a much more workable balanced budget amendment. There are many in this body who believe that amending the Constitution is very strong medicine, perhaps too strong. I have listened very carefully to those arguments. But I have come to the conclusion that without the strong medicine the patient is not going to heal. People have said to me: You come from California and you supported an amendment for earthquake disaster relief that was off budget. Yes, I did. Disaster relief for floods was off budget. Disaster relief for Hurricane Iniki was off budget. Disaster relief for Hurricane Andrew was off budget. So why should California be treated any differently? That is why we need an amendment to make everyone play by the same rules. I think this is the heart of the matter. If people believe that under our present way of doing business we can balance this budget, then they should vote against a balanced budget amendment. This is the part that I was quoted in. If in their heart of hearts they believe we are not going to be able to balance the budget under the current process, then I believe they should support the balanced budget amendment. At least that is the conclusion to which I have come. Without a constitutional amendment, a balanced budget just is not going to be achieved. That is the context of my remarks, out of which one paragraph was taken and attributed to my not being concerned about Social Security last year. I submit this as proof that I was concerned about Social Security last year. This year I presented a substitute amendment which was the balanced budget amendment with Social Security excluded, and it lost before this body. If I might just quickly restate my views, because I believe it is important. Let me speak as someone who does believe in a balanced budget amendment. It may not be the same identical one you believe in, Mr. President, but then that is why we are legislators, to legislate, hear the ebb and flow of debate, make up our minds, and improve legislation. I quite genuinely believe, and I think the figures will corroborate, that we can take Social Security off budget, create a capital budget--as the city of which I was mayor does, as the State of California does, as more than 40 other States do--and actually, by so doing, have less trouble balancing the budget by the year 2002 than we would if the present balanced budget amendment passed. Now, perhaps the Federal Government is so far removed from States or cities that they cannot countenance financing large items of capital like aircraft carriers, at $1 billion per, through a capital budget, but I think we can. I think there is room for people to have different views about a balanced budget amendment. And I hope that, as others state our views, that they would do so correctly. I have heard many Members supporting a balanced budget amendment say--and heard one on tape just a half-hour ago--``We have no intentions of using Social Security to balance the budget.'' That is wrong. Social Security's revenues would be used in the balanced budget amendment recently voted on to balance the budget. Why do I believe that Social Security is as important a contract with America as the revisionist Contract With America? The reason I believe it is because for years people have been paying FICA taxes with the assurance that those taxes are not used for budget purposes, they are used for their retirement. That is a contract with America. You pay 6.2 percent of your salary, your employer matches it, the Federal Government holds that and invests it in Treasury bills, and you get it back as you retire. I believe that obligation ought to be kept intact. If we find we cannot keep the obligation intact because more people are retiring and not enough are earning, then the system needs adjustment. And I am the first one to say that. Or the money is not going to be there, do not make young working people with young families pay the FICA tax today. Do the honest thing and cancel the FICA tax. So I think there are very major and legitimate public policy questions at play in this balanced budget amendment and I hope that the mentality that I have been surprised to see in the last week--which is almost the mentality that anyone who dares disagree with the great pundits and proponents of the balanced budget amendment is not quite as good an American and does not have the right to disagree--would cease. I think that makes a mockery out of the public policy debates of the No. 1 one public policy forum of the United States, the U.S. Senate. I believe we have a right to listen to debate. I believe we have a right to try to forge a better amendment. And I think taking Social Security out of the balanced budget amendment does in fact make it a better amendment and there is a way to compensate for the loss and that is by doing something that most States and every big city in this Nation does, which is fund their major capital improvements through a capital budget. