Dianne Feinstein

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, 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.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the tragedy that is unfolding in Tibet and, alongside Senators Thomas, Leahy, Jeffords, Lieberman, Levin, Wellstone, Boxer, Akaka, Feingold, Kennedy, Murray, and Toricelli introduce the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001. This legislation is intended to safeguard the legitimate aspirations of the Tibetan people in their struggle to preserve their cultural and religious identity, and to encourage dialogue between the Dalai Lama or his representative and the Government of the People's Republic of China about the future of Tibet. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have worked for well over a decade, since before I came to the Senate, to find the right balance for establishing a lasting, constructive dialogue between Chinese and Tibetan leaders. I have tried to do so with the best interests of both sides in mind. For years, I have tried to build trust and improve communication between Chinese and Tibetan leaders. For me this is very personal. I first met the Dalai Lama in 1978. I have watched him, I have seen him, I have talked with him many, many times. The Dalai Lama has pledged, over and over again, that what he wants is ``one-country, two systems'' approach, whereby Tibetans could live their life, practice their religion, educate their children, and maintain their language with dignity and respect among the Han Chinese people. I have had the opportunity to speak, at great length, with the President of China and other senior members of the Chinese leadership about Tibet. For years, I believed compromise, good will, and moderation were the right tools for tearing down obstacles and building cooperation between the peoples of China and Tibet. I have even carried messages between the Dalai Lama and the President of China seeking to bring the two together. In 1997, for example, I carried a letter from the Dalai Lama to President Jiang which, in part, stated that ``I have, for my part, openly and in confidence conveyed to you that I am not demanding independence for Tibet, which I believe is fundamental to the Chinese government.'' The letter also suggested that the Dalai Lama and President Jiang meet to discuss relations between the Tibetans and the Chinese government, and the ``maintenance and enhancement of those cultural, civic, and religious institutions that are so important to the Tibetan people and others throughout the world.'' What I got back was essentially that the Dalai Lama was just a splittist and that his word was not good. I, for one, believe he is sincere, in his non-violence, in his dedication to being a monk, in his concern for the Tibetan people, heritage, and religion. Yet Beijing has consistently ignored promises to preserve indigenous Tibetan political, cultural and religious systems. Indeed, Beijing has not kept its commitments made twice by China's paramount leaders--Deng Xiaoping in 1979 and Jiang Zemin in 1997. I believe that the time has come for the United States government to increase our attention to enhanced Tibetan cultural and religious autonomy. And I feel that I can no longer, in conscience, sit quietly and allow the situation in Tibet, the wiping away of Tibetan culture from the Tibetan Plateau, in fact, to deteriorate further. In many ways, introducing this legislation, especially now, is a very difficult step for me. I have a strong, abiding interest in good relations between the United States and China, and I am fully aware that in the current environment there will be many in China who would rather dismiss this legislation out of hand than work together to address the underlying issues. But, the many reasonable overtures made by me, many of my colleagues in Congress, and other individuals and organizations throughout the world to work together with China over the past several years to address this issue have thus far failed to persuade Beijing to reconsider its approach to Tibet. And there does not appear to be a ``good time'' in U.S.-China relations to introduce this legislation. So I would say this to my friends in China that as they consider this legislation and its intent: I take this action now because I and many of my colleagues are at the point where we feel that this legislation is necessary to open Beijing's eyes to a simple truth: honoring the basic rights of minorities in China is not a threat to China's sovereignty, and running roughshod over its own citizens is not in China's best interest. I say this because many senior Chinese leaders, including Mao Zedong, Zhou En Lai, Deng Xiaoping, Hu Yaobang, and Jiang Zemin have acknowledged as much in the past. And I say this because the aspirations of the Tibetan people are not for independence, but for autonomy and respect for their cultural and religious institutions. As both the letter I conveyed to President Jiang in 1997 and the Dalai Lama's statement on the 41st Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising stated, ``my approach envisages that Tibet enjoy genuine autonomy within the framework of the People's Republic of China . . . such a mutually beneficial solution would contribute to the stability and unity of China, their two most important priorities, while at the same time the Tibetans would be ensured of their basic right to preserve their own civilization and to protect the delicate environment of the Tibetan plateau.'' And I say this because I recognize that China is a rising great nation, with a rich culture and long history. Careful reading of its history shows that China, like the United States, draws real strength from its diversity, from its cultural, religious, and ethnic multiplicity. But, I am now convinced China's leadership will not modify its behavior in Tibet until it becomes crystal clear that China's behavior risks tarnishing its international image and burdening China with tangible costs. Unfortnately, the situation in Tibet today is dreadful, and promises only to get worse. Beijing is pursuing policies that threaten the Tibetan people's very existence and distinct identity, and Chinese security forces hold the region in an iron grip. As Secretary Powell stated in his confirmation hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee. ``It is a very difficult situation right now with the Chinese sending more and more Han Chinese in to settle Tibet.'' Chinese settlers are flooding into Tibet, displacing ethnic Tibetans, guiding development in ways that clash with traditional Tibetan needs and values, and monopolizing local resources. I do not want to debate the complex historical interactions that characterize the history of relations between China and Tibet. I am not interested in arguing about events in the past. What I am interested in is the quality of life and the right to exist as these concepts apply to Tibetans and Chinese today. And, without question, a strong case can be made that Tibet has fared poorly under Chinese stewardship during the past fifty years: Beijing has consistently ignored promises to preserve indigenous Tibetan political, cultural and religious systems and institutions, despite having formally guaranteed these rights in the 1951 Seventeen Point Agreement that incorporated Tibet into China. And, as I stated earlier, Beijing has never seriously moved itself to carry through on promises to find solutions to the Tibet problem, promises made at least twice by China's paramount leaders, Deng Xiaoping in 1979 and Jiang Zemin in 1997. Tibet has been the scene of many grassroots movements protesting unwelcome Chinese intrusions and policies since 1956, when Beijing first began seriously disrupting Tibetan society by forcefully imposing so-called ``democratic reforms'' in the region. China's response to Tibetan protests has typically been violent, excessive, and unrestrained. In 1959, Beijing viciously and bloodily suppressed the massive popular protest known as the Lhasa Uprising. Indeed, it is estimated that nearly 1.2 million Tibetans died at the hands of Chinese forces during the worst years of violence, between 1956 and 1976. International commissions and third-party courts of opinion, most notably the International Commission of Jurists and numerous United Nations resolutions, consistently pointed fingers at China as a violator in Tibet of fundamental human rights and of the basic principles of international law. According to the 2000 State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Chinese Government authorities continued to commit numerous serious human rights abuses in Tibet, including instances of torture, arbitrary arrest, detention without public trial, and lengthy detention of Tibetan nationalists for peacefully expressing political or religious views. Tight controls on religion and on other fundamental freedoms continued and intensified during the year. And, as Human Rights Watch/Asia reports, China's activities are targeting not just the present, but Tibet's future as well: Children in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, are being discouraged from expressing religious faith and practicing devotional activities as part of the authorities' campaign in middle schools and some primary schools. Children aged between seven and thirteen in schools targeted by the campaign