Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous request to be recognized as in morning business.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer today, legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Zhenfu Ge. Mrs. Ge is the grandmother of two U.S. citizen children who face the devastation of being separated from their grandmother after losing their mother just last month. Mrs. Ge came to the United States in 1998 to help care for her two grandchildren while her U.S. citizen daughter Yanyu Wang and her son- in-law John Marks worked. Shortly afterwards, Mrs. Ge's daughter filed an immigration petition on her behalf. She was scheduled for an April 26 Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, interview, which is the last step in the green card process. The family anticipated that the interview would result in Mrs. Ge's gaining a green card. In a tragic turn of events, Mrs. Ge's daughter was diagnosed with a rare and deadly form of lymphoma and given only 7 months to live. As Mrs. Wang's health quickly declined, she asked her mother to care for her 3-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son after her death. Mrs. Ge promised her daughter she would care for her grandchildren and quickly became the most active maternal figure in their lives. On April 15 of this year, 11 days before Mrs. Ge's scheduled INS interview, her daughter died. Because current law does not allow Mrs. Ge to adjust her status without her daughter, Mrs. Ge now faces deportation. This family has certainly felt the pain of a significant tragedy. With the death of Yanyu Wang, her family must begin to rebuild their lives and face a future without their loved one. Losing a grandmother to deportation will only further the grief and compromise the emotional health of her two young grandchildren, who are still mourning the loss of their mother. According to her son-in-law, John Mark, Mrs. Ge ``represents continuity and a tie to their mother for our children, and her presence will allow me to continue to successfully support my family. Mrs. Ge has done everything she could to become a permanent resident of this country. But for the tragedy of her daughter's untimely death, she likely would have attained that status. I hope my colleagues will support this private legislation so that we can help Mrs. Ge, her grandchildren, and son-in-law begin to rebuild their lives in the wake of their family tragedy and allow Mrs. Ge to keep the promise she made to her daughter. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Marks be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma today in introducing a bill to allow the governor of a State to waive the oxygenate content requirement for reformulated or clean-burning gasoline. The bill retains all other provisions of the Clean Air Act to ensure that there is no backsliding on air quality. We introduce this bill to address the widespread contamination of drinking water by MTBE in California and at least 41 other States. On April 12, 1999, California Governor Gray Davis asked Carol Browner, who was the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for a waiver of the 2 percent oxygenate requirement. I have written and called former Administrator Browner and the current Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and both former President Clinton and President Bush, urging approval of the waiver. And we are still waiting. It has been two years. Today, yet again I call on EPA and the Administration to act. In the meantime, I will push Congress to act. MTBE, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, has been the oxygenate of choice by many refiners in their effort to comply with the Clean Air Act's reformulated gasoline requirements. California Governor Davis has ordered a phase-out in our State, but the Federal law requiring two percent oxygenates remains, putting our State in an untenable position. This is because the most likely substitute for MTBE to meet the two percent requirement is ethanol, but there is not a sufficient supply of ethanol to meet the demand in California and the rest of the country with the two percent law in place. With inadequate supplies, we can expect disruptions and price spikes during the peak driving months of this summer, at a time when there are predictions that retail gasoline prices may climb to an unprecedented $3.00 per gallon or more. The California Energy Commission reports that without relief from the two percent oxygenate mandate, California consumers will pay 3 to 6 cents more per gallon than they need to. This adds up to $450 million a year. The Clean Air Act requires that cleaner-burning reformulated gasoline, RFG, be sold in so-called ``non-attainment'' areas with the worst violations of ozone standards: Los Angeles, San Diego, Hartford, New York Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, Milwaukee, Sacramento. In addition, some States and areas have opted to use reformulated gasoline as way to achieve clean air. Second, the Act prescribes a formula for reformulated gasoline, including the requirement that reformulated gasoline contain 2.0 percent oxygen, by weight. In response to this requirement, refiners have put the oxygenate MTBE in over 85 percent of reformulated gasoline now in use. But, there is a problem: increasingly, MTBE is being detected in drinking water. MTBE is a known animal carcinogen and a possible human carcinogen, according to U.S. EPA. It has a very unpleasant odor and taste, as well. The Feinstein-Inhofe bill would allow governors, upon notification to U.S. EPA, to waive the 2.0 percent oxygenate requirement, as long as the gasoline meets the other requirements in the law for reformulated gasoline. On July 27th, 1999, the non-partisan, broad-based U.S. EPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline recommended that the two percent oxygenate requirement be ``removed in order to provide flexibility to blend adequate fuel supplies in a cost-effective manner while quickly reducing usage of MTBE and maintaining air quality benefits.'' In addition, the panel agreed that ``the use of MTBE should be reduced substantially.'' Importantly, the panel recommended that ``Congress act quickly to clarify federal and state authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of gasoline additives that pose a threat to drinking water supplies.'' The bill we are introducing today, while not totally repealing the two percent oxygenate requirement, moves us in that direction. It gives States that choose to meet Clean Air requirements without oxygenates the option to do so. It allows States that choose an oxygenate, such as ethanol, to do so. Areas required to use reformulated gasoline for cleaner air will still be required to use it. The gasoline will have a different but clean formulation. Areas will continue to have to meet clean air standards. MTBE has contaminated groundwater at over 10,000 sites in California, according to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Of 10,972 sites groundwater sites sampled, 39 percent had MTBE, according to the State Department of Health Services. Of 765 surface water sources sampled, 287, 38 percent, had MTBE. Nationally, one EPA-funded study of 34 States found that MTBE was present more than 20 percent of the time in 27 of the States. A U.S. Geological Survey report had similar findings. An October 1999 Congressional Research Service analysis concluded that at least 41 states have had MTBE detections in water. In California, Governor Davis concluded that MTBE ``poses a significant risk to California's environment'' and directed that MTBE be phased out in California by December 31, 2002. There is not a sufficient supply of ethanol or other oxygenates to fully replace MTBE in California, without huge gasoline supply disruptions and price spikes. In addition, California can make clean-burning gas without oxygenates. Therefore, California is in the impossible position of having to meet a federal requirement that is 1. contaminating the water and 2. is not necessary to achieve clean air. A major University of California study concluded that MTBE provides ``no significant air quality benefit'' but that its use poses ``the potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially ground water. . . .'' Oxygenates, say the experts, are not necessary for reformulated gasoline. California has developed a gasoline formula that provides flexibility and provides clean air. Refiners use an approach called the ``predictive model,'' which guarantees clean-burning RFG gas with oxygenates, with less than two percent oxygenates, and with no oxygenates. Several refiners, including Chevron and Tosco, are selling MTBE-free gas in California, for example. Under this bill, clean air standards would still have to be met and gasoline would have to meet all other requirements of the federal reformulated gasoline program, including the limits on benzene, heavy metals, and the emission of nitrogen oxides. This bill will give California and other States the relief they need from an unwarranted, unnecessary requirement. It will give state officials flexibility to determine whether to use oxygenates in their gasoline. The bill does not undo the Clean Air Act. The bill does not degrade air quality. The two percent oxygenate requirement creates an unnecessary federal ``recipe'' for gasoline. It causes contamination of groundwater. It adds to the price of gasoline unnecessarily, and it will probably trigger disruptions in gasoline supplies this summer. I call on this Congress to enact this legislation promptly. Californians do not need to have MTBE -laced drinking water to enjoy the benefits of cleaner air. It is that simple. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Sacramento Bee describing the MTBE problem in California be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma today in introducing a bill to allow the governor of a State to waive the oxygenate content requirement for reformulated or clean-burning gasoline. The bill retains all other provisions of the Clean Air Act to ensure that there is no backsliding on air quality. We introduce this bill to address the widespread contamination of drinking water by MTBE in California and at least 41 other States. On April 12, 1999, California Governor Gray Davis asked Carol Browner, who was the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for a waiver of the 2 percent oxygenate requirement. I have written and called former Administrator Browner and the current Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and both former President Clinton and President Bush, urging approval of the waiver. And we are still waiting. It has been two years. Today, yet again I call on EPA and the Administration to act. In the meantime, I will push Congress to act. MTBE, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, has been the oxygenate of choice by many refiners in their effort to comply with the Clean Air Act's reformulated gasoline requirements. California Governor Davis has ordered a phase-out in our State, but the Federal law requiring two percent oxygenates remains, putting our State in an untenable position. This is because the most likely substitute for MTBE to meet the two percent requirement is ethanol, but there is not a sufficient supply of ethanol to meet the demand in California and the rest of the country with the two percent law in place. With inadequate supplies, we can expect disruptions and price spikes during the peak driving months of this summer, at a time when there are predictions that retail gasoline prices may climb to an unprecedented $3.00 per gallon or more. The California Energy Commission reports that without relief from the two percent oxygenate mandate, California consumers will pay 3 to 6 cents more per gallon than they need to. This adds up to $450 million a year. The Clean Air Act requires that cleaner-burning reformulated gasoline, RFG, be sold in so-called ``non-attainment'' areas with the worst violations of ozone standards: Los Angeles, San Diego, Hartford, New York Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, Milwaukee, Sacramento. In addition, some States and areas have opted to use reformulated gasoline as way to achieve clean air. Second, the Act prescribes a formula for reformulated gasoline, including the requirement that reformulated gasoline contain 2.0 percent oxygen, by weight. In response to this requirement, refiners have put the oxygenate MTBE in over 85 percent of reformulated gasoline now in use. But, there is a problem: increasingly, MTBE is being detected in drinking water. MTBE is a known animal carcinogen and a possible human carcinogen, according to U.S. EPA. It has a very unpleasant odor and taste, as well. The Feinstein-Inhofe bill would allow governors, upon notification to U.S. EPA, to waive the 2.0 percent oxygenate requirement, as long as the gasoline meets the other requirements in the law for reformulated gasoline. On July 27th, 1999, the non-partisan, broad-based U.S. EPA Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline recommended that the two percent oxygenate requirement be ``removed in order to provide flexibility to blend adequate fuel supplies in a cost-effective manner while quickly reducing usage of MTBE and maintaining air quality benefits.'' In addition, the panel agreed that ``the use of MTBE should be reduced substantially.'' Importantly, the panel recommended that ``Congress act quickly to clarify federal and state authority to regulate and/or eliminate the use of gasoline additives that pose a threat to drinking water supplies.'' The bill we are introducing today, while not totally repealing the two percent oxygenate requirement, moves us in that direction. It gives States that choose to meet Clean Air requirements without oxygenates the option to do so. It allows States that choose an oxygenate, such as ethanol, to do so. Areas required to use reformulated gasoline for cleaner air will still be required to use it. The gasoline will have a different but clean formulation. Areas will continue to have to meet clean air standards. MTBE has contaminated groundwater at over 10,000 sites in California, according to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Of 10,972 sites groundwater sites sampled, 39 percent had MTBE, according to the State Department of Health Services. Of 765 surface water sources sampled, 287, 38 percent, had MTBE. Nationally, one EPA-funded study of 34 States found that MTBE was present more than 20 percent of the time in 27 of the States. A U.S. Geological Survey report had similar findings. An October 1999 Congressional Research Service analysis concluded that at least 41 states have had MTBE detections in water. In California, Governor Davis concluded that MTBE ``poses a significant risk to California's environment'' and directed that MTBE be phased out in California by December 31, 2002. There is not a sufficient supply of ethanol or other oxygenates to fully replace MTBE in California, without huge gasoline supply disruptions and price spikes. In addition, California can make clean-burning gas without oxygenates. Therefore, California is in the impossible position of having to meet a federal requirement that is 1. contaminating the water and 2. is not necessary to achieve clean air. A major University of California study concluded that MTBE provides ``no significant air quality benefit'' but that its use poses ``the potential for regional degradation of water resources, especially ground water. . . .'' Oxygenates, say the experts, are not necessary for reformulated gasoline. California has developed a gasoline formula that provides flexibility and provides clean air. Refiners use an approach called the ``predictive model,'' which guarantees clean-burning RFG gas with oxygenates, with less than two percent oxygenates, and with no oxygenates. Several refiners, including Chevron and Tosco, are selling MTBE-free gas in California, for example. Under this bill, clean air standards would still have to be met and gasoline would have to meet all other requirements of the federal reformulated gasoline program, including the limits on benzene, heavy metals, and the emission of nitrogen oxides. This bill will give California and other States the relief they need from an unwarranted, unnecessary requirement. It will give state officials flexibility to determine whether to use oxygenates in their gasoline. The bill does not undo the Clean Air Act. The bill does not degrade air quality. The two percent oxygenate requirement creates an unnecessary federal ``recipe'' for gasoline. It causes contamination of groundwater. It adds to the price of gasoline unnecessarily, and it will probably trigger disruptions in gasoline supplies this summer. I call on this Congress to enact this legislation promptly. Californians do not need to have MTBE -laced drinking water to enjoy the benefits of cleaner air. It is that simple. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Sacramento Bee describing the MTBE problem in California be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer today, legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Zhenfu Ge. Mrs. Ge is the grandmother of two U.S. citizen children who face the devastation of being separated from their grandmother after losing their mother just last month. Mrs. Ge came to the United States in 1998 to help care for her two grandchildren while her U.S. citizen daughter Yanyu Wang and her son- in-law John Marks worked. Shortly afterwards, Mrs. Ge's daughter filed an immigration petition on her behalf. She was scheduled for an April 26 Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, interview, which is the last step in the green card process. The family anticipated that the interview would result in Mrs. Ge's gaining a green card. In a tragic turn of events, Mrs. Ge's daughter was diagnosed with a rare and deadly form of lymphoma and given only 7 months to live. As Mrs. Wang's health quickly declined, she asked her mother to care for her 3-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son after her death. Mrs. Ge promised her daughter she would care for her grandchildren and quickly became the most active maternal figure in their lives. On April 15 of this year, 11 days before Mrs. Ge's scheduled INS interview, her daughter died. Because current law does not allow Mrs. Ge to adjust her status without her daughter, Mrs. Ge now faces deportation. This family has certainly felt the pain of a significant tragedy. With the death of Yanyu Wang, her family must begin to rebuild their lives and face a future without their loved one. Losing a grandmother to deportation will only further the grief and compromise the emotional health of her two young grandchildren, who are still mourning the loss of their mother. According to her son-in-law, John Mark, Mrs. Ge ``represents continuity and a tie to their mother for our children, and her presence will allow me to continue to successfully support my family. Mrs. Ge has done everything she could to become a permanent resident of this country. But for the tragedy of her daughter's untimely death, she likely would have attained that status. I hope my colleagues will support this private legislation so that we can help Mrs. Ge, her grandchildren, and son-in-law begin to rebuild their lives in the wake of their family tragedy and allow Mrs. Ge to keep the promise she made to her daughter. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the letter from Mr. Marks be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to add approximately 5,000 acres of pristine natural land to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Mateo County. This addition will protect the sweeping views of the San Mateo Coast and ensure the protection of rich farmland, several miles of public trails, and incredible array of wildlife and vegetation. I am happy to be joined by Senator Boxer in sponsoring this legislation. The property to be added is one of the most visible and important pieces of land on the San Mateo coast north of Half Moon Bay. The largest parcel to be added is a 4,262 acre stretch of land known as the Rancho Corral de Tierra. The Rancho Corral de Tierra is one of the largest undeveloped tracts remaining on the San Mateo Coast and is constantly under threat of development. The mountainous property, which surrounds the coastal towns of Moss Beach and Montara, was previously purchased by the Peninsula Open Space Trust. The Trust has agreed to transfer the land to the Federal Government for about half of the purchase cost. It is this type of public-private partnership that Congress needs to support in our efforts to preserve open space. The Rancho Corral de Tierra Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Act of 2001 has the support of the entire Bay Area Congressional Delegation. Similar legislation is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Tom Lantos with co-sponsors Anna Eshoo, Nancy Pelosi, George Miller, Lynn Woolsey, Ellen Tauscher, Peter Stark, Mike Thompson, Barbara Lee, Mike Honda, and Zoe Lofgren. The addition of the Rancho Corral de Tierra property will result in the protection of all or part of four watersheds, and several endangered species such as the peregrine falcon, San Bruno elfin butterfly, San Francisco garter snake, and the red-legged frog. Moreover, due to the coastal marine influence and dramatic altitude changes, plants grow on the property that are found nowhere else in the world. This legislation will also reauthorize the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission for another 20 years. The Advisory Commission was established by Congress in 1972 to provide for the free exchange of ideas between the National Park Service and the public. The Commission holds open and accessible public meetings monthly at which the public has an opportunity to comment on park-related issues. I have always felt that protecting our nation's unique natural areas should be one of our highest priorities. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is one of our Nation's most heavily visited urban national parks as it is in close proximity to millions of people. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to add approximately 5,000 acres of pristine natural land to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Mateo County. This addition will protect the sweeping views of the San Mateo Coast and ensure the protection of rich farmland, several miles of public trails, and incredible array of wildlife and vegetation. I am happy to be joined by Senator Boxer in sponsoring this legislation. The property to be added is one of the most visible and important pieces of land on the San Mateo coast north of Half Moon Bay. The largest parcel to be added is a 4,262 acre stretch of land known as the Rancho Corral de Tierra. The Rancho Corral de Tierra is one of the largest undeveloped tracts remaining on the San Mateo Coast and is constantly under threat of development. The mountainous property, which surrounds the coastal towns of Moss Beach and Montara, was previously purchased by the Peninsula Open Space Trust. The Trust has agreed to transfer the land to the Federal Government for about half of the purchase cost. It is this type of public-private partnership that Congress needs to support in our efforts to preserve open space. The Rancho Corral de Tierra Golden Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Act of 2001 has the support of the entire Bay Area Congressional Delegation. Similar legislation is being introduced today in the House of Representatives by Tom Lantos with co-sponsors Anna Eshoo, Nancy Pelosi, George Miller, Lynn Woolsey, Ellen Tauscher, Peter Stark, Mike Thompson, Barbara Lee, Mike Honda, and Zoe Lofgren. The addition of the Rancho Corral de Tierra property will result in the protection of all or part of four watersheds, and several endangered species such as the peregrine falcon, San Bruno elfin butterfly, San Francisco garter snake, and the red-legged frog. Moreover, due to the coastal marine influence and dramatic altitude changes, plants grow on the property that are found nowhere else in the world. This legislation will also reauthorize the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory Commission for another 20 years. The Advisory Commission was established by Congress in 1972 to provide for the free exchange of ideas between the National Park Service and the public. The Commission holds open and accessible public meetings monthly at which the public has an opportunity to comment on park-related issues. I have always felt that protecting our nation's unique natural areas should be one of our highest priorities. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is one of our Nation's most heavily visited urban national parks as it is in close proximity to millions of people. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the reconciliation bill currently pending before the Senate. Although this bill is far from perfect, I do not think there is a member of the Senate who would not have drafted a different bill giving different weight to different provisions if given the opporutnity. It represents a compromise on a very difficult set of issues and does, in some areas, make progress. While it does not provide the immediate economic stimulus I would like, for example, it does afford a wage earner providing for his or her family who makes less than $45,000 a tax cut of $300 this year, and $600 next year. Additionally, although not phased-in as fast as I would like, the changes this bill makes to the marriage penalty and the child tax credit provisions will allow a working couple to avoid paying the marriage penalty simply for getting married, and provide them with child tax credits when they have children. The President requested a $1.6 trillion tax cut over ten years. This reconciliation bill will cost $1.35 trillion, still a sizable amount, over 11 years, including $100 billion for economic stimulus. This bill contains several provisions which I believe are important to assure the continued long-term economic health of the American economy and which will benefit many hard-working American families: It contains the creation of a new, retroative, 10-percent tax bracket which has the effect of benefitting every single American who pays income taxes. Most of the benefit of the 10 percent bracket goes to people who earn less than $75,000 a year. It contains an across-the- board tax cut, including reductions in the upper brackets. Significantly, this legislation does not go as far as the President's proposal. The 39.6 percent bracket, for example, will fall only to 36 percent, not the 33 percent the President wanted. This is a fair compormise. It provides significant marriage penalty relief although that does not go into effect until 2005. Marriage penalty makes sense for social reasons: It reinforces the important institutions of family and marriage. It eliminates what many of us see as a vast inconsistency in our tax law. The marriage penalty simply makes no sense: Two people should not find that they pay more in taxes if they are married than if they stay single. Although not phased-in as quickly as many of us would like, this bill will eliminate this problem for many couples who now find they face a marriage penalty. I hope that the Conference Committee would find a way to implement this reform earlier than 2005. It provides significant estate tax reform and repeal. I have long held that people should not be forced to pay a tax simply because of the death of a parent or spouse. In all too many instances under the current estate tax families are forced to sell a primary residence or go deeply into debt to hold on to a family farm or business simply because of the estate tax triggered by the death of a loved one. This legislation will first raise the unified credit to $4 million and lower estate tax rates and, then, in 2011, repeal the estate tax. Estate assets will not escape taxation under this approach. Rather they will be taxed at a stepped-up capital gains rate of 20 percent if and when a family chooses to sell them. This will allow families to keep the family home, business, or farm and, I believe, represents real progress on this issue. This is especially important for California because of high land and property costs. Under the present estate tax, the heir of a $3 million estate which includes a home or business or farm could pay $700,000, or 45 percent of the taxable estate value of $1.7 million in estate taxes, due immediately. In future years, because of astronomic increases in land and property values, this will affect many more Californians than in the past. A child who does not have the cash to pay the tax may be forced to sell the family home, business, or farm. I cannot support a tax where rates are so high that they force an heir to sell their inheritance simply to pay the tax on it, especially in the case of farms or businesses where taxes have already been paid on the income which was used to purchase the asset. This reconciliation bill expands the tax credit for families with children from $500 to $1,000 per child; increases the amount of the credit that is partly refundable so lower income families can benefit; and it expands and simplifies the earned-income tax credit so it is available to many more low-income working families than it is today. For example, under the current rules a family with one child would have to earn at least $14,000 to have a fully refundable credit of $600. This bill will extend the credit to families with incomes of $10,000. It provides incentives for parents to set aside money for their children's future education by expanding the education savings accounts contribution limit from $500 to $2,000; extends the employer-provided tuition assistance credit to encourage employers to help employees continue their education; and helps college students pay off their student loans by eliminating the 60-month limit on deductibility of student loan interest. It includes pension provisions to provide an incentive for people to save for their retirement, including increasing the contribution limits for IRAs from $2,000 to $5,000 by 2011; increasing 401(k) contribution limits from $10,500 to $15,000 in 2010; and includes provisions to help provide retirement fairness for women, including allowing ``catch up'' contributions to retirement plans for individuals over age 50. It includes a down payment towards fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, problem, an issue that is projected to mushroom by 2010. More needs to be done to make sure that middle class families do not find that because of the AMT they do not receive the benefits promised under this tax cut package. But I am pleased that in taking this first step the Senate has recognized that this is a big problem, especially for states like California, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the years ahead to fix this problem before it develops into a genuine crisis. I have had two concerns about this approach taken in this legislation, however. First, that the costs of this tax bill after 2011 may be quite high--as much as $3 to $4 trillion by some estimates. That is why it was critical, for me to be able to support this legislation, that the ``sunset'' provisions remained in place and that the provisions included in this bill expire in 2011. Although I fully expect that Congress will extend many, if not all, of these provisions, this provides us a critical opportunity to make a mid-course correction if, 10 years from now, a different approach on these issues is called for. Second, I want to make sure that the tax cuts we are considering here today will not endanger the projected surpluses or undo the hard work and hard choices of the past decade which have allowed us to eliminate deficits and pay down the debt. That is why I supported the amendment offered by Senators Bayh and Snowe to create a ``trigger mechanism'' which