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as always when it comes to matters of copyright law, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee has spoken well and to the point as to why extending the basic term of copyright protection by 20 years is both the right and the economically desirable thing to do, and to do without delay. As the bill's coauthor, I'd like to add just a few thoughts about our proposal to extend the length of copyright protection for only the fourth time since the Founding Fathers established such rights more than 200 years ago. First principles come first. The fundamental animating principle of copyright protection was--and remains--assuring that the Nation's most creative individuals have and retain a sufficient economic incentive to continue to craft, work by copyrightable work, the incomparable mosaic of our Nation's cultural life. For many years now, such incentive has been considered to be the right to profit from licensing one's work during one's lifetime and to take pride and comfort in knowing that one's children--and perhaps their children--might also benefit from one's posthumous popularity. Indeed, it was to preserve that incentive that Congress adopted the current life plus 50 years term that is now the law. Human longevity, however, is increasingly undermining this fundamental precept of copyright law, Mr. President, and with it the economic incentive deemed essential by the authors of the Constitution. We all had the great good fortune, for example, to have the incomparable Irving Berlin among us until 1989, when he died at the age of 101. By that time, however, Mr. Berlin had outlived the period in which he was entitled to royalties from the immortal ``Alexander's Ragtime Band.'' Although not every American copyright owner will reach the century mark, Mr. President, it's clear that we as a Nation are living longer and more active lives. Copyright law has in the past--and should now again--reflect that central fact of life. Accordingly, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995 uniformly extends the life of copyright protection in this country by 20 years, a modest extension relative to past adjustments, as Chairman Hatch points out. Writers, artists, filmmakers, composers, photographers, sculptors, and cartographers alike--and their children, all will benefit from this overdue adjustment. Perhaps more importantly, as the ultimate beneficiaries of the creativity that copyright protection is intended to assure, so will we all. Second, Mr. President, as important as America's cultural enrichment is, the United States also stands to benefit dramatically on the world economic stage from extension of the current copyright term. As the tense and protracted negotiations with China just concluded underscored, intellectual property--the collective copyrightable output of America's creators of movies, music, art and other works--is an enormous asset to the Nation's balance of trade. Indeed, in a recent Billboard magazine commentary, Prof. Arthur Miller of the Harvard Law School noted that, ``In 1990, America's `copyright industries' recorded $34 billion in foreign sales * * *.'' It's no wonder, Mr. President, that the Chinese preferred to appropriate American film and music for resale--two great exports from my State of California--rather than license American works. By extending to life plus 70 years the basic copyright protection afforded in the United States for new works, Congress will assure comparable protection for American authors in the countries of the European Union, which will formally adopt the life-plus-70 standard this summer. If we do not act, Mr. President, those nations quite simply will not be required to provide American authors, artists and other copyright holders with more than the protection we afford their intellectual property holders here at home. Simply put, Mr. President, conforming our intellectual property laws with those of our trading partners in the service of American competitiveness is critical. As Professor Miller aptly put it: ``Unless Congress matches the copyright extension adopted by the European Union, we will lost 20 years of valuable protection against rip-off artists around the world.'' I'm certain that the tired, but successful team from the United States Trade Representative's office just returned from China will testify if asked, Mr. President, that the stronger our copyright laws here at home, the better the deal they can negotiate for American copyright holders abroad. Since America is--and is likely to remain-- the world's principal exporter of popular culture, extension of the basic copyright term makes international dollars and sense. Third, and finally, Mr. President, I want to note for the record the extraordinary support for this legislation within the intellectual property community. Not only do movie and music companies strongly back this bill as written, as one would expect, but book and music publishers, performing rights societies representing America's premier songwriters and composers, and major software producing firms all concur that Congress can and must pass this important legislation. I want to thank Chairman Hatch and his staff once again, Mr. President, for another--to my mind--successful collaboration to protect and encourage the production of American intellectual property. Just as was the case with the digital performance rights legislation which we first introduced in the last Congress and jointly offered again recently, it is equity and economics which make the Copyright bill. I commend it to my colleagues, and look forward to working with them and the copyright community at large to put it--as well as digital performance rights legislation--before the President by the end of this session of Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will not rehash the arguments lodged against this alternative balanced budget amendment at this point except to restate two important points: First, the opponents of this amendment have repeatedly stated that we should not place a statute in the Constitution. They fear that Congress will have to amend the Constitution every time they enact enabling legislation. This statement is pure hogwash--history has proven that constitutional amendments are inevitably defined by enabling legislation. During my statement on February 9, I displayed 20 volumes of the United States Code Annotated related to the 14th amendment. Are the supporters of this argument saying that they are opposed to all this legislation because it does not belong in the Constitution?