Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, more than 17 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, one half the population of California, have died from AIDS. To begin to address this catastrophe, Senator Feingold and I introduced an Amendment to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act that would have helped ensure access to generic AIDS drugs for nations in sub-Saharan Africa ravaged by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Despite the fact that this amendment was approved by the Senate, it was stricken from the final Africa Trade Conference Report. Subsequently, the Clinton Administration issued an Executive Order that ensured that the countries of sub-Saharan Africa could provide their people with affordable HIV/AIDS drugs. And, two weeks ago, I am pleased to note, the Bush Administration indicated that it would not seek to overturn this Executive Order. Now, Senator Feingold and I have developed the ``Global Access to AIDS Treatment Act of 2001'' which, among other provisions: Codifies the Executive Order into law; Directs that the law must apply to the 48 nations of sub-Saharan Africa; and Expands the scope of the law to cover all developing nations facing a catastrophic AIDS crisis. Unless the United States takes a leadership role in recognizing, as does the WTO TRIPS agreement, that there is a moral obligation to put people over profits, the human devastation and social instability that has already begun in countries facing an AIDS crisis will grow to unfathomable levels. Until recently, many people have been unaware of the depth of the global loss being caused by this epidemic. The HIV virus has infected over 36 million people worldwide, with over 95 percent of those infected living outside of the United States. Over 21.8 million people have died from HIV/AIDS world-wide since the beginning of the epidemic, 3 million in 2000 alone. In sub-Saharan Africa, where 70 percent of all deaths from HIV/AIDS have occurred, 17 million people, as I said before, have died from HIV/ AIDS since the epidemic began, and 2.4 million in the year 2000. To address this pandemic, Senator Feingold and I have developed legislation to address the crisis. This legislation does the following: First, this legislation directs the U.S. Government to refrain from seeking the revision of any law, imposed by a government of a developing nation facing an AIDS crisis, that promotes access to HIV/ AIDS pharmaceuticals and medical technologies. This will ensure that HIV/AIDS drugs are more affordable and more available to those most in need. Second, this legislation authorizes $25 million a year for programs to develop and strengthen health care infrastructure in developing countries. Third, the legislation calls upon the World Health Organization and UNAIDS to take the lead in organizing efficient procurement of compulsory licences of pharmaceutical patents, active ingredients of drugs, and finished medications for countries that require this assistance. Fourth, this legislation calls on the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to work with developing countries and international service providers to develop best practices for delivering pharmaceuticals to those who need them. Fifth, this legislation requires the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, and NIH to develop and maintain a database for information on drugs, patent status, and treatment protocols to assist health-care providers from around the globe in providing the best care possible to all patients. And finally, this legislation provides $1 million a year to encourage American physicians, nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, public health workers, pharmacists, and other health professionals to provide HIV/AIDS care and treatment in developing countries. This legislation will allow countries facing an HIV/AIDS crisis to better determine the availability of HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals in their countries, and provide their people with affordable HIV/AIDS drugs. It is clearly in the national interest of the United States to prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS, and I believe that this legislation is necessary to continue to assist the countries of the developing world to bring this deadly disease under control. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer today, legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for more than 18 years. The Fulops are the parents of six United States citizen children. Today, they face deportation. The Fulop's story is a compelling one; one I believe merits Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief. In May of last year, the Fulops suffered the loss of their eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an accomplished 15-year-old teenager who died suddenly of a heart aneurism. Bobby was considered the shining star in his family. He was very bright and very helpful to his parents. That same year the Fulop's six-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life- threatening heart condition. Not long ago, she underwent heart surgery. I am pleased to report that she is doing much better. Compounding this unfortunate series of events is the fact that, today, the Fulops face deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 they went back to Hungary and stayed for more than 90 days. Under the pre-1996 immigration laws, their stay in Hungary would not have been a factor in their deportation and they would have qualified for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, for permanent resident status. The INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time the INS had processed their application, the new 1996 immigration laws had taken effect, which barred from relief long-term resident aliens who traveled outside the U.S. for more than 90 days. One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on their application for relief from deportation in a more timely manner, the Fulops would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 laws, given that they are long-term residents of the U.S. with U.S. citizen children. This is a tragic situation. The rules of the game were changed in the middle of the Fulop's application for permanent residence, and because the INS failed to process their application in a timely fashion they are now facing deportation. The Fulop's children, who are United States citizens, were not included in the deportation order. But because they are minors they would likely have to follow their parents to Hungary. Growing up in the American school system, the Fulop children are not able to read or write the Hungarian language, and I believe that forcing them to leave the only country they have known would pose an extreme hardship for them. It is my hope that Congress sees fit to provide an opportunity for this family to remain together in the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer today, legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for more than 18 years. The Fulops are the parents of six United States citizen children. Today, they face deportation. The Fulop's story is a compelling one; one I believe merits Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief. In May of last year, the Fulops suffered the loss of their eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an accomplished 15-year-old teenager who died suddenly of a heart aneurism. Bobby was considered the shining star in his family. He was very bright and very helpful to his parents. That same year the Fulop's six-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life- threatening heart condition. Not long ago, she underwent heart surgery. I am pleased to report that she is doing much better. Compounding this unfortunate series of events is the fact that, today, the Fulops face deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 they went back to Hungary and stayed for more than 90 days. Under the pre-1996 immigration laws, their stay in Hungary would not have been a factor in their deportation and they would have qualified for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, for permanent resident status. The INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time the INS had processed their application, the new 1996 immigration laws had taken effect, which barred from relief long-term resident aliens who traveled outside the U.S. for more than 90 days. One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on their application for relief from deportation in a more timely manner, the Fulops would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 laws, given that they are long-term residents of the U.S. with U.S. citizen children. This is a tragic situation. The rules of the game were changed in the middle of the Fulop's application for permanent residence, and because the INS failed to process their application in a timely fashion they are now facing deportation. The Fulop's children, who are United States citizens, were not included in the deportation order. But because they are minors they would likely have to follow their parents to Hungary. Growing up in the American school system, the Fulop children are not able to read or write the Hungarian language, and I believe that forcing them to leave the only country they have known would pose an extreme hardship for them. It is my hope that Congress sees fit to provide an opportunity for this family to remain together in the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, my thoughts go out today to the people of Washington as they assess the damage and begin recovery from the earthquake there yesterday afternoon. Yesterday's event is a reminder that earthquakes are a national problem, and one that can strike at any time, without warning. It is in this light that I introduce, today, the Earthquake Loss Reduction Act of 2001. This bill provides incentives to encourage responsible state and local governments, individuals, and businesses to invest in damage prevention measures before an earthquake strikes. It is an ``ounce of prevention'' that will save the federal treasury, homeowners, businesses, and state and local governments the ``pound of cure'' for relief and recovery. The legislation builds on the excellent work of our nation's earth scientists and engineers by making implementation of loss reduction measure a federal priority. We know where earthquake hazards exist, which buildings and utility and transportation systems are most vulnerable, and what the consequences will be to public safety, community character, and our economy if an earthquake strikes. We also know how to reduce losses. Guidelines exist that provide rational, common sense approaches to upgrade weak facilities. The challenge as we enter the 21st century is to put this knowledge to work to reduce future losses, and improving the safety of Americans and the performance of privately and publicly owned buildings and facilities. The time to implement our knowledge is now. There is no question that mitigation efforts save dollars and lives in the long run. It worries me greatly that the President, in his Budget, proposes a cut to existing mitigation efforts. First, the President proposes eliminating the Project Impact program. Project Impact is the nation's premier disaster prevention initiative. Communities use Project Impact funds to retrofit hospitals and schools, to create flood barriers, and to help shore-up communities against any number of other possible natural disasters. California has eight Project Impact communities, and has used Project Impact funds to stabilize emergency facilities and other important structures. Local communities do not always have the resources to mitigate these facilities on their own. There are two other proposals in President Bush's budget that are cause for alarm. 1. The President's budget outline assumes $83 million in FEMA savings by including a public buildings disaster insurance requirement, phased in over three years. This provision would mean that public entities like the U.C. system would have to have insurance on ALL structures before they could apply for federal assistance in the event of a disaster. This proposal simply is not feasible for states like California. Insurance companies in California do not offer disaster insurance or, specifically, earthquake insurance. It will be interesting to see how the cities affected by the Washington earthquake would be affected by this rule. Insurance companies in Washington do offer earthquake insurance and will be paying-out over the coming months. It will be interesting to see if the insurers are able to withstand the costs. 