Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to be joined by Senator Olympia Snowe to introduce this important legislation to gradually phase-in the fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and light duty trucks by 2007. I would also like to thank the other cosponsors: Senators Charles Schumer, Susan Collins and Jack Reed. Put simply, this is the single most effective action we can take to limit our reliance on foreign oil, save consumers at the pump, and reduce global warming. Today, the U.S. has 4 percent of the world's population, yet we use 25 percent of the planet's energy. So as the world's largest energy consumer, I believe it is our responsibility to make every effort to be the world's leader in conservation. Specifically, the results of this bill would be substantial. It would: Save America one million barrels of oil a day; reduce oil imports by 10 percent; and prevent 240 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions from entering the atmosphere--this is the single biggest cause of Global Warming. Today, the fuel economy standard for passenger vehicles is 27.5 miles per gallon, while the standard for SUVs and light duty trucks is 20.7 miles per gallon due to a loophole in the 1975 law. The result: SUVs and light trucks now comprise nearly half of new car sales, bringing the average fuel economy of all the nation's new vehicles to its lowest point since 1980. The Feinstein-Snowe legislation would: Phase in fuel economy standards for SUVs and all other light duty trucks on the following schedule: By 2002, SUVs and light duty vehicles must average 22.5 miles per gallon; by 2005, SUVs and light duty vehicles must average 25 miles per gallon; and by 2007, SUVs and light duty vehicles must average 27.5 miles per gallon; require that vehicles up to a weight of 10,000 pounds must qualify for fuel efficiency standards by 2007. The current limit is 8,500 pounds; increase the fuel economy of new vehicles comprising the federal government fleet by 6 miles per gallon by 2005. Last year, former Senators Slade Gorton, Richard Bryan and I fought an uphill battle to try and find a way to increase these fuel economy standards. But, we were stymied by the auto industry and their supporters in Congress. Ultimately, at the end of the session, we reached an agreement that directed the National Academy of Sciences to study whether, in fact, we could raise fuel efficiency with sacrificing safety or competitiveness. Recently, the automakers have said that they will not actively oppose increases in fuel efficiency standards. The Big Three manufacturers have promised a voluntary increase in efficiency for SUVs by 25 percent by 2005. This is an important step forward, but we need to do more. I believe this bill is the best way to do that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to be joined by Senator Olympia Snowe to introduce this important legislation to gradually phase-in the fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and light duty trucks by 2007. I would also like to thank the other cosponsors: Senators Charles Schumer, Susan Collins and Jack Reed. Put simply, this is the single most effective action we can take to limit our reliance on foreign oil, save consumers at the pump, and reduce global warming. Today, the U.S. has 4 percent of the world's population, yet we use 25 percent of the planet's energy. So as the world's largest energy consumer, I believe it is our responsibility to make every effort to be the world's leader in conservation. Specifically, the results of this bill would be substantial. It would: Save America one million barrels of oil a day; reduce oil imports by 10 percent; and prevent 240 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions from entering the atmosphere--this is the single biggest cause of Global Warming. Today, the fuel economy standard for passenger vehicles is 27.5 miles per gallon, while the standard for SUVs and light duty trucks is 20.7 miles per gallon due to a loophole in the 1975 law. The result: SUVs and light trucks now comprise nearly half of new car sales, bringing the average fuel economy of all the nation's new vehicles to its lowest point since 1980. The Feinstein-Snowe legislation would: Phase in fuel economy standards for SUVs and all other light duty trucks on the following schedule: By 2002, SUVs and light duty vehicles must average 22.5 miles per gallon; by 2005, SUVs and light duty vehicles must average 25 miles per gallon; and by 2007, SUVs and light duty vehicles must average 27.5 miles per gallon; require that vehicles up to a weight of 10,000 pounds must qualify for fuel efficiency standards by 2007. The current limit is 8,500 pounds; increase the fuel economy of new vehicles comprising the federal government fleet by 6 miles per gallon by 2005. Last year, former Senators Slade Gorton, Richard Bryan and I fought an uphill battle to try and find a way to increase these fuel economy standards. But, we were stymied by the auto industry and their supporters in Congress. Ultimately, at the end of the session, we reached an agreement that directed the National Academy of Sciences to study whether, in fact, we could raise fuel efficiency with sacrificing safety or competitiveness. Recently, the automakers have said that they will not actively oppose increases in fuel efficiency standards. The Big Three manufacturers have promised a voluntary increase in efficiency for SUVs by 25 percent by 2005. This is an important step forward, but we need to do more. I believe this bill is the best way to do that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Criminal Justice Integrity and Innocence Protection Act of 2001. It is my hope that this bill will jump-start the process of ensuring that every innocent prisoner in this nation has access to DNA testing that could set them free, and that every criminal defendant has access to truly competent counsel. This is not the first bill to be introduced on this issue. My good friend from Vermont and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, has twice introduced his Innocence Protection Act, with an impressive and bipartisan group of supporters behind the bill. I commend him for his work on this issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to see a bill pass. But I have had some concerns with certain provisions of the Leahy bill, concerns that make it impossible for me to support the bill as currently drafted. Also last year, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, addressed the DNA issue in a bill of his own. However, that bill did not include provisions on competent counsel, something that I very strongly feel should be included. So the real aim of my effort is to start moving this process forward. It has been well over a year since these bills were first discussed, and no real action has taken place. There are differences of opinion on how to move forward on this issue, and I fully understand how committed each side is to their position. But I believe that these differences of opinion will continue to prevent the Senate from considering this issue for the foreseeable future, unless something is done to break the stalemate. In the hopes of doing just that, breaking the stalemate, last year, I invited both Senator hatch and Senator Leahy together, to try to resolve the differences between their two approaches. We had a constructive meeting, and some progress was made. Since that time, each of us has gone back and forth with suggestions and criticisms of various ideas, and our staffs have been working diligently on trying to craft a solution to the impasse. Nevertheless, time continues to run without action. So today, I am introducing what I believe is a good compromise on this issue, a piece of legislation, based on our discussions, that I hope will spur debate, and provide a major step forward on this issue. Essentially, the legislation I am introducing today does two things. First, the bill provides a procedure by which prisoners who might be able to prove their innocence with the use of new DNA technology can do so. The bill contains safeguards, of course, so that frivolous requests will be minimized. For instance, prisoners have to demonstrate that biological evidence does exist that could possibly prove them innocent, and they must show that DNA testing was unavailable to them at the time of trial. But overall, the bill will allow for the testing of inmates where evidence could lead to their exoneration. If DNA testing proves innocence, the judge can release the prisoner immediately or, if there are other crimes of which the defendant may have been guilty, the judge can determine the best way to proceed in the case. Second, the bill also addresses the issue of competent counsel, through the establishment of independent, national standards for legal representation in capital cases. Specifically, this legislation directs the State Justice Institute to study this