--I think not. They also believe that the Social Security trust funds can be protected through this same enabling legislation. At this time, I will reintroduce to the Record a letter from the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service. Just to remind my colleagues, let me read the reply I received to an inquiry about the ability to protect Social Security in implementing legislation. The letter reads, If the proposed amendment was ratified, then Congress would appear to be without the authority to exclude the Social Security trust funds from the calculation of total receipts and outlays under section 1 of the balanced budget amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Second, I recognize that the exclusion of Social Security will make it harder to balance the budget. Taking Social Security off budget will require about $3 trillion more in spending cuts by the year 2017. However, the alternative of leaving Social Security on budget allows Social Security funds to be stolen to avoid spending cuts. When the baby-boomer generation begins to retire, there will not be any funds available for them to collect. In order to address this valid concern, I believe a capital budget should be established to assure continued Federal investments in major public physical assets. Instituting a capital budget would more than offset the effects of moving Social Security from the budget. However, I was not permitted to offer this alternative. I was hoping that we would have been able to vote on this alternative. However, the Senate was denied that opportunity by an ironic--we are considering amending our Constitution--the great protector of free speech--and my speech was stifled, squashed, and censored. In conclusion, I do not believe that the working men and women of this country are well served if we take the FICA tax moneys that they believe will be available for their retirements and use them to balance the budget. That is wrong. It is dishonest. It masks the debt. It betrays people. And it jeopardizes the retirements of future generations. I will not break the trust of the American people. I urge my fellow Senators to vote for this honest balanced budget amendment. I want to see a balanced budget amendment pass this Senate. This amendment can pass--there are enough Senators in this body who support a balanced budget amendment to pass this version. However, if Senators wish to gamble in an attempt to gather enough votes for House Joint Resolution 1, they can. I, for one, do not wish to take that risk. I will vote for this honest balanced budget amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my amendment be the pending business.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a substitute amendment to House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget constitutional amendment. I support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and I would like to see this body pass such an amendment. However, as I have previously stated, I do not believe that the House-passed amendment, the amendment being considered by the Senate, is the right amendment for this country. With Senators Ford, Hollings, McCain, Mikulski, Kohl, Harkin, Daschle, Dorgan, Reid, and Graham of Florida, I, therefore, offer my colleagues--both Republican and Democratic--a substitute. The substitute I am offering today is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that will permanently exempt Social Security from the calculations. It will protect this fund, holding in trust the money deducted from American workers' paychecks every week until they are ready to use them in retirement. The amendment does not alter any other aspect of House Joint Resolution 1--not a single item. It merely exempts Social Security--it is an honest balanced budget amendment--a balanced budget amendment which can pass. Unfortunately, this body has steadfastly refused to make any changes to the original balanced budget amendment submitted to the Senate despite hours of good debate--especially on the establishment of capital budgeting procedures, with which I agree, the removal of Social Security from the budget, and attempts by both Senators Johnston and Nunn to clarify the areas of legal redress under this amendment. The leadership has merely posed the same amendment which the House passed and asked that we rubberstamp it here in the Senate. I find this approach both unacceptable and puzzling. This Senate has been involved in 1 month of detailed and incisive debate of this subject. Virtually all amendments have been defeated. No matter how salient or cogent points raised have been, they have been rejected. Apparently, the only acceptable amendment is the one presented. No changes can be made no matter how correct or compelling the criticism. Now, while I believe a balanced budget is the correct policy decision for this country--I