2. The budget also proposes reducing from 75 percent to 50 percent the federal share of funding for hazard mitigation grants. Once again, this is simply not feasible in California. California public institutions would not be able to afford 50 percent of clean-up costs after a major earthquake. It would be difficult for them to pay even 25 percent, which is current law. These two provisions could cause my State, and others, great harm if enacted. I am prepared to fight them, and I will. The United States Geological Survey tells us there are 40 states and five territories with a moderate or higher earthquake risk. Entire metropolitan areas in these states and territories are at risk of being crippled by earthquake damage because existing buildings and infrastructure were built without appropriate seismic requirements. Areas lying outside ``earthquake zones'' are also affected. Even localized damage threatens complex economic systems and the magnitude of federal disaster aid. Let me give you a few examples of potential losses estimated by FEMA's regional earthquake loss estimation model, HAZUS. A magnitude of 7.0 earthquake on California's Newport-Inglewood fault running through the Los Angeles basin could cause an estimated $80 billion in losses. Damage to buildings and business interruption would affect Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and San Diego Counties. About 58 percent of the damage would be to residential buildings, displacing about 400,000 people. An estimated 100,000 people would need shelter. A magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Hayward fault running along the east side of the San Francisco Bay could cause about $37 billion in damage. About 56 percent of the damage would be to residential buildings, displacing about 140,000 people. More than half of the losses would stem from damage to wood-frame homes and small business buildings. A magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Border Ranges fault near Anchorage, AK could cause about $5 billion in losses. Anchorage, a city of about 260,000 people, would suffer most of the damage. More than 60 percent of the damage would be to wood-frame buildings serving as homes and small businesses. A magnitude 7.2 earthquake on the Wasatch fault on the east side of Salt Lake City could cause about $13 billion in losses to the eight counties in that region. Most of the damage, about $11 billion, would occur in Salt Lake County. Throughout the region, about 150,000 people would be displaced, nearly 38,000 would require shelter, and nearly $10 billion of the losses would result from damage and disruption to residential buildings. As large as these estimates seem, the actual losses could be even greater. Make no mistake, earthquakes will strike these regions and others, we just do not know when. In each estimate, over half of the losses are expected to come from residential buildings. Most vulnerable residential buildings can be upgraded for reasonable levels of expenditures. The incentives proposed in this bill could make it happen. While it is too early to determine the extent of the damage of yesterday's earthquake in Washington, taking a look at the losses from the 1994 earthquake in Northridge, CA. The direct losses from that quake totaled more than $44 billion. For all disasters declared since 1989, FEMA has paid nearly $28 billion in disaster assistance for repairs to public buildings and infrastructure and for humanitarian aid. FEMA's outlay for Northridge alone represents 25 percent of this 12-year aggregate figure, approximately $7 billion. You and I know that supplemental relief funds disrupt carefully planned budget decisions and undermine on-going programs. For some people, reducing recurring demands for federal disaster aid may be reason enough to support this bill, but there are more compelling reasons. The cost and consequences of earthquakes are painful to the victims, both individuals and businesses. The plight of those in the disaster area may be obvious, but the effects extend outside of the disaster area, often across state borders affecting those who depend on damaged businesses and affected customers. The American economy depends on closely linked businesses, suppliers of raw materials and components, manufacturers, transporters, and marketers. Worldwide competitors seek the market share of American business when a disaster disrupts our economy. Research from the Northridge earthquake indicates that even when businesses did not suffer direct damage in that quake, their presence in or near areas of wide-spread damage or disruption caused economic hardship. Economic losses can be large and have long-term effects on the future of businesses and regions. Simply put, earthquake loss reduction efforts improve the sustainability of American businesses. What we need is a widespread investment in loss reduction by many parties, not just the federal government. Responsibility for earthquake safety rests with state and local government, individuals, and companies. The federal role I advocate is one of leadership backed by incentives to inform and motivate those responsible to implement loss- reduction actions. The result I seek is reduced pain and suffering, and more sustainable communities and businesses. The Federal Government is already contributing to earthquake disaster prevention. In a little over twenty years, our National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program has sponsored research and development activities in earth sciences and engineering and has produced the knowledge and tools, such as the HAZUS estimates I noted earlier, we need to reduce our risk. If we are to reduce losses, however, we must put this knowledge to work. Reducing earthquake losses depends on the actions of millions of individual decision-makers, homeowners, business owners, and government officials. Many successful measures are easy to implement, but may seem expensive when considering competing demand for funds between immediate issues and the perceived low probability threat of an earthquake. The incentives in this bill provide good reasons to undertake loss reduction efforts. This bill will move knowledge from the laboratory to the community. The bill recognizes that shared responsibility for prevention means that those responsible for the facilities at risk accept responsibility for reducing the risk. This legislation does the following: 1. It provides a credit against federal income taxes equal to 50 percent of a homeowner's investment in seismic retrofit, not to exceed $6,000. 2. It provides businesses an opportunity to depreciate the cost of seismic retrofit over five years. 3. The bill defines a seismic retrofitting bond as a bond for which 95 percent of the proceeds are used for seismic retrofitting expenditures or used to finance loans to borrowers for seismic retrofitting expenditures as ``qualified bonds.'' 4. It encourages private investments in seismic retrofitting of residential properties by allowing deduction of passive activity losses. 5. The legislation provides mortgage insurance incentives for seismic retrofitting of residences. 6. It authorizes a $1 billion Loss Reduction Trust Fund to provide matching grants for mitigation measures and recovery planning grants to reduce damage to buildings and utility and transportation systems critical to disaster response. Provided to local government entities, public and private hospitals, institutions of higher education, and special districts, the trust fund grants would require that the state and the local entity recipients benefitting from the investment fund a portion of the cost. To be eligible, the local entities must also have in place a long-term strategic earthquake loss reduction plan and enforce land use, building code, and other measures to reduce the vulnerability of facilities in the jurisdiction. 7. And the bill authorizes establishment of the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System by the United States Geological Survey. The incentives offered in this bill are available only if the recipient, sometimes with state aid, invests in the effort to prevent losses. These investments will spawn meaningful loss prevention actions that will benefit all of the stakeholders involved and will reduce the need for disaster aid. Public/private partnership work: City of Berkeley, CA, has demonstrated that even small incentives work. This city of 109,000 people spends about $1 million each year in hazard reduction activities. It rebates a portion of its real estate transfer tax, up to $1,500, to homeowners for loss reduction actions, waives permit fees for seismic residential retrofit projects, and offers low income loans up to $15,000 and some grants to low income senior and disabled homeowners for retrofit work. In the 10 ears since these incentives were put in place, 38 percent of the single-family homes have had some form of retrofit work done and 30 percent of small apartment buildings have been improved. Berkeley has also passed seven special taxes that concentrate funding on pre-disaster mitigation. Federal incentives can empower similar results nationwide. Cities like Berkeley, where the earthquake threat is a critical community concern, will benefit from the additional inducements included in this bill. Preventing damage makes sense, and it benefits our nation in many ways besides reducing the need for disaster aide. Not all benefits are easily quantified because they accrue to a variety of stakeholders and many of the indirect and human effects are subtle, yet important. Earthquakes impact all segments of the communities they strike, individuals, businesses, and public services such as police, fire, hospitals, and schools. Damage often creates economic ripples throughout the community and beyond state borders. Homeowners, building owners, their tenants, neighboring businesses, local and state government, and the Federal Government will benefit. Let me give you three examples of loss reduction projects that have widespread benefits: 1. Water officials in Memphis, TN recently made the wise decision to invest in a structural upgrade of the Davis Water Pumping station. Strengthening this critical station cost about $488,000. What the officials at the Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division recognize is that there is a fifty-fifty chance that a moderate earthquake will strike the Memphis area within the next fifteen years. It would cost $17 million to replace the water pumping station after such an earthquake. Plus, every day the station is inoperable costs about $1.4 million in lost services. The loss of drinkable water affects the entire community and cripples business activity. Considering the time to repair or replace a damaged pump facility, it is estimated that the cost of lost services would be $112 million. Clearly, a $488,000 investment is a good one. The Loss Reduction Trust Fund established by this bill authorizes $1 billion in matching grants to strengthen critical infrastructure like the Davis Water Pumping Station. 2. Another good example of forward thinking is the Anheuser-Busch brewery in Los Angeles. After realizing its facilities were vulnerable to earthquake damage, the company began a $20 million program to retrofit critical buildings and equipment. The brewery is a critical company asset because it supplies the Southwest and Pacific regions. Although located only a few miles from the epicenter of the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the brewery was able to return to operation after just minor cleanup, repairs, and restoration of off-site water supply. Anheuser-Busch estimated that damage and business interruption costs could have exceeded $300 million after the Northridge quake, had it not strengthened its facilities. There was more at stake than the viability of a major business. Damage affects employees, federal, state, and local government income, suppliers, vendors, and the surrounding community. By accelerating depreciation of seismic retrofit expenses, this bill will encourage other businesses to carry out similar projects. 3. And there is another example from the Northridge earthquake. Three months before that quake, a homeowner in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles spent $3,200 to retrofit his 1911-vintage home. The house survived with only minor damage, while similar houses on the same block suffered severe damage. In fact, several of those neighboring homes were demolished by the earthquake. Many homes across the nation are built on poorly braced foundation walls or piers and posts and are vulnerable to damage during even mild earthquake activity. The cost to add the bracing needed generally is only a few thousand dollars, yet the cost of repairing a home after it falls is tens of thousands of dollars. As with a business, when a home topples, there is more at stake than injury to family members and the cost of repairs. Not to mention the fact that a falling home can spark a fire that can burn an entire community. This bill creates a tax credit for half of the cost of the seismic retrofit of a residence, makes mortgages for earthquake resistant homes more attractive than those for homes meeting lower standards, and makes it easier for local government to use general obligation bonds financing for loss prevention project loans. FEMA's HAZUS software was recently used to estimate how the individual actions provided by the bill could add up to significant savings of importance to our communities, economy, and governments. If a magnitude 7.0 earthquake occurred on the Newport-Inglewood fault under Los Angeles today, it could cause about $80 billion in damages. Thousands of businesses would be interrupted, 400,000 people would be displaced, and there would be several hundred deaths. If every existing building in that area were retrofitted to the standards in current codes, the losses would drop by $28 billion to $52 billion. Business interruption losses would drop from $15 billion to less than $6 billion. The number of people displaced would shrink to 93,000, and the estimated number of deaths would drop by over 90 percent. Similarly, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Hayward fault in the San Francisco Bay area would cause about $37 billion in damages, if it struck today. 