issue and to develop standards for competent counsel in capital cases. The bill then authorizes grants to states that agree to adopt those standards. The State Justice Institute has long served as a neutral facilitator between the state and federal judicial systems, and the bill would allow them to work with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys alike to develop a model system for standards in these cases. The combination of these two parts of the bill, competent counsel standards and DNA testing, will serve as powerful tools in restoring the public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system. I support the death penalty, and I have for a long time. And I have spent much of my public career trying to ensure that guilty people face the consequences of their actions. But we must protect the innocent from a system of justice that can make mistakes. That is what this bill is all about, and that is why I hope we can move quickly to debate this issue fairly, with all opinions on the table, and move forward towards passage of a reasoned, strong bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Criminal Justice Integrity and Innocence Protection Act of 2001. It is my hope that this bill will jump-start the process of ensuring that every innocent prisoner in this nation has access to DNA testing that could set them free, and that every criminal defendant has access to truly competent counsel. This is not the first bill to be introduced on this issue. My good friend from Vermont and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, has twice introduced his Innocence Protection Act, with an impressive and bipartisan group of supporters behind the bill. I commend him for his work on this issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to see a bill pass. But I have had some concerns with certain provisions of the Leahy bill, concerns that make it impossible for me to support the bill as currently drafted. Also last year, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, addressed the DNA issue in a bill of his own. However, that bill did not include provisions on competent counsel, something that I very strongly feel should be included. So the real aim of my effort is to start moving this process forward. It has been well over a year since these bills were first discussed, and no real action has taken place. There are differences of opinion on how to move forward on this issue, and I fully understand how committed each side is to their position. But I believe that these differences of opinion will continue to prevent the Senate from considering this issue for the foreseeable future, unless something is done to break the stalemate. In the hopes of doing just that, breaking the stalemate, last year, I invited both Senator hatch and Senator Leahy together, to try to resolve the differences between their two approaches. We had a constructive meeting, and some progress was made. Since that time, each of us has gone back and forth with suggestions and criticisms of various ideas, and our staffs have been working diligently on trying to craft a solution to the impasse. Nevertheless, time continues to run without action. So today, I am introducing what I believe is a good compromise on this issue, a piece of legislation, based on our discussions, that I hope will spur debate, and provide a major step forward on this issue. Essentially, the legislation I am introducing today does two things. First, the bill provides a procedure by which prisoners who might be able to prove their innocence with the use of new DNA technology can do so. The bill contains safeguards, of course, so that frivolous requests will be minimized. For instance, prisoners have to demonstrate that biological evidence does exist that could possibly prove them innocent, and they must show that DNA testing was unavailable to them at the time of trial. But overall, the bill will allow for the testing of inmates where evidence could lead to their exoneration. If DNA testing proves innocence, the judge can release the prisoner immediately or, if there are other crimes of which the defendant may have been guilty, the judge can determine the best way to proceed in the case. Second, the bill also addresses the issue of competent counsel, through the establishment of independent, national standards for legal representation in capital cases. Specifically, this legislation directs the State Justice Institute to study this issue and to develop standards for competent counsel in capital cases. The bill then authorizes grants to states that agree to adopt those standards. The State Justice Institute has long served as a neutral facilitator between the state and federal judicial systems, and the bill would allow them to work with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys alike to develop a model system for standards in these cases. The combination of these two parts of the bill, competent counsel standards and DNA testing, will serve as powerful tools in restoring the public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system. I support the death penalty, and I have for a long time. And I have spent much of my public career trying to ensure that guilty people face the consequences of their actions. But we must protect the innocent from a system of justice that can make mistakes. That is what this bill is all about, and that is why I hope we can move quickly to debate this issue fairly, with all opinions on the table, and move forward towards passage of a reasoned, strong bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for another 10 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I tell you that because the problem is in this initial period; the problem is going to be for the next 2 years. After that, it is expected that the State will have adequate power supply to begin to create a functioning free market.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will use my time in morning business to update the Senate on the status of the electricity crisis in California. April is typically the best time of year for California when it comes to meeting its energy needs. Winter has ended in northern California, and the southern part of the State has not yet begun to get hot. Thus, the demand for energy is low throughout the State, and California has always had more than enough power to meet its needs. As a result, electricity is usually very cheap. So this is as good a time as any to provide an update of where the State is and to see how this year is different from all other years. The last ten months provide a gloomy picture of what may well happen this summer. The average cost of electricity for California this month has been about $300 a megawatt hour. This is more than 10 times higher than the average for last April, right before the crisis began. The average price for electricity in the States of Washington and Oregon is even higher, and the price for electricity bought in the futures market for this summer is now averaging more than $750 a single megawatt hour. The State Department of Water Resources, which since January has been purchasing all of California's power needs, has now spent $5.2 billion purchasing power just in the first months of this year. It is spending at a rate of $73 million a day. This is having a serious financial impact on the State's credit standing. Yesterday's Standard & Poor's downgraded the State's credit rating two notches from AA to A-plus. It is important to point out that the money the State is spending to buy electricity is gone. It does not buy a textbook or a computer for a school. It won't repair a bridge or road. It will not build a highway. It doesn't go for law enforcement. It is money that simply disappears. As a result, the State could well be out of money. At the same time, the Northwest is experiencing what may well be its driest year on record. Consequently, California will not be able to rely on the 7,000 to 8,000 megawatts of power it typically imports from the Northwest in the summer--usually enough for 7 to 8 million homes. There will not be enough power in the Northwest to even meet its own energy needs this summer. Meanwhile, natural gas prices in most of the United States are about three times higher than their historic average, and in southern California they are eight times higher. Independent analysts, such as the Brattle Group, have raised significant questions about malfeasance on the part of the few companies that have an oligopoly on the natural gas pipelines. Meanwhile, it has been more than 5 months since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the FERC, found that electricity rates were ``unjust and unreasonable'', and still they have not acted to fulfill the mandate of the Federal Power Act which directs the FERC to set reasonable rates when the market is not functioning properly. Allow me to read from the language of the Federal Power Act. Whenever the