do not believe we must pass any amendment just because a few have ordained this to be the amendment. It is our duty in the Senate to weigh all legislative matters carefully. Amending the Constitution is a serious historical task which demands the thought and wisdom of all of us here in the Senate. I was elected by the people of California to represent their interests in the Senate. I was not elected to genuflect to a measure simply because it was passed by the House of Representatives. At this point in our history, we should not be altering the legislative process. This body should not be simply a rubberstamp to a measure ramrodded through the other House. We should be examining all pieces of legislation independently from the House. This deliberation includes altering and amending legislation to fit the needs of Americans as we see them--I believe that the balanced budget amendment being offered by Republicans does not best serve as a correct methodology for balancing the budget. Mr. President, I have stated previously my reasons for strongly supporting a constitutional balanced budget amendment. In the year that I was born, the Federal debt amounted to less than $25 billion. In the year my daughter was born, the Federal debt was about $225 billion--10 times greater. My granddaughter Eileen was born 2 years ago. At the time of her birth, the Federal debt was more than 150 times greater than it was when I was born--nearly $4 trillion. In the last 35 years, the Federal Government has balanced its budget exactly twice. Once in 1960, a surplus of $300 million and again in 1969, a surplus of $3.2 billion. Yet, in the last quarter of a century, the Federal Government has run up more than $4 trillion in debt without once balancing the budget. During this time, this Nation has experienced war and peace and economic booms and recessions. Never did this Government balanced the Federal budget, let alone run a surplus. One fact is inescapable--spending in this country has grown out of control, and we have let the Federal debt grow at a rate that is unacceptable. That is why I am a strong supporter of a constitutional balanced budget amendment. We do not have another generation to allow this problem to fester. The time for action is now. But equally important to the need for a solution is its workability in the future. There are four important arguments for protecting Social Security: First, this amendment would place Social Security off-budget, thereby enshrining into the Constitution congressional action and guaranteeing the integrity of the system. Between its creation in 1935 and 1969, Social Security had always been off-budget. In an attempt to cover the deficits, Social Security was put on-budget. This was a misuse of the Social Security trust fund. In the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, Congress put an end to this practice by declaring Social Security funds off-budget. The amendment in the Senate to exclude Social Security from budget calculations was passed in the 101st Congress by a vote of 98-2. Every Member today who served in the 101st Congress voted to place Social Security off-budget. Second, Social Security is not like other Government programs and should not be treated like other Government programs. Social Security is a publicly administered, compulsory, contributory retirement system. Through the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, known as FICA, workers are required to contribute 6.2 percent of their salaries to Social Security. Every worker does this. Employers are required to match that amount. Every employer does this. This combined 12.4-percent contribution funds the Social Security system. It is not meant to fund Interior, or Agriculture, or Defense, or HUD, or welfare, or anything else. By law these funds are required to be held by the Federal Government in trust. They are not the Federal Government's funds, but contributions that workers pay in and expect to get back. Over 58 percent of working Americans pay more in FICA taxes, if you include the employers' share, than they pay in Federal income taxes. This is not a small amount, and it is not adjusted by salary. Third, Social Security does not contribute to the Federal deficit. In fact, the Social Security trust fund surpluses are masking the true size of the deficit today. In 1995, Social Security will take in $69 billion more than it will pay out in benefits. By 2001, Social Security will be running surpluses of more than $100 billion a year. By the time this amendment goes in place, in 2002, the surplus in the Social Security System will be $705 billion. Fourth, the failure to save Social Security surpluses could undermine the system's viability. In the late 1970's and 1980's, Congress changed the way the Social Security System was financed. Recognizing the large demand on the system that would be created by the retirement of the baby boomer generation early next century, the Social Security System was changed from a pay-as-you-go system to a system that would accumulate large surpluses now to prepare for the vast increase in the number of retirees later. The amendment being offered by the Republicans permits the collected funds to be used to finance the deficit. That means beginning in 2019, when Social Security is supposed to begin drawing down its accumulated surpluses to pay for the benefits of the vast numbers of retiring baby boomers, there will be no money saved to distribute. Congress will be