140,000 people would be displaced. However, if every existing building were retrofitted to the standards in current codes, the losses would be reduced by a third. Business interruption losses would drop from $6.5 billion to about $2 billion. The number of people displaced would shrink to 40,000 and the estimated deaths would drop by more than 90 percent. Assuming that all buildings meet the latest seismic standards is ambitious, but the resulting estimates give convincing evidence that implementing loss reduction measures can pay handsome dividends. Moreover, the importance of loss reduction efforts extends beyond these quantitative estimates. Less damage means less psychological pain, more sustainable communities and businesses, protected stocks of low-income housing and architecturally and historically significant buildings and neighborhoods, and protected family savings. Every time a neighbor, employer, or local government invests in prevention, the entire community benefits. Earthquakes are a nationwide problem. They have struck the Northeast and Northwest, damaged Charleston, Saint Louis, and Memphis, struck our mountain states, Alaska, and Hawaii. They will strike these and other places again. Much of the knowledge we need to reduce losses from future earthquakes exists. While some forward thinking businesses, individuals, and local governments are already using the knowledge to invest in measures to reduce future losses, the Earthquake Loss Reduction Act creates modest federal incentives to foster a needed increase in the implementation of hazard mitigation measures. This bill also establishes a $1 billion grant program to match the investments from local government entities, hospitals, and institutions of higher education. It challenges states to add to this match, and makes investment in properties for the purpose of seismic retrofit an attractive investment in our future. While the occurrence of large-scale earthquakes may be perceived as a low probability, our experience shows the high consequence of these events. Strong federal leadership, and modest incentive, can lead Americans to undertake loss reduction measures and can lead us to a safer tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support the Earthquake Loss Reduction Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, my thoughts go out today to the people of Washington as they assess the damage and begin recovery from the earthquake there yesterday afternoon. Yesterday's event is a reminder that earthquakes are a national problem, and one that can strike at any time, without warning. It is in this light that I introduce, today, the Earthquake Loss Reduction Act of 2001. This bill provides incentives to encourage responsible state and local governments, individuals, and businesses to invest in damage prevention measures before an earthquake strikes. It is an ``ounce of prevention'' that will save the federal treasury, homeowners, businesses, and state and local governments the ``pound of cure'' for relief and recovery. The legislation builds on the excellent work of our nation's earth scientists and engineers by making implementation of loss reduction measure a federal priority. We know where earthquake hazards exist, which buildings and utility and transportation systems are most vulnerable, and what the consequences will be to public safety, community character, and our economy if an earthquake strikes. We also know how to reduce losses. Guidelines exist that provide rational, common sense approaches to upgrade weak facilities. The challenge as we enter the 21st century is to put this knowledge to work to reduce future losses, and improving the safety of Americans and the performance of privately and publicly owned buildings and facilities. The time to implement our knowledge is now. There is no question that mitigation efforts save dollars and lives in the long run. It worries me greatly that the President, in his Budget, proposes a cut to existing mitigation efforts. First, the President proposes eliminating the Project Impact program. Project Impact is the nation's premier disaster prevention initiative. Communities use Project Impact funds to retrofit hospitals and schools, to create flood barriers, and to help shore-up communities against any number of other possible natural disasters. California has eight Project Impact communities, and has used Project Impact funds to stabilize emergency facilities and other important structures. Local communities do not always have the resources to mitigate these facilities on their own. There are two other proposals in President Bush's budget that are cause for alarm. 1. The President's budget outline assumes $83 million in FEMA savings by including a public buildings disaster insurance requirement, phased in over three years. This provision would mean that public entities like the U.C. system would have to have insurance on ALL structures before they could apply for federal assistance in the event of a disaster. This proposal simply is not feasible for states like California. Insurance companies in California do not offer disaster insurance or, specifically, earthquake insurance. It will be interesting to see how the cities affected by the Washington earthquake would be affected by this rule. Insurance companies in Washington do offer earthquake insurance and will be paying-out over the coming months. It will be interesting to see if the insurers are able to withstand the costs. 2. The budget also proposes reducing from 75 percent to 50 percent the federal share of funding for hazard mitigation grants. Once again, this is simply not feasible in California. California public institutions would not be able to afford 50 percent of clean-up costs after a major earthquake. It would be difficult for them to pay even 25 percent, which is current law. These two provisions could cause my State, and others, great harm if enacted. I am prepared to fight them, and I will. The United States Geological Survey tells us there are 40 states and five territories with a moderate or higher earthquake risk. Entire metropolitan areas in these states and territories are at risk of being crippled by earthquake damage because existing buildings and infrastructure were built without appropriate seismic requirements. Areas lying outside ``earthquake zones'' are also affected. Even localized damage threatens complex economic systems and the magnitude of federal disaster aid. Let me give you a few examples of potential losses estimated by FEMA's regional earthquake loss estimation model, HAZUS. A magnitude of 7.0 earthquake on California's Newport-Inglewood fault running through the Los Angeles basin could cause an estimated $80 billion in losses. Damage to buildings and business interruption would affect Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and San Diego Counties. About 58 percent of the damage would be to residential buildings, displacing about 400,000 people. An estimated 100,000 people would need shelter. A magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Hayward fault running along the east side of the San Francisco Bay could cause about $37 billion in damage. About 56 percent of the damage would be to residential buildings, displacing about 140,000 people. More than half of the losses would stem from damage to wood-frame homes and small business buildings. A magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Border Ranges fault near Anchorage, AK could cause about $5 billion in losses. Anchorage, a city of about 260,000 people, would suffer most of the damage. More than 60 percent of the damage would be to wood-frame buildings serving as homes and small businesses. A magnitude 7.2 earthquake on the Wasatch fault on the east side of Salt Lake City could cause about $13 billion in losses to the eight counties in that region. Most of the damage, about $11 billion, would occur in Salt Lake County. Throughout the region, about 150,000 people would be displaced, nearly 38,000 would require shelter, and nearly $10 billion of the losses would result from damage and disruption to residential buildings. As large as these estimates seem, the actual losses could be even greater. Make no mistake, earthquakes will strike these regions and others, we just do not know when. In each estimate, over half of the losses are expected to come from residential buildings. Most vulnerable residential buildings can be upgraded for reasonable levels of expenditures. The incentives proposed in this bill could make it happen. While it is too early to determine the extent of the damage of yesterday's earthquake in Washington, taking a look at the losses from the 1994 earthquake in Northridge, CA. The direct losses from that quake totaled more than $44 billion. For all disasters declared since 1989, FEMA has paid nearly $28 billion in disaster assistance for repairs to public buildings and infrastructure and for humanitarian aid. FEMA's outlay for Northridge alone represents 25 percent of this 12-year aggregate figure, approximately $7 billion. You and I know that supplemental relief funds disrupt carefully planned budget decisions and undermine on-going programs. For some people, reducing recurring demands for federal disaster aid may be reason enough to support this bill, but there are more compelling reasons. The cost and consequences of earthquakes are painful to the victims, both individuals and businesses. The plight of those in the disaster area may be obvious, but the effects extend outside of the disaster area, often across state borders affecting those who depend on damaged businesses and affected customers. The American economy depends on closely linked businesses, suppliers of raw materials and components, manufacturers, transporters, and marketers. Worldwide competitors seek the market share of American business when a disaster disrupts our economy. Research from the Northridge earthquake indicates that even when businesses did not suffer direct damage in that quake, their presence in or near areas of wide-spread damage or disruption caused economic hardship. Economic losses can be large and have long-term effects on the future of businesses and regions. Simply put, earthquake loss reduction efforts improve the sustainability of American businesses. What we need is a widespread investment in loss reduction by many parties, not just the federal government. Responsibility for earthquake safety rests with state and local government, individuals, and companies. The federal role I advocate is one of leadership backed by incentives to inform and motivate those responsible to implement loss- reduction actions. The result I seek is reduced pain and suffering, and more sustainable communities and businesses. The Federal Government is already contributing to earthquake disaster prevention. In a little over twenty years, our National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program has sponsored research and development activities in earth sciences and engineering and has produced the knowledge and tools, such as the HAZUS estimates I noted earlier, we need to reduce our risk. If we are to reduce losses, however, we must put this knowledge to work. Reducing earthquake losses depends on the actions of millions of individual decision-makers, homeowners, business owners, and government officials. Many successful measures are easy to implement, but may seem expensive when considering competing demand for funds between immediate issues and the perceived low probability threat of an earthquake. The incentives in this bill provide good reasons to undertake loss reduction efforts. This bill will move knowledge from the laboratory to the community. The bill recognizes that shared responsibility for prevention means that those responsible for the facilities at risk accept responsibility for reducing the risk. This legislation does the following: 1. It provides a credit against federal income taxes equal to 50 percent of a homeowner's investment in seismic retrofit, not to exceed $6,000. 2. It provides businesses an opportunity to depreciate the cost of seismic retrofit over five years. 3. The bill defines a seismic retrofitting bond as a bond for which 95 percent of the proceeds are used for seismic retrofitting expenditures or used to finance loans to borrowers for seismic retrofitting expenditures as ``qualified bonds.'' 