Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001. Put simply, I believe this is a good bill. If the Senate approves this bill, we could offer health care protections to all 190 million Americans in private health plans within a week. It's that simple. Congress has a duty to pass a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights to make HMOs accountable to patients, and to ensure less HMO interference with medical decision making. We need to ensure, for example, access to emergency rooms, specialists, and clinical trials. Patients should be able to go to the emergency room closest to their home in the event of a medical emergency. This bill does just that. Each day, 10,000 physicians see patients harmed because a health plan has refused services. Patients and doctors feel that getting quality care is a constant battle. It is time for this to stop. And the time is now. Each day we wait to approve a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights, 35,000 patients are denied access to the speciality care they need to manage or diagnose their illness. I want to read to you a heart-wrenching letter I received from a California mother who has had difficultly getting her health plan to approve medically necessary services for her disabled daughter. I believe this letter really highlights the humane reasons Congress must enact a strong Patients' Bill of Rights this year. This mother writes: My daughter is a total-care patient. She was in a terrible car accident approximately 14 years ago and sustained brain stem injuries and is a quadriplegic. I chose to keep her at home. Her licensed care coverage is to be 24-hour care. In the past two years, her insurance company has unilaterally cut back on her nursing care to 5.5 hours a day. This is one of many unilateral decisions the insurance provider has made regarding her care--disregarding her doctor's and other medical providers' assessments. I, as her mother and conservator, who is not trained in medical practices or care, am expected to cover the remainder of the 18.5 hours a day. This has caused me to quit my job, file bankruptcy, and most importantly, it has seriously affected my health. I am a senior citizen and am not supposed to lift, however, because of the practices of the insurance company, I have no choice. I cannot tell you when I last had a full night's sleep in the past several years. The insurance company not only cut back on her nursing care, they stopped approving her therapy which included physical, speech, and occupational. I received a letter from her current insurance carrier stating that she was considered to be a normal employee and in August of 2001 all the aforementioned items would be stopped. This is not based on my daughter's current doctor's orders nor her needs. This is not based on an assessment from an independent medical establishment or by an experienced, licensed nurse that was selected by the insurance company for a complete assessment which supported the necessity of 24- hour nursing care. This decision is being made unilaterally by the insurance company officials. Is this what insurance companies can do to critically ill patients without any accountability or liability on their part? I commend this mother for her commitment to providing her daughter with the best care available. This letter highlights the importance of giving doctors the power to make medical decisions about coverage and care rather than the ``green eye shade'' of the insurance companies. I strongly believe that doctors should be making the medical decisions. This bill includes several provisions to help physicians determine what is medically necessary and to prevent insurance plans from defining medical necessity. These provisions are necessary because doctor after doctor has told me their ``horror stories'' of how plans try to arm twist, coerce, countermand, interfere with and even deny treatments that they have determined are medically necessary and appropriate. The bill prohibits plans from punishing providers for advising patients about their options for medical treatment. The bill also establishes, as the standard for review, that decisions should be made based on the medical condition of the patient and valid, relevant scientific evidence and clinical evidence and expert opinion. It also requires internal and external reviews of appeals of medical necessity to be made by physicians with expertise in the area of medicine being appealed. It requires reviewers in the independent review process to be a physician or health care professional who is licensed and ``typically treats the condition, makes the diagnosis, or provides the type of treatment under review.'' On prescription drugs, the bill requires plans to make exceptions to restrictive drug formularies for medical necessity, if prescribed by the treating physician. It is my hope that these provisions will give doctors and other providers the legal underpinnings they need to make the professional medical judgments they are trained to make in their effort to give patients the best care possible. I also want to briefly speak to two other very important provisions included in this bill: First, this bill provides coverage to all 190 Americans in private health plans. The competing bill in the Senate (Frist-Breaux) excludes approximately 20 million Americans because they are enrolled in a self-insured State and local government health plans. It is important we pass a bill that provides protections to all Americans. Second, I believe this bill offers a responsible approach to liability. Today, patients have few opportunities for recourse against the health plans that harm them. This is wrong. This bill gets rid of a health plan's special privileges. A health plan would bear responsibility only if it makes a medical decision and the patient dies or is harmed as a result. Doctors and other health practitioners are already held accountable for their mistakes under State law. If a ``green eye-shade'' overrules a doctor's medical judgement and harms a patient, the plan too should be held responsible. At the same time, this bill protects employers. If an employer does not make medical decisions, the employer can't be held liable. It is that simple. This bill does not overturn or preempt existing State liability laws. It specifically exempts doctors and hospitals from new causes of action. These are reasonable provisions. In States like California that have strong patient protections there has not been an explosion of lawsuits. In fact, since the inception of California's right-to-sue law in January 2001 and the unlimited damage it provides for, there has not been a single lawsuit filed. Instead, HMOs appear to be deferring more to patients' requests for treatment, according to the first data to emerge from the State's HMO regulator. California has the longest history in managed care and the highest number of insured people in HMOs nationwide. Over 70 percent of Californians are enrolled in either a commercial HMO or a preferred provider organization, PPO. Approximately 20 million non-elderly Californians have access to health insurance through their job or privately purchase coverage. So for California, these protections are critical. Due in part to the high penetration of managed care, California's health care system is on the verge of collapse. Resources are stretched to the limit and patients, as a result, are not getting the services they need. For example, California's capitation rate, the rate paid to doctors for treatment, is one of the lowest in the Nation. The average capitation rate in California reached its peak in 1993 at $45 per month. Last year, the rate dropped to $29 (PriceWaterhouse Coopers). These low reimbursement rates undoubtedly impact quality of care and access to services. Many California hospitals and other health care providers have been forced to limit hours of operation and discontinue services. The burden to provide care is put on those that have remained open, and many of these facilities are now facing financial problems of their own. I know that California's health care system is not unlike other systems across the country. The bottom line is that patients should not be the one's made to suffer at the hands of a failing health care system. People pay monthly premiums. They expect their health insurance to be there when they need it. That is what insurance is. It insures against loss from an unforeseen illness or injury. But with HMOs today, the certainty of good health care is being seriously eroded. Many people feel that every time they need care, it is a tremendous hassle. The bottom line is that people feel they have to fight to get the quality care they have paid for. Americans are tired of jumping through hoops to get good care. People should not have to fight for their health care. They pay for it out of their monthly paycheck. It should be there for them when they need it. I would like to close with a very tragic story about a young, 16 year old girl from Irvine, California who did not get the care she needed from her HMO in a timely manner. I think her story provides a poignant summary of the problem with managed care providers. Unfortunately, her story does not have a happy ending. Serenity Silen was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, in late February 1998. She had gone to her HMO four times, to four different HMO doctors, since the beginning of 1998. Each time she complained of the exact same symptoms, all of which could indicate leukemia. Over the course of the four visits, Serenity's condition was never diagnosed. Finally, in the middle of February 1998, Serenity was taken to the emergency room of an out-of-network hospital because her mother was so frustrated with the care at their HMO. The emergency room doctor was the first doctor, in the five weeks since the symptoms arose, to order a complete blood count test. The blood count test indicated a dangerously high white blood cell count that was symptomatic of leukemia. With a much delayed diagnosis, Serenity's leukemia was now going to be much more difficult to treat. Fed up with the HMO, Serenity's parents sought a second opinion from a highly recognized oncologist at an out-of-network hospital. Serenity was transferred to that hospital to be under the oncologist's care. After being at the new hospital only a few days, Serenity explained to her parents that she did not realize how much pain she was in until the new hospital helped to take it away. After 2\1/2\ months at the new hospital, Serenity died. The disease had not been diagnosed in time. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Support this bill for the children like Serenity in your State. The constituents who battle with their HMOs daily to get the quality care they need and deserve. Many of these patients are too sick to fight with their HMOs to get access to the services necessary to treat their illnesses. How many more lives are we going to have to lose to the HMO battle before Congress wises up and passes a Patients' Bill of Rights that protects the patient? This bill has been a long time in the making. Let's get it done this session.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Larry Craig, in introducing this legislation to accelerate the development of fusion energy as a practical and realistic alternative to fossil fuels for our nation's energy needs. I would also like to commend my colleague, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, who introduced the ``Fusion Energy Sciences Act of 2001'' on the House side as H.R. 1781. Since the beginning of the Manhattan Project, scientists have been trying to harness energy from fusion to produce electricity. This legislation will help the scientific community expedite the development of fusion as a viable option for our energy needs. To help fusion science move from the lab to the grid, this bill fast- tracks a key experimental fusion project. This bill also authorizes $320 million for Fiscal Year 2002 and $335 million for Fiscal Year 2003 to speed up fusion's current estimated 45-year implementation timetable. I have spoken frequently to my colleagues on California's current energy situation. Last week the Department of Energy predicted the State will suffer from around 110 hours of rolling blackouts this summer. Experts say $21.8 billion of economic output will be lost and over 135,000 workers will lose their jobs because of this summer's blackouts. I will continue to try to help California and the rest of the West in the short-term. Making rolling blackouts less frequent, lowering electricity costs on the wholesale market, keeping natural gas prices reasonable, and bringing new supplies of power online are the key objectives I have been working toward to bring stability to the Western Energy Market. While I work on the short-term problems in California, I join my colleague from Idaho on this bill to develop a key long-term solution to our current energy problems. As world populations grow, and as civilization advances, we need to pursue new energy sources beyond traditional fossil fuels. It is no secret that fossil fuels are finite and polluting. Beyond expanding renewable energy sources such as those from the sun and the wind, fusion holds a great deal of potential to expand our nation's energy supply. Fusion is a safe, almost inexhaustible energy source with major environmental advantages. As a co-sponsor of this legislation, I hope to see fusion move quickly from an experiment in the lab to a reality for our homes and businesses. We have already succeeded in using scientific advancements to harness energy occurring elsewhere on our planet. Solar panels collect the sun's rays to heat pools and power homes. Windmills transfer nature's gusts into electrical currents. Water running from mountaintops to the sea can produce significant amounts of hydroelectric power. And now, with fusion energy, we will be able to harness the power of the stars to create an almost unlimited and clean form of energy. Fusion energy is the result of two small hydrogen atoms combining into a larger atom. The energy released from this fusion of the atoms can be harnessed to generate electricity. Unlike nuclear power, which uses radioactive materials for fuel, fusion uses hydrogen from water. Unlike fossil fuels, which pollute the air when burned, the only byproduct in a hydrogen fusion reaction is helium, an element already plentiful in the air. Besides being environmentally benign, fusion is a practically unlimited fuel source. In fact, scientists predict that using 1 gallon of sea water, fusion can yield the energy produced from 300 gallons of gasoline. And with fusion, 50 cups of sea water can be the energy equivalent of 2 tons of coal. Fusion energy has been proven to be a practical energy endeavor, worthy of more investment for research and development. So just where do we go from here? How do we harness the power of the stars? A 1999 review by the Department of Energy's task force on Fusion Energy concluded: one, substantial scientific progress has been made in the science of fusion energy; two, the budget for fusion research needs to grow; and three, a burning plasma experiment needs to be carried out. To expedite the use of fusion to meet our energy needs, we need to strengthen the efforts already underway in fusion research and development and create new programs financed by the government. Scientists agree that at current funding levels, fusion is approximately 45 years away from entering the marketplace as a viable energy source. This timetable is based upon a three step process in which the scientific community can: first, carry out a burning plasma experiment; second, build a fusion energy test facility; and third, establish a fusion demonstration plant to generate electricity. Since practical fusion energy generation is still three stages from real implementation, the first thing we can do is fund the development of a burning plasma experiment. This legislation will ensure this project will happen soon, carried out either by the scientific community in the United States, or in collaboration with an international effort. The bill requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan by 2004 for a magnetic fusion burning plasma experiment. It is important to point out that this bill adds the burning plasma experiment in addition to, and not at the expense of, other ongoing projects. The goal of fusion energy is to create a continually burning fuel like a fire refueling itself. Developing a magnetic fusion plasma experiment will help the scientific community demonstrate how the heat from the fusion reaction can maintain the reaction as a self-generating fuel. Strong magnetic fields allow the hydrogen plasma to be heated to high temperatures for fusion. This legislation will help the scientific community overcome the key stumbling block to fusion development. By authorizing $320 million for Fiscal Year 2002 and $335 for Fiscal Year 2003 the fusion plasma experiment will be carried out and fusion funding that peaked in the 1970s, but has since tapered off, will be restored. Let me just take a moment to mention where this funding is going, because it is particularly important for me to point this out. Annual Federal funding for fusion energy has averaged around $230 million in the last few years. In Fiscal Year 2001, Congress appropriated $248.49 million for fusion research. This money has provided approximately 1,100 jobs in California at the following U.S. Fusion Program Participant locations: UC Davis, UC Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, Cal Tech, UC San Diego, UC Irvine, Occidental College, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Sandia National Lab, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, TSI Research Inc. and General Atomics. Despite all of the past advancements at these facilities and others, the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee has concluded that lack of funding is hindering the technological advance towards fusion energy development. And the Department of Energy's task force on Fusion Energy has concluded that, ``In light of the promise of fusion,'' funding remains ``subcritical.'' Currently, the international community is outpacing us on the road to realizing the myriad benefits of this new energy resource. The Japanese budget for this type of research is about 1.5 times that of the U.S., and the European budget is about 3 times greater. It is critical that we be the leader in the renewable energy resources sector. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Craig and me in supporting fusion energy as a clean, safe, and abundant energy source for our Nation's long-term energy supply.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to indicate my deep concern about what I perceive to be increasing bias in the United States toward Asian Americans and Chinese Americans in particular. In recent years, we have seen those on the far right and the far left of the political spectrum raise allegations without proof, distort facts, and make it impossible to refute insinuations. Thus, a web of suspicion is woven about the loyalties of Asian Americans to the United States. This has created an atmosphere of anti-Asian American and anti- Chinese American sentiment: a House Select Committee report on National Security (although widely debunked as without foundation); the botched Wen Ho Lee investigation; the recent incident with Representative David Wu; the attacks against U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao; hate crimes against Asian Americans; and the attacks against former California State Treasurer Matt Fong. These examples--and others--have contributed to a troubling and negative stereotyping of Asian-Americans. Evidence of this comes from a recent Yankelovich survey which asserts: 68 percent of Americans now have a somewhat negative or very negative attitude toward Chinese Americans; one in three now believe that Chinese Americans are more loyal to China than to the United States; nearly half of all Americans--or 46 percent--now believe that Chinese-Americans passing secrets to China is a problem; and 34 percent believe that Chinese Americans now ``have too much influence'' in the U.S. high technology sector. Tragically, the unfounded suspicions about the loyalties of Asian Americans has itself created a sense of unease among the Asian American community. According to Asian American focus groups conducted for the Committee of 100 during January 2001, Asian Americans believe that too many Americans see them as foreigners or as ``permanent aliens.'' Increasingly, Chinese-Americans with contacts, family, friendships or business connections in China are labeled disloyal to the United States simply because of their ethnic background and heritage. The sentiment seems to be that you can't be both Chinese-American and a loyal American as well. Now that is not what America is all about. Sadly, our Nation has a long history of discrimination against Americans of Asian and Pacific Island ancestry. Without a doubt, Asian Americans have suffered from unfounded and demagogic accusations of disloyalty. Americans of Asian and Pacific Island descent have been subjected to discriminatory laws that have prevented their right to become, and be seen as, Americans: The Chinese Exclusionary Act of 1882 barred the immigration of Chinese laborers. In 1907, the ``Gentleman's Agreement'' between the United States and Japan limited Japanese immigration to the United States. A 1913 California law erected barriers to prevent Asian Americans from becoming land-owners. The Immigration Act of 1917 prohibited immigration from nearly the entire Asia-Pacific region. The National Origins Act of 1924 banned immigration of persons ineligible for citizenship. Asian Americans were not able to become citizens of the United States for over 160 years and the Supreme Court consistently upheld laws prohibiting citizenship for Asians and Pacific Islanders with the last of these laws not repealed until 1952. The Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 limited the number of Filipino immigrants to 50 per year. During World War II, we witnessed one the worst acts of discrimination against any group of Americans, the internment of 120,000 patriotic and loyal Americans of Japanese ancestry. Despite the fact that their family members were being denied their basic rights as Americans, many young Japanese Americans volunteered to fight for their country and they did so with bravery, honor, and valor. The record of the U.S. Army's 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry Combat Group speaks for itself and is without equal: 18,000 individual decorations awarded including 52 Distinguished Service Crosses, 560 Silver Stars, and 9,480 Purple Hearts. The record of the 442nd Combat Group made up of Japanese American soldiers, including our esteemed colleague Senator Daniel Inouye is unusual: They were the most decorated unit of its size in the Army during World War II, yet only one member until last year received the Medal of Honor when Senator Inouye finally received his long overdue recognition. Throughout U.S. history Asian Americans have been subjected to discriminatory actions, including the prohibition of individuals from owning property, voting, testifying in court or attending school with other people in the United States. It is long past time to turn the page on this chapter of our Nation's history. And I am appalled that in recent years some have resorted to negative stereotypes to question the integrity of an entire community. Tragically, this rising tide in discrimination has contributed to a growing number of crimes hate crimes against Asian Americans. According to the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, there were 486 reported incidents of violence against Asian Americans in the latest figures available for 1999, an increase from the 429 incidents in 1998. This upward trend is even more troubling because it is contrary to the finding reported by the Department of Justice's 1999 crime victimization report that violent crime rates had fallen by 10 percent during this same period. Who can forget the harrowing photos in August of 1999 of pre-school children holding hands while fleeing the North Valley Jewish Community center when a white supremacist walked into their school and opened fire? Later that day, the perpetrator shot and killed Joseph Ileto, a Filipino-American postal worker. Ileto was a kind hearted and unselfish man who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and slain because of his skin color. In May 1999, a Japanese American store owner was shot in Chicago, Illinois by a gunmen seeking out ethnic targets. In July 1999, Benjamin Smith, a 21-year-old college student, went on a three day shooting rampage in Illinois and Indiana, killing one Korean American, one African American, and injuring nine others--Jews, Asian Americans, and African Americans. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to hate crimes against Asian Americans. And make no mistake about it, these attacks are in part fueled by the anti-Asian sentiment that lingers in our society today. Even with the strides we have made in combating hate crimes thus far, Asian American groups report that these crimes are still frequently under-reported and therefore the ``real'' numbers of these incidents is unclear. According to the Asian Law Caucus's Interim Executive Director Frank Tse: The invisibility of Asian Pacific Americans has real detrimental effects. If law enforcement does not perceive that we are susceptible to hate crimes, then they are more likely to overlook the red flags at a crime scene. We have seen this firsthand. The result is that perpetrators are not prosecuted, victims do not receive appropriate assistance and the under reporting continues. The rising tide of anti-Asian American attitudes that can lead to these sorts of tragic incidents are all too often aided and abetted by those in government and the media who ought to know and act better. Many Chinese-Americans, for example, feel that the Report of the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/ Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China promoted an atmosphere of suspicion about the loyalty of Chinese Americans to their country. The House Committee report asserted that: Threats to national security can come from PRC scientists, students, business people, or bureaucrats, in addition to professional civilian and military intelligence operations. The PRC also tries to identify ethnic Chinese in the United States who have access to sensitive information, and sometimes is able to enlist their cooperation in illegal technology or information transfers. It is estimated that at any given time there are over 100,000 PRC nationals who are either attending U.S. universities or have remained in the United States after graduating from a U.S. university. These PRC nationals provide a ready target for PRC intelligence officers and PRC Government controlled organizations, both while they are in the United States and when they return to the PRC. In light of the number of interactions taking place between PRC and U.S. citizens and organizations over the last decade as trade and other forms of cooperation have bloomed, the opportunities for the PRC to attempt to acquire information and technology, including sensitive national security secrets, are immense. Although it is true that the Chinese Intelligence sources utilize these techniques, many Chinese-Americans feel that these sorts of broad-brush allegations create an atmosphere where all Asian Americans fall under a cloud of suspicion. The report seems to suggest, for example, that because the PRC may try to recruit some ethnically Chinese scientists in the U.S., all ethnic Chinese are under suspicion. A review of the Report by Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation concluded that the Report was inflammatory, inaccurate, and damaging to U.S.-China Relations. Its principal editor, Dr. Michael May, argued that the Report alleged that ``essentially all Chinese visitors to the United States are potential spies. This has cast a cloud of suspicion over both foreign and Asian-born U.S. staff members of U.S. companies.'' Many Chinese and Asian American groups have written to me to express their concerns about the impact the insinuations and unfounded allegations of the Report have had on Chinese and Asian Americans. In a May 21st letter to the Editor and Chief of the Los Angeles Times, John Fugh, a retired Chinese-American Major General with 33 years of service in the U.S. Army and its former Judge Advocate General, wrote: The impact of this inflammatory report has created an environment in which many Chinese and Asian Americans have had their loyalty questioned based on their ethnicity, especially in the defense sector. The Asian Law Alliance of San Jose noted that the allegations of the Report ``led to a broad-based hysteria that detrimentally impacted Asian American scientists working to support U.S. research and development.'' The Organization of Chinese Americans argued that the ``report and the false impression it gave the American public had serious repercussions on the careers of Chinese Americans at some government agencies and in some instances, private industry.'' Now I would like to speak about some people who may well have been targeted because they are Asian Americans. Dr. Wen Ho Lee, an American citizen and nuclear scientist, formerly employed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, was arrested in 1999 on 59 charges ranging from violating the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to mishandling classified data and held in solitary confinement for nine months before all charges were dropped except for one--downloading classified data onto his personal computer. I have been told that others at the lab also downloaded information but were not charged. Media reports and government information portrayed him as a Chinese spy. After reviewing the facts of the case, I am convinced that whatever else may have been involved the case also had serious undertones of racial stereotyping that need to be examined closely. This is a man who had been held under the most extraordinary security conditions. Dr. Lee, a sixty-year old scientist at the time, was prohibited from outside contact, except for his immediate family, and shackled at the wrists, waist and ankles on the occasions in which he was allowed to leave his cell. In an impassioned letter about the Wen Ho Lee case, one of my constituents expressed: As a Chinese American . . . I ask no more than what is due to every citizen of this country, namely, to be treated with respect and dignity. I resent those who would question the loyalty of Chinese Americans any time a particular Chinese American is suspected of an egregious act. In their haste to decry the alleged espionage by an individual, not only are these public officials and said media guilty of a rush to judgment but of tarring with a broad brush other American citizens who are guilty of nothing else other than having the same ethnicity of the suspect. Instances like the Wen Ho Lee case engender a sense of disunity and division within the community, which undermines the basic tenets on which this nation was founded. In another instance of how poisoned this atmosphere has become, Oregon U.S. Representative David Wu was recently nearly denied entry into the Department of Energy building in Washington, DC because guards questioned whether he was an American citizen. After Representative Wu and an aide arrived, a guard refused to recognize his Congressional identification and asked three times whether the two were U.S. citizens. Eventually, the two were allowed entry by a supervisor but this incident indicates the web of suspicion surrounding all Asian Americans, and even those that are elected to Congress. Following the incident, Representative Wu wrote U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham: I am disturbed that yesterday's incident is the tip of an iceberg, an indicator of a much larger problem at DOE which maybe damaging our national security. Representative Wu has asked Secretary Abraham to review employment practices and operating procedures to prevent future discrimination against employees of Asian descent. I join with Representative Wu in this important request. Lastly, in recent months, a distinguished public servant currently the Secretary of Labor, has been harshly and unfairly attacked and her loyalty questioned because, as a Chinese- American, she