are being told that Tibetan Buddhist practice is `backward behavior' and an obstacle to progress. In some schools, children are given detention of forced to pay fines when they fail to observe a ban on wearing traditional Buddhist ``protection cords.'' Corrupt officials. Oppressive police tactics and midnight arrests. Seizure and imprisonment without formal charges. Beatings and unexplained deaths while in custody. The steady grinding down of Tibetan cultural and religious institutions. The list of abuses in Tibet goes on and on. There is no need for me to repeat them here. I say all this as one who wants to work with China's leadership to help find a solution to this, and other, problems, and see a positive relationship between the U.S. and China, and between the people of China and the people of Tibet. I want to be a positive force for bringing Tibetan and Chinese leaders to the table for face-to-face dialogue. It is not my intention with this legislation to merely point fingers and lay blame. My intent in introducing the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001 is not to stigmatize or chastise China. My intent in introducing the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001 is to place the full faith of the United States government behind efforts to preserve the distinct cultural, religious and ethnic autonomy of the Tibetan people. Specifically, the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001: Outlines Tibet's unique historical, cultural and religious heritage and describes the efforts by the United States, the Dalai Lama, and others to initiate dialogue with China on the status of Tibet. Codifies the position of Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues at the Department of State, assures that relevant U.S. government reports will list Tibet as a separate section under China and that the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China will hold Beijing to acceptable standards of behavior in Tibet. Authorizes $2.75 million for humanitarian assistance for Tibetan refugees, scholarships for Tibetan exiles, and human rights activities by Tibetan non-governmental organizations. Establishes U.S. policy goals for international economic assistance to and in Tibet to ensure that ethnic Tibetans benefit from development policies in Tibet. Calls on the Secretary of State to make best efforts to establish an office in Lhasa, the Capital of Tibet. Provides U.S. support for consideration of Tibet at the United Nations. Ensures that Tibetan language training is available for foreign service officers. Highlights concerns about the lack of religious freedom in Tibet by calling on China to cease activities which attack the fundamental characteristics of religious freedom in Tibet. In addition, the Tibet Policy Act expresses the Sense of the Congress that: The President and the Secretary of State should initiate steps to encourage China to enter into negotiations with the Dalai Lama or his representatives on the question of Tibet and the cultural and religious autonomy of the Tibetan people. That the President and the Secretary of State should request the immediate and unconditional release of political or religious prisoners in Tibet; seek access for international humanitarian organizations to prisons in Tibet; and seek the immediate medical parole of Ngawang Choephel and other Tibetan prisoners known to be in ill-health. The United States will seek ways to support economic development, cultural preservation, health care, and education and environmental sustainability for Tibetans inside Tibet. The Tibetan Policy Act does not aim to punish anyone. I do not believe that threats or force will sway Beijing from its present course. But, I am convinced that we must send a clear message. I am under no illusion that passing the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001 will immediately change the situation in Tibet. Nor am I under any illusion that changing current conditions in Tibet will be an easy process. It will be a long and difficult process requiring patience and perseverance. But I am hopeful that better, more effective efforts on our part and better coordination with like-minded members of the international community will encourage China to change its thinking and modify its behavior towards Tibet. To paraphrase an old Chinese proverb: you have to take a first step to start any journey. This legislation, I hope, is a first step in bringing together the Dalai Lama or his representative and the Chinese government to discuss the future of Tibet and to take action to safeguard the distinct cultural, religious, and social identity of the Tibetan people. I urge my colleagues here in the Senate, as well as my friends in China, to join with me in taking it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased, along with Senator Gregg, to introduce the ``Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act.'' This legislation combats identity theft by making it harder for criminals to steal another person's Social Security number, our de facto national identifier. The United States faces a growing identity theft crisis. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates 350,000 cases of identity theft occur each year. That's one case every two minutes. The Federal Trade Commission, FTC, reports that identity theft is the fastest growing crime in the country. If recent trends continue, reports of identity theft to the FTC 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. What is identity theft? Identity theft occurs when one person uses another person's Social Security number, birth date, driver's license number, or other identifying information to obtain credit cards, car loans, phone plans or other services in the victim's name. Identity thieves can get personal information in a myriad of ways, stealing wallets and purses containing identification cards, using personal information found on the Internet, stealing mail, including pre-approved credit offers and credit statements, fraudulently obtaining credit reports or getting personnel records at work. Of all sources of identity theft, the most common trigger of the crime is the misappropriation of a person's Social Security number. Reports to the Social Security Administration of the Social Security number misuse have increased from 7,868 in 1997 to 46,839 in 2000, an astonishing increase of over 500 percent. Let me give some examples of victims whose identities were stolen after a thief got hold of their Social Security number: 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. Three youths robbed a young woman on a San Francisco MUNI bus. The thieves stole her driver's license and social security card. While the victim was traveling over the Christmas holiday, the thieves represented themselves as her and drained her bank accounts, applied for cell phones, credit cards and other accounts. They also redirected her mail to a general delivery post to the Tenderloin. 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. 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. This bill proposes concrete measures to get Social Security numbers beyond the reach of criminals. The bill prohibits anyone from selling or displaying a Social Security number to the general public without the Social Security number holder's consent. No longer will identity thieves or stalkers, like the man who killed Amy Boyer, be able to log anonymously onto a website and obtain another person's Social Security number. Information brokers will no longer be able to sell Social Security numbers to anyone who asks for a nominal fee. The bill also requires Federal, State, and local governments to take affirmative steps to protect Social Security numbers. Before giving out records such as bankruptcy filings, liens, or birth certificates to the general public, government entities will need to redact the Social Security number. Thus, identity thieves can no longer mine Social Security numbers from county clerks' offices or state records offices. In addition, the bill prohibits States from using Social Security numbers as identifying numbers on drivers licenses or printing Social Security numbers on checks. Privacy advocates contend half of all identity theft cases stem from lost or stolen wallets. Public entities should not put individuals at risk by requiring them to carry cards which contain Social Security numbers on them. In addition, the bill will empower individuals who wish to keep their Social Security numbers confidential and out of public circulation. Companies will be prohibited from denying an individual a good or service if he refuses to give out his Social Security number. In recognition of the needs of the business community, this legislation permits businesses to use Social Security numbers with appropriate safeguards for internal uses or in transactions with other businesses. I want to state up front that the business-to-business exception is an area of significant compromise. As a matter of policy, I believe that a Social Security number, like other sensitive elements of personal information, should be under the control of the person to whom it belongs. I also understand that many businesses, unfortunately, rely extensively on Social Security numbers to conduct a range of transactions. Some of these transactions include checking databases to ensure the