4. It encourages private investments in seismic retrofitting of residential properties by allowing deduction of passive activity losses. 5. The legislation provides mortgage insurance incentives for seismic retrofitting of residences. 6. It authorizes a $1 billion Loss Reduction Trust Fund to provide matching grants for mitigation measures and recovery planning grants to reduce damage to buildings and utility and transportation systems critical to disaster response. Provided to local government entities, public and private hospitals, institutions of higher education, and special districts, the trust fund grants would require that the state and the local entity recipients benefitting from the investment fund a portion of the cost. To be eligible, the local entities must also have in place a long-term strategic earthquake loss reduction plan and enforce land use, building code, and other measures to reduce the vulnerability of facilities in the jurisdiction. 7. And the bill authorizes establishment of the Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System by the United States Geological Survey. The incentives offered in this bill are available only if the recipient, sometimes with state aid, invests in the effort to prevent losses. These investments will spawn meaningful loss prevention actions that will benefit all of the stakeholders involved and will reduce the need for disaster aid. Public/private partnership work: City of Berkeley, CA, has demonstrated that even small incentives work. This city of 109,000 people spends about $1 million each year in hazard reduction activities. It rebates a portion of its real estate transfer tax, up to $1,500, to homeowners for loss reduction actions, waives permit fees for seismic residential retrofit projects, and offers low income loans up to $15,000 and some grants to low income senior and disabled homeowners for retrofit work. In the 10 ears since these incentives were put in place, 38 percent of the single-family homes have had some form of retrofit work done and 30 percent of small apartment buildings have been improved. Berkeley has also passed seven special taxes that concentrate funding on pre-disaster mitigation. Federal incentives can empower similar results nationwide. Cities like Berkeley, where the earthquake threat is a critical community concern, will benefit from the additional inducements included in this bill. Preventing damage makes sense, and it benefits our nation in many ways besides reducing the need for disaster aide. Not all benefits are easily quantified because they accrue to a variety of stakeholders and many of the indirect and human effects are subtle, yet important. Earthquakes impact all segments of the communities they strike, individuals, businesses, and public services such as police, fire, hospitals, and schools. Damage often creates economic ripples throughout the community and beyond state borders. Homeowners, building owners, their tenants, neighboring businesses, local and state government, and the Federal Government will benefit. Let me give you three examples of loss reduction projects that have widespread benefits: 1. Water officials in Memphis, TN recently made the wise decision to invest in a structural upgrade of the Davis Water Pumping station. Strengthening this critical station cost about $488,000. What the officials at the Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division recognize is that there is a fifty-fifty chance that a moderate earthquake will strike the Memphis area within the next fifteen years. It would cost $17 million to replace the water pumping station after such an earthquake. Plus, every day the station is inoperable costs about $1.4 million in lost services. The loss of drinkable water affects the entire community and cripples business activity. Considering the time to repair or replace a damaged pump facility, it is estimated that the cost of lost services would be $112 million. Clearly, a $488,000 investment is a good one. The Loss Reduction Trust Fund established by this bill authorizes $1 billion in matching grants to strengthen critical infrastructure like the Davis Water Pumping Station. 2. Another good example of forward thinking is the Anheuser-Busch brewery in Los Angeles. After realizing its facilities were vulnerable to earthquake damage, the company began a $20 million program to retrofit critical buildings and equipment. The brewery is a critical company asset because it supplies the Southwest and Pacific regions. Although located only a few miles from the epicenter of the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the brewery was able to return to operation after just minor cleanup, repairs, and restoration of off-site water supply. Anheuser-Busch estimated that damage and business interruption costs could have exceeded $300 million after the Northridge quake, had it not strengthened its facilities. There was more at stake than the viability of a major business. Damage affects employees, federal, state, and local government income, suppliers, vendors, and the surrounding community. By accelerating depreciation of seismic retrofit expenses, this bill will encourage other businesses to carry out similar projects. 3. And there is another example from the Northridge earthquake. Three months before that quake, a homeowner in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles spent $3,200 to retrofit his 1911-vintage home. The house survived with only minor damage, while similar houses on the same block suffered severe damage. In fact, several of those neighboring homes were demolished by the earthquake. Many homes across the nation are built on poorly braced foundation walls or piers and posts and are vulnerable to damage during even mild earthquake activity. The cost to add the bracing needed generally is only a few thousand dollars, yet the cost of repairing a home after it falls is tens of thousands of dollars. As with a business, when a home topples, there is more at stake than injury to family members and the cost of repairs. Not to mention the fact that a falling home can spark a fire that can burn an entire community. This bill creates a tax credit for half of the cost of the seismic retrofit of a residence, makes mortgages for earthquake resistant homes more attractive than those for homes meeting lower standards, and makes it easier for local government to use general obligation bonds financing for loss prevention project loans. FEMA's HAZUS software was recently used to estimate how the individual actions provided by the bill could add up to significant savings of importance to our communities, economy, and governments. If a magnitude 7.0 earthquake occurred on the Newport-Inglewood fault under Los Angeles today, it could cause about $80 billion in damages. Thousands of businesses would be interrupted, 400,000 people would be displaced, and there would be several hundred deaths. If every existing building in that area were retrofitted to the standards in current codes, the losses would drop by $28 billion to $52 billion. Business interruption losses would drop from $15 billion to less than $6 billion. The number of people displaced would shrink to 93,000, and the estimated number of deaths would drop by over 90 percent. Similarly, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Hayward fault in the San Francisco Bay area would cause about $37 billion in damages, if it struck today. 140,000 people would be displaced. However, if every existing building were retrofitted to the standards in current codes, the losses would be reduced by a third. Business interruption losses would drop from $6.5 billion to about $2 billion. The number of people displaced would shrink to 40,000 and the estimated deaths would drop by more than 90 percent. Assuming that all buildings meet the latest seismic standards is ambitious, but the resulting estimates give convincing evidence that implementing loss reduction measures can pay handsome dividends. Moreover, the importance of loss reduction efforts extends beyond these quantitative estimates. Less damage means less psychological pain, more sustainable communities and businesses, protected stocks of low-income housing and architecturally and historically significant buildings and neighborhoods, and protected family savings. Every time a neighbor, employer, or local government invests in prevention, the entire community benefits. Earthquakes are a nationwide problem. They have struck the Northeast and Northwest, damaged Charleston, Saint Louis, and Memphis, struck our mountain states, Alaska, and Hawaii. They will strike these and other places again. Much of the knowledge we need to reduce losses from future earthquakes exists. While some forward thinking businesses, individuals, and local governments are already using the knowledge to invest in measures to reduce future losses, the Earthquake Loss Reduction Act creates modest federal incentives to foster a needed increase in the implementation of hazard mitigation measures. This bill also establishes a $1 billion grant program to match the investments from local government entities, hospitals, and institutions of higher education. It challenges states to add to this match, and makes investment in properties for the purpose of seismic retrofit an attractive investment in our future. While the occurrence of large-scale earthquakes may be perceived as a low probability, our experience shows the high consequence of these events. Strong federal leadership, and modest incentive, can lead Americans to undertake loss reduction measures and can lead us to a safer tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support the Earthquake Loss Reduction Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for the ``Global Democracy Act of 2001'', introduced by my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer. Last month, President Bush announced that he was reinstating the ``global gag rule'' restricting United States assistance to international family planning organizations. I was extremely disappointed and amazed that the President opted to start his Administration with such a divisive action. If women are to be able to better their own lives and the lives of their families, they must have access to the educational and medical resources needed to control their reproductive destinies and their health. International family planning programs reduce poverty, improve health, and raise living standards around the world; they enhance the ability of couples and individuals to determine the number and spacing of their children. The ``Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001'' will allow foreign Non Governmental Organizations that receive U.S. family planning assistance to use non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, including counseling and referrals and will lift the restrictions on lobbying and advocacy. The United States must reclaim its leadership role on international family planning and reproductive issues. The United States must renew its commitment to help those around the world who need and want our help and assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for the ``Global Democracy Act of 2001'', introduced by my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer. Last month, President Bush announced that he was reinstating the ``global gag rule'' restricting United States assistance to international family planning organizations. I was extremely disappointed and amazed that the President opted to start his Administration with such a divisive action. If women are to be able to better their own lives and the lives of their families, they must have access to the educational and medical resources needed to control their reproductive destinies and their health. International family planning programs reduce poverty, improve health, and raise living standards around the world; they enhance the ability of couples and individuals to determine the number and spacing of their children. The ``Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001'' will allow foreign Non Governmental Organizations that receive U.S. family planning assistance to use non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, including counseling and referrals and will lift the restrictions on lobbying and advocacy. The United States must reclaim its leadership role on international family planning and reproductive issues. The United States must renew its commitment to help those around the world who need and want our help and assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senator Craig and I are introducing the ``Building Health Promotion and Disease Prevention into the National Agenda Resolution of 2001.'' This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the federal government should do two things: (1) Support scientific research on health promotion and (2) explore ways in which the government can develop a national policy to integrate lifestyle improvement programs into