has knowledge of China, has met with Chinese business people, citizens, and leaders. This is yet another case in which ethnic background appears to be sufficient grounds to question someone's patriotism, someone's business activities, and in this case, even the conduct of Elaine Chao's husband as a U.S. Senator. Another troubling incident involves the case of Matt Fong, a former Treasurer of the State of California and a former Lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force, who has been nominated as Under Secretary of the Army and has had his loyalty to our nation questioned. As it transpires, Mr. Fong unknowingly accepted some funds which he should not have in order to retire debt from his 1994 campaign for California treasurer from Ted Sioeng, an Indonesian businessman. But when Mr. Fong discovered that some of these funds came from Sioeng's personal account, he immediately returned the money. There were legitimate questions raised about the Sioeng donation but Matt Fong did the right thing when he found out: He returned the money. I am sad to say that questionable campaign contributions of this sort occur more often than they should, from people of all ethnicities and backgrounds. That is one of the reasons why campaign finance reform is so essential. So why in this case are there some who still raise questions about Mr. Fong's loyalty, suggesting that because of this contribution, which some believe may have originated with the Chinese government, Mr. Fong may represent a security risk? There is no evidence that the funds to Mr. Fong originated with the Chinese government, or that the contribution represents an effort by the Chinese government to ``buy'' Mr. Fong. But because of Mr. Fong's ethnicity, just leveling the allegation creates an environment of suspicion which by its nature is difficult to refute. All is insinuation, and I am loath to say that it appears that it can only be for one reason why these questions have been raised: Mr. Fong's ethnicity. As Karen Narasaki, President and Executive Director of the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium put it: Fong's mother served as California Secretary of State for many years and Fong himself has served his country, both in the Air Force and as California State Treasurer. To question his loyalty to the U.S. is the worst sort of racial profiling. I am disappointed that there are many who appear to believe that it is still acceptable to attack Asian Americans. This is completely unacceptable in America. All Americans should be highly offended by the negative stereotypes and media coverage of Asian-Americans who have made profound contributions to our nation. How can we question the loyalty of any American because of his or her race or ethnic background? To put it simply, this is un-American and must be stopped. We all need to work together to raise awareness about the positive contributions all Asian Americans have made to every aspect of life here in the United States, and of the sacrifices they have made in defense of this country. We must redouble our efforts to eliminate racial stereotypes that strike at the heart of American values and shame us all.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on Tuesday, California lost one of its greatest jurists, Justice Stanley Mosk. For more than a half century, and for 37 years on the bench of the State Supreme Court, Stanley Mosk served California with thoughtfulness, with honor, and indeed, with wisdom. He was the longest-serving member in the court's 151-year history, issuing a total of 1,688 opinions over his career, including 727 majority rulings, 570 dissents, and 391 concurrences. I knew Stanley Mosk well, and I respected him greatly. He's been a giant on the Supreme Court, and he will be missed deeply. Justice Mosk began his political career as executive secretary to Governor Culbert L. Olson in 1938. Following that, he was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where he served for 15 years. And beginning in 1958, Mosk was elected California attorney-general, becoming the first Jewish man or woman to be elected to statewide office in the State. Finally in 1964, weary of politics, Justice Mosk was appointed to the supreme court by Governor Pat Brown. In this career which spanned more than 53 years, Justice Mosk broke new ground in the areas of the environment, the right to sue, and, perhaps most notably, in race discrimination, where he protected the right of all individuals, regardless of race, to be equally protected by the law. As early as 1947, while on the superior court, Mosk issued his first ruling dealing with race, holding that whites-only restrictions on property were unenforceable. Then in 1961, when serving as attorney-general, he persuaded the Professional Golfers Association to admit black golfers. Later, on the supreme court, Mosk wrote perhaps his most famous decision of his career on the case of Allan Bakke, a white student who challenged racial quotas in the University of California admissions program. Writing for the majority, Mosk held that the University's quota-based admissions program, that favored minorities over whites, was unconstitutional. In each of these decisions, Mosk favored the right of the individual to be treated as an equal, with complete disregard to his or her race. It is a formulation which has stood the test of time. In addition, Mosk wrote hundreds of decisions that have deeply impacted the State. Some of those include: An opinion written in 1980 allowing victims of the drug DES to sue all makers of the drug, on the basis of their market share, when the specific manufacturer was unknown to the victims; A 1972 decision that extended the restrictions of the California Environmental Quality Act to private developers; and A 1979 decision that held that a disabled parent could not be denied custody of a child solely because of a physical handicap. Moreover, many of Mosk's opinions reflected his belief in the doctrine of ``independent state grounds,'' which holds that the Federal Constitution provides a minimum standard of individual rights upon which States can build. Stanley Mosk's life was devoted to the law and to the State of California. His prolific careers illustrated his deep commitment to equality, and he leaves a legacy that will last for years to come. He is survived by his wife, Kaygey Kash Mosk, and son Richard M. Mosk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Los Angeles Lakers for winning the National Basketball Association championship for a second year in a row. The Lakers overcame internal conflict and numerous injuries to go on to a remarkable season. They put together a remarkable string of victories at the end of the season to bring home another World Championship to the City of Los Angeles, winning 23 out of 24 of their final games and going 15 and 1 in the playoffs--the best playoff record ever. This Lakers team demonstrated what it truly means to be a champion and represents the best of what the city of Los Angeles has to offer. Led by the inspired play of Shaquille O'Neal and the coaching of Phil Jackson, the Lakers swept through the opening three rounds of the playoffs--easily defeating the talented Portland Trailblazers, Sacramento Kings, and San Antonio Spurs. In the final round, the Lakers faced a gritty Philadelphia 76ers team led by the incomparable Allen Iverson. Iverson and the Sixers showed tremendous determination and heart, handing an overtime defeat to the Lakers in the first game of the series. But as the series moved on, the Lakers outmatched the Sixers and proved, once again, that they were the best team in professional basketball. This was truly a team effort: Shaquille O'Neal, the series Most Valuable Player, dominated the Sixers on both ends of the floor, averaging 33 points per game, 15.8 rebounds, 4.8 assists, and 3.4 blocks in the final series. With his unselfish play, Kobe Bryant provided the spark for the offense--in game four, for instance, he scored 19 points, had 10 assists, and had 9 rebounds. Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Robert Horry and Brian Shaw made significant contributions to the championship--each cooly made three point shots at critical points in the series. Horace Grant and Ron Harper provided the veteran experience that helped the Lakers push back the 4th quarter surges of the Sixers. And finally, Tyronn Lue, deserves honorable mention for his dogged defense against Allen Iverson, especially in Game 1. Without his play, the Lakers would have been unable to contain the speedy Sixer guard. Once again let me congratulate the Los Angeles Lakers for their victory. It was a great effort by a tremendous team. I look forward to another winning season next year.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Privacy Act of 2001. This legislation combats the growing scourge of identity theft and other privacy abuses by setting a national standard for privacy protection. The bill has a simple goal. It is designed to give back to ordinary citizens control over their personal information. Under the Privacy Act of 2001, if a company intends to collect and sell a customer's address, phone number, or other non-sensitive information, the company must give the customer notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the sale if they so choose. For especially sensitive personal information such as financial, health, driver's licenses, and Social Security Numbers, the legislation establishes more stringent privacy protections. Specifically, the bill requires an individual's opt-in prior to the sale, licensing, or renting of their personal financial or health information. In other words, opt-in means that a person must give their explicit and affirmative consent before an entity can use this type of personal information. The bill would also close loopholes in the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, most recently amended last year, so that a State Department of Motor Vehicles can no longer disclose the most sensitive information on a driver's license, such as the driver's identification number or physical characteristics, without the driver's opt-in. Finally, the bill would restrict the purchase, sale, and display of Social Security numbers to the general public. Why do we need a Federal privacy law? The new economy has exponentially increased the flow of personal information, but the protections for individual privacy have not kept pace. With access to sensitive data so widely available, often just at the touch of a keyboard, identity theft has become one of the country's fastest growing crimes. Identity theft is when a thief steals your personal information and then uses it to run up huge bills on your credit cards, bank accounts or other accounts. In some cases, identity theft has also resulted in stalking and murder. Recent statistics on the growth of identity theft suggest we have no time to waste in protecting personal privacy. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates 350,000 cases of identity theft occur each year. That's one case every two minutes. Not surprisingly, members of the public have flooded our Federal agencies with pleas for assistance. Reports to the Social Security Administration of Social Security number misuse have increased from 7,868 in 1997 to 46,839 in 2000, an astonishing increase of over 500 percent. The Federal Trade Commission, FTC, has experienced a similar explosion of cases. If recent trends continue, reports of identity theft to the Federal Trade Commission will double between 2000 and 2001, to over 60,000 cases. Fully 40 percent of all consumer fraud complaints received by the FTC in the first three months of 2001 involved identity theft. Unfortunately, the State most affected by these complaints is California. Fully 17 percent of the identity theft complaints the FTC received this past winter came from my home state. Let me give some real-world examples of privacy abuses: Social Security Number Privacy: Amy Boyer, a 20-year-old dental assistant from Maine was killed in 1999 by a stalker who bought her Social Security number off the Internet for $45, and then used it to locate her work address. Identity Theft No. 1: Michelle Brown of Los Angeles, California, had her Social Security number stolen in 1999, and it was used to charge $50,000 including a $32,000 truck, a $5,000 liposuction operation, and a year-long residential lease. While assuming the victim's name, the perpetrator also became the object of an arrest warrant for drug smuggling in Texas. Identity Theft No. 2: An identity theft ring in Riverside County allegedly bilked eight victims of $700,000. The thieves stole personal information of employees at a large phone company and drained their on- line stock accounts. One employee reportedly had $285,000 taken from his account when someone was able to access his account by supplying the employee's name and Social Security number. Financial Privacy: In a September 14, 1999 editorial, the Los Angeles Times described how a small San Fernando Valley bank, ``sold 3.7 million credit card numbers to a felon, who then bilked cardholders out of millions of dollars.'' According to the article, the bank was not held liable for this action. It is also astonishing what some data marketers are now providing to their customers. According to the Los Angeles Times, some marketing companies have started selling lists of as many as 120 million households which include names, addresses, and phone numbers, estimated income, marital status, buying habits and hobbies. Similarly, a medical information service has made databases available to its customers which contain the phone number, gender and address of: 3.3 million people with allergies, 3.0 million people with heartburn, 850,000 with yeast infections, 450,000 people with incontinence, and 368,000 people who suffer clinical depression. As a result, we have seen privacy become the top consumer protection issue. The bill I am introducing today, the Privacy Act of 2001, contains two bedrock principles. Privacy legislation should not discriminate against any system of communication. If personal information deserves protection, it deserves protection however it is collected. It should not matter whether personal data is collected in person, over the phone, or on the Internet. Nevertheless, some privacy bills have exclusively targeted Internet transactions. There is no justification for discriminating against high technology companies by imposing Internet-specific privacy rules. Companies operating on the Internet should not have any more duties to protect privacy than businesses extracting information from warranty cards or mail catalogues. Not all personal information deserves the same level of privacy protection. Some information like Social Security numbers, motor vehicle records, personal financial information, and medical information deserve higher levels of privacy protection. With regard to the first principle, the Privacy Act of 2001 protects the privacy of information regardless of the medium through which it is collected. Other privacy proposals have tried to confine privacy legislation to the Internet. These proposals unfairly discriminate against high technology users. Put simply, companies and other entities can misuse personal information from off-line sources just as easily as with on-line sources. Why should a company extracting data from a warranty card have any less of a duty to protect personal privacy than a company collecting personal data on-line? For example, telemarketers who besiege consumers with phone calls during the dinner hour get much of their personal information used from consumers filling out and mailing back warranty and registration cards. But these warranty cards give consumers no notice about how their personal information will be used. Consider the case of Anne Marie Levine, a Virginia resident, who entered a raffle to win a new car. The sponsor of the raffle, unbeknownst to Ms. Levine, sold the personal information on her raffle ticket. In the next two weeks, she received calls from a host of jeep dealers in the area. While some may consider unsolicited marketing calls a mere annoyance, Ms. Levine was outraged, as I'm sure many Americans would be, that the auto dealer sold her personal information without her