identity of a customer or purchaser. The cost of changing to other identifiers can be significant. One California health care company, for example, conducted an internal study on how much it would cost to switch from Social Security numbers to another customer identifier. The price tag was over $25 million. The bill directs the Attorney General to implement rules to permit legitimate business-to-business transactions, but prevent abuse. The Attorney general must consider several factors in the rulemaking: (i) The need for appropriate safeguards so that employees cannot misappropriate Social Security numbers, and (ii) The need to implement procedures to prevent identity thieves, stalkers, and others with ill intent from posing as legitimate businesses to obtain Social Security numbers. In drafting the rule, the Attorney General must ensure that any business-to-businesss exception is consistent with other privacy laws, including Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Thus, the bill would be consistent with a district court ruling issued last week that recognized limits on financial institutions' use of Social Security numbers. In Individual Reference Services Group v. Federal Trade Commission, the court held Gramm-Leach-Bliley requires banks to give consumers the opportunity to opt-out before their Social Security number is sold. I would like to submit into the record a copy of a Los Angeles Times article describing the decision. I would like to thank Senator Gregg for working so hard with me to draft this legislation. I am pleased to report that this bill has garnered the support of the Attorney General of California, Bill Lockyer, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, Crimes Victims United of California, the Los Angeles Coalition of Crime Victim Advocates, and the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau. Over 350,000 people a year are victims of identity theft, and the numbers continue to grow. Passing the ``Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act'' will help curb this crime by restricting criminal access to Social Security numbers. I look forward to working with my colleagues in getting this common- sense bill enacted into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the tragedy that is unfolding in Tibet and, alongside Senators Thomas, Leahy, Jeffords, Lieberman, Levin, Wellstone, Boxer, Akaka, Feingold, Kennedy, Murray, and Toricelli introduce the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001. This legislation is intended to safeguard the legitimate aspirations of the Tibetan people in their struggle to preserve their cultural and religious identity, and to encourage dialogue between the Dalai Lama or his representative and the Government of the People's Republic of China about the future of Tibet. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have worked for well over a decade, since before I came to the Senate, to find the right balance for establishing a lasting, constructive dialogue between Chinese and Tibetan leaders. I have tried to do so with the best interests of both sides in mind. For years, I have tried to build trust and improve communication between Chinese and Tibetan leaders. For me this is very personal. I first met the Dalai Lama in 1978. I have watched him, I have seen him, I have talked with him many, many times. The Dalai Lama has pledged, over and over again, that what he wants is ``one-country, two systems'' approach, whereby Tibetans could live their life, practice their religion, educate their children, and maintain their language with dignity and respect among the Han Chinese people. I have had the opportunity to speak, at great length, with the President of China and other senior members of the Chinese leadership about Tibet. For years, I believed compromise, good will, and moderation were the right tools for tearing down obstacles and building cooperation between the peoples of China and Tibet. I have even carried messages between the Dalai Lama and the President of China seeking to bring the two together. In 1997, for example, I carried a letter from the Dalai Lama to President Jiang which, in part, stated that ``I have, for my part, openly and in confidence conveyed to you that I am not demanding independence for Tibet, which I believe is fundamental to the Chinese government.'' The letter also suggested that the Dalai Lama and President Jiang meet to discuss relations between the Tibetans and the Chinese government, and the ``maintenance and enhancement of those cultural, civic, and religious institutions that are so important to the Tibetan people and others throughout the world.'' What I got back was essentially that the Dalai Lama was just a splittist and that his word was not good. I, for one, believe he is sincere, in his non-violence, in his dedication to being a monk, in his concern for the Tibetan people, heritage, and religion. Yet Beijing has consistently ignored promises to preserve indigenous Tibetan political, cultural and religious systems. Indeed, Beijing has not kept its commitments made twice by China's paramount leaders--Deng Xiaoping in 1979 and Jiang Zemin in 1997. I believe that the time has come for the United States government to increase our attention to enhanced Tibetan cultural and religious autonomy. And I feel that I can no longer, in conscience, sit quietly and allow the situation in Tibet, the wiping away of Tibetan culture from the Tibetan Plateau, in fact, to deteriorate further. In many ways, introducing this legislation, especially now, is a very difficult step for me. I have a strong, abiding interest in good relations between the United States and China, and I am fully aware that in the current environment there will be many in China who would rather dismiss this legislation out of hand than work together to address the underlying issues. But, the many reasonable overtures made by me, many of my colleagues in Congress, and other individuals and organizations throughout the world to work together with China over the past several years to address this issue have thus far failed to persuade Beijing to reconsider its approach to Tibet. And there does not appear to be a ``good time'' in U.S.-China relations to introduce this legislation. So I would say this to my friends in China that as they consider this legislation and its intent: I take this action now because I and many of my colleagues are at the point where we feel that this legislation is necessary to open Beijing's eyes to a simple truth: honoring the basic rights of minorities in China is not a threat to China's sovereignty, and running roughshod over its own citizens is not in China's best interest. I say this because many senior Chinese leaders, including Mao Zedong, Zhou En Lai, Deng Xiaoping, Hu Yaobang, and Jiang Zemin have acknowledged as much in the past. And I say this because the aspirations of the Tibetan people are not for independence, but for autonomy and respect for their cultural and religious institutions. As both the letter I conveyed to President Jiang in 1997 and the Dalai Lama's statement on the 41st Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising stated, ``my approach envisages that Tibet enjoy genuine autonomy within the framework of the People's Republic of China . . . such a mutually beneficial solution would contribute to the stability and unity of China, their two most important priorities, while at the same time the Tibetans would be ensured of their basic right to preserve their own civilization and to protect the delicate environment of the Tibetan plateau.'' And I say this because I recognize that China is a rising great nation, with a rich culture and long history. Careful reading of its history shows that China, like the United States, draws real strength from its diversity, from its cultural, religious, and ethnic multiplicity. But, I am now convinced China's leadership will not modify its behavior in Tibet until it becomes crystal clear that China's behavior risks tarnishing its international image and burdening China with tangible costs. Unfortnately, the situation in Tibet today is dreadful, and promises only to get worse. Beijing is pursuing policies that threaten the Tibetan people's very existence and distinct identity, and Chinese security forces hold the region in an iron grip. As Secretary Powell stated in his confirmation hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee. ``It is a very difficult situation right now with the Chinese sending more and more Han Chinese in to settle Tibet.'' Chinese settlers are flooding into Tibet, displacing ethnic Tibetans, guiding development in ways that clash with traditional Tibetan needs and values, and monopolizing local resources. I do not want to debate the complex historical interactions that characterize the history of relations between China and Tibet. I am not interested in arguing about events in the past. What I am interested in is the quality of life and the right to exist as these concepts apply to Tibetans and Chinese today. And, without question, a strong case can be made that Tibet has fared poorly under Chinese stewardship during the past fifty years: Beijing has consistently ignored promises to preserve indigenous Tibetan political, cultural and religious systems and institutions, despite having formally guaranteed these rights in the 1951 Seventeen