our health care, schools, families and communities. This resolution is supported by a coalition of 47 organizations, including the Wellness Council of America, the American Journal of Health Promotion, the American Preventive Medical Association, the National Alliance for Hispanic Health, the National Center for Health Education, Partnership for Prevention, and the Society for Prevention Research. According to the American Journal of Health Promotion, health promotion is ``the science and art of helping people change their lifestyle to move toward a state of optimal health.'' Optimal health is defined as ``a balance of physical, emotional, social, spiritual and intellectual health.'' In this day and age of scientific breakthroughs and increased knowledge of medical science and health, American health care tends to emphasize curative treatments, rather than preventive measures and health promotion. Several compelling statistics make the case for this resolution: ``Fifty percent of premature deaths in the United States are related to modifiable lifestyle factors,'' according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. People with good health habits survive longer, and they can postpone disability by five years and compress it into fewer years at the end of life, says the New England Journal of Medicine. While the exact amount spent on preventive health is disputed, experts estimate that only two to five percent of the annual $1.5 trillion spent on national health care is on health promotion and disease prevention. In an April 1999 speech, Dr. David Satcher, the U.S. Surgeon General, stated that ``only one percent of that amount goes to population-based prevention.'' According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, the government spends $1,390 per person per year to treat disease and only $1.21 per person per year to prevent disease. This is simply not enough. We must do a better job of supporting health promotion and disease prevention, as well as research to find cures for diseases and helping those who suffer from all illnesses. By doing so, we will see an increase in the number of Americans who are living longer and healthier lives and this could mean a decrease in overall national health costs. Simply put, it is much cheaper to prevent a disease than to treat it. Diseases that are modifiable, if not checked, can become very expensive in treatment and cures. For instance: The direct and indirect costs of smoking is $130 billion per year. Diabetes costs $98 billion per year. Physical inactivity costs $24 billion per year. Cardiovascular diseases cost $327 billion per year. Cancer costs $107 billion per year. Here is another example. Obesity costs our nation $70 billion per year. In a recent report titled ``Promoting Health for Young People through Physical Activity and Sports,'' the CDC states that it is increasingly important that children from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade receive physical education every day, as well as after-school sports programs. According to Dr. Jeffrey Koplan, the director of the CDC, ``We are facing a serious public health program . . . we have an epidemic of obesity among youth, and we are seeing a troubling rise in cardiovascular risk factors, including type 2 diabetes among young people.'' With increased physical education, our children will be less likely to suffer from obesity, and in turn lower the risk type 2 diabetes. Increased awareness about disease prevention and health promotion will never totally prevent illness, but it can reduce the cost of treating preventable diseases. It can save millions of dollars. For instance, sun-block is proven to prevent some skin cancers. If every person who spent prolonged periods of time outside, protected themselves adequately from the sun's harmful rays, many incidents of skin cancer could be prevented. It is that easy. Early detection helps to lower costs of diseases in the long run. If everyone had regular physicals and screenings, many diseases could be detected early and treated long before they advance to serious, incurable, and terminal stages. Clearly, we must make health promotion a national priority. The sad part is, our government invests very little to help educate people and promote healthier living. As I stated earlier, it is estimated that out of the $1.5 trillion spent annually on health care, only two to five percent goes to health promotion and disease prevention. Government public health activities receive 3.2 percent of national health expenditures, according to the Health Care Financing Administration. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent $4.4 billion on prevention research in Fiscal Year 2000. Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher believes that the government should pursue ``a balanced community health system, a system which balances health promotion, disease prevention, early detection and universal access to care.'' I couldn't agree more. While it is imperative that our nation's research in diseases and medicine continue, we must increase our attention to disease prevention. Passing this concurrent resolution will make a strong statement that the health of all Americans is a national priority. As the generation of baby boomers quickly approaches retirement, the education and promotion of health and the lengthening of life-spans becomes even more important. Keeping people healthy should be our number one goal. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Representative Lois Capps and I are introducing legislation to help teachers use technology in their teaching, the Teacher Technology Training Act of 2001. This bill has three major provisions: It authorizes $100 million for state education departments to award grants to local public school districts on the basis of need to train teachers in how to use technology in the classroom. It specifies that grants may be used to strengthen instruction and learning, provide professional development, and pay the costs of teacher training in using technology in the classroom. It requires the Secretary of Education to evaluate the technology training programs for teachers developed by school districts within three years. This bill is needed because teachers say they need to learn how to use computers and other technology in their teaching. A 1999 Education Week poll found that 27 percent of teachers have had no training in computers, 31 percent have had one to five hours, and 17 percent have had six to ten hours. This means that 75 percent of teachers have had less than ten hours of training in how to use computers. In a 1999 survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, only 23 percent of teachers said they felt ``well prepared'' to integrate educational technology into instruction. ``Most teachers want to learn, but they say it takes time and they need help,'' says Linda Roberts, Director of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education. In many schools, the students know more about how to use computers than the teachers do. In one Kentucky school profiled by Inside Technology Training magazine, the students run the school's computer systems. The article quoted the school district's technology coordinator as saying that the students had ``long surpassed'' what the teachers could do and reported that one student had recently trained twenty teachers on software for Web page construction (``Fast Times at Kentucky High,'' Inside Technology training, June 1998). In addition to helping teachers teach, technology proficiency is becoming crucial to survival. Most good jobs require experience using computers. Former U.S. Commerce Secretary William M. Daley has said, ``Opportunities are now dependent upon a person's ability to use computers and engage in using the Internet,'' CQ Weekly, ``Digital Haves and Have Nots,'' April 17, 1999. The economy of California is a case in point as it shifts away from manufacturing and toward higher-skill service and technology industries. Employers are placing a high premium on the computer skills necessary for these positions. Students are better prepared when their teachers are well trained. We cannot educate students for the increasingly technological workplace without trained teachers. We have made great efforts to make technology available to students in their classrooms. Eighty percent of California's schools have Internet access. But computers are of little value if people do not know how to use them and in school, they can become diversions or entertainment, instead of learning tools without trained teachers. If we expect teachers to be effective, we must give them up-to-date skills, knowledge, and tools. This includes training. By introducing this bill, I am not suggesting that technology is a cure-all for the problems in our schools. Technology is one of many teaching and learning tools. It can bring some efficiencies to learning, for example, providing a new way to do math and spelling drills, making learning to write easier, providing easier access to information that without a computer is time-consuming and cumbersome to obtain. We expect a great deal from our teachers and students. We must give them the resources they need. This bill is one step.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Excellence in Education Act of 2001. The purpose of this bill is to 1. reduce the size of schools; 2. reduce the size of classes; and 3. bring accountability to the use of these funds. The bill would create a matching grant program to build new schools to meet the following size requirements: For kindergarten through 5th grade, not more than 500 students, for grades 6 through 8, not more than 750 students and for grades 9 through 12, not more than 1,500 students. For kindergarten through grade 6, not more than 20 students per teacher and for grades 7 through 12, not more than 28 students per teacher. The bill authorizes $1 billion each year for the next five years for the U.S. Department of Education to award grants to local school districts. School districts would have to match federal funds with an equal amount. In addition to making the above reductions, school districts would be required to terminate social promotion, provide remedial education, and require that students be subject to state achievement standards in the core academic curriculum. This bill will provide a new funding source for school districts or states to match to build new schools and reduce both school size and class size. There is no good estimate of how many schools would be needed to reduce schools and classes to the levels specified in the bill, but we all know that there are too many large schools and large classes in public education today. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that we need to build 6,000 new schools just to meet enrollment growth projections. This estimate does not take into account the need to cut class and school sizes. Consequently, the need for the funds my bill would authorize is huge. Why do we need this bill? First, many of our schools are just too big, especially in urban areas. The ``shopping mall'' high school is all too common. Some schools have as many as 4,000 students. In fact, half of American high school students go to schools that have 1,500 students or more. Equally serious is the fact that our classes are too big. Even though we have begun to reduce class sizes in the lower grades in California, it still has some of the largest class sizes in the United States. Studies show that student achievement improves when school and class sizes are reduced. The Oakland, California, school district plans to open 10 new small schools in the next few years. The Oakland tribune explained it like this on October 18, 2000: ``Small schools are viewed as antidotes to huge, factory-like campuses commonplace in America's inner cities. Research has shown that small schools create intimate learning atmospheres for students and teachers.'' The U.S. Department of Education cites studies that list these benefits of small schools: students have a greater sense of belonging; fewer discipline problems occur; crime, violence and gang activity go down; alcohol and tobacco abuse decline; dropout rates fall and graduation rates rise; and student attendance increases. The American Education Research Association says that the ideal high school size is between 600 and 900 students. Studies show that small schools have higher academic achievement, fewer discipline problems, lower dropout rates, higher levels of student participation, higher graduation rates (The School Administrator, October 1997). The nation's school administrators are calling for smaller, more personalized schools. A Tennessee study called Project STAR placed 6,500 kindergartners in 330 classes of different sizes. The students stayed in small classes for four years and then returned to larger ones in the fourth grade. The test scores and behavior of students in the smaller classes were better than those of children in the larger classes. A similar 1997 study by Rand found that smaller classes benefit students from low- income families the most. Teachers say that students in smaller classes pay better attention, ask more questions, and have fewer discipline problems. Smaller schools and smaller classes make a difference, it is clear. California has some of the largest schools in the country; Los Angeles has some of the largest classes and schools in the world! Here are some examples in the Los Angeles area: Hawaiian Elementary, 1,365 students; South Gate Middle School, 4,442 students; Belmont High School, 4,874 students. California also has some large classes, even though we have made great progress in reducing teacher-to-pupil ratios in the lower grades. Still today, many middle and high school English and math classes are very large, up to as many as 39 students. The American public supports increased federal funding for school construction. The Rebuild American Coalition last year found that 82 percent of Americans favor federal spending for school construction, up from 74 percent in a 1998 National Education Association poll. Every parent knows the importance of a small class in which the teacher can give individualized attention to a student. Every parent knows the importance of the sense of a community that can come with attending a small school. And every parent knows that big schools and big classes can be a stressful learning environment. I hope my colleagues will join me today in passing this important education reform. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill designed to better direct and refocus ESEA Title I funds on academic instruction. The goal of this bill, titled ``The Title I Integrity Act,'' is to target Title I funds on learning and to get ``more for our money'' from the largest Federal elementary-secondary education program. Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the country for services to children attending schools with high concentrations of low-income students, from preschool through high school. It has been the ``anchor'' of Federal assistance to schools, since its origin in 1965. For Fiscal Year 2000, funding for Part A basic grants to school districts is almost $8 billion. This bill would specify in law how Title I funds can and cannot be used by schools. It seeks to direct Title I funds to uses that improve academic achievement and help students meet state achievement standards. The bill says that ``a local educational agency shall use funds . . . only to provide academic instruction and services directly related to the instruction of students in preschool through grade 12 to assist eligible children to improve their academic achievement and to meet achievement standards established by the State.'' Permitted uses include these: Interventions and corrective actions to improve student achievement; extending academic instruction beyond the normal school day and year, including summer school; the employment of teachers and other instructional personnel (including employee benefits); instructional services to pre-kindergarten children for the transition to kindergarten; the purchase of instructional resource such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment and wiring to support instructional equipment; development and administration of curriculum, educational materials and assessments; and transportation of students to assist them in improving academic achievement. Uses explicitly not permitted are these: The purchase or lease of privately-owned facilities; the purchase or provision of facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs; the construction of facilities; acquisition of real property; food and refreshments; travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings; and the purchase or lease of vehicles. Current law on Title I is much too vague. It says, ``A State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.'' The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can currently be used. Permitted uses are for the following: instructional practices; counseling, mentoring; developing curricula; salaries; employee benefits; renting privately- owned facilities; janitorial services; utilities; mobile vans; training and professional development; equipment; interest on lease purchase agreements; travel and conferences; food and refreshments; insurance for vehicles; parent involvement activities. Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: (1) construction or acquisition of real property; and (2) payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for salary lost due to attendance at ``parental involvement'' meeting. My reason for introducing this bill is this: Our students are not learning; our schools are failing our children. We must use our limited federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of education: to help students learn. Just this week I learned that a January 2001 study by Education Weekly, titled ``Quality Counts 2001: A Better Balance,'' brought more bad news about California's students. Here's what the report found: In fourth grade reading, 20 percent of students are proficient and 52 percent are below the basic standard. In eighth grade reading, 22 percent of students are proficient and 36 percent are below the basic standard. Comparing California to other states, in how well fourth grade students read, California ranks 36 out of 39 states. In eight grade reading, California ranks 32 out of 36 states. Nationally, the news is similarly distressing: U.S. eighth graders are out-performed by their counterparts in math and science from Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, Australia and Canada (Third International Math and Science Study, December 5, 2000). The 1999 study showed virtually no improvement for U.S. students over 1995. American twelfth graders performed in mathematics better than students in only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa. In writing, 75 percent of U.S. school children cannot compose a well- organized, coherent essay, concluded the National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP) in September 1999. While it is difficult to really ascertain exactly ow Title I funds are always being used, we do know of a few examples of uses that raise questions in my mind: In Alabama, schools ``dipped into Title I to pay the electric bill and for janitorial services.'' Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights. While most of Title I's $8 billion appear to be spent on instruction, the Los Angeles Times, in a March 12, 2000 editorial, said, ``About half that amount is wasted on unskilled though well-meaning teacher aides, who are often more baby-sitter than instructor.'' Title I has been used ``to pay for everything from playground supervisors and field trips to more time for nurses and counselors.'' San Diego Tribune, March 16, 2000. California school officials have told my staff that Title I has been used for pay for clerical assistants in school administrative offices, payroll staff, truant officers, schoolyard duty personnel, school bus loading assistants, ``curriculum coordinators,'' ``compliance,'' attending conferences, and home visits. It is time to put an end to the notion that Title I can be everything to everyone, that it can fund all the services that schools need. Federal funding is only seven percent of total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools. We must get the most that we can educationally for our limited dollars. It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This bill is one step toward that goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill designed to better direct and refocus ESEA Title I funds on academic instruction. The goal of this bill, titled ``The Title I Integrity Act,'' is to target Title I funds on learning and to get ``more for our money'' from the largest Federal elementary-secondary education program. Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the country for services to children attending schools with high concentrations of low-income students, from preschool through high school. It has been the ``anchor'' of Federal assistance to schools, since its origin in 1965. For Fiscal Year 2000, funding for Part A basic grants to school districts is almost $8 billion. This bill would specify in law how Title I funds can and cannot be used by schools. It seeks to direct Title I funds to uses that improve academic achievement and help students meet state achievement standards. The bill says that ``a local educational agency shall use funds . . . only to provide academic instruction and services directly related to the instruction of students in preschool through grade 12 to assist eligible children to improve their academic achievement and to meet achievement standards established by the State.'' Permitted uses include these: Interventions and corrective actions to improve student achievement; extending academic instruction beyond the normal school day and year, including summer school; the employment of teachers and other instructional personnel (including employee benefits); instructional services to pre-kindergarten children for the transition to kindergarten; the purchase of instructional resource such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment and wiring to support instructional equipment; development and administration of curriculum, educational materials and assessments; and transportation of students to assist them in improving academic achievement. Uses explicitly not permitted are these: The purchase or lease of privately-owned facilities; the purchase or provision of facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs; the construction of facilities; acquisition of real property; food and refreshments; travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings; and the purchase or lease of vehicles. Current law on Title I is much too vague. It says, ``A State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.'' The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can currently be used. Permitted uses are for the following: instructional practices; counseling, mentoring; developing curricula; salaries; employee benefits; renting privately- owned facilities; janitorial services; utilities; mobile vans; training and professional development; equipment; interest on lease purchase agreements; travel and conferences; food and refreshments; insurance for vehicles; parent involvement activities. Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: (1) construction or acquisition of real property; and (2) payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for salary lost due to attendance at ``parental involvement'' meeting. My reason for introducing this bill is this: Our students are not learning; our schools are failing our children. We must use our limited federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of education: to help students learn. Just this week I learned that a January 2001 study by Education Weekly, titled ``Quality Counts 2001: A Better Balance,'' brought more bad news about California's students. Here's what the report found: In fourth grade reading, 20 percent of students are proficient and 52 percent are below the basic standard. In eighth grade reading, 22 percent of students are proficient and 36 percent are below the basic standard. Comparing California to other states, in how well fourth grade students read, California ranks 36 out of 39 states. In eight grade reading, California ranks 32 out of 36 states. Nationally, the news is similarly distressing: U.S. eighth graders are out-performed by their counterparts in math and science from Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, Australia and Canada (Third International Math and Science Study, December 5, 2000). The 1999 study showed virtually no improvement for U.S. students over 1995. American twelfth graders performed in mathematics better than students in only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa. In writing, 75 percent of U.S. school children cannot compose a well- organized, coherent essay, concluded the National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP) in September 1999. While it is difficult to really ascertain exactly ow Title I funds are always being used, we do know of a few examples of uses that raise questions in my mind: In Alabama, schools ``dipped into Title I to pay the electric bill and for janitorial services.'' Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights. While most of Title I's $8 billion appear to be spent on instruction, the Los Angeles Times, in a March 12, 2000 editorial, said, ``About half that amount is wasted on unskilled though well-meaning teacher aides, who are often more baby-sitter than instructor.'' Title I has been used ``to pay for everything from playground supervisors and field trips to more time for nurses and counselors.'' San Diego Tribune, March 16, 2000. California school officials have told my staff that Title I has been used for pay for clerical assistants in school administrative offices, payroll staff, truant officers, schoolyard duty personnel, school bus loading assistants, ``curriculum coordinators,'' ``compliance,'' attending conferences, and home visits. It is time to put an end to the notion that Title I can be everything to everyone, that it can fund all the services that schools need. Federal funding is only seven percent of total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools. We must get the most that we can educationally for our limited dollars. It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This bill is one step toward that goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Excellence in Education Act of 2001. The purpose of this bill is to 1. reduce the size of schools; 2. reduce the size of classes; and 3. bring accountability to the use of these funds. The bill would create a matching grant program to build new schools to meet the following size requirements: For kindergarten through 5th grade, not more than 500 students, for grades 6 through 8, not more than 750 students and for grades 9 through 12, not more than 1,500 students. For kindergarten through grade 6, not more than 20 students per teacher and for grades 7 through 12, not more than 28 students per teacher. The bill authorizes $1 billion each year for the next five years for the U.S. Department of Education to award grants to local school districts. School districts would have to match federal funds with an equal amount. In addition to making the above reductions, school districts would be required to terminate social promotion, provide remedial education, and require that students be subject to state achievement standards in the core academic curriculum. This bill will provide a new funding source for school districts or states to match to build new schools and reduce both school size and class size. There is no good estimate of how many schools would be needed to reduce schools and classes to the levels specified in the bill, but we all know that there are too many large schools and large classes in public education today. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that we need to build 6,000 new schools just to meet enrollment growth projections. This estimate does not take into account the need to cut class and school sizes. Consequently, the need for the funds my bill would authorize is huge. Why do we need this bill? First, many of our schools are just too big, especially in urban areas. The ``shopping mall'' high school is all too common. Some schools have as many as 4,000 students. In fact, half of American high school students go to schools that have 1,500 students or more. Equally serious is the fact that our classes are too big. Even though we have begun to reduce class sizes in the lower grades in California, it still has some of the largest class sizes in the United States. Studies show that student achievement improves when school and class sizes are reduced. The Oakland, California, school district plans to open 10 new small schools in the next few years. The Oakland tribune explained it like this on October 18, 2000: ``Small schools are viewed as antidotes to huge, factory-like campuses commonplace in America's inner cities. Research has shown that small schools create intimate learning atmospheres for students and teachers.'' The U.S. Department of Education cites studies that list these benefits of small schools: students have a greater sense of belonging; fewer discipline problems occur; crime, violence and gang activity go down; alcohol and tobacco abuse decline; dropout rates fall and graduation rates rise; and student attendance increases. The American Education Research Association says that the ideal high school size is between 600 and 900 students. Studies show that small schools have higher academic achievement, fewer discipline problems, lower dropout rates, higher levels of student participation, higher graduation rates (The School Administrator, October 1997). The nation's school administrators are calling for smaller, more personalized schools. A Tennessee study called Project STAR placed 6,500 kindergartners in 330 classes of different sizes. The students stayed in small classes for four years and then returned to larger ones in the fourth grade. The test scores and behavior of students in the smaller classes were better than those of children in the larger classes. A similar 1997 study by Rand found that smaller classes benefit students from low- income families the most. Teachers say that students in smaller classes pay better attention, ask more questions, and have fewer discipline problems. Smaller schools and smaller classes make a difference, it is clear. California has some of the largest schools in the country; Los Angeles has some of the largest classes and schools in the world! Here are some examples in the Los Angeles area: Hawaiian Elementary, 1,365 students; South Gate Middle School, 4,442 students; Belmont High School, 4,874 students. California also has some large classes, even though we have made great progress in reducing teacher-to-pupil ratios in the lower grades. Still today, many middle and high school English and math classes are very large, up to as many as 39 students. The American public supports increased federal funding for school construction. The Rebuild American Coalition last year found that 82 percent of Americans favor federal spending for school construction, up from 74 percent in a 1998 National Education Association poll. Every parent knows the importance of a small class in which the teacher can give individualized attention to a student. Every parent knows the importance of the sense of a community that can come with attending a small school. And every parent knows that big schools and big classes can be a stressful learning environment. I hope my colleagues will join me today in passing this important education reform. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Representative Lois Capps and I are introducing legislation to help teachers use technology in their teaching, the Teacher Technology Training Act of 2001. This bill has three major provisions: It authorizes $100 million for state education departments to award grants to local public school districts on the basis of need to train teachers in how to use technology in the classroom. It specifies that grants may be used to strengthen instruction and learning, provide professional development, and pay the costs of teacher training in using technology in the classroom. It requires the Secretary of Education to evaluate the technology training programs for teachers developed by school districts within three years. This bill is needed because teachers say they need to learn how to use computers and other technology in their teaching. A 1999 Education Week poll found that 27 percent of teachers have had no training in computers, 31 percent have had one to five hours, and 17 percent have had six to ten hours. This means that 75 percent of teachers have had less than ten hours of training in how to use computers. In a 1999 survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, only 23 percent of teachers said they felt ``well prepared'' to integrate educational technology into instruction. ``Most teachers want to learn, but they say it takes time and they need help,'' says Linda Roberts, Director of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education. In many schools, the students know more about how to use computers than the teachers do. In one Kentucky school profiled by Inside Technology Training magazine, the students run the school's computer systems. The article quoted the school district's technology coordinator as saying that the students had ``long surpassed'' what the teachers could do and reported that one student had recently trained twenty teachers on software for Web page construction (``Fast Times at Kentucky High,'' Inside Technology training, June 1998). In addition to helping teachers teach, technology proficiency is becoming crucial to survival. Most good jobs require experience using computers. Former U.S. Commerce Secretary William M. Daley has said, ``Opportunities are now dependent upon a person's ability to use computers and engage in using the Internet,'' CQ Weekly, ``Digital Haves and Have Nots,'' April 17, 1999. The economy of California is a case in point as it shifts away from manufacturing and toward higher-skill service and technology industries. Employers are placing a high premium on the computer skills necessary for these positions. Students are better prepared when their teachers are well trained. We cannot educate students for the increasingly technological workplace without trained teachers. We have made great efforts to make technology available to students in their classrooms. Eighty percent of California's schools have Internet access. But computers are of little value if people do not know how to use them and in school, they can become diversions or entertainment, instead of learning tools without trained teachers. If we expect teachers to be effective, we must give them up-to-date skills, knowledge, and tools. This includes training. By introducing this bill, I am not suggesting that technology is a cure-all for the problems in our schools. Technology is one of many teaching and learning tools. It can bring some efficiencies to learning, for example, providing a new way to do math and spelling drills, making learning to write easier, providing easier access to information that without a computer is time-consuming and cumbersome to obtain. We expect a great deal from our teachers and students. We must give them the resources they need. This bill is one step.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise today to introduce a bill to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to institute cost-of-service based rates with a reasonable rate of return on energy produced in the western energy market. I had planned on introducing this bill as an amendment to the pipeline safety bill but I understand that the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski and the ranking member of that committee, Senator Bingaman, would be amendable to scheduling a hearing on this bill before the end of the month, if the legislation is introduced as a stand-alone bill rather than as an amendment to the pipeline safety bill. After the hearing, I intend to exercise my right under the rules of the committee to ask that the chairman put this bill on the schedule for mark-up.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very proud today to introduce legislation designed to help small businesses hurt by the power crisis in the Western United States. This bill authorizes funds for the Economic Development Administration to operate a revolving loan fund to assist small business owners in California and other States affected by the shortage. This fund will help dozens of small manufacturers with so-called ``interruptible contracts'' that have been forced to lay off employees and, in many cases, close their doors. Interruptible contracts are defined as price discounts to users who agree to reduce consumption during peak demand periods. But while companies can withstand infrequent power interruptions, the fact is that California has been hit hard by the electricity crisis and the service interruptions have come far too frequently. Today, even small business owners who chose not to join the interruptible list--and opted instead to brave the higher gas and electric bills--have found the price spikes too much to handle. Sadly, many of these firms have discovered that they too are being forced to shut down because they can't pay their electricity bills. Here are a few examples of companies that have been affected: A small business owner in San Diego operating a fluff-and-fold laundry facility was forced to close when his December electricity bill jumped fourfold to $4,000. At this time last year, his monthly bill was roughly $1,000. The Saint-Gobain Calmar company--a plastics manufacturer in Los Angeles with roughly 300 employees--has been forced to stop production 22 times in the past six months because of the business' ``interruptible'' status. Although the company has been able to avoid layoffs up to now, the owners say the outlook is not good. Another example is the McKoen and Associates potato-flake plant in Tulelake, California. The owner of the facility says he may be forced to lay off about 100 employees permanently due to the mandatory shut downs. While all California companies, both large and small, are feeling the crunch of the power shortage, smaller firms are taking a larger hit because these companies pay a larger percentage of their budgets to energy and gas bills. Small businesses, classified as those with 500 workers or fewer, employ 37 percent of the California's total workforce. This current power drain has led to higher costs for businesses throughout the Northwest. Some aluminum and paper manufacturers in Washington and Oregon have already been forced out of business--and they are not alone. The bill I am introducing today authorizes $25 million for a revolving no-interest loan fund to be operated by the Economic Development Administration. The bill allows small businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration to be eligible for loans if their monthly gas or electric bills are at least double what they were a year ago. If a company's gas bill, for example, was $4,000 in the months of January, February, and March 2001 and the company averaged only $2,000 in January, February, and March 2000, that company is eligible for a loan. The legislation will allow small business customers of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, or San Diego Gas and Electric who are not covered by a State-mandated cap to apply for the no-interest loans to stave off lay offs, re-hire employees, and keep their facilities up and running. Small business that were covered by a State cap on energy expenses will not be eligible for the loan program. The bill is designed to help both small business owners who opted for the ``interruptible list'' and those who tried to brave the cost spikes and failed. The legislation will not affect those who are not covered by a State mandated program that caps retail electric commodity rates. I believe this measure will be of great assistance to the hundreds of small businesses in the Western region that are facing skyrocketing costs for power. I urge my colleagues to join me on this important legislation to help keep these hard working businessmen and women from being forced to lay off employees and close their doors.