permission. Moreover, with the advent of digital scanners, digital photography, and data processing, the distinctions between on-line and off-line transactions are already blurring. With regard to the second principle, the Privacy Act of 2001 recognizes that not all categories of personal information merit the same level of protection. The bill requires businesses intending to collect and sell nonsensitive personal information, eg. name, phone number, address, to nonaffiliated third parties to give customers notice and the opportunity to opt-out of the sale. The opt-out standard for non-sensitive information ensures that if a person fills out a warranty card, sign-up for a computer service, or submit an entry for a sweepstakes, the business must notify him before it sells his personal information to other businesses or marketers. This framework guarantees basic privacy protections for consumers without unduly impacting commerce. To eliminate unnecessary burdens on businesses, the legislation sets up a safe harbor for businesses which appropriately use nonsensitive personal information. Industries and industry-sponsored seal programs which have already adopted Notice-and-Opt Out information policies will be exempt. The bill also sets a national standard for the sale or marketing of nonsensitive personal information. Federal preemption is needed because a jumbled patchwork of State privacy laws helps neither businesses nor consumers. Conflicting State laws lead to consumer confusion about privacy rights. For example, if one logs onto an Internet site, which State law governs: the law of the State of the computer user, the law where the website is being operated, or the law of the State of the manufacturer of a product? Similarly, a patchwork of 50 State privacy laws, would pose a logistical nightmare for corporate America. Without Federal preemption, businesses will face the unsavory choice of either adopting, for consistency's sake, privacy guidelines that comply with the strictest state privacy law, or dealing with the costs and paperwork imposed by 50 different state privacy laws. For especially sensitive personal data, like financial data, medical data, or a driver's license, the bill pushes for an opt-in model of consent. I believe people should have control over how their most sensitive information is used. In the absence of a customer's express permission, company's should not market or sell sensitive personal data. To create this opt-in standard, this legislation builds upon the existing lattice-work of Federal privacy laws. For example, the bill modifies the recently enacted Gramm-Leach- Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act by requiring an opt-in for the sale of personal financial information. Presently, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a bank must give a customer notice and the opportunity to opt-out before the bank can disclose private financial information to non-affiliated third parties. This legislation would impose a stricter standard if the bank tries to sell the information. Any bank that sells personal financial information to non-affiliated third parties would have to get the prior consent of the customer, OPT-in. Similarly, this bill strengthens the privacy protections for personal health data. The newly enacted Department of Health and Human Services privacy regulations set a basic opt-in framework for disclosure of health information. I recognize that the rules are being revised by the Bush administration, so any discussion of health privacy must necessarily contemplate a moving target. Nevertheless, the current version of the regulation has loopholes that limit patient privacy. The regulations only prohibit ``covered entities, namely health insurers, health providers, and health care clearinghouses, from selling a patient's health information without that patient's prior consent, an Opt-in Model. Meanwhile, non-covered entities such as business associates, health researchers, schools or universities, and life insurers are not subject to this opt-in requirement, except through contractual arrangements. My bill would preserve the privacy of health information wherever the information is sold. Any life insurer, school or non-covered entity trying to sell protected health information would have to get the patient's consent. In addition, the bill would require entities to obtain a patient's approval before using ``protected health information'' for marketing purposes. This legislation builds on existing law to protect the information on our drivers' licenses. With its recent amendments, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, DPPA, offers some meaningful protections for drivers privacy. For example, under the DPPA, a State Department of Motor Vehicles must obtain the prior consent, Opt-in of the driver before ``highly restricted personal information, defined as the driver's photograph, image, Social Security number, medical or disability information, can be disclosed to a third party. However, loopholes remain. Other sensitive information found on a driver's license deserves equal protection. This legislation would expand the definition of ``highly restricted personal'' to include a physical copy of a driver's license, the driver identification number, birth date, information on the driver's physical characteristics and any biometric identifiers like a fingerprint that are found on the driver's license. Thus, this bill would ensure consumers have control over how their motor vehicle records and driver's license data are used. I would like to take a moment to highlight Title II of this legislation, which reflects a compromise with Senator Gregg on the privacy of Social Security numbers. It is so crucial to protect Social Security Numbers because these are the key to unlocking a person's identity. Many identity theft cases start with the theft of a Social Security number. Once a thief has access to a victim's Social Security number, it is only a short step to acquiring credit cards, driver's licenses, or other crucial identification documents. The Feinstein/Gregg compromise bars the sale or display of Social Security numbers to the public except in a very narrow set of circumstances. Display or sale is permitted if the Social Security Number holder gives consent or if there are compelling public safety needs. For the first time, Federal, State, and local governments will have to redact Social Security numbers on government records before these records are provided to the public. Thus, enterprising identity thieves no longer can scour bankruptcy records, liens, marriage certificates, or other public documents to steal Social Security Numbers. Moreover, State governments will no longer be permitted to use the Social Security number as the default driver's license number. The legislation, however, recognizes that some industries, like banks, rely on Social Security Numbers to exchange information between databases and complete identification verification necessary for certain transactions. It permits the sale or purchase of Social Security Numbers to facilitate business-to-business transactions so long as businesses put appropriate safeguards in place and do not permit public access to the number. Some critics of privacy legislation argue it will impede commerce. I disagree. A reasonable baseline of privacy laws will stimulate commerce. On the Internet, for example, fear of identity theft has impeded consumer transactions. One study of e-commerce estimates consumer privacy fears prevented up to $2.8 billion in online retail sales in 1999. Another study suggests that, by 2002, over $18 billion of lost sales can be attributed to consumer privacy concerns. This legislation codifies steps Congress can take to protect citizens from identity thieves and other predators of personal information. It restores to individuals more control over their most sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers, driver's license information, health information, and financial information. The legislation sets reasonable guidelines for businesses that handle our personal information every day, like credit card companies, hospitals, and banks. Our Nation is rushing toward an information economy that will yield unprecedented economic efficiencies. The commercial benefits of the new economy are unquestionable. But, in our rush to embrace the new, we must remember to protect the core Democratic values on which our country depends. Every American has a fundamental right to privacy, no matter how fast our technology grows or changes. But our right to privacy only will remain vital, if we take strong action to protect it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Privacy Act of 2001. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Privacy Act of 2001. This legislation combats the growing scourge of identity theft and other privacy abuses by setting a national standard for privacy protection. The bill has a simple goal. It is designed to give back to ordinary citizens control over their personal information. Under the Privacy Act of 2001, if a company intends to collect and sell a customer's address, phone number, or other non-sensitive information, the company must give the customer notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the sale if they so choose. For especially sensitive personal information such as financial, health, driver's licenses, and Social Security Numbers, the legislation establishes more stringent privacy protections. Specifically, the bill requires an individual's opt-in prior to the sale, licensing, or renting of their personal financial or health information. In other words, opt-in means that a person must give their explicit and affirmative consent before an entity can use this type of personal information. The bill would also close loopholes in the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, most recently amended last year, so that a State Department of Motor Vehicles can no longer disclose the most sensitive information on a driver's license, such as the driver's identification number or physical characteristics, without the driver's opt-in. Finally, the bill would restrict the purchase, sale, and display of Social Security numbers to the general public. Why do we need a Federal privacy law? The new economy has exponentially increased the flow of personal information, but the protections for individual privacy have not kept pace. With access to sensitive data so widely available, often just at the touch of a keyboard, identity theft has become one of the country's fastest growing crimes. Identity theft is when a thief steals your personal information and then uses it to run up huge bills on your credit cards, bank accounts or other accounts. In some cases, identity theft has also resulted in stalking and murder. Recent statistics on the growth of identity theft suggest we have no time to waste in protecting personal privacy. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates 350,000 cases of identity theft occur each year. That's one case every two minutes. Not surprisingly, members of the public have flooded our Federal agencies with pleas for assistance. Reports to the Social Security Administration of Social Security number misuse have increased from 7,868 in 1997 to 46,839 in 2000, an astonishing increase of over 500 percent. The Federal Trade Commission, FTC, has experienced a similar explosion of cases. If recent trends continue, reports of identity theft to the Federal Trade Commission will double between 2000 and 2001, to over 60,000 cases. Fully 40 percent of all consumer fraud complaints received by the FTC in the first three months of 2001 involved identity theft. Unfortunately, the State most affected by these complaints is California. Fully 17 percent of the identity theft complaints the FTC received this past winter came from my home state. Let me give some real-world examples of privacy abuses: Social Security Number Privacy: Amy Boyer, a 20-year-old dental assistant from Maine was killed in 1999 by a stalker who bought her Social Security number off the Internet for $45, and then used it to locate her work address. Identity Theft No. 1: Michelle Brown of Los Angeles, California, had her Social Security number stolen in 1999, and it was used to charge $50,000 including a $32,000 truck, a $5,000 liposuction operation, and a year-long residential lease. While assuming the victim's name, the perpetrator also became the object of an arrest warrant for drug smuggling in Texas. Identity Theft No. 2: An identity theft ring in Riverside County allegedly bilked eight victims of $700,000. The thieves stole personal information of employees at a large phone company and drained their on- line stock accounts. One employee reportedly had $285,000 taken from his account when someone was able to access his account by supplying the employee's name and Social Security number. Financial Privacy: In a September 14, 1999 editorial, the Los Angeles Times described how a small San Fernando Valley bank, ``sold 3.7 million credit card numbers to a felon, who then bilked cardholders out of millions of dollars.'' According to the article, the bank was not held liable for this action. It is also astonishing what some data marketers are now providing to their customers. According to the Los Angeles Times, some marketing companies have started selling lists of as many as 120 million households which include names, addresses, and phone numbers, estimated income, marital status, buying habits and hobbies. Similarly, a medical information service has made databases available to its customers which contain the phone number, gender and address of: 3.3 million people with allergies, 3.0 million people with heartburn, 850,000 with yeast infections, 450,000 people with incontinence, and 368,000 people who suffer clinical depression. As a result, we have seen privacy become the top consumer protection issue. The bill I am introducing today, the Privacy Act of 2001, contains two bedrock principles. Privacy legislation should not discriminate against any system of communication. If personal information deserves protection, it deserves protection however it is collected. It should not matter whether personal data is collected in person, over the phone, or on the Internet. Nevertheless, some privacy bills have exclusively targeted Internet transactions. There is no justification for discriminating against high technology companies by imposing Internet-specific privacy rules. Companies operating on the Internet should not have any more duties to protect privacy than businesses extracting information from warranty cards or mail catalogues. Not all personal information deserves the same level of privacy protection. Some information like Social Security numbers, motor vehicle records, personal financial information, and medical information deserve higher levels of privacy protection. With regard to the first principle, the Privacy Act of 2001 protects the privacy of information regardless of the medium through which it is collected. Other privacy proposals have tried to confine privacy legislation to the Internet. These proposals unfairly discriminate against high technology users. Put simply, companies and other entities can misuse personal information from off-line sources just as easily as with on-line sources. Why should a company extracting data from a warranty card have any less of a duty to protect personal privacy than a company collecting personal data on-line? For example, telemarketers who besiege consumers with phone calls during the dinner hour get much of their personal information used from consumers filling out and mailing back warranty and registration cards. But these warranty cards give consumers no notice about how their personal information will be used. Consider the case of Anne Marie Levine, a Virginia resident, who entered a raffle to win a new car. The sponsor of the raffle, unbeknownst to Ms. Levine, sold the personal information on her raffle ticket. In the next two weeks, she received calls from a host of jeep dealers in the area. While some may consider unsolicited marketing calls a mere annoyance, Ms. Levine was outraged, as I'm sure many Americans would be, that the auto dealer sold her personal information without her permission. Moreover, with the