Point Agreement that incorporated Tibet into China. And, as I stated earlier, Beijing has never seriously moved itself to carry through on promises to find solutions to the Tibet problem, promises made at least twice by China's paramount leaders, Deng Xiaoping in 1979 and Jiang Zemin in 1997. Tibet has been the scene of many grassroots movements protesting unwelcome Chinese intrusions and policies since 1956, when Beijing first began seriously disrupting Tibetan society by forcefully imposing so-called ``democratic reforms'' in the region. China's response to Tibetan protests has typically been violent, excessive, and unrestrained. In 1959, Beijing viciously and bloodily suppressed the massive popular protest known as the Lhasa Uprising. Indeed, it is estimated that nearly 1.2 million Tibetans died at the hands of Chinese forces during the worst years of violence, between 1956 and 1976. International commissions and third-party courts of opinion, most notably the International Commission of Jurists and numerous United Nations resolutions, consistently pointed fingers at China as a violator in Tibet of fundamental human rights and of the basic principles of international law. According to the 2000 State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Chinese Government authorities continued to commit numerous serious human rights abuses in Tibet, including instances of torture, arbitrary arrest, detention without public trial, and lengthy detention of Tibetan nationalists for peacefully expressing political or religious views. Tight controls on religion and on other fundamental freedoms continued and intensified during the year. And, as Human Rights Watch/Asia reports, China's activities are targeting not just the present, but Tibet's future as well: Children in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, are being discouraged from expressing religious faith and practicing devotional activities as part of the authorities' campaign in middle schools and some primary schools. Children aged between seven and thirteen in schools targeted by the campaign are being told that Tibetan Buddhist practice is `backward behavior' and an obstacle to progress. In some schools, children are given detention of forced to pay fines when they fail to observe a ban on wearing traditional Buddhist ``protection cords.'' Corrupt officials. Oppressive police tactics and midnight arrests. Seizure and imprisonment without formal charges. Beatings and unexplained deaths while in custody. The steady grinding down of Tibetan cultural and religious institutions. The list of abuses in Tibet goes on and on. There is no need for me to repeat them here. I say all this as one who wants to work with China's leadership to help find a solution to this, and other, problems, and see a positive relationship between the U.S. and China, and between the people of China and the people of Tibet. I want to be a positive force for bringing Tibetan and Chinese leaders to the table for face-to-face dialogue. It is not my intention with this legislation to merely point fingers and lay blame. My intent in introducing the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001 is not to stigmatize or chastise China. My intent in introducing the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001 is to place the full faith of the United States government behind efforts to preserve the distinct cultural, religious and ethnic autonomy of the Tibetan people. Specifically, the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001: Outlines Tibet's unique historical, cultural and religious heritage and describes the efforts by the United States, the Dalai Lama, and others to initiate dialogue with China on the status of Tibet. Codifies the position of Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues at the Department of State, assures that relevant U.S. government reports will list Tibet as a separate section under China and that the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China will hold Beijing to acceptable standards of behavior in Tibet. Authorizes $2.75 million for humanitarian assistance for Tibetan refugees, scholarships for Tibetan exiles, and human rights activities by Tibetan non-governmental organizations. Establishes U.S. policy goals for international economic assistance to and in Tibet to ensure that ethnic Tibetans benefit from development policies in Tibet. Calls on the Secretary of State to make best efforts to establish an office in Lhasa, the Capital of Tibet. Provides U.S. support for consideration of Tibet at the United Nations. Ensures that Tibetan language training is available for foreign service officers. Highlights concerns about the lack of religious freedom in Tibet by calling on China to cease activities which attack the fundamental characteristics of religious freedom in Tibet. In addition, the Tibet Policy Act expresses the Sense of the Congress that: The President and the Secretary of State should initiate steps to encourage China to enter into negotiations with the Dalai Lama or his representatives on the question of Tibet and the cultural and religious autonomy of the Tibetan people. That the President and the Secretary of State should request the immediate and unconditional release of political or religious prisoners in Tibet; seek access for international humanitarian organizations to prisons in Tibet; and seek the immediate medical parole of Ngawang Choephel and other Tibetan prisoners known to be in ill-health. The United States will seek ways to support economic development, cultural preservation, health care, and education and environmental sustainability for Tibetans inside Tibet. The Tibetan Policy Act does not aim to punish anyone. I do not believe that threats or force will sway Beijing from its present course. But, I am convinced that we must send a clear message. I am under no illusion that passing the Tibetan Policy Act of 2001 will immediately change the situation in Tibet. Nor am I under any illusion that changing current conditions in Tibet will be an easy process. It will be a long and difficult process requiring patience and perseverance. But I am hopeful that better, more effective efforts on our part and better coordination with like-minded members of the international community will encourage China to change its thinking and modify its behavior towards Tibet. To paraphrase an old Chinese proverb: you have to take a first step to start any journey. This legislation, I hope, is a first step in bringing together the Dalai Lama or his representative and the Chinese government to discuss the future of Tibet and to take action to safeguard the distinct cultural, religious, and social identity of the Tibetan people. I urge my colleagues here in the Senate, as well as my friends in China, to join with me in taking it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased, along with Senator Gregg, to introduce the ``Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act.'' This legislation combats identity theft by making it harder for criminals to steal another person's Social Security number, our de facto national identifier. The United States faces a growing identity theft crisis. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates 350,000 cases of identity theft occur each year. That's one case every two minutes. The Federal Trade Commission, FTC, reports that identity theft is the fastest growing crime in the country. If recent trends continue, reports of identity theft to the FTC 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. What is identity theft? Identity theft occurs when one person uses another person's Social Security number, birth date, driver's license number, or other identifying information to obtain credit cards, car loans, phone plans or other services in the victim's name. Identity thieves can get personal information in a myriad of ways, stealing wallets and purses containing identification cards, using personal information found on the Internet, stealing mail, including pre-approved credit offers and credit statements, fraudulently obtaining credit reports or getting personnel records at work. Of all sources of identity theft, the most common trigger of the crime is the misappropriation of a person's Social Security number. Reports to the Social Security Administration of the Social Security number misuse have increased from 7,868 in 1997 to 46,839 in 2000, an astonishing increase of over 500 percent. Let me give some examples of victims whose identities were stolen after a thief got hold of their Social Security number: 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. Three youths robbed a young woman on a San Francisco MUNI bus. The thieves stole her driver's license and social security card. While the victim was traveling over the Christmas holiday, the thieves represented themselves as her and drained her bank accounts, applied for cell phones, credit cards and other accounts. They also redirected her mail to a general delivery post to the Tenderloin. 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. 