will allow us to slow- down the phase in of some of these tax provisions should we not meet our debt reduction goals. Although this bipartisan amendment narrowly failed, I think that it sends an important message about our commitment to fiscal responsibility. On the whole I think that the bill pending before the Senate today represents a fair compromise on a most contentious issue. Today we are voting on a $1.35 trillion package, some $150 billion more than the Senate approved in the budget amendment last month with 65 votes, but still a fair package with many positive elements. So let there be no mistake: This is a large bill, and represents a major change in the tax system. As this reconciliation bill goes to conference, it is my sincere hope that the conferees understand that for myself, and, I believe, many of my colleagues, the package that we are voting on here today represents what we consider to be fair and balanced, and that we would have considerable difficulty supporting any changes which may threaten to upset this balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this reconciliation bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution to honor correctional officers and employees. This 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. Nationally more than 200,000 corrections professionals work hard to maintain the safety of our communities. We must never forget that this is an often stressful and dangerous occupation. Nor can we forget the sacrifices made by those courageous individuals who have been injured or killed in the line of duty. Officers put their lives on the line every time they begin a shift. Tragically, correctional officers have been permanently injured and killed in the line of duty. 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, who have all been killed during the past year. Most of us leave for work knowing that we will return home safe and sound at the end of the day. While we take this peace of mind for granted, correctional officers are not afforded this luxury. On June 6, 2000, Sergeant Allen Gamble, a correctional officer at Oklahoma State Reformatory was fatally stabbed in the throat as he attempted to help a fellow officer who was being attacked by a prisoner. Sergeant Gamble was survived by his wife, Sherri and his four children. Equally disturbing is the case of Officer Jason Coryell, a correctional officer at the Arizona State Prison Complex. On August 25, 200, Officer Jason Croyell was stabbed three times in the stomach when an inmate refused to be handcuffed. Though the wound was severe, Officer Coryell returned to work in November, 2000. Officers Gamble and Coryell exemplify the heroism that takes place each day in our nation's correctional facilities. They remind us how individual acts of heroism are a regular part of the job among correctional officers and employees. In addition to dealing with society's most hardened criminals, correctional officers and employees also seek to reform offenders. They play an important role in lowering recidivism rates. And through literacy programs and vocational training they help transform criminals into productive, law abiding members of society. This is not an easy task. Correctional officers and their families and friends endure a tremendous amount of stress and sacrifice. Prison security never takes a break, which often means that officers work all hours of the day and night, weekends, and holidays. I hope with this resolution we can honor and recognize this sort of commitment and sacrifice, not just this week, but throughout the year. America's correctional officers and employees efforts to make our world a better, safer place too often go unnoticed. Few of us can truly appreciate the perils faced daily by our correctional officers. With this resolution we reflect on the contributions correctional officers have made to keep our communities safe. This is why I am pleased to submit this resolution to establish June 3-10, 2001, as Correctional Officers and Employees Week.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues Senators Bayh and Snowe to create a ``trigger mechanism'' to make sure that the tax cuts we are considering here today will not endanger the projected surpluses or undo the hard work and hard choices of the past decade which have allowed us to eliminate deficits and pay down the debt. The Congressional Budget Office has projected a unified budget surplus over the next 10 years of some $5.6 trillion, with a $3.1 trillion on-budget surplus. These projected surpluses provide the basis for the consideration of the tax bill before us today. Indeed, the unprecedented economic expansion of the past decade and our current and projected budget surpluses have provided an unparalleled opportunity for the Congress and the administration to take action to provide all working Americans with a reduction in their taxes, pay down the debt, and meet urgent domestic priorities such as health care, education, and the environment, and to do so in a fiscally responsible way. And although there are many elements of the reconciliation bill as reported out of committee which I support--marriage penalty relief, for example--one of my concerns with this tax bill is that there is little margin for error if the surpluses not materialize. In January 2000 the CBO baseline surplus estimate was $3.2 trillion. In January 2001 the estimate was $5.6 trillion, a $2.4 trillion change. There is no guarantee that these projections will not swing back in the other direction and, in fact, there is $4 trillion difference in surplus projections between the CBO baseline and the CBO ``pessimistic'' scenario. Now, I am not saying that the pessimistic scenario is likely. But I do believe that we have to be cautious. When I first came to the Senate in 1993 we were facing mounting deficits and an ocean of red ink. It took a lot of hard work and a lot of tough decisions to get spending under control. I am proud of what we accomplished, and don't want to go back to a situation where instead of paying down the Federal debt as we are now we are once again incurring more and more debt. That is why I support this amendment, which creates a trigger mechanism that would make the implementation of the tax cuts--or any new large spending increases--dependent on the surplus projections actually materializing and continued success in meeting debt reduction targets. The amendment creates a review mechanism for Congress to make sure that as we proceed with implementing the elements of the tax cuts in this legislation that the surpluses have actually materialized and that phasing-in new elements of the tax package would not set us back down the road to deficits and growing debt. Should the surplus drop, and we do not meet debt reduction targets, the tax cuts scheduled to phase-in the following year would be delayed by one year. The advantage of this approach is that it makes tax cuts dependent on fiscal discipline and provides a brake against runaway spending. It is a safety valve against a return to deficits. In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan endorsed this approach in testimony before the Senate earlier this year. We have a great opportunity to provide tax cuts to the American people. We need to take advantage of this opportunity, but we must do so in a way that is fiscally responsible. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan trigger amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a resolution to maintain the moratorium on new oil and natural gas leasing activity on submerged lands of the Outer Continental Shelf. I am happy to be joined by Senator Boxer. With this resolution, we are urging President Bush to continue the existing executive order that places coastline areas of several States, including California, off limits to new drilling. This moratoria was initiated by former President George H. Bush in 1990, and extended through 2012 by President Clinton in 1998. The timing of this resolution is important, as the impending President's energy plan will focus on drilling for new oil and gas reserves. With this focus, many of us in Congress fear that the Administration may pave the way for new exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf. This would be a tragic mistake that endangers the coastlines of many States, including California, which is one of the greatest environmental treasures in the world. One oil spill from offshore oil wells almost did destroy the beautiful California coastline. In 1969 an oil spill in Federal waters off the coast of Santa Barbara killed thousands of birds, as well as dolphins, seals, and other animals. Estimates of the amount of oil released range up to 200,000 barrels. Within days, oil spread from California's Channel Islands to the Mexican border, an area of approximately 800 square miles. The people of California were so concerned that shortly thereafter they voted to create the California Coastal Commission. Since the 1969 spill, there have been more than thirty additional significant oil spills off the California coast. Each spill has imperiled the environment, the economy, and the beautiful landscape of California. We can try to measure the economic cost of oil spills. For example, the value of our coast as ocean-dependent industry is estimated to contribute $17 million per year to our state economy. But we cannot measure the value placed on our quality of life. In 1991, the California Department of Parks and Recreation found that almost 70 percent of Californians had participated in beach activities, and that 25 percent of Californians had participated in saltwater fishing. We simply cannot endanger this resource for limited production. There is widespread and bipartisan agreement that oil drilling presents serious environmental dangers, and I urge the President to maintain the moratorium on new oil and gas leasing activity on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I am pleased today to join as an original sponsor with Senators Snowe, Smith and Rockefeller, a bill to provide Medicare coverage of cancer drugs. More than 8 million Americans require some form of cancer care: 1.2 million of these are newly diagnosed patients; some are already on treatment; some need follow-up care. Over half a million people will die from cancer this year. Medicare, generally, does not cover cancer drugs. This bill will provide that coverage. Providing Medicare coverage of cancer drugs is particularly important in light of a promising new class of drugs that are becoming available. One of those drugs is Gleevec, formerly known as STI 571. I am greatly heartened by the news that on May 10 the Food and