advent of digital scanners, digital photography, and data processing, the distinctions between on-line and off-line transactions are already blurring. With regard to the second principle, the Privacy Act of 2001 recognizes that not all categories of personal information merit the same level of protection. The bill requires businesses intending to collect and sell nonsensitive personal information, eg. name, phone number, address, to nonaffiliated third parties to give customers notice and the opportunity to opt-out of the sale. The opt-out standard for non-sensitive information ensures that if a person fills out a warranty card, sign-up for a computer service, or submit an entry for a sweepstakes, the business must notify him before it sells his personal information to other businesses or marketers. This framework guarantees basic privacy protections for consumers without unduly impacting commerce. To eliminate unnecessary burdens on businesses, the legislation sets up a safe harbor for businesses which appropriately use nonsensitive personal information. Industries and industry-sponsored seal programs which have already adopted Notice-and-Opt Out information policies will be exempt. The bill also sets a national standard for the sale or marketing of nonsensitive personal information. Federal preemption is needed because a jumbled patchwork of State privacy laws helps neither businesses nor consumers. Conflicting State laws lead to consumer confusion about privacy rights. For example, if one logs onto an Internet site, which State law governs: the law of the State of the computer user, the law where the website is being operated, or the law of the State of the manufacturer of a product? Similarly, a patchwork of 50 State privacy laws, would pose a logistical nightmare for corporate America. Without Federal preemption, businesses will face the unsavory choice of either adopting, for consistency's sake, privacy guidelines that comply with the strictest state privacy law, or dealing with the costs and paperwork imposed by 50 different state privacy laws. For especially sensitive personal data, like financial data, medical data, or a driver's license, the bill pushes for an opt-in model of consent. I believe people should have control over how their most sensitive information is used. In the absence of a customer's express permission, company's should not market or sell sensitive personal data. To create this opt-in standard, this legislation builds upon the existing lattice-work of Federal privacy laws. For example, the bill modifies the recently enacted Gramm-Leach- Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act by requiring an opt-in for the sale of personal financial information. Presently, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a bank must give a customer notice and the opportunity to opt-out before the bank can disclose private financial information to non-affiliated third parties. This legislation would impose a stricter standard if the bank tries to sell the information. Any bank that sells personal financial information to non-affiliated third parties would have to get the prior consent of the customer, OPT-in. Similarly, this bill strengthens the privacy protections for personal health data. The newly enacted Department of Health and Human Services privacy regulations set a basic opt-in framework for disclosure of health information. I recognize that the rules are being revised by the Bush administration, so any discussion of health privacy must necessarily contemplate a moving target. Nevertheless, the current version of the regulation has loopholes that limit patient privacy. The regulations only prohibit ``covered entities, namely health insurers, health providers, and health care clearinghouses, from selling a patient's health information without that patient's prior consent, an Opt-in Model. Meanwhile, non-covered entities such as business associates, health researchers, schools or universities, and life insurers are not subject to this opt-in requirement, except through contractual arrangements. My bill would preserve the privacy of health information wherever the information is sold. Any life insurer, school or non-covered entity trying to sell protected health information would have to get the patient's consent. In addition, the bill would require entities to obtain a patient's approval before using ``protected health information'' for marketing purposes. This legislation builds on existing law to protect the information on our drivers' licenses. With its recent amendments, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, DPPA, offers some meaningful protections for drivers privacy. For example, under the DPPA, a State Department of Motor Vehicles must obtain the prior consent, Opt-in of the driver before ``highly restricted personal information, defined as the driver's photograph, image, Social Security number, medical or disability information, can be disclosed to a third party. However, loopholes remain. Other sensitive information found on a driver's license deserves equal protection. This legislation would expand the definition of ``highly restricted personal'' to include a physical copy of a driver's license, the driver identification number, birth date, information on the driver's physical characteristics and any biometric identifiers like a fingerprint that are found on the driver's license. Thus, this bill would ensure consumers have control over how their motor vehicle records and driver's license data are used. I would like to take a moment to highlight Title II of this legislation, which reflects a compromise with Senator Gregg on the privacy of Social Security numbers. It is so crucial to protect Social Security Numbers because these are the key to unlocking a person's identity. Many identity theft cases start with the theft of a Social Security number. Once a thief has access to a victim's Social Security number, it is only a short step to acquiring credit cards, driver's licenses, or other crucial identification documents. The Feinstein/Gregg compromise bars the sale or display of Social Security numbers to the public except in a very narrow set of circumstances. Display or sale is permitted if the Social Security Number holder gives consent or if there are compelling public safety needs. For the first time, Federal, State, and local governments will have to redact Social Security numbers on government records before these records are provided to the public. Thus, enterprising identity thieves no longer can scour bankruptcy records, liens, marriage certificates, or other public documents to steal Social Security Numbers. Moreover, State governments will no longer be permitted to use the Social Security number as the default driver's license number. The legislation, however, recognizes that some industries, like banks, rely on Social Security Numbers to exchange information between databases and complete identification verification necessary for certain transactions. It permits the sale or purchase of Social Security Numbers to facilitate business-to-business transactions so long as businesses put appropriate safeguards in place and do not permit public access to the number. Some critics of privacy legislation argue it will impede commerce. I disagree. A reasonable baseline of privacy laws will stimulate commerce. On the Internet, for example, fear of identity theft has impeded consumer transactions. One study of e-commerce estimates consumer privacy fears prevented up to $2.8 billion in online retail sales in 1999. Another study suggests that, by 2002, over $18 billion of lost sales can be attributed to consumer privacy concerns. This legislation codifies steps Congress can take to protect citizens from identity thieves and other predators of personal information. It restores to individuals more control over their most sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers, driver's license information, health information, and financial information. The legislation sets reasonable guidelines for businesses that handle our personal information every day, like credit card companies, hospitals, and banks. Our Nation is rushing toward an information economy that will yield unprecedented economic efficiencies. The commercial benefits of the new economy are unquestionable. But, in our rush to embrace the new, we must remember to protect the core Democratic values on which our country depends. Every American has a fundamental right to privacy, no matter how fast our technology grows or changes. But our right to privacy only will remain vital, if we take strong action to protect it. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Privacy Act of 2001. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Helms amendment. Under our Federal Constitution and laws, public schools are already required to provide equal access to their facilities. This amendment, therefore, is unnecessary. As such, its only result would be to divide our communities rather than bring them together. It is unfortunate that an organization that has meant so much to our nation has now become the object of a larger debate on civil rights and national unity. This amendment is not a vote on the legitimacy of the Boy Scouts as a national institution. Rather, it is a vote on the direction in which we want our country to go. I have heard from constituents who are opposed to this amendment. One was a teacher who spoke eloquently to the divisiveness of the amendment. He wrote: Dear Senator Feinstein: As your constituent, I strongly urge to oppose the Helms amendment to the Education Bill (S. 1), which would deny all Federal education funding to any school that has been found to discriminate against the Boy Scouts or any other youth group that denies membership to gays and lesbians. Aside from being politically divisive and unrelated to the underlying bill, the Helms amendment is completely unnecessary and is a punishment in search of a problem. The use of public school facilities is governed by the First Amendment. The Helms amendment does nothing to further the goals of improving education and serves only as an anti-gay attack. I urge you to oppose this amendment and look forward to hearing your views on this important issue. Other constituents voiced their concerns about the message of intolerance such an amendment would carry if passed. A family from Valley Glen, CA wrote: We are very much offended by the discrimination that the [Boy Scouts of America] is able to operate with under the blessings of the U.S. Supreme Court. On one hand we applaud the actions of school boards, city councils, police departments, corporations and United Way agencies for standing up for what they believe. On the other hand, as members of Temple Beth Hillel (Valley Village, CA), we are quite proud of our Pack 311 and Rabbi Jim Kaufman's stand that the basic program is great and that the best way to make change is from within. Additionally, as a family who is very active in the Girl Scouts . . ., we are quite proud that [the Girl Scouts] are inclusive of all girls and their families. Our tax dollars should not be used to support the discrimination that the ``Boys Scouts Equal Access Act'' is trying to affirm. We urge you to help to defeat this act and to help to hold the [Boy Scouts of America] to the same standards that the country as a whole is striving for. The [Boys Scout of America] is a great American institution and we hope that it can continue to be so following the same non-discriminatory rules as the rest of the country. Here are my views on the matter: first, the Supreme Court has already spoken to the issue of equal access for private organizations. Last year, the Court ruled in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America that the Boy Scouts had a First Amendment right to prohibit gay men and lesbians from serving as leaders in the Boy Scouts. What this decision means is that the governments cannot directly penalize the Boy Scouts for constitutionally protected views and policies, as the New Jersey public accommodations law had sought to do in the case. Nor can they indirectly penalize the Scouts by denying access to public facilities and other benefits available to other private groups. So, for me, the matter is settled. Already a school must allow access to an organization like the Boy Scouts, regardless of the organization's viewpoints, or risk losing federal funding. The Constitution already protects the Boy Scouts and similar youth groups, so there is no reason for Congress to intervene. I also oppose the Helms amendment because of its sweeping potential to limit the rights of state and local governments to make decisions for their own school districts, and for their own children, as to their communities' tolerance of discrimination. One provision of the amendment in particular troubles me: It would provide special protection to groups that prohibit the acceptance of homosexuals. Basically, it singles out for protection a type of discrimination. A consensus developing in our country is that discrimination of this kind is wrong. Across the nation, local jurisdictions are voting to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians. In my hometown of San Francisco, a city that prides itself on the diversity of its views and the diversity of its people, a cornerstone of the community is its belief that basic civil rights protections should extend to every American, and not only to a few and under certain circumstances. A vote in favor of this amendment would be an indictment against the people of San Francisco and of their rich tradition of accepting others. And it would be an indictment of the many other communities throughout California and the rest of the nation that promote diversity and tolerance for all. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which would foster a sense of division and disunity.