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. This bill proposes concrete measures to get Social Security numbers beyond the reach of criminals. The bill prohibits anyone from selling or displaying a Social Security number to the general public without the Social Security number holder's consent. No longer will identity thieves or stalkers, like the man who killed Amy Boyer, be able to log anonymously onto a website and obtain another person's Social Security number. Information brokers will no longer be able to sell Social Security numbers to anyone who asks for a nominal fee. The bill also requires Federal, State, and local governments to take affirmative steps to protect Social Security numbers. Before giving out records such as bankruptcy filings, liens, or birth certificates to the general public, government entities will need to redact the Social Security number. Thus, identity thieves can no longer mine Social Security numbers from county clerks' offices or state records offices. In addition, the bill prohibits States from using Social Security numbers as identifying numbers on drivers licenses or printing Social Security numbers on checks. Privacy advocates contend half of all identity theft cases stem from lost or stolen wallets. Public entities should not put individuals at risk by requiring them to carry cards which contain Social Security numbers on them. In addition, the bill will empower individuals who wish to keep their Social Security numbers confidential and out of public circulation. Companies will be prohibited from denying an individual a good or service if he refuses to give out his Social Security number. In recognition of the needs of the business community, this legislation permits businesses to use Social Security numbers with appropriate safeguards for internal uses or in transactions with other businesses. I want to state up front that the business-to-business exception is an area of significant compromise. As a matter of policy, I believe that a Social Security number, like other sensitive elements of personal information, should be under the control of the person to whom it belongs. I also understand that many businesses, unfortunately, rely extensively on Social Security numbers to conduct a range of transactions. Some of these transactions include checking databases to ensure the identity of a customer or purchaser. The cost of changing to other identifiers can be significant. One California health care company, for example, conducted an internal study on how much it would cost to switch from Social Security numbers to another customer identifier. The price tag was over $25 million. The bill directs the Attorney General to implement rules to permit legitimate business-to-business transactions, but prevent abuse. The Attorney general must consider several factors in the rulemaking: (i) The need for appropriate safeguards so that employees cannot misappropriate Social Security numbers, and (ii) The need to implement procedures to prevent identity thieves, stalkers, and others with ill intent from posing as legitimate businesses to obtain Social Security numbers. In drafting the rule, the Attorney General must ensure that any business-to-businesss exception is consistent with other privacy laws, including Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Thus, the bill would be consistent with a district court ruling issued last week that recognized limits on financial institutions' use of Social Security numbers. In Individual Reference Services Group v. Federal Trade Commission, the court held Gramm-Leach-Bliley requires banks to give consumers the opportunity to opt-out before their Social Security number is sold. I would like to submit into the record a copy of a Los Angeles Times article describing the decision. I would like to thank Senator Gregg for working so hard with me to draft this legislation. I am pleased to report that this bill has garnered the support of the Attorney General of California, Bill Lockyer, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, Crimes Victims United of California, the Los Angeles Coalition of Crime Victim Advocates, and the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau. Over 350,000 people a year are victims of identity theft, and the numbers continue to grow. Passing the ``Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act'' will help curb this crime by restricting criminal access to Social Security numbers. I look forward to working with my colleagues in getting this common- sense bill enacted into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman very much.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing an amendment to authorize school districts to use teacher training funds authorized under the bill to create master teachers. The bill before us authorizes $3 billion for FY 2002 Title II, teacher training. Under this amendment, school districts could use some of these funds to create master teacher positions. If, for example, $200 million were spent on master teachers, 6,600 master teacher positions could be created if each master teacher were paid $30,000 on top of the current average teacher's salary. What is this all about? Why am I doing it? One of the things I have discovered is it is difficult to keep good teachers in the classroom. The Senator from Vermont is in the Chamber. I can't tell him how many times I have given an award to a teacher of the year, or a teacher of the month, and they accept it and say they are leaving the classroom. I ask: Why are you leaving the classroom? Because I got a better job in Silicon Valley; or I am going to become an administrator. When you ask why they are going to become an administrator, it is because of more money. The average teacher's salary is about $40,000 a year. In California, it is $45,000 a year. So you can work 10 or 15 years for that amount of money, but you can become an administrator at $65,000 or $70,000 a year and support your family. So the idea occurred to me, what if we were to have a master teacher program and allow teachers who have taught in the classrooms for 5 years--if they have certain credentials--to become a master teacher and receive the salary equal to that of an administrator? What would the criteria be? Under this amendment, the teacher would be credentialed, have at least 5 years of teaching experience, and be adjudged to be an excellent teacher by administrators and teachers who are knowledgeable about this teacher's performance. The teacher would have to be currently teaching and willing to enter into a contract to teach for another 5 years. The master teacher, then, would become a mentor teacher, would help other teachers in improving instruction and strengthening teacher skills, would mentor less-experienced teachers, help develop curriculum, and provide other professional development. What is interesting is that 25 percent of beginning teachers do not teach more than 2 years. Nearly 40 percent leave in the first 5 years. For my State, this is a huge problem. We have 284,030 teachers currently, and in the next 10 years we have to hire an additional 300,000 teachers. California's rate of student enrollment is three times the national average. Therefore, we have to hire 26,000 new teachers every year. If they teach 2 years, and we lose them because they can get a better job elsewhere, or we lose a good teacher who has taught 6 or 7 or 8 or 10 years because that teacher wants to become an administrator to make a higher salary, we lose teaching skills in the classroom. So I thought we could try to see if these excellent teachers would work in the classrooms for an additional 5 years, be willing to mentor other teachers, be credentialed teachers, and stay in the classrooms and become master teachers to help other teachers. There are some existing mentoring programs. I worked earlier with Adam Urbanski, a teacher in Rochester, NY, who pointed out to me very clearly how mentoring programs keep teachers in the classroom. It occurred to me that master teachers could produce very good dividends. One of the key things about all of this is that we expect so much from our teachers and we pay them so little. I think California is one of the highest cost-of-living areas in the Nation. Yet teachers earn $45,000. Their salary is limited. I would like to say to the chairman of the committee, who is in this Chamber, it is my understanding that the amendment is acceptable on both sides. I am very pleased. I intend to follow this closely. I hope we have a whole series of master teachers one day that burgeon throughout the Nation, that lead the way in keeping good teachers in the classroom, to increase teachers' salaries, and to increase the performance of the average classroom teacher. I thank very much the chairman of the committee for his indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of John R. Bolton as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. In many ways, Mr. Bolton's record, writing, and views lead me to believe that he is the wrong man at the wrong time for this position. In considering this nomination I am most troubled by the fact that Mr. Bolton's views appear to be antithetical to both arms control and international law. Although he has supported some security treaties, on the whole he has been highly critical of most of the treaties that comprise the foundations for nuclear arms control and nonproliferation. When the Senate voted down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, for example, it is my understanding that Mr. Bolton applauded the defeat of ``the illusionary protection of unenforceable treaties''. Arms control treaties and international