Commission, after a hearing had upon its own motion or upon complaint, shall find that any rate, charge, or classification, demanded, observed, charged, or collected by any public utility for any transmission or sale subject to jurisdiction of the Commission, or that any rule, regulation, practice, or contract affected such rate, charge, or classification is unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, the Commission shall determine the just and reasonable rate, charge, classification, rule, regulation, practice, or contract to be thereafter observed and in force, and shall fix the same by order. That is the Federal Power Act. The Federal Power Act very clearly says: FERC, once you find that rates are unjust and unreasonable, you must then fix reasonable rates or charges. The FERC has not done its duty. The problems in California began in 1996, when the State became the first to pass a comprehensive energy deregulation bill. That bill was known as AB 1890. The bill passed very quickly at the end of the legislative session. It enjoyed nearly unanimous bipartisan support. AB 1890 was supposed to increase supplies of energy and decrease prices for consumers, but the exact opposite happened. The bill assumed that increases in energy supply, competition, and efficiency would drive down energy prices. This assumption turned out to be badly flawed, and as a result the State was burned by several provisions of the bill. First, the bill forced the utilities to purchase at least 95 percent of their electricity in the day-ahead and spot market and did not permit utilities to hedge their bets with long-term, bilateral contracts. That is a huge problem because if 95 percent of the power is bought on the spot market, and those spot market prices go up, the State is in the pickle that it is in today. Second, the State forced its investor-owned utilities to sell off their generating assets, allowing out-of-State energy generators to purchase the plants and sell the electricity back to the utilities at market rates. Let me give you an example of that. For Southern California Edison, when it divested of a generating facility, at the time Southern California Edison was selling its power at $30 a megawatt hour. As soon as it sold it to a generating facility, the out-of-State generating facility turned around to sell the power back to Southern California Edison at $300 a megawatt hour. That is part of the problem. Third, the bill immediately deregulated wholesale prices, but left retail rates regulated until March of 2002, or until a utility has sold off all of its generating units, creating a half-regulated, half- deregulated system. So the free market that we heard so much about can't function as a market should because it is broken. The price on the wholesale end is deregulated. The utility cannot pass that price through to the consumer--or has not been able to. Incidentally, that is going to change because the State will pass more than a 30-percent rate increase that should go into play in either May or June of this year. So some of that will be corrected. Fourth, the State set up a power exchange as a product of that bill that aimed to attract sellers by promising the highest clearing price of energy to all bidders. So no matter what you bid your power in for, you are guaranteed the highest price paid to any other bidder. That proved to be fatal. Energy suppliers realized that simply withholding power from the power exchange and from the California energy market would drastically drive up the prices. And they did. Spot prices increased dramatically. The costs could not be passed on to consumers. The State's largest investor-owned utility filed for bankruptcy, and the State's second largest investor-owned utility, Southern California Edison, remains on the brink of bankruptcy. The result has been this crisis, and this crisis could well become an economic disaster not only for California, but for the entire West. Now, what has the State done? I am the first to admit that California has been slow to address the crisis. I think part of this was an actual disbelief that the situation could have gotten this bad this fast. Let me speak about supply because there had not been much supply--very little supply, less than 2,000 megawatts actually--added to the State's power supply in the last decade. But since the first of the year, the State has licensed and approved 14 new gas-fired plants and 8 new peaker plants, which will all be on line within the next 2 years. The State expects to add 9,810 megawatts--that is enough power for 9.810 million households--and have that power on line by the summer of 2003. And the State, in total, will add 20,000 megawatts, enough to power 20 million homes, and have that on line by the end of 2004. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart which lists the plants that have been approved, plant by plant, by the State, and the expected dates they will come on line.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his generosity. Mr. President, the State is adding additional power. The problem comes in the next 2 years. What can be done and what is the appropriate Federal role in the next 2 years? I submit that the appropriate Federal role is to provide a period for liability and stability until the State has brought on line enough additional power to have a functioning free market where supply and demand functions in an appropriate manner. The State has also planned an $850 million conservation package that will aim to reduce energy demand across the board by 10 percent or more. So in the immediate future, conservation is the best way for California to avoid days of rolling blackouts this summer. But, in my opinion, it is going to be impossible to achieve enough conservation to avoid all blackouts. Additionally, the Governor of California has issued a series of executive orders authorizing increased output at existing facilities and ensuring that environmental regulations are not posing any barriers to maximum energy production. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this time a letter from Winston Hickox, the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, asserting that there are no energy plants idling in the State because of environmental reasons, with the exception of those State plants that are being retrofitted so that they can operate cleaner, more efficiently, and more often this summer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the point I am trying to make is that there is no environmental law that is holding up either the approval or the functioning of any generation facility in the State of California. Also, I have written the CEOs of all of the energy generators that sell power to California and I have confirmation of this. I have not heard of one single example that contradicts Secretary Hickox's statement. So I believe that California is really doing all it can right now to maximize energy supply, to reduce its demand, but it is still not likely to be enough for the summer. Now, this summer we are projected to have a shortfall on a warm day, with all plants operating, of 2,000 megawatts. On a hot day, with some plants down, the shortfall is estimated to be 10,000 megawatts. That could well be a serious disaster. Because hydropower in the Northwest is also low, there will also be shortages in other Western States as well. Our State has already experienced several days of rolling blackouts, and when a blackout hits, it means traffic lights go out, elevators stop, fuel pumps are down, food begins to rot, and production stops. The economic losses are measured in billions, and there well could be loss of life. Let me put price on the table. This chart shows that in 1999 the total cost for energy in the State of California was $7 billion. In the year 2000, those costs became $32 billion. The cost predicted for energy to the State of California in 2001 is $65 billion. Look at this cost jump in 3 years. This is the problem--this deregulated wholesale market has run amok, and there are no controls. If the FERC has found these prices to be unjust and unreasonable and refuses to regulate, what happens this year with these prices and no regulation? So the situation we are in is inordinately serious. I want to make a couple of points about natural gas. Natural gas stocks are low everywhere, and the price for natural gas for most of the country is averaging about 3 times more than the historic average. However, in Southern California, the prices are 8 to 9 times higher. CN&H Sugar, a refiner in Crockett, CA, generally pays about $450,000 a month for its steam generated through natural gas. During the peaks of this past year, $450,000 a month has risen to $2 million a month. That plant can employ 1,000 to 1,200 people. That plant cannot continue to operate under these conditions. There is a real problem in the transportation costs of natural gas because they are not transparent