Drug Administration approved Gleevec for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia. Gleevec is revolutionary because it can precisely target the dysfunctional proteins that cause this cancer and it can disable cancer cells to the point that they are metabolically inactivated with 12 hours of administering the drug. Furthermore, Gleevec does not destroy the ``good'' cells, as other treatments do. It helped over 90 percent of patients in clinical trials and holds great promise for other cancers. Scientists say this drug is the wave of the future. Not only is this drug highly medically effective, it is cost- effective. Gleevec is expected initially to cost around $25,000 annually. While that is a high price, in my view, the other alternative, or standard treatment for this kind of leukemia, is a bone marrow transplant. Bone marrow transplants cost on average $250,000 per procedure. So this drug will be cheaper than the conventional treatment. Sixty percent of cancer cases occur among people over age 65, a number that will grow as the American population ages, so Medicare is a major payer of cancer care. Cancer therapies have evolved to the point where most cancer care is delivered on an outpatient basis, not in a hospital. In terms of Medicare, oral, outpatient, prescription cancer drugs are currently covered by Medicare only if the drugs have the same active ingredient as the equivalent injectable cancer drug. This means that very few cancer drugs are covered. No one really knows how much Medicare patients pay out-of-pocket for cancer drugs, but according to the Institute of Medicine, ``available evidence suggests that it is substantial.'' One study found that Medicare covered 83 percent of typical charges for lung cancer and 65 percent of typical charges for breast cancer. Out-of-pocket expenses ranged from less than $100 to near $4,000. One-third of Medicare beneficiaries have private insurance that covers the prescription drugs that Medicare does not cover. Even if beneficiaries have private drug coverage, that coverage often has high deductibles and other limits so that beneficiaries still have high out of pocket expenses. The bill we are introducing today addresses just part of the problem. Clearly, we must work for a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit for all illnesses and we must work to improve private health insurance coverage. The cost of delivering cancer care is $50 billion a year, says the National Cancer Institute. These are costs that we can reduce and this bill is one step. I hope that by expanding Medicare coverage to cover cancer drugs we can garner support for broader coverage, we can encourage drug companies to make many more new drugs and we can give hope to millions who suffer from cancer. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I am pleased today to join as an original sponsor with Senators Snowe, Smith and Rockefeller, a bill to provide Medicare coverage of cancer drugs. More than 8 million Americans require some form of cancer care: 1.2 million of these are newly diagnosed patients; some are already on treatment; some need follow-up care. Over half a million people will die from cancer this year. Medicare, generally, does not cover cancer drugs. This bill will provide that coverage. Providing Medicare coverage of cancer drugs is particularly important in light of a promising new class of drugs that are becoming available. One of those drugs is Gleevec, formerly known as STI 571. I am greatly heartened by the news that on May 10 the Food and Drug Administration approved Gleevec for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia. Gleevec is revolutionary because it can precisely target the dysfunctional proteins that cause this cancer and it can disable cancer cells to the point that they are metabolically inactivated with 12 hours of administering the drug. Furthermore, Gleevec does not destroy the ``good'' cells, as other treatments do. It helped over 90 percent of patients in clinical trials and holds great promise for other cancers. Scientists say this drug is the wave of the future. Not only is this drug highly medically effective, it is cost- effective. Gleevec is expected initially to cost around $25,000 annually. While that is a high price, in my view, the other alternative, or standard treatment for this kind of leukemia, is a bone marrow transplant. Bone marrow transplants cost on average $250,000 per procedure. So this drug will be cheaper than the conventional treatment. Sixty percent of cancer cases occur among people over age 65, a number that will grow as the American population ages, so Medicare is a major payer of cancer care. Cancer therapies have evolved to the point where most cancer care is delivered on an outpatient basis, not in a hospital. In terms of Medicare, oral, outpatient, prescription cancer drugs are currently covered by Medicare only if the drugs have the same active ingredient as the equivalent injectable cancer drug. This means that very few cancer drugs are covered. No one really knows how much Medicare patients pay out-of-pocket for cancer drugs, but according to the Institute of Medicine, ``available evidence suggests that it is substantial.'' One study found that Medicare covered 83 percent of typical charges for lung cancer and 65 percent of typical charges for breast cancer. Out-of-pocket expenses ranged from less than $100 to near $4,000. One-third of Medicare beneficiaries have private insurance that covers the prescription drugs that Medicare does not cover. Even if beneficiaries have private drug coverage, that coverage often has high deductibles and other limits so that beneficiaries still have high out of pocket expenses. The bill we are introducing today addresses just part of the problem. Clearly, we must work for a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit for all illnesses and we must work to improve private health insurance coverage. The cost of delivering cancer care is $50 billion a year, says the National Cancer Institute. These are costs that we can reduce and this bill is one step. I hope that by expanding Medicare coverage to cover cancer drugs we can garner support for broader coverage, we can encourage drug companies to make many more new drugs and we can give hope to millions who suffer from cancer. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor this amendment with Senators Voinovich, Baucus, Cochran, Landrieu, Murray, and Corzine. This amendment is simple. We are merely trying to expand the current Federal loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers. Elementary and secondary school teachers currently benefit under the Federal loan forgiveness program. We think that Head Start teachers should be afforded the same opportunity. In exchange for 5 years of teaching, Head Start teachers could have up to $5,000 of their Federal student loans forgiven. By offering Head Start teachers the same loan forgiveness benefit, I believe, we will encourage more college graduates to enter the field. New educational requirements were included in the 1998 reauthorization of the Head Start Program. By 2003, 50 percent of Head Start teachers will be required to have an associate or 2-year degree, a bachelor's, or an advanced degree. How can we ask low-paid Head Start teachers to go back to school to finish their bachelor's degree or college students to enter the field if we cannot even offer them the same loan forgiveness already afforded to elementary and secondary school teachers? Head Start is one of the most important Federal programs because it has the potential to reach children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing. I believe we must continue to improve the cognitive learning aspects of the Head Start program so that children leave the program able to count to ten, to recognize sizes and colors, and to recite the alphabet. To ensure cognitive learning, we must continue to raise the standards for Head Start teachers. Offering Head Start teachers similar compensation for their educational achievements and expenses afforded to other teachers is one step to encouraging collage graduates to become Head Start teachers. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment directs that Title I funds be used only for academic instruction. It is true that for the most part title I funds are used for academic instruction. It is also true, though, that money often goes for other purposes, and this amendment would clarify the purposes for which Title I funds can be used by school districts. The amendment states that the funds be used to improve academic achievement, to help students meet State achievement standards. Permitted uses would include corrective actions to improve student achievement, extending academic instruction beyond the normal school day and school year, including summer school, employing teachers and instructional personnel, providing instructional services to pre- kindergarten children to help them transition to kindergarten, purchasing instructional resources, conducting or obtaining professional development, and developing curriculum, for example. What is explicitly not permitted is the purchasing or leasing of facilities or vehicles with Title I funds, purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services, paying for utilities, constructing facilities, acquiring real properties, buying food or refreshments, or travel to and attendances at conferences except for travel and attendance necessary for professional development. The purpose of this amendment is to take these critical funds and see that they go where they should go, which is toward the core curriculum and the teaching of and learning by youngsters. I believe the amendment will be accepted. Current law on Title I is much too vague. It says, A State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds. Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils.'' That is just too nebulous. The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used. Permitted uses are for the following: instructional practices; counseling; mentoring; developing curricula; salaries; employee benefits; renting privately-owned facilities; janitorial services; utilities; mobile vans; training and professional development; equipment; interest on lease purchase agreements; travel and conferences; food and refreshments; insurance for vehicles; and parent involvement activities. Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: construction or acquisition of real property; and payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for salary lost due to attendance at ``parental involvement'' meeting. I believe we should give the Department, states and districts clearer guidance in law. My reason for introducing this amendment is this: Our students are not learning; our schools are failing our children. We must use our limited federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of education: to help students learn. A January 2001 study by Education Weekly, titled ``Quality Counts 2001: A Better Balance,'' brought more bad news about California's students. Here's what the report found: In fourth grade reading, 20 percent of students are proficient and 52 percent are below the basic standard. In eighth grade reading, 22 percent of students are proficient and 36 percent are below the basic standard. Comparing California to other states, in how well fourth grade students read, California ranks 36 out of 39 states. In eighth grade reading, California ranks 32 out of 36 states. Nationally, the news is similarly distressing: U.S. eighth graders are out-performed by their counterparts in math and science from Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, Australia, and Canada. American twelfth graders performed in mathematics better than student in only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa. In writing, 75 percent of U.S. school children cannot compose a well- organized, coherent essay, according to the National Assessment for Education Progress in September 1999. We have to put a stop to this bad news. Fortunately, the bill before us takes some strong steps and with this amendment, it will take even more. While it is difficult to ascertain how Title I funds are always being used, we do know of a few examples that raise questions in my mind: In Alabama, according to the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, ``dipped into Title 1 to pay the electric bill and for janitorial services.'' While most of Title I's $8 billion appear to be spent on instruction, the Los Angeles Times, in a March 12, 2000 editorial, said, ``About half that amount is wasted on unskilled though well-meaning teacher aides, who are often more babysitter than instructor.'' Title I has been used ``to pay for everything from playground supervisors and field trips to more time for nurses and counselors,'' according to the San Diego Union-Tribune, March 16, 2000. California school officials have told my staff that Title I has been used for pay for clerical assistants in school administrative offices, payroll staff, truant officers, schoolyard duty personnel, school bus loading assistants, ``curriculum coordinators,'' ``compliance,'' attending conferences, and home visits. By offering this amendment, I am not suggesting that Title I funds are being wasted across the board. In fact, an August 2000 report by the Department of Education says, ``Most--77 percent--of Title I funds were used for instructional resources,'' for example, to hire teachers and to provide instructional materials. That is good. But that report also says, that 12 percent of funds or $835 million in 1998, were used for ``program administration.'' Since this report does not provide more specificity, it is difficult to tell exactly what these funds were used for, but I do think we have to question whether we want $835 million spent on administration of this program. Another report, a draft by the Citizen Commission on Civil Rights, found that in the Fresco, California, school districts, ``15 percent [of Title I funds remains in the district office.'' It goes on to say that funds are also used for ``supplies, two case workers, Saturday schools, and breakfast and lunch programs for about 800 homeless students.'' This is just one example and while these uses probably most certainly contribute to a child's education, it is my view that Title I cannot do everything. That is why I am trying to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve. Federal funding is only seven percent of total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools. We must get the most that we can educationally for our limited dollars. It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This is one step toward that goals. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 369. I ask unanimous consent to resubmit the amendment with modifications.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor this amendment with Senators Voinovich, Baucus, Cochran, Landrieu, Murray, and Corzine. Under current law, elementary and secondary teachers can receive up to $5,000 of their student loans forgiven in exchange for 5 years of teaching. Head Start teachers are not currently included in the federal loan forgiveness program. By offering Head Start teachers the same loan forgiveness benefit as that afforded to elementary and secondary school teachers, I believe, we will encourage more college graduates to enter the field. Many Head Start programs in California are losing qualified teachers to local school districts in part because the pay is better-- nationally, the average Head Start teacher made $20,700 in 2000 compared to $40,575 for an elementary and secondary school teacher. Head Start teachers are making half of what elementary and secondary teachers are paid on average. Low pay, combined with mounting student loan debt, is a real deterrent to getting college graduates to become Head Start teachers. Today, there are no educational requirements for a Head Start teacher other than a child development associate (CDA) credential, requiring 24 early child education credits and 16 general education credits. By 2003, 50 percent of Head Start teachers will be required to have at minimum an associate or 2-year degree. Under this amendment, a Head Start teacher who has completed at minimum a bachelor's degree could receive up to $5,000 of their federal student loan forgiven provided they agree to teach for at least 5 years in a Head Start program. Clearly, we should recruit qualified teachers to the Head Start field who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning. Obtaining and maintaining teachers with such educational backgrounds will, I believe, improve the cognitive learning portion of the Head Start program so that our youngsters can start elementary school ready to learn. Several recent studies confirm the importance of investing in the education and training of those who work with preschoolers. The National Research Council has recommended that: . . . children in an early childhood education and care program should be assigned a teacher who has a bachelor's degree with specialized education related to early childhood. . . . Progress toward a high-quality teaching force will require substantial public and private support and incentive programs, including innovative education programs, scholarship and loan programs, and compensation commensurate with the expectations of college graduates. Last year, the Head Start 2010 National Advisory Panel held fifteen national hearings and open forums. The panel found: . . . that despite increases resulting from Federal quality set-aside funding, relatively low salaries and poor or non- existent benefits make it difficult to attract and retain qualified staff over the long term. . . . the quality of the program is tied directly to the quality of the staff. Head Start is one of the most important federal programs because it has the potential to reach children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing. Many of our Nation's youngsters, however, enter elementary school without the basic skills necessary to succeed. Often these children lag behind their peers throughout their academic career. I believe we must continue to improve the cognitive learning aspects of the Head Start program so that children leave the program able to count to ten, to recognize sizes and colors, and to recite the alphabet. To ensure cognitive learning, we must continue to raise the standards for Head Start teachers. Offering Head Start teachers similar compensation for their educational achievements and expenses afforded to other teachers is one step to encouraging college graduates to become Head Start teachers.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements of students from Stockdale High School for winning an honorable mention in the We the People..The Citizen and the Constitution national competition. These outstanding students from Bakersfield, CA competed against 49 other classes from across the country and demonstrated a vast knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and American democracy. Their accomplishments are a reflection of their hard work and preparation for this prestigious event. On April 21-23, 2001, hundreds of young people ascended on our Nation's Capital to participate in the We the People national finals. This exciting competition is administered by the Center for the Civic Education to educate students on the history and principles of American constitutional government. Reaching more than 26 million students nationwide, We the People introduces elementary, middle, and high school students to the intricacies of our government and encourages them to contribute actively to the political process throughout their lives. I can think of no better way to ensure that this country has competent citizens and future leaders than to encourage more of our Nation's youth to participate in programs such as this one. I am particularly proud of the accomplishments of the Stockdale High School class and encourage these students to be ever vigilant in their future endeavors to learn about and foster our democracy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate passage of the James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act. This bill is named after two police officers who were killed in the line of duty by criminal assailants wearing body armor. I thank Senator Sessions, Senator Hatch, and Senator Leahy, among others, for working so diligently with me to craft and pass this bipartisan legislation. I would also like to recognize Lee Guelff, brother of James Guelff, as well as the many other individuals who worked tirelessly on behalf of this legislation. I introduced this legislation almost six years ago in response to the death of San Francisco police officer James Guelff. on November 13, 1994, Officer Guelff responded to a distress call. Upon reaching the crime scene, he was fired upon by a heavily armed suspect who was shielded by a kevlar vest and bulletproof helmet. Officer Guelff died in the ensuing gunfight. The James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act is designed to deter criminals from wearing body armor, and to distribute excess Federal body armor to local police. Lee Guelff, brother of Officer James Guelff, wrote to me about the need to revise the laws relating to body armor. He wrote: It's bad enough when officers have to face gunmen in possession of superior firepower . . . But to have to confront suspects shielded by equal or better defensive protection as well goes beyond the bounds of acceptable risk for officers and citizens alike. No officer should have to face the same set of deadly circumstances again. I strongly agree with Lee. The legislation has three key provisions. First, it directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to provide an appropriate sentencing enhancement for any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime in which the defendant used body armor. Second, it makes it unlawful for a person who has been convicted of a violent felony to purchase, own, or posses body armor. It is unconscionable that current laws permit felons to obtain and wear body armor without restriction when so many of our police lack comparable protection. Finally, the bill enables Federal law enforcement agencies to donate surplus body armor (approximately 10,000 vests) directly to local and state police departments; Far too many of our local police officers do not have access to body armor. The United States Department of Justice estimates that 25% of State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, approximately 150,000 officers, are not issued body armor. Getting our police officers more body armor will save lives. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, more than 30% of the 1,200 officers killed by guns in the line of duty since 1980 could have survived if they wore body armor. This bill has the support of organizations representing 500,000 law enforcement personnel nationwide including: Fraternal Order of Police; National Association of Police Organizations; National Sheriff's Association; National Troopers Coalition; International Association of Police Chiefs; Federal Law Enforcement Officers Assn; Police Executive Research Forum; International Brotherhood of Police Officers; Major city Chiefs; and National Assn. Black Law Enforcement Executives. Once again, I commend the Senate for passing this important and long overdue legislation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2001,'' bipartisan legislation that would authorize funds to relieve State and county governments of the some of the high costs of incarcerating persons who enter this country illegally and are later convicted of felonies or multiple misdemeanors. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Jon Kyl, Bob Graham, John McCain, Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, and John Kerry. The broad principle on which this bill is based is simple: the control of illegal immigration is a Federal responsibility. The Federal government's failure to control illegal immigration, and the financial and human consequences of this failure are, thus, Federal responsibilities as well. More and more, the fiscal consequences of illegal immigration are being dealt to the states and local counties. The ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2001'' would properly vest the fiscal burden of incarcerating illegal immigrants who commit crimes with the Federal government. It would do this by authorizing up to $750 million for federal reimbursement to the States and county governments for the direct costs associated with incarcerating undocumented felons. At the initiative of my colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham, the Federal government took the first steps in 1994 in addressing these costs by authorizing reimbursements to State and local governments through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, established by the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Since 1997, the authorization level for SCAAP has been $650 million. Last year, the provision authorizing SCAAP funding through the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund expired. Enactment of the reauthorization legislation would constitute an acknowledgment that these costs, though borne by other levels of government, remain the Federal government's obligation. Winning enactment of this authorization bill is half of what Congress needs to do to provide adequate funding to states and counties for this important program. Congress also must appropriate an adequate level of funding for SCAAP, and my colleagues and I will be working in the Appropriations Committee to assure that this is done. This bill would help all states that are experiencing increasing costs from incarcerating undocumented felons, both low-impact and high- impact states. Even in historically low impact states and counties SCAAP funding has been on the rise. SCAAP funding to Fairfax County, Virginia, for example, has risen from $14,906 in FY 1999 to $2 million in FY 2000. In the County of Outgamie, Wisconsin, SCAAP funding has jumped from $0 in FY 1999 to $548,458 in FY 2000. In the State of Mississippi, SCAAP funding rose from $47,171 in FY 1999 to $$780,795 in FY 2000. Clearly, these numbers suggest that the increasing costs to states and local governments for incarcerating criminal aliens is not just a problem for States on the southwest border but, rather, it is a nationwide problem. High impact States, like California, continue to face extraordinary criminal alien incarceration costs. In February 1997, there were 17,904 undocumented felons in the California correctional system with Immigration and Naturalization Service holds. By the end of February 2001, there were 20,937 illegal alien inmates in the system with INS holds. This year, California taxpayers can expect to spend $576.1 million to pay for what is, indeed, a Federal obligation. In fact, 1995, the first year in which SCAAP funding was awarded, California has spent a total of $3.8 billion in costs directly associated with incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. Local counties often shoulder a disproportional share of the burden of criminal aliens as well. In California, for example, counties are responsible for providing local law enforcement, detention, prosecution, probation and indigent defense services. While SCAAP only reimburses a portion of the costs directly related to the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens, most other indirect criminal justice expenditures, are fully borne by County taxpayers. Furthermore, while funding levels for SCAAP has remained about the same, the number of local governments applying for the awards has greatly increased over the past few years. In fiscal year 1996, local governments were reimbursed at a rate of approximately 60 percent for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors when only 90 jurisdictions applied for such reimbursement. For fiscal year 2000, 361 local jurisdictions applied for SCAAP funding, and reimbursement amounted to less than 40 percent of the costs incurred by these jurisdictions. SCAAP funding is especially important to Los Angeles County, which has a larger undocumented immigrant population than any single state except California, and operates the nation's largest local criminal justice system. Los Angeles County also has a violent crime rate which is far higher than the national average, and accounts for about one out of every 16 violent crimes committed in the United States. A recent study conducted by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department concluded that 23 percent of the County's inmate population consisted of criminal aliens in 2000. The study further found that the impact of criminal aliens on the criminal justice system in Los Angeles County had doubled from approximately $75 million in 1990 to more than $150 million in 1999. There are numerous other jurisdictions in California that are significantly affected by criminal aliens, including the border counties of San Diego and Imperial. Like Los Angeles County, these counties are not being adequately reimbursed for the costs associated with the incarceration of criminal aliens. In FY 1999 San Diego and Imperial counties spent a combined $56 million on law enforcement and indirect costs involving illegal aliens, whether criminal or not. These costs include criminal alien incarceration, justice and court costs, emergency medical care, autopsies, and burials of indigents. SCAAP compensated these counties for only $8 million or 15 percent of these costs which went solely to the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens. Border counties, however, are taking a hit in other areas: San Diego, has to spend 7 percent of its total public safety budget to cover other costs, including indigent defense, court and emergency medical costs; Imperial County expends 16 percent of its public safety budget to cover these costs. The structure of public financing in California makes it extremely difficult for local governments, especially county governments, to increase their sources of revenue. This problem is greatly exacerbated when they are also forced to pay for costs related to the Federal responsibility of controlling illegal immigration. Without the ability to raise taxes in any significant way to deal with the costs associated with criminal illegal aliens, counties are forced to cut back on other expenditures that would otherwise benefit the legal resident population. It is unfortunate, that at a time when Congress is concerned about unfunded mandates, the Administration has seen fit to proposed cutting SCAAP funding by almost $300 million for fiscal year 2002. Given the increasing numbers of illegal aliens that California and other states incarcerate each year, the Administration's decision in this regard is perplexing. If the Administration has its way, States and local counties would face an unfair set of choices with real consequences: either cut other essential local law enforcement programs and community services, or raise local taxes. Neither of these are acceptable options. I am pleased that this legislation has the support of such organizations as the National Association of Counties and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. I ask for unanimous consent that their letters in support of this measure be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the letter to President Bush, signed by a bipartisan group of Senators, expressing concern about the proposed cuts in SCAAP funding and the text of the bill be printed into the Record. I join my colleagues in introducing the SCAAP reauthorization bill today in hopes that it will go further to alleviate some of the fiscal hardships States and local counties incur when they must take on a Federal responsibility. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move it through the Senate.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, a month ago I voted in support of the budget resolution which passed the Senate and which contained $688 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002 and $1.18 trillion in tax cuts. I continue to support the elements of the tax package that made for half of the budget agreement. I support providing broad-based tax relief, eliminating the marriage penalty, and providing significant estate tax reform. And I believe that a stimulus package will be important in assuring that the economy does not slip into a recession. But it was the allocation of resources in the Senate budget resolution--particularly funding for education programs--that made it possible for me and many of my colleagues to support the tax cuts. Without the allocation of adequate spending to allow us to meet pressing domestic needs, especially in education, it seems to me that the other half of the understanding that made my support of the budget resolution is now missing. As I understand it, the conference report currently before the Senate, provides discretionary budget authority of $661.3 billion ion 2002, $27 billion below the amount agreed on by the Senate, and even below the amount that the CBO estimates is needed to keep pace with inflation. In fact, overall funding for all non-defense discretionary spending is $5.5 billion less than last year's level, adjusted for inflation. And on education, the bottom line appears to be that although the President's budget included an increase in education spending, the conference report which is currently before the Senate does not. There is no new funding for education in the conference report, and, in fact, the discretionary education totals in the budget resolution are nearly $1 billion less than the increases provided in the President's budget. There is no new funding provided for Head Start, and only minimal increases for Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. This is not an approach which is calibrated to ``leave no child behind.'' And while it is true that this conference report provides up to $6.2 billion in additional unallocated discretionary budget authority for funding domestic priorities beyond the President's budget request, which some have argued can all be used on education, discretionary education funding is only one of the priorities that this money will be needed for. This $6.2 billion is all that is available for all domestic priorities, not just education. I supported the Senate budget resolution because I thought that it represented a good balance at a time of unprecedented surpluses, providing both significant tax relief and making significant investments in our children and in our nation's future. This conference report, unfortunately, no longer contains that balance, and I find that I cannot, in good conscience, support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to require health insurance plans to cover screening tests for cancer. Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney and Sue Kelly are introducing a companion bill in the House today. The bill requires plans to cover screening tests including mammography and clinical breast examinations for breast cancer, ``pap'' tests and pelvic examinations for gynecological cancers, colorectal screening for colon and rectum cancers, and prostate screening for prostate cancer. To address future changes in scientific knowledge and medical practice, the bill allows the Secretary to change the requirements upon the Secretary's initiative or upon petition by a private individual or group. This provision is included because we do not yet have screening tests for many cancers, including brain tumors, leukemia Hodgkin's disease, and ovarian, liver and pancreatic cancers. These are often not detected until they produce symptoms, at which point the cancer may have advanced significantly. The American Cancer Society has described ``screening'' as ``the search for disease in persons who do not have disease or who do not recognize that they have symptoms of disease,'' Screening, as defined by the American medical Association, is ``health care services or products provided to an individual without apparent signs or symptoms of an illness, injury, or disease for the purpose of identifying or excluding an undiagnosed illness, disease or condition.'' One of the most common screening procedures is the mammogram, which millions of women get annually to determine if there are suspicious lesions or lumps in their breasts. A major way to reduce the number of cancer-related deaths and to increase survival is to increase cancer screening rates. The American Cancer Society, (ACS), predicts that 563,100 Americans will die of cancer this year. With appropriate screening, one-third of cancer deaths could be prevented, says ACS. Screening is the greatest single tool for finding cancers early. Cancers found early are cancers that do not grow or metastasize and are cancers that can be treated more successfully than those that are found late. Early detection can extend life, reduce treatment, and improve the quality of life. For example, people can have colon cancer long before they know it. They may not have any symptoms, Patients diagnosed by a colon cancer screening have a 90 percent chance of survival while patients not diagnosed until symptoms are apparent only have a 8 percent change of survival. Screening-accessible cancers, such as cancers of the breast, tongue, mouth, colon, rectum, cervix, prostate, testis, and skin, account for approximately half of all new cancer cases. If all Americans had regular cancer screenings, the five-year survival rate for cancers of the breast, tongue, mouth, colon, rectum, cervix, prostate, testis and skin could grow from 81 percent to 95 percent. Screening costs less than treatment. For example, Medicare pays from $100 to $400 for a colorectal cancer screening test. The cost of treating colorectal cancer from diagnosis to death costs over $51,000, according to the Institute of Medicine. To put cancer deaths in perspective, the number of Americans that die each year from cancer exceeds the total number of Americans lost to all wars that we have fought in this century. The American Cancer Society says that over 1.3 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the U.S. this year. Despite our increasing understanding of cancer, unless we act with urgency, the cost to the United States is likely to become unmanageable in the next 10-20 years. The incidence rate of cancer in 2010 is estimated to increase by 29 percent for new cases, and cancer deaths are estimated to increase by 25 percent. Cancer will surpass heart disease as the leading fatal disease in the U.S. by 2010. With our aging U.S. population, unless we act now to change current cancer incidence and death rates, according to the September 1998 report from the Cancer March Research. Task Force, we can expect over 2.0 million new cancer cases and 1.0 million deaths per year by 2025. Listen to these startling statistics: One out of every four deaths in the U.S. is caused by cancer. That more than 1,500 Americans will die each day from cancer. The National Cancer Institute estimates that approximately 8.2 million Americans alive today have a history of cancer. One out of every two men, one out of every three women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetime. One of the tragedies of cancer is that we have tools available which can prevent much unnecessary suffering and death. But cancer must be prevented and it must be found early. Deaths from colorectal cancer could be cut in half if most people over 50 had refuting screenings, for a disease that claims 56,700 a year. Experts cite several barriers that prevent many Americans from getting cancer screenings. These include a lack of insurance coverage, inadequate insurance coverage, inability to pay for screenings, a fear of discomfort, and the fact that most of American health care is complaint drive, not preventive. Insurance coverage is a major factor in whether people have preventive screenings. In other words, when screenings are covered by plans, people are more likely to get them. In California, screening rates for cervical and breast cancer are lower for uninsured women, who are less likely to have had a recent screening and more likely to have gone longer without being screened than women with coverage. In Medicare, for example, a study reported in Public Health Reports in October 1997, found that Medicare coverage increased the use of mammograms. According to an University of California-Los Angeles Center for Health Policy Research study from February 1998, in California women ages 18-64, 63 percent of uninsured women had not had a Pap test during 1997 versus 40 percent of insured women. Additionally, approximately 67 percent of uninsured Californian women ages 30-64 had not had a clinical breast examination during 1997, compared to 40 percent for insured women in the same age group. The bill we are introducing, by requiring plans to cover screenings, can reduce death, reduce suffering and reduce costs. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. A summary of the bill follows: Summary of the Comprehensive Cancer Screening Act of 2001 Requires private health insurance plans to cover cancer screenings consistent with professionally-developed and recognized medical guidelines, specifically: mammograms and clinical breast examinations (for breast cancer); ``pap'' tests and pelvic examinations (for gynecological cancers); colorectal screening (for colon and rectum cancers); prostate cancer screening (for prostate cancers). Authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Health an Human Services by regulation to modify or update the coverage requirements to reflect advances in medical practice or new scientific knowledge, for all cancers as screenings are developed, based on the Secretary's own initiative or upon the petition of an individual or organization. Prohibits health insurance plans from: denying eligibility for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of the bill; providing monetary payments to encourage individuals to accept less than the minimum protections available; penalizing or reducing reimbursement because a provider provides care consistent with these requirements; providing incentives to a provider to encourage the provider to provide care inconsistent with the requirements. Requires plans to provide subscribers full information on the extent of coverage, including covered benefits, cost- sharing requirements, and the extent of choice of providers.