efforts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction are not the only way to address these threats, the United States must have other means and capabilities as well, but they have a place in U.S. foreign policy, and can play a useful role in safeguarding American interests. The CTBT, START, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, the Non- Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Missile Technology Control Regime, alongside many other treaties negotiated by Presidents of both parties, can and do play an important role in reducing the risk to the United States posed by the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Likewise, Mr. Bolton has made comments that suggest that international treaties do not have the force of law, and raising questions about the commitment that states should have to their treaty obligations. He has written that ``while treaties may well be politically or even morally binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not `law' as we apprehend the term.'' In arguing that the U.S. has no obligation to pay our share of the United Nations dues Mr. Bolton argued that ``Treaties are `law' only for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties are simply `political' obligations.'' This approach suggests that international treaties are unenforceable; that signatories may pick and choose the sections they will adhere to; and that the United States, by virtue of our superpower status, may insist on other countries fulfilling their treaty obligations while reserving the right to ignore our own. But how can the United States hope to compel other countries, especially states like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to respect international law and norms on non-proliferation if the top State Department official for arms control does not? Mr. Bolton has also suggested that ``There is no such thing as the United Nations . . .''. How effective can United States leadership be in the international community if these views guide U.S. policy? In some ways, Mr. President, I think the recent loss of the U.S. seat on the Human Rights Commission provides us an early indication of what answer we can expect from the rest of the international community to that question. There are also questions about Mr. Bolton's approach to a range of other issues on the international agenda which, as Under Secretary and a senior member of the State Department decision-making apparatus, he will play a role. Mr. Bolton's views on Taiwan appear to be out of step with thirty years of bipartisan U.S. policy as well as the views of the Bush Administration. He has stated that he believes Taiwan to be a state, and argued for full diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and an end to the ``One China'' policy. Over the past thirty years the Taiwan Relations Act, the ``One China'' policy, the three Joint Communiques, and a policy of purposeful ambiguity with regards to U.S. defense commitments to Taiwan have served U.S. interests, and those of Taiwan, extremely well. It is an approach that has provided the United States with both leverage and maneuvering room in our relations with both China and Taiwan, and has had the support of six Presidents from both parties as well as broad bipartisan backing in Congress. These are but a few examples of the sort of worrisome issues which lead me to believe that Mr. Bolton is not the right person to serve as Under Secretary. The questions that have been raised about Mr. Bolton's views on a range of arms control, international law, and other national security issues strongly suggests that Mr. Bolton does not meet the necessary threshold for confirmation by the Senate as Under Secretary of State. I do not make this statement lightly, but I do so with the recognition that the Senate has the right, the obligation, to provide advice and consent to the President's appointments. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the confirmation of Mr. Bolton.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I associate myself with the comments made by the Senator from Connecticut. If the budget comes back as reports indicate the conference may send it back, I, who voted for it the first time, will not be able to vote to support that budget conference report. The Senator from Connecticut has very well made the points. For me, it is a profound disappointment that something I thought we had worked out and was understood is going to be reversed and come back in a conference report which is, for most of us, unacceptable. Mr. President, I know the hour of 2 o'clock is approaching. I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended just so I may finish my comments today.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last week I rose to speak about the businesses and consumers in California and the West who are facing exorbitant energy bills that could threaten the very livelihood of their businesses. These are people who have been hurt by the crisis. Today I want to talk about those who have benefited from the crisis. One can look at this chart and you can see something is wrong because the total cost of power in California in 1999 was $7 billion, the total cost in the year 2000 was $32 billion, and the projected cost in the year 2001 is $65 billion. That kind of a hike does not happen without someone profiting. Electricity is not an automobile. It is not a fur coat. It is not a home. Electricity is a basic staple of human life. If the street lights do not function, there are accidents. If people cannot run their respirators, death may result. California is now in a position where businesses are laying off employees, businesses are closing. I cannot emphasize enough how people are hurt by this. Let us look at an example of high power prices by taking one random day this past winter: December 15, 2000. On this day, electricity prices ranged from $429 a megawatt hour to $565 a megawatt hour, depending on the time of day. What makes that significant? Look back 1 year to 1999, same day, same month. The price was $12 a megawatt hour to $29 a megawatt hour. These are wholesale prices. This represents in 1 year an increase of 3,500 percent and 1,900 percent, respectively. If we want to take a look at prices in a more recent month, let us look at February 2001. Wholesale energy costs in February averaged $361 a megawatt hour, more than 12 times the average wholesale cost of $30 a megawatt hour in February of 2000. I mentioned earlier that the utilities, as a product of a very flawed State bill, had to divest themselves of their power-generating facilities. To show the difference, consider that when Southern California Edison had its generating facilities, it was selling power at $30 a megawatt hour. When Edison sold it to an out-of-State generator, the generator immediately turned around and charged $300 a megawatt hour. That is what is happening. Clearly, California's deregulation has turned out to be an abysmal failure for the State, for consumers, for businesses, and for California's investor-owned utilities, one of which is in bankruptcy, PG&E, and the other which is perilously close, Southern California Edison. Last week, the Federal Reserve estimated that, on average, each California household will pay $750 out of their pocket to compensate for higher energy costs this year. Additionally, over the past year, the natural gas component of the CPI rose by 68 percent in western metropolitan areas, boosted in part by a nearly 135-percent increase in the index in the San Francisco Bay area. However, having said this, not everyone has been a loser. Let us talk a moment about the winners because it is quite revealing. California's six largest nonutility energy suppliers are all based outside the State. Together they own or market roughly 17,000 megawatts of capacity. That is roughly a third of the total capacity in the State, and it is roughly enough for 17 million households. They are companies such as Dynegy, Duke Energy, Mirant, NRG Energy, Reliant, and Williams. These are not the only ones benefiting from the crisis. But for these six companies, profits more than doubled from 1999 to 2000. In some cases, the companies' subsidiary operating units doing business in California's wholesale power posted even larger gains than their parent companies. If you look at this chart, the gray is 1999 and the red is 2000. Williams Energy Marketing and Trading Company, a subsidiary of Williams Energy Services, which sells energy from California facilities, saw profits increase nearly tenfold, from $104 million in 1999 to over $1 billion in 2000. For Reliant's wholesale energy business, which supplies energy to California and other competitive markets, operating income rose almost 1800 percent, from $27 million in 1999 to $482 million in 2000. These are last year's numbers, but already these firms are again posting dramatically higher profits from this winter. Recent first quarter earnings announcements by energy companies reveal that firms continue to profit big time. For example, Calpine Corporation announced a 424-percent increase in earnings, raking in $94.8 million in the first 3 months of the year compared with $18 million last year. Mirant, formally Southern Company, announced record first quarter earnings of $175 million, up 84 percent, the equivalent of 51 cents per