and because profits are hidden. The transportation of natural gas, the cost of moving gas from, let's say, San Juan, New Mexico, to San Diego has always been regulated. When it was, that cost was about 70 cents per decatherm. If natural gas is selling for $5 in San Juan and it costs 70 cents to transport it to southern California, when it gets to southern California it should be selling for no more than $5.70. The price of natural gas today in San Juan, NM, is $4.80. However, the price in southern California today is $14.71. In northern California it is $9.59. Something is clearly wrong. This price need be no more than $6 per decatherm, not $14.71. In February of 2000, the FERC decided to experiment, and it removed the cap on the transportation of natural gas for 2\1/2\ years, believing the market would actually drive down the price. Clearly, the opposite happened. The absence of transparency allowed companies to withhold parts of that natural gas transportation pipeline just for the purpose of increasing prices, and prices have risen. Senator Gordon Smith and I, along with Senator Bingaman, Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, and Senator Lieberman, introduced legislation yesterday directing FERC to do its job. The legislation says that since you, FERC, have found the prices to be unjust and unreasonable, you must now do your job and you must set either cost-based rates on a temporary basis or a rate cap on a temporary basis for the western grid within 60 days. It requires that those costs must be passed on to the consumer in a manner that the State believes just. The cost can be staggered over years and passed on through real-time pricing, tiered pricing, or by setting a baseline, but it must be passed on, again, to create a functioning marketplace. The bill also requires that all future orders to sell natural gas or electricity to an affected State must include a reasonable assurance of payment. We believe this is a bill that must be passed by this body. The Energy Committee has had two hearings on the subject, and I am hopeful this body will pass this bill in a timely manner. The inability or failure to do so I think is going to create a human and an economic disaster in the Western States come summer because these costs, not only of natural gas but electricity, in the hot months are going to be serious and extraordinarily high. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to give this status report. I end by particularly thanking Senator Smith of Oregon. He has worked with me in a bipartisan way. He has gone with me to see members of the committees on the House side. He has stood very solid and steady in support of this legislation. I am very proud to have him as a major cosponsor. I also thank the Senators from the great State of Washington and the Senator from Connecticut who also recognize what this problem is and are determined to do something about it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the junior Senator from Indiana for those remarks. He stands in the leadership of this body in terms of his views on education. I, for one, am very appreciative of them.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, by now we know that there will not be enough electricity supply to meet demand in California this summer and that there will be significant rolling blackouts. As the peak summer demand for power in the State kicks in over the next few months, the crisis is only going to deepen, and we may see electricity prices in California and the Northwest reach unprecedented levels. And without intervention by the Federal Government, the price gouging that has occurred over the past 6 months will almost certainly continue. In fact, it looks like California will spend 10 times more for power in 2001 than it spent in 1999, an increase from $7 billion to $70 billion. And I predict that if left unchecked, these price spikes will spread to other states as well. But despite the severity and scope of this crisis, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, has failed to take necessary steps to address the problem. Since last August, I have called upon FERC to impose a temporary wholesale price cap or cost of service-based rates on energy prices in the Western market. But FERC, an agency whose sole mission is to regulate the energy market, has refused to act. Today, we introduce this legislation to force FERC to do its job. Some have argued that a bill to control energy prices would remove incentives for companies to build additional energy generation, exacerbating the situation. While I agree that we desperately need new supply, I believe that a price cap would provide temporary price stability and reliability until the market returns to normal. And quite frankly, I think that with prices for power 10 times more than they were in 1999, there is more than enough incentive for suppliers to sell into the Western market. With cost of service based rates, energy suppliers would generate significant profits and be guaranteed a reasonable rate of return. With wholesale price caps, companies would be able to decide for themselves whether it is profitable to produce at a given price. In fact, the energy crisis we are now experiencing is marked much more by the withholding of energy supply from the market than an unwillingness to build additional generation. In fact, California expects to have 20,000 additional megawatts on line by 2004, enough power for 20 million additional people. But because it takes 2-3 years to site new power generation, not enough energy can be brought online in time to help the situation this summer. Price controls, if done right, could actually bring more power into the market. Indeed, the temporary cost-based rates and/or the regional price cap that Senator Smith and I are proposing will eliminate that incentive. Thus, generators would have no reason to withhold power to the market. With that said, let me talk briefly about what this bill would do: The bill requires FERC to set either a temporary price cap or cost of service based rates (with a reasonable rate of return). And make no mistake this bill is temporary; it is intended to get us through two summers. In order to qualify, a state must allow its utilities to recover costs from ratepayers and a state must pass electricity rates onto ratepayers. Though a state regulatory authority would still determine the manner in which wholesale rates are passed onto consumers. In addition, the bill directs FERC to end the temporary suspension of the natural gas transportation rate cap. Even today the price of natural gas in Southern California is about 3 times the cost in neighboring San Juan, New Mexico, $13 Decatherm vs. $4.50 Decatherm. The bill directs FERC to require that anyone selling natural gas in a bundled transaction into California to disclose the commodity and transportation components of the price. When a company purchases both the transportation and commodity components of natural gas, there is no reporting requirement as to the price of each transaction. The bill also requires that all future orders to sell natural gas or electricity to an affected state must include a reasonable assurance of payment. I am deeply disappointed that FERC will not do its job and protect consumers and businesses in the West. It is my hope that FERC will reconsider its opposition to price caps or cost-based rates. Price caps or cost-based rates may be the only way to prevent the further transfer of wealth from the Western region to energy suppliers.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today marks the 86th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. I rise today to acknowledge and commemorate this terrible crime and to help ensure that it will never happen again. On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Empire launched a brutal and unconscionable policy of mass murder. Over an eight year period, 1.5 million Armenians were killed, and another 500,000 were driven from their homes, their property and land confiscated. We who enjoy the blessings of freedom and liberty must commemorate this event to ensure that it does not happen again. Far too often during this century we have remained silent as men, women, and children have been singled out, rounded up, and killed because of their race, ethnicity, or religion. By acknowledging the Armenian Genocide we state loud and clear: Never again. Never again will we let brutal violations of human rights go without condemnation. Never again will we turn our backs on the oppressed and give comfort to the oppressors. Never again will we fail to stand up for justice and human dignity. Never again will we allow genocide to be perpetrated on this Earth. Even as we remember the tragedy and honor the dead, we also honor the living. I am proud that my home State of California is home to a vibrant Armenian American community, a half a million strong. They have enriched the culture of our state and have participated in every aspect of civic life. They are a shining example of a people who overcame the horrors of the past to create a better future. Let us never forget the victims of the Armenian Genocide. Let us ensure that they did not die in vain. Let us come together to remember the crimes of the past and to pledge to one another that they will not happen again in the future. Let us look ahead with Armenia and the Armenian American community to a brighter tomorrow.