forced to either raise taxes, cut Social Security benefits, or further cut other spending programs to meet the obligations workers are paying for now. In short, the American workers will have to pay twice for the retirement of the baby boomers because we will not be saving what they contribute now. The only way to save the Social Security surpluses to pay for future retirements is to balance the budget exclusive of these revenues, and that is what this amendment would do. The impact of this, of course, would be that the Federal Government would run a unified budget surplus--a balanced Federal budget and a surplus in the Social Security trust fund. In this way, we would cut the Federal debt and save Social Security funds, not just watch the debt keep growing. The alternative balanced budget amendment being offered today will do just that. On February 17, the Times Mirror released its latest public interest poll. I think every Senator here should be aware of the results. When asked what should be given a higher priority in 1995, cutting taxes or taking steps to reduce the budget deficit, 55 percent want to reduce the deficit while 37 percent want to cut taxes for the middle class. Now, this supports the argument which we all are making for the balanced budget amendment. The American public wants to reduce the deficit; balancing the budget is the best way to do just that. But this question is only one part of the story. When asked if it was more important to reduce the budget or keep Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are, the respondents favored keeping Social Security benefits as they are by a 70 to 24 percent margin. Let me say that again, 70 percent of the American public favors protecting Social Security while only 24 percent want to reduce the deficit at the expense of Social Security. This amendment we are offering will satisfy both of these desires. Just last week, on February 23, I received a letter from the AARP supporting the protection of Social Security. Let me quote some of it: The Association believes that a specific exemption for Social Security is required because anything less is inadequate and nonbinding. Without an exemption the program is at risk in several ways. First, benefits could be cut to reach the balanced budget goal even though money from such unwarranted reductions would remain in the Social Security trust funds. This would have the affect of further masking the deficit at the expense of Social Security beneficiaries. Just as important the benefit promise to today's workers will be jeopardized because the annual reserve will continue to be used to hide the extent of the Federal deficit. The letter concludes by stating: During the most recent election, candidates and the leadership of both political parties pledged to protect Social Security. The American people have grown angry and wary of promises from Washington. To tell the American public that Social Security is protected--and then fail to address the issue directly--will only lead to an increase in the cynicism that is currently prevalent throughout the Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of this letter, along with a letter I received on February 1 from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare supporting this amendment to protect the Social Security.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I do desire to call up my amendment. I recognize that I have to ask unanimous consent to be able to do so.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to amendment No. 315 and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment is a substitute amendment. Essentially, it is the balanced budget amendment as presented with Social Security excluded using the exact language of the Reid amendment. It is word for word the original balanced budget amendment excluding Social Security. It is cosponsored by Senators Ford, Hollings, McCain, Bumpers, Mikulski, Harkin, Kohl, Daschle, Reid, and Dorgan. Mr. President, I believe this substitute amendment plays a pivotal role as a vehicle to pass the balanced budget amendment. We hope to debate it further and take the vote on this on Tuesday. Let me just point out that as it currently stands, the balanced budget amendment essentially would utilize about $705 billion of FICA tax revenues--those are taxes paid for retirement--for purposes of masking the debt and balancing the budget. Many of us do not believe this is right. We do not believe it is morally right, and we do not believe it is ethically right. The only way to protect Social Security, to keep it out of the balanced budget amendment, is by exempting it through this substitute constitutional amendment. As I previously stated, the exact words of the Reid amendment are included and incorporated within this substitute balanced budget amendment. We will be speaking and arguing further for it, I hope, on Tuesday. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, thank you very much. Amendment No. 274 (Purpose: To propose a substitute)