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the bipartisan bill that the Senate has developed over the last 2 months makes major reforms in education policy by focusing on student achievement and by making schools accountable for results. California's public schools should be strengthened by this bill. This bill includes several important reforms. The bill extends the current requirement that states must have academic standards for reading and math and also requires states to establish standards for science and history. Students must reach a proficient level within ten years by making continuous and substantial academic improvement. To ensure that students are learning, states are required to test every student in grades 3-8 annually in reading and math based on state standards. To ensure accountability, schools that fail for two consecutive years to make adequate yearly progress must be identified for improvement and also must identify specific steps to improve student performance. Local school districts must correct failing schools and states must correct failing districts either through new curriculum, restructuring the school, or reconstituting the school staff. In order to improve teacher quality, this bill authorizes grants to states for teacher certification, recruitment, and retention services. The bill enhances programs for limited English proficient children by providing teacher training and funds for programs to improve the English proficiency of these students. The bill authorizes $1.5 billion for afterschool programs to help struggling students get tutoring and other help. There are many other important provisions. It is my hope that this bill will offer opportunities for progress to many California students, school officials, parents and the public. California students perform very poorly compared to students in many other states. Our schools are struggling on virtually every front. California has some of the largest classes in the nation; California has overcrowded and substandard facilities; California has 30,000 uncredentialed teachers and a projected enrollment rate triple that of the national rate. Here are some examples of how California's schools fall short: Thirty-four percent of California's schools that participate in Title I are identified for improvement compared to the national average of 19 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Only 20 percent of California's fourth grade students are proficient in reading, ranking thirty-six out of thirty-nine states. California ranks thirty-two out of thirty-six states for proficient eight graders in reading, at twenty-two percent, according to Education Weekly Quarterly Report, January 2001. California is ranked seventh in the Nation for the highest number of Level I Literacy citizens, the worst level possible, according to the National Institute for Literacy. California spent $5,462 per student in 1999, approximately $1,500 less than the U.S. average, ranking 42nd out of 50 states, according to Rankings and Estimates; NEA Research, October 1999. Now let's compare U.S. students to students in other countries. Students in the United States also perform poorly compared to their international counterparts. In literacy, 58 percent of United States high school graduates rank below an international literacy standard, dead last among the twenty- nine countries that participated, according to Education Week, April 4, 2001. U.S. eighth graders scored significantly lower in mathematics and science than their peers in fourteen of the thirty-eight participating countries, according to 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study. The percentage of teachers in the United States that feel they are ``very well prepared'' to teach science in the classroom is 27 percent. The international average is twice that, peaking at 56 percent, according to 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study. U.S. students' knowledge of civic activities ranked third out of the 28 countries that participated. However, those same students have been slipping in scores relating to math and science. Source: Civic Know- How: U.S. Students Rise to Test, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. I am very pleased that the Senate approved several amendments that I suggested. One, title I funding: The bill revises the funding formula for title I, Education of Disadvantaged Children, to better reflect the growth in poor students for States with growing student populations, giving California an increase of $98 million over fiscal year 2001, at the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request level. Two, title I use of funds: In an effort to better focus title I funds on academic instruction, the bill prohibits school districts from using funds for the purchase or lease of privately-owned facilities, facilities maintenance, gardening, landscaping, janitorial services, payment of utility costs, construction of facilities, acquisition of real property, payment of travel and attendance costs at conferences or other meetings, other than travel and attendance for professional development. This is similar to the bill I introduced, S. 309. Three, title I audit: The bill requires the Inspector General to conduct of audit to determine how title I funds are used and the degree to which they are used for academic instruction. Four, master teachers: The bill includes my amendment to allow use of the teacher training funds in the bill for school districts to create master teacher positions so school districts can increase teacher salaries for excellent teachers to mentor and supervise other teachers, in an effort to keep new teachers in teaching. This is an outgrowth of a bill I introduced on January 22, S. 120. Five, small schools: The bill allows the use of Innovative Education funds, title V, for States and districts to build smaller schools. The upper limits on the number of students would be for elementary schools, 500 students; middle schools, 750 students; and high schools, 1,000. This parallels my bill, S. 308. Six, HeadStart teachers: The bill allows forgiveness of up to $5,000 of federal student loans for college graduates who agree to teach in Head Start programs, in an effort to put more trained teachers in pre- school programs, similar to S. 123, which I introduced on January 22. Seven, gun-free schools clarification: The bill includes several clarifications of the current Gun-Free Schools Act, the law which requires a one-year expulsion for students who ``bring'' a gun to school. This bill (1) includes students who ``possess'' a gun at school; and (2) clarifies that the term ``school'' means the entire school campus, any setting under the control and supervision of the local school district; and (3) requires that all modifications of expulsions be put in writing. It is a good bill. American education should benefit immensely from this bill. Now the task is to provide sufficient funding and other resources to our schools to implement the reforms we are passing. I look forward to working for the bill's final enactment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, we are at a critical juncture in the Middle East. If words are followed by deeds, yesterday's acceptance by the Palestinians of a U.S. plan brokered by CIA Director Tenet--which Israel had previously signed off on--may open the door for an end to the violence of the past eight months, a cooling off period, and new peace talks. The violence in Israel following the collapse of the Camp David talks has been profoundly disturbing to those of us who are both friends of Israel and strong supporters of Arab-Israeli peacemaking. With a cease-fire now in effect, the Israeli and Palestinian people have an opportunity to start moving back in the right direction, towards peace and security for the region. If the peace process is to gain momentum, both sides must make a commitment to the right of the other to exist, in peace and security. If leaders on both sides are able to muster the political will necessary for this commitment, then I believe that it will be possible for the cease-fire to hold, for a cooling-off period to have effect, and for confidence building measures to once again give momentum to a new peace process. I was a supporter of the Oslo process when I first came to the Senate, and worked to build peace in the region in the years since, believing a commitment by both sides existed. I was thus saddened that the unprecedented concessions that former Prime Minister Barak offered last summer--which many felt met the needs and aspirations of the Palestinian people--was not accepted. Not only was the Palestinian response to that offer ``no,'' but PLO Chairman Yassar Arafat walked away from the negotiations and the Palestinians began a campaign of violence which, in turn, led to Israel resorting to violence to try to protect its security and safeguard the lives of its people. In walking away from negotiations, Mr. Arafat raised questions about his commitment to peace, and whether there are some in Palestinian society who are unwilling to accept the existence of Israel under any circumstances. With this cease-fire, these questions are again on the table. As I stated on the floor of the Senate earlier this year, the new Intifadah was characterized by a level of hate and violence that I did not believe possible in view of the nature of concessions Israel had offered to make. Particularly tragic--coming on top of over 400 Palestinian and 100 Israeli deaths since last September--was the murder of 20 young Israelis at a night club in Tel Aviv on June 1. Israel's restraint in response to this bombing--looking for the path of peace, not continued bloodshed--has been nothing short of heroic. No one--Israeli or Palestinian--should have to worry about the possibility of attack as they put their child on a school bus, go to work, go shopping, sit at a cafe, or go to a night club. We can all remember the images from last Fall of the Palestinian child hiding behind his father, caught in the cross-fire--and, just a few days later, the pictures of the Israelis lynched by a Palestinian mob, their bloody bodies thrown from the second floor window of the police station. There are countless other such images that each side can point to in the 8 months since. It is easy to understand how passions can run high, and fear and frustration can drive violence in the current environment. It is also easy to see how these feelings can get out of control and lead to ever deeper, and never-ending, cycles of violence. The cease-fire and cooling off period that has been agreed to provides both parties the opportunity to end the provocation and reaction. Palestinian acceptance of the cease-fire agreement brokered by Director Tenet is a crucial step in the right direction, and carries with it an acknowledgment of the special responsibility incumbent on the Palestinian Authority to end the violence. Much more will need to be done, however, to show the international community that Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian people are committed to peace and willing to coexist with Israel. Mr. Arafat's call for a halt to the violence will only yield results if he follows his words with deeds. With the cease-fire now in effect, Mr. Arafat must follow-up on the agreed-to elements of the deal. He must re-arrest those terrorists he inexcusably released last fall, stop anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian media, and make sure that the Palestinian police strictly enforce his cease-fire orders. He must also follow up on information supplied by Israel about imminent terrorist attacks. He must move to confiscate weapons that are being held by many in the West Bank and Gaza illegally. And he must take action to prevent his aides and other Palestinian officials from defending terrorists. Mr. Arafat must also understand that if he fails the test, again, that there will be very real consequences for him and for the Palestinian people. The Government of Israel, for its part, must continue to show its commitment to peace by exercising the admirable restraint it has shown in the wake of the June 1 tragedy. Israel must also take steps to ease the restrictions on Palestinians, including travel, and pull its forces back from Palestinian populations centers. The events of recent days also strengthen the case for more active American involvement in the Middle East. I applaud the recent stepped-up role of the Bush administration and urge the President and Secretary Powell to continue their engagement at this critical juncture in Israeli-Palestinian relations. I also extend my praise to Director Tenet and Assistant Secretary of State Burns, both of whom have been in the region for the past several days shuttling between Israeli and Palestinian offices. Director Tenet, in particular, has played an important role bridging Israeli and Palestinian security concerns, and I am confident that he will continue to do his utmost to bring the sides together--without jeopardizing Israel's security. Lastly, I believe that we owe a debt to our former colleague, Senator Mitchell, for his work in developing the Mitchell Commission report and recommendations. The administration's endorsement of the Mitchell Commission report as the basis for restoring peace to the Middle East is a sign it understands the role it must play in order for the violence in the region to subside and for the parties to eventually return to the negotiating table. If we have learned anything from the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict it is that only through diplomacy can the people of the Middle East achieve peace and stability. I also call on my colleagues in the Senate to support active American leadership in the region. This is not the time--or the issue--to be engaging in partisan politics. Democrats and Republicans alike must unite in supporting our friends in Israel as well as President Bush and Secretary Powell in their peace-building efforts. With this cease-fire, the United States must continue to be involved as a facilitator of peace and diplomacy in the Middle East. The administration also must continue to follow in the footsteps of previous Republican and Democratic administrations alike, whose involvement in Arab-Israeli peacemaking led to historic breakthroughs such as the Camp David Accords, the Madrid Conference and the Wye Agreement. Last year, by walking away from the negotiations, Mr. Arafat raised serious questions about whether he was truly committed to the cause of peace. We are at another critical juncture and Mr. Arafat, now, again, has the opportunity to show he is serious about peace. In the past few days he has said the right things--in both English and Arabic--and now he must do the right things as well. I believe that if the parties are committed to coexistence, and that if each continues to demonstrate the necessary leadership--with the United States playing an active and engaged role--we may soon see an end to the violence and a return to negotiations. The events of the last 8 months will make it difficult, but with this cease-fire paving the way for a cooling off period and the implementation of confidence building measures, I remain hopeful that peace for the peoples of the Middle East is still possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think virtually every Member of this body has been to an overcrowded school. I personally have been in schools where I have seen children learning in closets because the population of the school was so large, for example, elementary schools with over 1,000 students, many schools with many different languages. Yet it is very difficult for local jurisdictions to build smaller schools because of the pressures of growing population. The amendment I have sent to the desk allows funds under title V, part B, subpart 4, the Innovative Education Program Strategies, to be used to reduce the size of schools. The amendment authorizes the U.S. Department of Education to award grants as a permissible use of these funds to reduce the size of schools, in other words, to build small schools. The grants would be equally matched by the State, the local jurisdiction, or the school district. This amendment does not add additional dollars but permits use of funds under Title V that may be available. I am introducing the amendment because I strongly believe children learn better and teachers teach better in smaller schools. Many of our schools are just too big. In fact, half of all American high school students go to schools with 1,500 or more students. Half of all American high school students are in huge high schools. Studies have shown again and again and again that student achievement improves when school and class size are reduced. The U.S. Department of Education indicates these are some of the benefits of small schools: Students have a greater sense of belonging; fewer discipline problems occur; crime, violence, and gang activity go down; alcohol and tobacco use declines; dropout rates fall; graduation rates rise; and student attendance increases. The ideal high school, according to education experts, is between 600 and 900 students. The National Association of Elementary School Principals recommends an elementary school size of no more than 400 for grades kindergarten to grade 5. That is the way it was when I went to public school, and that is one of the reasons I was able to learn. Studies show that students in small schools have higher academic achievement, fewer discipline problems, lower dropout rates, higher levels of student participation, and higher graduation rates. A Tennessee study called project STAR placed 6,500 kindergartners in 330 classes of different sizes. The test scores and the behavior of students in smaller classes were better than those in larger classes. We know that small class size benefits. We also know that in a society as diverse as ours, when some schools have as many as 40 different languages, smaller schools benefit students and teachers as well. Under this amendment, schools receiving grants that would be equally matched would have to meet the following size requirements: For kindergarten through fifth grade, not more than 500 students; for grades 6 through 8, not more than 750 students; for grades 9 through 12, not more than 1,500 students. This amendment will provide a new funding source for school districts or States to build new schools with the explicit goal of reducing school size. We need to build 6,000 new schools in this Nation just to meet enrollment growth projections. That is not going to happen if there isn't some Federal help. By amending title V and making this a permitted use--grants for small schools--I hope school districts will have