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to raise an important issue impacting close to 60 independent children's hospitals across the Nation and numerous sick children and their families: the need for full funding for graduate medical education (GME) at our Nation's freestanding children's hospitals to train pediatricians. Independent children's hospitals face a serious financial burden and competitive disadvantage because they do not receive GME support through Medicare. Medicare is the only source of significant and stable GME support available to hospitals for the training of medical residents. In the absence of any movement towards GME reform, the children's hospitals GME discretionary grant program was enacted to ensure that these institutions could sustain their teaching programs-- programs that are important not only to the future of these children's hospitals and their essential services, but also to the future of the pediatric workforce and pediatric research. The Lewin Group, an independent firm, has calculated that pediatric residents at free-standing children's hospitals would receive a total of $285 million from the Federal Government if they were reimbursed according to the formulas established for residents at other teaching hospitals. Consequently, I believe that Congress must commit to provide $285 million for the children's hospitals GME program in the fiscal year 2002 Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill. California has six independent children's hospitals across the State. These hospitals provided state-of-the-art care and conduct ground breaking research to make life better for our children. Equally important, these teaching hospitals train future pediatricians. Without the necessary funds, the children's hospitals in my State will be unable to train pediatricians to provide the care and conduct the research necessary to improve the quality of life for some of California's sickest children. These relatively few institutions play an indispensable role in our children's care, serving as centers of excellence in pediatric medicine and as a major piece of the pediatric health care safety net. I ask the Senator from Missouri if he has anything he would add at this point.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Child Status Protection Act of 2001. This legislation would protect children who are in danger of losing their eligibility for an immigration visa because of the inability of the Immigration and Naturalization Service INS to process their petitions or applications in a timely fashion. Children caught in the INS backlogs often face the problem of ``aging out'' of eligibility for family-based visas on their 21st birthday. One case recently brought to my attention was that of a couple who were lawful permanent residents. In 1993, they filed family-based petitions for their three children. Although the INS approved the petitions, as of March 2000, none of the children had become permanent residents. When they turned 21, the two oldest children were switched into another visa category because they no longer qualify as ``minor children.'' Now, they are in another backlog in which they have to wait another eight years to get a green card. The legislation I have introduced today would provide a child, whose timely filed application for a family-based, employment-based, or diversity visa was submitted before the child reached his or her 21st birthday, the opportunity to remain eligible for that visa until the visa becomes available. The legislation also would protect the child of an asylum seeker whose application was submitted prior to the child's 21st birthday. In recent years, the INS has faced a dramatic increase in the number of immigration benefit petitions and applications filed. This combined with the agency's slow service, and antiquated filing and computer data systems, has caused millions of our constituents to endure long waits of three to five years before getting their cases adjudicated. The INS backlogs have carried a heavy price: children who are the beneficiaries of petitions and applications are ``aging out'' of eligibility for their visas, even though they were fully eligible at the time their applications were filed. This has occurred because some immigration benefits are only available to the ``child'' of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident, and the Immigration and Nationality Act defines a ``child'' as an unmarried person under the age of 21. As a consequence, a family whose child's application for admission to the United States has been pending for years may be forced to leave that child behind either because the INS was unable to adjudicate the application before the child's 21st birthday, or because growing immigration backlogs in the immigration visa category caused the visa to be unavailable before the child reached his 21st birthday. As a result, the child loses the right to admission to the United States. This what is commonly known as ``aging out.'' Situations like these leave both the family and the child in a difficult dilemma. Under current law, lawful permanent residents who are outside of the United States face a difficult choice when their child ``ages-out'' of eligibility for a first preference visa. Emigrating parents must decide to either come to the United States and leave their child behind, or remain in their country of origin and lose out on their American dream in the United States. In the end, we as a country stand to lose when we are deprived of their cultural gifts, talents and many contributions. For lawful permanent residents who already live in the United States, their dilemma is different. They must make the difficult choice of either sending their child who has ``aged-out'' of visa eligibility back to their country of origin, or have the child stay in the United States out-of-status, in violation of our immigration laws, and thus, vulnerable to deportation. No law should encourage this course of action. One compelling example is that of 17-year-old Juan, a youngster born in Guatemala, who applied for adjustment of status under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act in 1999. He is a junior in high school with a 4.0 grade point average. His mother came to the United States in 1986, fleeing life-threatening conditions in Guatemala. Juan, who was six years old at the time, joined her four years later. Today, Juan has yet to have an interview with the INS. Given the expected three- to five-year wait for the INS to adjudicate adjustment of status applications, this high achieving student may not only miss out on his dream of becoming an engineer, his home state of California stands to lose out on the contributions he undoubtedly will make. The aging out problem also extends to those who have fled persecution and are granted asylum in the U.S. Current law permits persons granted asylum to have their child join them in the United States. However, if the child ages out while the parent's application for asylum is being adjudicated, the child is no longer automatically entitled to remain with his parent. As Members of Congress we, too, have been confronted with this issue. Because the Attorney General does not have the discretion to protect the status of these children, we often are called upon to introduce private bills to grant them the status they deserve. Unfortunately, these bills are limited in number and not all deserving children are able get private bills introduced on their behalf. The Child Status Protection Act of 2001 would correct these inequities and help protect a number of children who, through no fault of their own, face the consequence of being separated from their immediate family. It is a modest but urgently needed reform of our immigration laws, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Child Status Protection Act of 2001 be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Child Status Protection Act of 2001. This legislation would protect children who are in danger of losing their eligibility for an immigration visa because of the inability of the Immigration and Naturalization Service INS to process their petitions or applications in a timely fashion. Children caught in the INS backlogs often face the problem of ``aging out'' of eligibility for family-based visas on their 21st birthday. One case recently brought to my attention was that of a couple who were lawful permanent residents. In 