share. Williams reported a first quarter profit of $378 million, more than double its results a year ago. It is important to note that supply and demand have remained virtually the same over this period of time. There has been less than a 4-percent increase in demand. The imbalances in the market do not justify these astonishing increases in price. One of the most amazing things to me is to see how little concern there is about what is happening in this very large State. Last week, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered the Williams Company to refund $8 million for withholding power from the California market last summer. This is the first action of its kind by FERC, who found that Williams intentionally and improperly shut down plants with the implicit understanding that withholding power from the market would drive up prices. We know it is happening now. Last April and May, Williams shut down two of its generating units in Long Beach and Huntington Beach that were obligated to sell electricity to the California grid operator, forcing the ISO to look elsewhere for power. Williams--this is the rub--Williams would have been paid $63 a megawatt hour if the power plants were running; instead, the ISO had to spend $750 a megawatt hour to purchase electricity from other generating units. This withholding of power netted Williams $11 million. The Williams Energy Marketing and Trading Company has agreed to refund $8 million under the FERC order, although they profited $11 million by purposely shutting down the plants to raise the price. Last week it was reported that Duke Energy was attempting to negotiate with Governor Davis to settle similar allegations about Duke plants that were off line. Documents released last week reveal that in March, Duke approached the Governor's office to offer a discount on some of the $110 million owed to the company in exchange for an assurance by the Governor that Duke would not be investigated for keeping plants off line. I think that is just dreadful. A major generator approaches the Governor and tries to make a settlement so that company will not be investigated. This evidence demonstrates that power has been intentionally withheld from the market. This is not an issue about supply and demand. Vice President Cheney, Secretary Abraham, and FERC Chairman Hebert argue if we try to regulate prices, companies will not build new plants. Traditionally, companies have earned 10 to 15 percent profit in the energy sector, but now we are seeing profits in the hundreds and thousands of percents. The administration says companies need these high profits to build new powerplants. But at what point does reasonable profit become price gouging? Again, electricity isn't a luxury good, it is a staple of life. Again, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has found these prices unjust and unreasonable. But the FERC will do nothing about it. Californians are outraged. Last week, the Lieutenant Governor of California sued Duke, Mirant, Reliant, Williams, and Dynegy in Los Angeles Superior Court accusing the firms of price fixing in violation of State antitrust and unlawful business practices laws. Today, the California State Assembly speaker and State Senate president pro tempore will sue FERC for the Commission's failure to ensure that rates are just and reasonable as required under the Federal Power Act. I support their cases. Again, I call on FERC to cap wholesale prices until new plants can come on line in California. The price gouging I have talked about today will have rippling effects that will affect everyone not only in California but likely the entire country. Already, Washington and Oregon are suffering from high electricity prices. If the FERC and the Federal Government continue to offer piecemeal solutions, the world's sixth largest economy, California, and the Nation's economy may very well pay the price. Now is the time to act. That is why Senator Gordon Smith and I have introduced comprehensive legislation to address the price and supply problems up to March of 2003, at which time it is estimated there will be enough power on line to protect against the price gouging we are experiencing today. Today, California may well experience the first rolling blackouts of the summer. As a matter of fact, we have just learned that the Major League baseball games are going to go on a rain delay should there be a rolling blackout. The games will stop until after the blackout ceases. This is clearly a problem for California and other States.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, California is the largest dairy State in the Union. Let me read a brief quote from the Dairy Coalition of Concerned Energy Consumers. As the number one-ranking dairy producing state in the nation, the California dairy industry uses substantial quantities of natural gas to run its processing plants. Between December 1999 and December 2000 the cost of gas to dairy plants in California increased 4,000%. Our paramount concern is the dramatic increase in the non-commodity portion of the price of gas. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak once again about the California energy crisis. Today is the first day of May and in many parts of California, it is the start of a 5-month summer and the start of a five-month period of the highest electricity demand. The day also marks the 12th consecutive month we have been in an energy crisis--I add to that the Pacific Northwest--meaning for an entire year we have experienced energy prices that are about 10 times higher than they were in the previous 12 month period. And it also marks the 12th consecutive month that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has failed to take decisive action. It took the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission until November to declare what people in San Diego, California discovered last May, electricity rates are ``unjust and unreasonable'' and the market is broken. Last week, FERC attempted to modify the broken market with so-called ``price mitigation.'' In its April 26th order, the FERC outlined its proposal ``to mitigate the dysfunctional market.'' Unfortunately, what FERC offered as a solution will not do nearly enough to solve the problems in California and the Northwest. First, the order for the most part, ignored the Northwest--offering only a limited investigation of the broken market in Oregon and Washington without any promise of even the feeble price mitigation offered to California. Second, the order will last only one year, not nearly enough to get enough supply on line to meet our energy needs. Third, the order only applies to stage 1, 2, and 3 energy emergencies, practically ensuring that prices for the rest of the time can remain exorbitantly high. Fourth, the FERC order decreed that the cost based rate of the price for the least efficient megawatt of power needed at any given hour would go to everyone who bid into the market. With natural gas prices still averaging three times higher in California than elsewhere, it is almost a guarantee that this would mean at many hours, the average price of electricity will be $400-$500 per megawatt. Which brings up the most glaring problem with the FERC order: It does not address natural gas, which is the major cost in electricity production and a problem in itself for heating, cooking, food and manufacturing production, etc. I would like to take this opportunity to read from some letters I have received about the energy crisis. Let me speak about a letter from the California Steel Industries, and I quote: Our company is a relatively large consumer of both electricity and natural gas. Our historical gas bill was about $12 million annually. With the price gouging going on in California, that bill will rise to $40 million or even $50 million this year. For electricity, we historically paid about $15 million per year. That number will double this year due to increased retail rates, which became necessary as a result of skyrocketing wholesale prices. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me read briefly from a letter from Bayer. Bayer uses tremendous quantities of energy, and it relies extensively on natural gas and oil as both fuel and feed stock. It has had a 300-percent surge in the open market cost of natural gas since early in 2000. The letter goes on to say: Volatile crude oil prices have increased the cost of feedstock by as much as 100 percent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. California is a very large floral producer. I would like to read a brief quote from the California State Floral Association. While our state decision makers have devoted most of their attention to the supply and cost of electrical energy, it is the high cost of natural gas that is of the greatest concern to our grower members. They have seen their natural gas bills increase by five to six fold. For example, one of our nurseries reports having their monthly gas bills increase from $26,000 in December of 1999 to $145,000 in January of 2001. This is fairly typical of the industry. I have a letter from the H.K. Canning company which states that they are going to be forced out of business because of the high costs of energy today in California. I ask unanimous consent that both of those letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have a letter from California State Senator K. Maurice Johannessen. This letter points out that the Shasta Paper Company is now closing its doors because of rising natural gas prices and the suspension that has resulted on pulp production. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last week I reported that C&H Sugar, the only sugar refinery on the west coast, that had employed 1,000 people, closed its doors for 5 days. Its cost of steam went from $450,000 a month to $2 million a month. I would like to update that report. That company is now looking for a special bridge loan. If it is unable to find that loan, the only sugar refinery on the west coast will have to permanently close its doors. These complaints are all centered on natural gas prices. People have not yet been hit with the 40-percent increases planned for the average ratepayer in electricity this month. This does not even address gasoline prices which some are predicting may reach $3 a gallon in California this summer. So things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. The California Independent System Operator has said that the State will be 2,000 to 5,000 megawatts short in meeting its energy needs. In other words, millions of homes and businesses are at risk of being blacked out, maybe every day. This affects traffic lights, ATMs, farmers, assembly lines. It affects vineyards; it affects small hospitals--and the list goes on and on. Since January, the State Department of Water Resources has been purchasing all of California's power needs because of the poor financial condition of the State's utilities. Last week, I updated my colleagues in the Senate on the amount the State has spent so far to keep the lights on. At that time, it was $5.2 billion. In the last week, that number has gone up by $1 billion, to $6.2 billion. And the State continues to buy power at the rate of $73 million a day. The implications of these high power prices are devastating to the State. In fact, State budget officials are already making deep cuts in California's $105 billion budget that the Governor will sign into law in late June. Last week, the California State Senate Budget Committee chairman called on the Budget Committee to come up with a list of cuts totaling $2 to $4 billion to compensate for higher energy costs so far. I would like to put the costs in perspective. California, as I said, is spending $73 million a day on power. How much is that? It is enough to fund the annual budget of the Santa Ana Police Department. It is one-fourth of the cost to run California's entire judicial system for 1 year. It would provide health coverage for almost 300,000 working families in the State. And it is gone in 1 day. As I have said before, the major problem was a flawed deregulation bill passed in 1996 called AB 1890. However, the State is doing today all it can to increase supply and reduce demand. The State will have an additional 3,572 megawatts on line by the end of the summer and an additional 6,923 megawatts on line before the end of 2003, and by 2004 the State expects to add 20,000 more megawatts. That is enough power for 20 million additional homes. The problem is in the interim. The problem is the absence of price stability. The State spent $7 billion in 1999 for energy--total--$32 billion in the year 2000, and it is estimated to spend $65 billion in 2001. Simply stated, this is the result of price gouging. Simply stated, it is a Federal responsibility to provide a period of reliability and stability in price before we bankrupt every industry in the State of California and close businesses from Eureka to San Diego. The Pacific Northwest is in the same crisis, and the Midwest and other regions will be as well, unless the FERC takes action. Yesterday, the Commission ordered the Williams Company to refund $8 million for withholding power. This is the first action of its kind. The Commission found that this generator improperly shut down plants with the implicit understanding that withholding power from the market would drive up prices. Even to the most conservative Member in this body, this is evidence of manipulation of the market in California to drive up energy prices. The FERC found it, and the agreement was that Williams will pay $8 million in a refund. This firm has admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement. However, it should be clear that what was alleged was that they took key generating units in Long Beach and Huntington Beach offline in April and May of last year. Williams said it settled to end the matter and that they would have been exonerated had FERC pursued the case. Initially, FERC had sought a refund of about $10.8 million but settled for the $8 million in the compromise agreement. Today, Pacific Gas and Electric, a very large investor-owned utility, is in bankruptcy in chapter 11. Southern California Edison, the distributor of power to 11 million people, is very close to bankruptcy. Should the agreement forged by the Governor not go through, that utility will be in bankruptcy. Yesterday, a divided State senate appropriations committee approved a bill that would impose a windfall profits tax on electricity sellers who gouge California consumers. Revenue from the tax would flow back to Californians in the form of a credit on their State income tax, starting next April 15. On a 7-3 vote, Democrats on the committee voted for the bill, Republicans lined up against it. The measure moved to the Senate floor, where it will require a simple majority of 21 votes and is expected to pass. The Governor has said he is open to signing a windfall profits bill, but he has not publicly lobbied for the passage of the bill. Yesterday, the Vice President made an energy speech. I would like to say a few things about it. In his first extensive remarks about the energy recommendations his Cabinet-level task force will make to the President by the end of May, the Vice President blamed current shortages on shortsighted decisions in the past. The Vice President said that conservation, while perhaps ``a sign of personal virtue,'' does not make for sound or comprehensive policy. The Vice President promised ``a mix of new legislation, some executive action as well as private initiatives'' to cope with rising energy prices and growing demand. He definitely rejected turning to price controls, tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or creating new bureaucracies. Over the next two decades, it will take between 1,300 and 1,900 new power plants--or one every week for 20 years--just to meet projected increases in nationwide demand, Mr. Cheney said. And he said, ``Without a clear, coherent energy strategy for the nation, all Americans could one day go through what Californians are experiencing now, or even worse.'' I have been really disappointed and surprised with this administration's attention to the energy crisis. I have written to the President three times now asking to meet with him and explain the situation. So far, he has not yet agreed to meet with me. The Vice President and the Energy Secretary through this Presidential Task Force are talking about how the Federal Government is going to help. However, adding 1,600 new power plants over the next 20 years is not the answer we need. Nobody questions that we need more supply in the long term. But we have a situation where prices have been spiking for almost a year in California and about 6 months in other parts of the Northwest, where the Northwest is experiencing the driest hydro year on record. This is where we need the help. This is where the Federal Government has a duty to help. California and the Northwest badly need a period of stability and reliability, and this is where the Federal Government can help. I argue that this is where the Federal Government has a duty to step in and protect consumers from being gouged. As I said, California is adding 20,000 new megawatts itself which is the equivalent of forty new average-sized plants, without any Federal prompting. Lastly, I am also quite surprised that the Vice President, in his remarks yesterday, essentially said that wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy sources are still too far into the future and the future is all fossil fuels. Even if that were true, the truth of the matter is that nuclear power, for instance, takes years and years to cite and there is nothing this administration can do to help with the supply we need this summer and next summer. I, again, urge my colleagues to support Senator Gordon Smith and I and force FERC to take action and address the problem. The alternative may be an economic disaster for the entire country this summer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for his remarks. They are right on. I wish to associate myself with them. I wish to thank him for his decades of perseverance on behalf of education. It was an excellent set of remarks. I thank him very much. Mr. President, my understanding is that each Member has an hour to speak on the motion to proceed. I intend to use my time not only on the education bill, but because of the situation in California with respect to energy, I wish to give this body, on the 1-year anniversary of the energy crisis, a brief report. I ask unanimous consent to do so.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I do. I will use the 15 minutes, if I may.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.