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. My question is, is the Senator aware that not only TVA is excluded but also the Bonneville Authority, and I believe others as well?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am proud to join today with my colleagues in celebrating the 75th anniversary of an organization that has focused on bringing women into the political system: As people who are informed. People who ask questions. People who take an active role. People who can make a difference. People who would become U.S. Senators. I believe that it is fair to say that the League of Women Voters, not alone, but with others, has served as the backbone, a sort of grassroots engine moving women forward, not only as activists, but as leaders. The league was founded in 1920 at the Chicago convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, 6 months prior to passage of the 19th amendment granting women the right to vote. On the eve of its establishment, Carrie Chapman Catt, its founder said: Winning the vote is only the opening wedge, but to learn to use it is a bigger task. And thus, for 75 years the league has been teaching its membership and all citizens how to use the power of the vote. The league fought to make candidate debates part of campaigning for elective office. At the national level, it has educated and engaged women in the debate over foreign policy and organized the grassroots on domestic issues--the equal rights amendment, the Voting Rights Act, voter registration reform, and campaign reform to name a few. At the local level, the league has served to educate the electorate about important public policy issues by sponsoring forums for candidate debates, and providing guides to the issues on the ballot, and more. In the February 1995, issue of ``Today's Voter'' a newsletter put out by the League of Women Voters of San Bernadino, CA, the organization's president, Jan Green, said there are four kinds of bones: She said, and I quote: The body of a club or group is made of four kinds of bones: the wishbones, who spend all their time wishing someone would do all the work; the jawbones, who do all the talking but very little else; the knucklebones who knock everything that everybody else tries to do; and the backbones who get under the load and do the work as they enjoy the fun of fellowship that come with it. These words were obviously prodding the membership of the organization toward greater participation in the work of the league. But I believe that these words provide something even more for both elected officials and the electorate. For elected officials, it is a call for quality representation. Leadership not filled with a lot of talk--political rhetoric on partisan bickering. It is a call for leadership that respects the political process, and the institutions that have served this country well for over For the electorate, it is a call to greater engagement in the political process and the decisions that will shape our future. To go beyond the surface of soundbites and look deeper to the heart of the issues. And most importantly, to vote on election day. While the influence of the League of Women Voters in shaping the role of women in politics cannot be overstated, I believe their role in the coming years will be equally as important, if not more important. Important victories have been won for women, in terms of the number of elected officials at the national, State, and local levels, and in terms of the legislative victories that have resulted. In this session, alone critical issues for women are on the table-- research for women's health, reproductive choice, welfare reform, and equal opportunity to name a few. The role of the league becomes vital in preserving those gains, whether it be by energizing women voters on election day or galvanizing their forces behind important issues on the legislative agenda. I want to thank the League of Women Voters for the valuable work it has done for 75 years and for it continued work on issues important to women, in particular, and the electorate at-large. Thank you, Mr. President. the 75th anniversary of the league of women voters of the united states

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment which will waive the provisions of the bill before us when the President of the United States declares a Federal disaster. Over the last few years the United States has experienced more disasters than at any other time--the Loma Prieta earthquake in California; Hurricane Hugo which struck the Carolinas; Typhoon Omar which struck Guam; Hurricanes Andrew, Bob, and Iniki; the floods that covered much of the Midwest; the more recent floods that devastated Texas; the wildfires which struck southern California; the Northridge earthquake in southern California just over 1 year ago; and the floods that are still plaguing California. In California, earthquake activity has dramatically increased. Leading seismologists have predicted that there is an 86-percent chance of a 7.0 quake in southern California in the next 30 years. California can do more and will do more to prepare for future disasters, but as we saw in Kobe, Japan, even what is considered good planning can be ripped apart. But much more than California is at risk. It is inevitable that Florida and the eastern seaboard will see another hurricane. Hawaii will see another hurricane or a volcano. A tornado, floor, or deep freeze will hit the Midwest, and on down the list. Currently, there are outstanding requests for disaster assistance in 40 States. Every State in the Union is at risk from Mother Nature. FEMA has had the capability to cover the costs of a federally declared disaster. FEMA has provided assistance in cases of heavy snow, tornadoes, floods, and many other situations, and has not required additional funding from Congress. People should not be under the impression that FEMA marches up to Capitol Hill after