1993, they filed family-based petitions for their three children. Although the INS approved the petitions, as of March 2000, none of the children had become permanent residents. When they turned 21, the two oldest children were switched into another visa category because they no longer qualify as ``minor children.'' Now, they are in another backlog in which they have to wait another eight years to get a green card. The legislation I have introduced today would provide a child, whose timely filed application for a family-based, employment-based, or diversity visa was submitted before the child reached his or her 21st birthday, the opportunity to remain eligible for that visa until the visa becomes available. The legislation also would protect the child of an asylum seeker whose application was submitted prior to the child's 21st birthday. In recent years, the INS has faced a dramatic increase in the number of immigration benefit petitions and applications filed. This combined with the agency's slow service, and antiquated filing and computer data systems, has caused millions of our constituents to endure long waits of three to five years before getting their cases adjudicated. The INS backlogs have carried a heavy price: children who are the beneficiaries of petitions and applications are ``aging out'' of eligibility for their visas, even though they were fully eligible at the time their applications were filed. This has occurred because some immigration benefits are only available to the ``child'' of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident, and the Immigration and Nationality Act defines a ``child'' as an unmarried person under the age of 21. As a consequence, a family whose child's application for admission to the United States has been pending for years may be forced to leave that child behind either because the INS was unable to adjudicate the application before the child's 21st birthday, or because growing immigration backlogs in the immigration visa category caused the visa to be unavailable before the child reached his 21st birthday. As a result, the child loses the right to admission to the United States. This what is commonly known as ``aging out.'' Situations like these leave both the family and the child in a difficult dilemma. Under current law, lawful permanent residents who are outside of the United States face a difficult choice when their child ``ages-out'' of eligibility for a first preference visa. Emigrating parents must decide to either come to the United States and leave their child behind, or remain in their country of origin and lose out on their American dream in the United States. In the end, we as a country stand to lose when we are deprived of their cultural gifts, talents and many contributions. For lawful permanent residents who already live in the United States, their dilemma is different. They must make the difficult choice of either sending their child who has ``aged-out'' of visa eligibility back to their country of origin, or have the child stay in the United States out-of-status, in violation of our immigration laws, and thus, vulnerable to deportation. No law should encourage this course of action. One compelling example is that of 17-year-old Juan, a youngster born in Guatemala, who applied for adjustment of status under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act in 1999. He is a junior in high school with a 4.0 grade point average. His mother came to the United States in 1986, fleeing life-threatening conditions in Guatemala. Juan, who was six years old at the time, joined her four years later. Today, Juan has yet to have an interview with the INS. Given the expected three- to five-year wait for the INS to adjudicate adjustment of status applications, this high achieving student may not only miss out on his dream of becoming an engineer, his home state of California stands to lose out on the contributions he undoubtedly will make. The aging out problem also extends to those who have fled persecution and are granted asylum in the U.S. Current law permits persons granted asylum to have their child join them in the United States. However, if the child ages out while the parent's application for asylum is being adjudicated, the child is no longer automatically entitled to remain with his parent. As Members of Congress we, too, have been confronted with this issue. Because the Attorney General does not have the discretion to protect the status of these children, we often are called upon to introduce private bills to grant them the status they deserve. Unfortunately, these bills are limited in number and not all deserving children are able get private bills introduced on their behalf. The Child Status Protection Act of 2001 would correct these inequities and help protect a number of children who, through no fault of their own, face the consequence of being separated from their immediate family. It is a modest but urgently needed reform of our immigration laws, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Child Status Protection Act of 2001 be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate is poised to pass S. 27, the McCain-Feingold bipartisan campaign reform bill. The momentum for the bill is building. The President has announced that he is disinclined to veto this bill. We could be on the brink of enacting the first significant campaign reforms in a generation. I would like to make a few observations. First, I want to salute the bill's sponsors, Senators McCain and Feingold. We are considering this bill only because of the sheer force of their collective will. They have suffered innumerable set-backs pushing for this legislation over the past several years. But they never got discouraged; they never let up. Their dedication to this cause has been extraordinary. I also want to commend the majority and minority leaders and the bill's managers, Senators McConnell and Dodd, for crafting a way to consider the bill that has been a breath of fresh air here in the Senate. For the past 2 weeks, we have operated in a way the Senate was meant to operate. We have been the deliberative body the Founding Fathers meant for us to be. I hope the spirit in which we have conducted debate on this bill continues long after we vote on its final passage. Numerous public opinion polls have indicated that the American people overwhelmingly support campaign reform, but don't rank the issue as a priority. I think that's because they have grown discouraged about the likelihood of Congress passing such reform. Maybe--just maybe--we will show the American people that we are capable of beating the odds, of coming together and doing something difficult. With regard to the bill, we have beaten back several amendments designed to cripple it or drive away its supporters. We have defeated the so-called ``paycheck protection'' amendments that were aimed right at the heart of organized labor. We have voted to ban soft money, convincingly. That is key. We have defeated an attempt to strip the bill of the Snowe-Jeffords provisions regarding sham ``issue advocacy'' by independent, often anonymous, groups that face no donor contribution limits or disclosure requirements. We have defeated an attempt to make the bill nonseverable. Most important, we have come to a reasonable compromise with regard to raising some of the existing hard money contribution limits for individuals by modest amounts, and indexing those limits for inflation. I am proud that I helped to negotiate that compromise, along with the senior Senator from Tennessee and several other Members from both sides of the aisle. The Senate voted 84-16 to approve the compromise we worked out. Our compromise: doubles the limit on hard money contributions to individual candidates from $1,000 per election to $2,000 per election; increases the annual limit on hard money contributions to the national party committees by $5,000, to $25,000; increases the annual aggregate limit on all hard money contributions by $12,500, to $37,500; doubles the amount that the national party committees can contribute to candidates, from $17,500 to $35,000; and; indexes these new limits for inflation. The Thompson-Feinstein amendment will reinvigorate individual giving. It will reduce the incessant need for fundraising. It will give candidates and parties the resources they need to respond to independent campaigns. It will reduce the relative influence of PACs. I know that some campaign reform advocates are uncomfortable raising any hard money contribution limits by any amount. I would argue that modest increases are imperative for the simple reason that the current limits were established under the Federal Election Campaign Act, FECA, amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-443, and haven't been changed since. That was 27 years ago. I have spoken previously about how the costs of campaigning have risen much faster than ordinary inflation over the past 