an incentive to build small. Let me give examples of large schools. In Mapleton, UT, 832 students in an elementary school; Narragansett Elementary School, in Rhode Island, 710 students; Coral Gables Elementary School, FL, 748 students; Munford, AL, Ophelia Hill Elementary, 730 students; Gosnell Elementary, in Arkansas, 788 students. It isn't only the big States, it is the small States, too. Right nearby in Herndon, Virginia, we have a middle school of 1,285 students and Rocky Run Middle School, also in Virginia, 1,350 students. A combination middle school and high school in Florida, in River Ridge Middle and High School, 3,260 students in one school. Here are some examples of large high schools. Olympic Heights Community High School, Palm Beach, FL, 2,405 students; Camelback High School, Phoenix, AZ, 2,557 students; Georgia, in South Gwinnett High School, 2,550 students; in Lyons, IL, 3,087 students; and Waipahu High School, in Hawaii, 2,434 students. California, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, has some of the largest schools in the country. Los Angeles has some of the largest classes and schools in the world. Let me give an example. In Los Angeles, Hawaiian Elementary--elementary--1,365 students; South Gate Middle School--middle school--4,442 students; Belmont High School, 4,874 students. I have been in some of these schools. If we can provide an incentive for local jurisdictions to build smaller schools, educational experts now say that beginning schools, elementary schools, do not have to be in a special campus. We can have a campus within a campus or have a small school as part of a commercial setting, for example. The important thing is ``small.'' Small is better when it comes to education, particularly in the lower grades, and particularly when one has a varied socioeconomic structure, one has many different languages. Schools I have been in--and I will tell you this--have been a cacophony of sound, so many students, so much noise, everything in shifts; a shift for the lunch, everything in track; track 1, track 2; and, again, 40 different languages spoken. I hope the Senate sees fit to pass this amendment. As I said, the amendment does not add new funds. It would simply amend title V to make as a permissible use of title V funds, grants that would be equally matched, Federal dollars with state or local dollars, to build small schools in the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his comments. I reserve the remainder of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to proceed under the unanimous consent agreement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified with the changes I now send to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Aircraft Clean Air Act of 2001. The bill is designed to encourage airlines to keep records of airplane cabin air quality complaints, as well as complaints of illnesses that may be a result of poor air quality. Airlines are not required to maintain records of passenger and crewmember complaints regarding cabin air quality, even if the passenger or crewmember reports an illness as a result of poor air quality. As a result, potentially valuable information is lost to researchers studying cabin air quality. The Aircraft Clean Air Act allows passengers and crewmembers to submit their complaints directly to the Federal Aviation Administration and requires that the Administration record the complaint and pass it on to the appropriate airline. The bill requires airlines to maintain records of complaints for ten years. If a passenger or crewmember requests mechanical or maintenance records with regard to their complaint, and the passenger or crewmember has had a health care professional verify their symptoms, this legislation requires that the airline provide the requested information within 15 days. If the airline does not comply with the request, it is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each day it does not produce the records. Airlines must be ready to provide maintenance records of all chemicals used in or on the plan, from cleaning solvents to hydraulic fluids. The traveling public should have access to any chemicals to which they may be exposed. The Aircraft Clean Air Act addresses another issue, as well: aircraft pressurization. Planes are currently pressurized to 8,000 feet while in the air. That means that even though the plane is flying at 30,000 feet, the cabin has the same air pressure as it would at 8,000 feet. Airplane manufacturers arrived at the 8,000 figure in the 1960s when commercial air travel was booming. They agreed on the figure after testing the effects of different pressurizations on young, healthy pilots. Because oxygen is absorbed into the blood at a much lower rate in high altitudes, there is speculation that some illnesses experienced during flight are a result of the 8,000 feet pressurization. Commonly reported symptoms such as shortness of breath and numbness in the limbs may be a direct result of the high altitude. The Aircraft Clean Air Act directs the Federal Aviation Administration to sponsor an aeromedical research project to determine what cabin altitude limit should provide enough oxygen to passengers and crew. The bill allows universities to compete to conduct the study, and the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Air Quality in Passenger Cabins of Commercial Aircraft to select the winner. Researchers will examine the oxygen saturation in people of different ages, weights, and body types at 5,000 feet through 8,000 feet. The bill directs researchers to determine which altitude provides enough oxygen to ensure that individuals' health is not adversely affected either in the short-term or long-term. It is unacceptable that airlines do not maintain records of air quality complaints on their commercial flights. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to protect the traveling public and the hardworking men and women who make air travel possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Aircraft Clean Air Act of 2001. The bill is designed to encourage airlines to keep records of airplane cabin air quality complaints, as well as complaints of illnesses that may be a result of poor air quality. Airlines are not required to maintain records of passenger and crewmember complaints regarding cabin air quality, even if the passenger or crewmember reports an illness as a result of poor air quality. As a result, potentially valuable information is lost to researchers studying cabin air quality. The Aircraft Clean Air Act allows passengers and crewmembers to submit their complaints directly to the Federal Aviation Administration and requires that the Administration record the complaint and pass it on to the appropriate airline. The bill requires airlines to maintain records of complaints for ten years. If a passenger or crewmember requests mechanical or maintenance records with regard to their complaint, and the passenger or crewmember has had a health care professional verify their symptoms, this legislation requires that the airline provide the requested information within 15 days. If the airline does not comply with the request, it is subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each day it does not produce the records. Airlines must be ready to provide maintenance records of all chemicals used in or on the plan, from cleaning solvents to hydraulic fluids. The traveling public should have access to any chemicals to which they may be exposed. The Aircraft Clean Air Act addresses another issue, as well: aircraft pressurization. Planes are currently pressurized to 8,000 feet while in the air. That means that even though the plane is flying at 30,000 feet, the cabin has the same air pressure as it would at 8,000 feet. Airplane manufacturers arrived at the 8,000 figure in the 1960s when commercial air travel was booming. They agreed on the figure after testing the effects of different pressurizations on young, healthy pilots. Because oxygen is absorbed into the blood at a much lower rate in high altitudes, there is speculation that some illnesses experienced during flight are a result of the 8,000 feet pressurization. Commonly reported symptoms such as shortness of breath and numbness in the limbs may be a direct result of the high altitude. The Aircraft Clean Air Act directs the Federal Aviation Administration to sponsor an aeromedical research project to determine what cabin altitude limit should provide enough oxygen to passengers and crew. The bill allows universities to compete to conduct the study, and the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Air Quality in Passenger Cabins of Commercial Aircraft to select the winner. Researchers will examine the oxygen saturation in people of different ages, weights, and body types at 5,000 feet through 8,000 feet. The bill directs researchers to determine which altitude provides enough oxygen to ensure that individuals' health is not adversely affected either in the short-term or long-term. It is unacceptable that airlines do not maintain records of air quality complaints on their commercial flights. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to protect the traveling public and the hardworking men and women who make air travel possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, today I rise in strong support of S. 487, the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization, TEACH, Act. This Act expands the distance learning exemption in our copyright law, acknowledging that changes in technology sometimes require changes in the law. In making this change, the TEACH Act places new limits on the rights of copyright owners. These limits, however, are established in such a way that they will benefit non-profit educational institutions and their students, but hopefully without exposing copyrighted works to any further unauthorized use. The drafters of the Constitution acknowledged the importance of creative works--and recognized the property rights of the creators of those works--in the very text of the Constitution itself. The Copyright Clause of the Constitution, in protecting the rights of American creators everywhere, has directly translated into the most innovative environment for the creation of creative works we've ever seen. This creativity benefits consumers and our economy as a whole. Never in our history have we seen such a plethora of choices in books, movies, television, software, and music. One look at the statistics demonstrates the staggering importance copyrighted works have to the well-being of not only my home state of California, but also the economy of the entire Nation. It has been reported that the copyright industries are creating jobs at three times the rate of the rest of the economy. These industries have a surplus balance of trade with every single country in the world, and that last year they accounted for 5 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. Few other industries can boast of such a successful record, and the protection we grant to copyrighted works is directly responsible for that success. The message is clear. Striking the appropriate balance in copyright protection is vital to maintaining consumer choice, and in maintaining this vibrant part of the American economy. Sufficient protection means the continue investment in the production of creative works, which results in greater choices for consumers. Insufficient protection of copyrighted works, on the other hand, will negatively affect the ability and desire of creators and lawful distributors of such works to make the necessary investment of time, money and other resources to continue to create and offer quality works to the public. That is why we must carefully consider any degradation of that protection, even when proposed limitations would benefit other important segments of our society, such as the educational community. I believe that this legislation strikes the appropriate balance by allowing accredited, nonprofit educational institutions to make certain uses of copyrighted works, but requiring them to technologically protect those works to prevent unauthorized uses by others. The application of appropriate technological protection to copyrighted works is increasingly important as we move from the analog to the digital world Technological protection will facilitate the availability of copyrighted works in high-quality, digital formats and in global, networked environments. That is why the provisions of this legislation directing the Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property to look at what protective technologies are out there will be of great importance to this Committee in the near future as the online environment and the world of e-commerce develops. Questions such as whether unilateral protection applied to works by copyright owners will provide a sufficiently secure environment or whether bilateral technologies--which invoke a ``handshake'' of sorts between the work and the machine used to access the work--should be examined more closely have yet to be answered. This study should help us give us an invaluable resource with regard to renewable, ungradeable, and robust forms of protection that will allow valuable copyrighted works to move freely and securely through the digital environment. Amendment No. 793

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, this morning's prayer was delivered by Stephen Einstein. He is an accomplished religious scholar. He is the Rabbi of congregation B'Nai Tzedek in Fountain Valley, CA. He is a spiritual leader of a synagogue with 435 members. But he is also the chaplain of the Fountain Valley Police Department, a board member of the American Cancer Society, and a member of the Religious Outreach Advisory Board of the Alzheimer's Association of Orange County. He has written two scholarly books on Judaism. He has also served as a member of the Fountain Valley Board of Education, and has served twice as school board president. He is a distinguished Californian, a religious leader. As the senior Senator from California, I welcome him to the Senate. I thank you, Mr. President, and the Senate for receiving him so graciously. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 2 minutes as if in morning business to welcome the Rabbi from California?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate will adopt this resolution to honor correctional officers and employees. The resolution reaffirms our support for the thousands of correctional officers and employees who work in the face of danger each day, while reforming hardened criminals. They deserve our respect and support. Tragically, many correctional officers have been permanently injured and killed in the line of duty. Few of us can truly appreciate the perils faced daily by our correctional officers. There have been over 356 men and women who have died while on duty. This year, we honor Wilmot A. Burnett, Lee Dunn, Raymond Curtis, Michael Price, Allen Gamble, Peter Hillman, Jason Acton, Leon Egly, William Giacomo, Alvin Glenn, and Allen Myers, all of whom have been killed during the past year. I hope this resolution will prompt us to reflect on the contributions of these men and the more than 200,000 corrections professionals who help to maintain the safety of our communities. America's correctional officers and employees' efforts go unnoticed too often. I am pleased to sponsor this resolution to establish June 3- 10, 2001, as ``Correctional Officers and Employees Week.