every disaster and request more money. We need this exemption for those infrequent instances when the size and scale and destructive force of a disaster is simply too overwhelming for the affected local and State officials to handle. Twelve times since 1974 the administration has requested a supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the costs of disasters. Seven of those twelve times, the supplemental request has been less than $1 billion. In no instance has Congress required these bills to be offset by cuts in other funding, which would be the required course of action if this amendment fails. Congress passed the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to outline in what ways the Federal Government should supplement State and local efforts in times of disaster. Through the Stafford Act, the Federal Government has recognized that it has a vital role in responding to disasters. We must maintain that commitment, and this amendment will ensure that we do so. Oftentimes we in the Senate do not move quickly to pass bills. Thankfully, we have moved quickly to pass bills to help restore the lives of disaster victims. In such cases of catastrophic disasters, when local officials cannot meet the needs of the victims, we must not let budget debates and haggling over how to achieve 60 votes slow our effort to meet our commitment. Some may argue that the Federal Government is too intrusive in our lives--but when disaster strikes, trust me, even the greatest government cynic is glad to see someone wearing a FEMA jacket. In response to the Northridge earthquake in my State of California, Congress passed a bill that included $8.6 billion in Federal emergency assistance. This money has been absolutely vital in getting Los Angeles back on its feet. Federal disaster relief funds have played a critical role in Hawaii, and Florida, and the Midwest as well. Some will argue that if these billions of dollars are so small in comparison to our Federal budget, why should they be so difficult to offset? Let me address that question. Last week the House Appropriations Committee approved a measure to offset the supplemental spending bill that was requested by the President to bay for military operations in Haiti and elsewhere. This $3.2 billion bill was offset with $1.8 billion in cuts in defense spending, and $1.4 billion in nondefense spending. The $1.4 billion in cuts in nondefense cuts, had little if any hearing and were cut at the expense of programs totally unrelated to the purposes for which they were going to be sacrificed. Will we use bills to help victims of disasters as a vehicle to wantonly cut unrelated programs with little or no thought? If this becomes the case, when these disaster bills finally wind their way to the floor, as victims wait for our assistance, the programs that have been cut in committee will be the subject of debate, and the victims of the disaster will sit and wait. The debate on disaster bills should be about the victims, not about the budget. There is another point I would like to make with respect to the Budget Act of 1990. Under the provisions of balanced budget amendment, 60 votes in the Senate would be necessary to waive the requirement of balancing the budget. The Budget Act of 1990 specifically gave the Congress the authority to consider bills deemed to be emergency spending by both Congress and the President, without subjecting the bill to a point of order. Once a bill is the subject of a point of order, it takes 60 votes to waive the provisions of the budget act. By subjecting emergency bills to the balanced budget amendment, we would be requiring 60 votes the amendment, the same requirement that emergency bills were specifically exempted from in 1990. Additionally, there has been criticism in the past that these bills have been loaded up with pork unrelated to disasters. I have cosponsored a bill with Senators McCain and Feingold to eliminate amendments to these bills that are unrelated to the disasters so emergency funding bills are only for emergencies. I hope that bill will see swift passage. Disasters are unexpected, and can cause, in some cases, tremendous amounts of damage. We cannot plan for them, and funds for assistance must not be delayed because of our fear of throwing the budget out of balance, but the speed with which we pass these bills can be vital to an effective recover effort. As an aside, I would like to make a suggestion to my colleagues with respect to helping to prevent the need for emergency disaster bills in the future. FEMA will have approximately $320 million this year for its disaster relief fund, a figure based on an old average of yearly needs, when in fact the average outlays from the disaster relief fund from fiscal year 1985 through fiscal year 1996 projected--is $1.527 billion. I would suggest to my colleagues that we use this figure as a new baseline instead of the $320 million. These funds if not expended, can build up, so we would be better prepared financially for future disasters. I recognize that we would need to find an additional $1.2 billion annually to cover the difference, but perhaps that would be easier than finding the much bigger sums that we have to produce all in 1 year in the face of huge disasters such as Northridge. To close, I would like to say, disaster bills will not break the budget, but will help put the lives of the thousands of disaster victims back together. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.