27 years these limits have been frozen. The advantage of modestly lifting some of the limits is that doing so will reduce the time candidates have to spend fund-raising, time better spent with, prospective, constituents. During this past election, my campaign had over 100 fundraisers. That took time. Time to call. Time to attend. Time to say thanks. And that was time I couldn't spend doing what my constituents want me to do. The task of raising hard money in small contributions unadjusted for inflation is just too daunting, for incumbents and challengers alike. Particularly in the larger States like California, where extensive television and radio advertising is imperative, it is not uncommon for Senators to begin fundraising for the next election right after the present one ends and they often find themselves ``dialing for dollars'' instead of attending to other duties. Let's be honest with each other and the American people: campaigning for office will continue to get more and more expensive because television spots are getting more and more expensive. Meanwhile, independent campaigns conducted by groups that are accountable to no one threaten to drown out any attempt by candidates or the parties to communicate with voters. Spending on issue advocacy by these groups, according to the Congressional Research Service, rose from $135 million in 1996 to as much as $340 million in 1998. Then it rose again, to $509 million in 2000. Most of this money is used for attack ads that the American people have come to loathe. It is likely that spending on so-called issue advocacy, most of which is thinly disguised electioneering, probably will surpass hard money spending, and very soon. It has already surpassed soft money spending. Clearly, the playing field is being skewed. More and more people are turning to the undisclosed, unregulated independent campaign. The attacks come and no one knows who is actually paying for them. I believe this is unethical. I believe it is unjust. I believe it is unreasonable and it must end. We have to raise the limit on hard money contributions to individual candidates and the parties. The pressure on them has grown exponentially, especially now that we are about to ban soft money. The Thompson-Feinstein amendment the Senate adopted last Wednesday makes S. 27 possible. It becomes easier for us now to staunch the millions of unregulated soft dollars that currently flow into the coffers of our political parties, and replace a modest portion of that money with contributions that are fully regulated and disclosed under the existing provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. People aren't concerned about individual contributions of $1,000, and I don't think they will be concerned about donations of $2,000. No, what concerns people the most about the current system are the checks for $250,000, or $500,000, or even $1 million flowing into political parties. These gigantic contributions are what warp our politics and cause people to lose faith in our Government and they must be halted. They give the appearance of corruption. The Thompson-Feinstein amendment, by increasing the limit on individual and national party committee contributions to federal candidates, will reduce the need for raising campaign funds from political action committees, PACs. Our amendment, therefore, will reduce the relative influence of PACs, making it easier to replace PAC monies with funds raised from individual donors. The concern about PACs seems unimportant now, compared with the problems that soft money, independent expenditures, and issue advocacy present. But we shouldn't dismiss the fact that PACs retain considerable influence in our system. I represent California, which has more people--34 million--than 21 other States combined. I just finished my twelfth political campaign. For the fourth time in 10 years, I ran statewide. Running for office in California is expensive: I have had to raise more than $55 million in those four campaigns. I can tell you from my experiences over the years that I am committed to campaign reform, and I am heartened that we are close to passing S. 27. Is it a perfect bill? No. Will it be subject to challenges in court? Undoubtedly. But I think S. 27 is a strong bill and I am optimistic that it will withstand the Courts' scrutiny. And as I said earlier, it is our best chance at reform in a generation. We have an electricity crisis in California and much of the West. Our economy shows serious signs of weakening. We definitely have to address these issues, and others. But the last 2 weeks that we have spent considering S. 27 have been time well-spent. Campaign reform goes to the heart of our democracy. The way we currently finance and conduct our campaigns is a cancer metastasizing throughout the body politic. It discourages people from running for office and it disgusts voters. So they simply tune out, in larger and larger numbers. Discouragement, disgust, frustration, apathy--these feelings don't bolster our democracy, they weaken it. We have an opportunity here, a rare opportunity, to do the right thing here with S. 27. I hope we don't squander such a precious opportunity.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Dorgan and I are introducing a bill to make four important changes to the current Gun- Free Schools Act, GFSA. I am a proud sponsor of the Gun-Free Schools Act, which was enacted as part of the Elementary-Secondary Education Act in 1994. The law requires states receiving federal elementary-secondary education funds to have a state law requiring local school districts to expel from school for a period of not less than one year students who bring weapons to school. A March report (ED-OIG/S03-A0018) prepared by the Inspector General, IG, of the U.S. Department of Education, highlights several improvements needed to clarify the law. This bill makes those important clarifications. The IG's report, called a ``perspective paper,'' resulted from an audit that Senator Dorgan and I requested to examine the enforcement of the GFSA in seven States. We live in a society today that is much different than when I grew up. Our nation is awash in guns and our children live in a culture of violence, bombarded by horrific images in movies, television, and video games. Combine these factors with a lack of parental supervision and this combustible mix has exploded again and again on too many school campuses. In just the last few weeks alone, we've seen this mix erupt within just a few miles of each other in the San Diego area. On March 5, a troubled young man named Charles ``Andy'' Williams brought a .22-caliber revolver to school, fired at random, killing two students and wounding 13 others at Santana High School, in Santee, California. And on March 22, an eighteen year-old shot five students at Granite Hill High School in El Cajon, California. Fortunately, in this case, no one was killed. The Los Angeles Times summed up this epidemic aptly on March 6 and called on public officials to act, saying ``Nothing of course, assures that tragedy can be prevented, but leaders from the classroom to the White House can clearly take more steps to promote school safety.'' Now I know that gun laws are not the only answer to solving this problem, but they do represent part of the answer. But the fact is that even the most simple, rational, and targeted measures to deter guns from falling into the hands of our young people have been cast aside. The fact is that there are some simple steps we can take to limit the number of guns from reaching our children. We can close the loophole on the importation of high capacity ammunition clips. We can include trigger locks on every gun purchased. And we need to continue with measures that are working. The Gun Free Schools Act is a targeted fix that is working. And the bill we are introducing today refines this law slightly to make it work even better. This legislation will close several loopholes in current law under which allows some students to escape punishment who bring guns to school. Because the law effectively imposes a one-year expulsion for students who have ``brought'' a weapon to school, students who ``have'' or ``possess'' a weapon in school can go ``scot-free.'' Under current law, for example, a student could use a firearm that was technically ``brought'' to school by another student. The student could then possess it in his or her backpack or locker and thus potentially make it available to others and go unpunished because he or she did not technically ``bring'' it to school. Another loophole that the bill addresses is the definition of school. The current prohibition on guns in schools applies to ``a school.'' This could be interpreted to mean literally the school building. Our bill clarifies that school means ``any setting that is under the control and supervision of the local education agency'', i.e., the school district. Without this change, a student could wield