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the reconciliation conference report currently pending before the Senate. I do so for a simply reason: I strongly believe that when the Government is in position to be able to return money to the American taxpayers, we should. Likewise, I believe that when times are tough the Government has an obligation to consider increasing taxes to meet the need of the Nation. This is what we did in 1993, when I first came to the Senate and we were facing mounting deficits and an increasing national debt. And today, thanks to those hard choices, the budget is in balance and we have surplus projections for the next decade. We are in a position to return some of the hard-earned money of the American people. This approach to taxes--that the Government taxes when it must, and decreases taxes when it can--is the approach that I took when I was mayor of San Francisco, and it is the approach that I continue to follow to this day. Additionally, I believe that this tax package is important to my State, California, which today stands on the precipice of a major economic slowdown. California is the largest taxpaying State in the Nation, with some 13 million income taxpayers. In fact, California is a net contributor to the federal budget, giving more in taxes than we receive in benefits. Today, as many of my colleagues are aware, a serious and acute energy crisis is causing businesses in California to shut down, and people to be laid off of work. Already this year it is estimated that between $25 and $30 billion have been taken out of the California economy to be spent on increased energy costs. If things continue on the same course this figure will mushroom in the months ahead. This is a major problem, and one whose impact will not just be limited to California. In my judgment the benefits provided under this tax package are important, at this time, to help California and Californians face the economic challenges created by this energy crisis. For example, the creation of the new 10-percent income tax bracket, for example, will result in an annual tax cut of $300 for an individual, $600 for a couple for all California income taxpayers. This new 10-percent bracket is retroactive, and for people seeing their energy bills spiral up and up, receiving these refunds checks will be a big relief. Likewise, this conference report has accelerated the tax relief in the upper tax brackets, so that middle class families in the 28-percent and 31-percent brackets will see their tax bills decrease in 2001 and 2002, with the lower withholding rates going into effect this July, just as the energy crisis in California is projected to reach a new plateau. And the child credit provisions, refundable as per the Senate-passed bill, will provide much-needed assistance to California families earning as little as $10,000--and there are 1.5 million households in California that make between $10,000 and $20,000. As I discussed on the floor earlier this week, I also believe that other provisions of this bill--providing marriage penalty relief, estate tax relief, providing pension and education incentives, and making a down payment in addressing the alternative minimum tax problem--are likewise important to assure the continued long-term economic health of the California economy, and will benefit many hard- working American families. I would not argue that this is the perfect bill. Nor would I claim that it is the exact bill that I would have drafted. Some of my colleagues, for example, have raised concerns that the size of this tax package may threaten to undermine future fiscal stability. I share these concerns. But I would remind my colleagues that although this bill may be larger than some on our side contemplated at the beginning of the year, it is also far smaller than the proposal put forward by the President. And I would also remind them that this bill contains ``sunset'' provisions--critical to my decision to support this legislation--which will allow us to revisit the components of this bill in the future, and make adjustments if and as need be. The bottom line is that I believe that this is a bill that will provide significant relief to the people of California and the people of the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in support.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday Congressman Ken Calvert from Riverside, CA, and I held a press conference so each of us could introduce a bill, Mr. Calvert in the House and I in the Senate. This bill I am going to introduce today for reference to committee addresses a very complicated and complex problem in California, and that is water. It is my very strong belief that the energy crisis that we see taking place in California is a forerunner of what is going to happen with water. The only question is when. California has a population of 34 million people. It is bigger than 21 other States and the District of Columbia put together. It is expected to grow to 50 million in 20 years. Our State has the same water infrastructure that it had in 1970 when we were about 16 million people, and every year California grows from 700,000 to 1 million people. It was 800,000 this past year. We are the sixth largest economy, not in the Nation, but in the world. We are the No. 1 agricultural producing State in the Nation. We are the leading producer of dairy products, wine and grapes, strawberries, almonds, lettuce, tomatoes, and the list goes on and on. All of these need water. We are a growing high-tech State with an increasing need for access to high-quality water. We have more endangered species than any other State except Hawaii. And, of course, California, again, has this large population. Our water needs are tremendous. So we need to get ready for the future, and we need to do this in an environmentally sensitive way. If there is one lesson we can learn from California's energy crisis, it is that the time to address a crisis is not while it is happening but before it happens. California is now struggling to build more powerplants while also doing everything possible to reduce demand through increased efficiency and conservation. But because we started so late, we are likely going to have some serious problems this summer, and that is why it is even more important that we fix the water problem before it, too, becomes a crisis. Ecosystem restoration, water conservation, and improved efficiency can be combined with new environmentally responsible off-stream storage. This would allow us to improve the ecosystem and store water from the wet years and use it in the dry years to benefit people, the environment, and farmers. I began writing this bill last December with the aim of finding something to which all of the major stakeholders could agree--the large urban water users, the city of San Jose, the city of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, all of the agricultural water contractors, and a myriad of environmental leaders. I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible, after 7 years of trying, to get them all on the same page, let alone the same line. So either we do nothing and sit back and wait for a water crisis or we try to do the moderate, the prudent, and the effective thing. The bill I am sending to the desk for reference to committee is a 7- year authorization bill. It essentially authorizes the record of decision of a program known as CALFED. In California, there are two big water projects. One is the Central Valley Water Project owned by the Federal Government. That is the Federal interest. The Federal Government built it and owns it. The other is the California Water Project owned by the State of California, built by Governor Pat Brown back in the 1960s. This is, in essence, a State-Federal effort to improve the water infrastructure, to clean up the ecosystems, and to begin to build an infrastructure that can handle the demands of the next 50 years. The bill authorizes the ecosystem restoration program, and it fully authorizes all of the environmental projects listed in the record of decision. This includes improving fish passages, restoring streams, rivers, and habitats, and improving water quality. The bill authorizes 580,000 acre feet of water in the first year through the environmental water account, and the bill essentially authorizes the first three storage projects, off-stream water storage, listed in stage 1 of the record of decision: Enlarging the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, subject to a vote of the people of Contra Costa County; raising Shasta Dam; and constructing the delta wetlands project which involves flooding two delta islands for storage and using the other two islands for ecosystem protection. The end result of these three storage projects will be 2.3 million acre feet of new water storage. Some reporting and financial analysis must still be completed. CALFED expects these projects will have no adverse impacts, so we need to get started to make sure they can get in the line and get going. I do not believe we can meet all of our future water needs without increased water storage, water storage that is environmentally benign, that is off stream, and that provides flexibility in the system for us to increase water supply, improve water quality, and enhance ecosystem restoration. Recharging groundwater, water recycling and reuse, conservation, and smarter use of the big pumps in the system are all tools we can use to help us meet our water needs. I am concerned this may not even be enough. We live in an area, though, where large new dams are extraordinarily controversial. So there is one thing left, and that is to take water from the wet years and store it in an environmentally sound way to use during the dry years. The bill I am presenting is balanced. It says, in essence, that the storage projects go ahead at the same time as the environmental projects. I believe very strongly that we are not going to be able to solve the problem just with environmental measures, that we need additional water storage as well. This is not a flash in the pan. I did not just arrive at this. A native-born Californian, I have watched this for years and years, and for the last 7 years in the Senate I have spent an enormous amount of time--probably 50, 60 meetings--with the stakeholders on all sides of this issue. It is my judgment that we must have this additional storage in addition to the ecosystems work. It is not going to be a perfect bill. It is a big bill. It is a State-Federal partnership. In my view, water and energy are the two essentials that can keep the California economy alive and keep its people flourishing. I hope it will have a favorable response in the committee and in this Chamber.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday Congressman Ken Calvert from Riverside, CA, and I held a press conference so each of us could introduce a bill, Mr. Calvert in the House and I in the Senate. This bill I am going to introduce today for reference to committee addresses a very complicated and complex problem in California, and that is water. It is my very strong belief that the energy crisis that we see taking place in California is a forerunner of what is going to happen with water. The only question is when. California has a population of 34 million people. It is bigger than 21 other States and the District of Columbia put together. It is expected to grow to 50 million in 20 years. Our State has the same water infrastructure that it had in 1970 when we were about 16 million people, and every year California grows from 700,000 to 1 million people. It was 800,000 this past year. We are the sixth largest economy, not in the Nation, but in the world. We are the No. 1 agricultural producing State in the Nation. We are the leading producer of dairy products, wine and grapes, strawberries, almonds, lettuce, tomatoes, and the list goes on and on. All of these need water. We are a growing high-tech State with an increasing need for access to high-quality water. We have more endangered species than any other State except Hawaii. And, of course, California, again, has this large population. Our water needs are tremendous. So we need to get ready for the future, and we need to do this in an environmentally sensitive way. If there is one lesson we can learn from California's energy crisis, it is that the time to address a crisis is not while it is happening but before it happens. California is now struggling to build more powerplants while also doing everything possible to reduce demand through increased efficiency and conservation. But because we started so late, we are likely going to have some serious problems this summer, and that is why it is even more important that we fix the water problem before it, too, becomes a crisis. Ecosystem restoration, water conservation, and improved efficiency can be combined with new environmentally responsible off-stream storage. This would allow us to improve the ecosystem and store water from the wet years and use it in the dry years to benefit people, the environment, and farmers. I began writing this bill last December with the aim of finding something to which all of the major stakeholders could agree--the large urban water users, the city of San Jose, the city of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, all of the agricultural water contractors, and a myriad of environmental leaders. I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible, after 7 years of trying, to get them all on the same page, let alone the same line. So either we do nothing and sit back and wait for a water crisis or we try to do the moderate, the prudent, and the effective thing. The bill I am sending to the desk for reference to committee is a 7- year authorization bill. It essentially authorizes the record of decision of a program known as CALFED. In California, there are two big water projects. One is the Central Valley Water Project owned by the Federal Government. That is the Federal interest. The Federal Government built it and owns it. The other is the California Water Project owned by the State of California, built by Governor Pat Brown back in the 1960s. This is, in essence, a State-Federal effort to improve the water infrastructure, to clean up the ecosystems, and to begin to build an infrastructure that can handle the demands of the next 50 years. The bill authorizes the ecosystem restoration program, and it fully authorizes all of the environmental projects listed in the record of decision. This includes improving fish passages, restoring streams, rivers, and habitats, and improving water quality. The bill authorizes 580,000 acre feet of water in the first year through the environmental water account, and the bill essentially authorizes the first three storage projects, off-stream water storage, listed in stage 1 of the record of decision: Enlarging the Los Vaqueros Reservoir, subject to a vote of the people of Contra Costa County; raising Shasta Dam; and constructing the delta wetlands project which involves flooding two delta islands for storage and using the other two islands for ecosystem protection. The end result of these three storage projects will be 2.3 million acre feet of new water storage. Some reporting and financial analysis must still be completed. CALFED expects these projects will have no adverse impacts, so we need to get started to make sure they can get in the line and get going. I do not believe we can meet all of our future water needs without increased water storage, water storage that is environmentally benign, that is off stream, and that provides flexibility in the system for us to increase water supply, improve water quality, and enhance ecosystem restoration. Recharging groundwater, water recycling and reuse, conservation, and smarter use of the big pumps in the system are all tools we can use to help us meet our water needs. I am concerned this may not even be enough. We live in an area, though, where large new dams are extraordinarily controversial. So there is one thing left, and that is to take water from the wet years and store it in an environmentally sound way to use during the dry years. The bill I am presenting is balanced. It says, in essence, that the storage projects go ahead at the same time as the environmental projects. I believe very strongly that we are not going to be able to solve the problem just with environmental measures, that we need additional water storage as well. This is not a flash in the pan. I did not just arrive at this. A native-born Californian, I have watched this for years and years, and for the last 7 years in the Senate I have spent an enormous amount of time--probably 50, 60 meetings--with the stakeholders on all sides of this issue. It is my judgment that we must have this additional storage in addition to the ecosystems work. It is not going to be a perfect bill. It is a big bill. It is a State-Federal partnership. In my view, water and energy are the two essentials that can keep the California economy alive and keep its people flourishing. I hope it will have a favorable response in the committee and in this Chamber.