a firearm on the football field, on the school bus or in the parking lot and possibly evade punishment under this law. Here are the four changes made by this bill: Under the current law, states are required to have a law requiring a one-year expulsion of students who have ``brought a weapon to a school'' in order to receive federal education funds. The change our bill proposes is to add to current law, ``or to have possessed a firearm.'' We are proposing this change because punishing only people who ``bring'' a weapon to school leaves a glaring loophole in the law. Without this change, students who ask friends to bring a weapon to school or who obtain a weapon from someone who has ``brought'' it to school, but carry it around or use the weapon, would not be covered since current law uses the term ``brought.'' Current law could be interpreted to mean that students can have a gun at school as long as they do not actually ``bring'' it into the school. I believe this change is an important clarification. The IG's report says that without this change, states and school districts may ``incorrectly implement the Act, resulting in non- compliance or the submission of erroneous information on disciplinary actions under the Act.'' This is because current law does not ``specify expulsion as the consequence for students found in possession of a firearm.'' Under current law, school districts and states are required to report expulsions. They are, however, required to report incidents. An example of this would be when students bring a weapon to or possess weapons in schools, for which no disciplinary action is taken. Without reporting all incidents in which students have or possess weapons in schools, it is impossible to determine if school officials are in fact enforcing the law, if they are actually expelling students. The IG's audit cites an example at one Maryland school in which a student who brought a firearm to school was not expelled. Instead, the school's administrators allowed the student to withdraw from school and the school did not inform the school district of the incident. Police arrested the student. So action was taken, but the incident itself did not appear in the annual report because technically the student was not expelled. Similarly, the IG found that in one California district, school officials did not expel a student ``involved in a firearm incident'' because the student was arrested and did not return to school. In these cases, the students did face legal consequences for their action, but the weapons incidents were not reflected in the school's report because the law requires reporting only expulsions, not incidents. The bill would add several new reporting requirements. School districts and states would have to report, 1. all firearms incidents; 2. each modification of an expulsion, e.g., when an administrator shortens an expulsion, which is allowed under current law; and 3. the level of education in which the incident occurs, elementary, middle, high school. Only by thorough reporting can public officials, the Department of Education, and the Congress know how well the law is working and how effectively it is being enforced. These proposed changes should remedy that deficiency. There are two additional changes we are proposing based on the IG's work. The Department of Education has incorporated these two changes in their guidance to states and school districts, but I believe these changes should be codified in the law so they cannot be changed administratively. The prohibition on weapons in ``school'' applies ``to a school,'' which implies that this means the building only. For many years, the U.S. Department of Education interpreted this to mean the school buildings only. Under that approach, therefore, a student could bring a weapon to school and leave it in an unlocked car, where it would still be readily available to students throughout the school day. Interpreted strictly to mean ``school buildings,'' that policy also allowed guns on athletic fields, in equipment sheds, and in school yards. As one Virginia legislator put it, ``you could legally come to a PTA meeting packing a weapon.'' Fortunately, the Department has corrected its guidance to school districts to clarify that the prohibition on bringing guns to schools applies to the entire school campus. The guidance states, ``The one- year expulsion requirement applies to students who bring weapons to any setting that is under the control and supervision of the local education agency.'' Under our bill, weapons would be allowed to be kept in cars and trucks on school property only if the weapons are ``lawfully stored inside a locked vehicle on school property.'' This provision is an effort to recognize that in some communities students may go hunting directly after school. Under current law, the chief school administrator in a school district can modify an expulsion on a case-by-case basis. Our bill would require that all modifications be put in writing. The IG found inconsistent reporting of modifications. This change should establish one consistent, clear policy and should provide a record of expulsions that are modified. Guns have no place in schools. Congress made this clear in 1994 when we adopted the Gun-Free Schools Act. This is a good law that should remain in place. The bill we introduce today makes some important clarifications in that law and strengthens it. The latest Annual Report on School Safety reports that 3,930 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. One student is one too many, in my view. The latest incidents in California are but another disturbing reminder of the ``culture of violence'' that so pervades our society. All of us must ask why students resort to guns to deal with their grievances or vent their frustrations. Clearly, we must take strong steps to address the underlying societal issues and to get guns out of the hands of youngsters. This bill is one small, yet important, step to ensure that no more schoolchildren die from weapons violence. I urge my colleagues to enact this bill promptly. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am hopeful Senator Schumer will come to the floor as soon as possible. Let me make a couple of comments to the remarks the distinguished Senator from Kentucky just concluded. I very much appreciate his comment about the political parties. On our side of the aisle, when you are in public office, there is concern about asking individuals to contribute large amounts of money to a party, period, and that this uses power unwisely. What McCain-Feingold does is it eliminates the soft money aspect of that powerful use of request. You can't ask someone to contribute $500,000 to the party or $1 million to the party or $100,000 to the party. You are essentially limited to the $35,000 per election to go to the party. There are some on our side who don't like that because they say it is too big a request. I don't happen to believe that it is. I also don't happen-- well, some are willing to do that and others are not willing to do it. But in answer to the question of the Senator from Kentucky, that is really the answer. It is people in elected office requesting citizens to contribute large amounts of money. And what that request in itself conveys is the sense of that public official then giving the appearance, somehow, of indebtedness to the individual because they contribute that large amount of money. The beauty of McCain-Feingold is that is now removed and a Senator is not in the position of having to do that anymore. I think that is very healthy for the system. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 14 minutes of my time to the Senator from New York and 1 minute of my time directly following that to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I just wanted to know whose time was running.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is the Senator's time running?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield that to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The fewer fundraisers one has to do, the better, because you can spend more time doing the things you are supposed to be doing. I have seen on both sides of the aisle the prodigious efforts dialing for dollars. People leave; they have to take time off. They go to party headquarters. They stand out on the street corner with their cell phone, and they call people and ask for contributions. If inflation had not risen to the extent it has, that would be a different story. I know there are people on my side who believe that if you raise this contribution limit, it disadvantages Democrats. I truly do not believe that. It goes across the field. It gives a nonincumbent an advantage; it gives an incumbent the ability to do their work and concentrate less on fundraising. It gives one at least double the opportunity to meet expenses which, since this limit was put on, have actually tripled. May I ask a question?