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I begin by indicating my support for this bill and thanking the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their work on the bill. There is an issue relevant to natural gas, and it is electricity. I want to use my time to outline what I believe has happened in California and to set to rest a couple of myths that have arisen during the course of the debate. The problem in California essentially was set into motion by a bill passed in the middle of the last decade, 1996. This was a deregulation bill. It is my understanding that at the time, virtually everyone came together--Republicans, Democrats, utilities, generators, and consumers--to produce a bill which deregulated electricity. The bill was approved quickly. It was signed at the end of the session by then- Governor Pete Wilson, a former Member of this body. The bill created what, in essence, was a flawed market structure. It deregulated wholesale power, but it left regulated the retail side. It also demanded that 95 percent of California's power had to be purchased on the day-ahead or spot market. That was fine when the supply of power was plentiful, but as the supply of power shortened, spot prices rose to unprecedented levels, and those costs could not be passed on to the consumer. The result was that California's large investor-owned utilities are now on the brink of bankruptcy, and the reason is that they have been forced to purchase power that averages $300 per megawatt hour or 30 cents per kilowatt hour, while they can only pass it on to the consumer at $75 a megawatt hour or 7\1/2\ cents a kilowatt hour. Today, they have accumulated a debt of anywhere from $10 billion to $12.5 billion. They have severe difficulty in obtaining the credit they need today to make forward purchases. Therefore, they stand on the brink of bankruptcy. California's current mix of regulated retail rates and unregulated wholesale rates is clearly, in my view, not a long-term workable scenario. As I have already mentioned, generators are charging exorbitant rates for power, which has led some to suspect that they are gaming the market. When Sempra Energy in San Diego tells me they are buying spot power at 3 a.m. in the morning at 500 times the normal price, something is wrong with the market. Supporting that suspicion, economist Paul Joskow and Edward Hahn of MIT released a report this past January 15. Let me read from that report: The high wholesale electricity prices observed in the summer of 2000 cannot fully be explained as the natural outcome of market fundamentals in a competitive market since there is a very significant gap between actual market prices and competitive benchmark prices that take into account these market fundamentals. Moreover, there is considerable empirical evidence to support a presumption that the high prices experienced in the summer of 2000 reflect the withholding of supplies of the market by suppliers. For this reason, I believe the most critical and immediate step that can be taken to address this crisis is to fix the market, which is terribly broken. I would like to outline for a moment some of the steps California is taking to fix the problem. First, California has conducted an online energy auction to solicit bids for long-term bilateral contracts. Remember, this contracting was prohibited by the 1996 legislation. The State is now negotiating contracts which cover up to one-third of the State's energy demand for the winter. The contracts range from 3 to 10 years and average $70 per megawatt hour. It is my understanding they hope to contract for up to 5,000 megawatts. That is enough for 5 million households. Second, the State is now going into the power business in a major way. It has exercised its authority to purchase power on the spot market and has distributed this power at cost to the utilities. By February 15, it is estimated that the State will have spent $1 billion to buy this power. And it is buying power at the rate of about $50 million a day. All told, the State has provided an authorization for the California Department of Water Resources to finance up to $10 billion to buy power--again, to pass that power along, at cost, to the utilities. Third, California has taken action to speed up the construction and siting of new energy plants. The State has already approved 9 out of 25 additional powerplants, which will generate enough energy to power 6 million households. That is about 6,278 megawatts. But the rub is that these first nine plants will not be on line before the end of 2002. So you can see that there is a short-term period. I am going to speak more about that short-term period of excess volatility in a moment. Fourth, part of AB 1890 required California's investor-owned utilities to sell their generating facilities. I think that was a huge mistake. The State has reversed this. Fifth, the State has restructured the California ISO--or Independent System Operator--and essentially eliminated the Power Exchange, which was a trading floor for California used to purchase energy hourly. The fatal flaw of the Power Exchange was that it ensured that all bidders into the exchange received the highest clearing price for electricity. The Power Exchange was intended to encourage bidders to use the floor, but instead it became too easy to manipulate, driving up prices. Sixth, the Governor recently announced an $800 million energy conservation program to reduce California's peak load demand by more than 3,700 megawatts. As I said, the legislature approved a baseline conservation rate, which the PUC should begin to put in place soon and will protect the cost of basic necessary electricity but charge premiums for use above that cost. This is really the first consequential effort to begin to fix the regulated retail end of the market. Frankly, whether it will be enough or not, I do not know at this stage. What is the Federal role in all of this? And why is legislation that Senator Boxer, I, and others have submitted so important? The most significant thing the Federal Government can do, through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is to provide a period of interim price stability, preventing price volatility or gouging, until this market is able to straighten itself out. Let me show you why that is so crucial because what is anticipated to happen in the summer is, despite everything the State is doing today, there will still be an absence of sufficient electricity to serve the State. The Independent System Operator has prepared this chart that shows what the shortfall will be in the summer: In May, despite everything, 3,030 megawatts; in June, 6,815 megawatts; in July, 4,685 megawatts; in August, 5,297 megawatts; in September, 1,475 megawatts. So the worst time to come for California--and it has spread for other States--is going to be the summer, if this shortfall happens as has been predicted by the ISO. That is when price volatility, for that power that is not already under bilateral negotiated contracts, comes into play in a serious way. That is why Senator Boxer and I have said we need a period of short-term interim price stability, really, to get through these summer months. Therefore, we have submitted S. 26. What S. 26 would do is say, if, during this short-term period, the FERC finds that prices are unjust and unreasonable, the FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--has two options: The first option would be to set cost-of-service rates themselves--cost-of-service rates take into consideration the cost of providing the electricity plus margin of profit--or, second, provide an interim or temporary wholesale price cap across the 12 Western States from which any Governor can opt out if that Governor does not want their State to participate. That is one way of looking at this. The FERC has clearly found that prices charged in the year 2000 for electricity are unjust and unreasonable. But the FERC refuses to do anything about it, saying let the market prevail. The market is broken, and until the State can adequately increase supply, the market is going to remain broken. So the responsible Federal posture isn't, as some have said, that the Federal Government should be an ostrich, sticking its head in the sand: Let anything happen that may happen to California; we do not care. That is not the responsible role. It is to provide an absence of volatility. The reason is that this volatility will also impact other States--and is beginning to do just that right now. The impact of the crisis on our State has been tremendous. California has spent more than $600 million over the past month purchasing electricity. The State is suffering from lost productivity. A recent study by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation has concluded that California's few rolling blackouts and interrupted service have taken a $1.7 billion toll in direct and indirect costs on the economy. As I have said, we want to increase the supply. Here is where there is a big myth. People say: California has an increased supply; right? Wrong. This past decade, California has actually added 2,670 megawatts of additional capacity--not enough because the demand has gone up by 14 percent. But, believe it or not, California has added more generation in the past decade than any other State in the western region. At the same time, demand in these 10 States has grown by a greater percentage than it has in California. People don't realize this, but this is what an examination of the record will reflect. It is critical for California now to do the following: Expedite its powerplant siting and construction process. I have been told by generaters that it has taken them up to 6 years to get a permit. That clearly cannot continue. California has to assume its power to expedite siting and construction. Two, improve the transmission capacity in the State. Currently, you can't now transmit power from the south to the north. Three, reduce any bona fide environmental obstacles. I am aware of none that have stopped power production at the present time, but if there are, let's take a look at them. Let us do what we must. Four, ensure that all large buildings, hospitals, and hotels with emergency generators or that have additional generation capacity use these facilities in the interim. I am told there is about 2,000 megawatts in generating capacity that buildings have but that are not in regular use. To reduce demand for energy, I have written to the Secretary of Energy asking him to look at the feasibility of significantly reducing energy consumption by Federal Government offices in California, I hope, by 10 to 15 percent. I have also called upon the Bush administration to fully implement new energy efficienct rules for air-conditioners or other appliances so they can get in place as soon as possible. Last week, Senator Bob Smith, Republican of New Hampshire, and I and five of our colleagues introduced legislation to provide tax incentives for energy-efficient homes, buildings, and schools, to encourage people to do what they must in that area. I am also introducing legislation to provide tax incentives for the development of wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass energy, something that can be developed in a major way, certainly in California. It is clear to me the State is going to have to increase rates at some point, as painful as that is, but do it in a way that gives Californians advanced warning and that phases in these costs over a period of time so as to protect consumers as much as possible, with a lifeline rate for the basic electricity use of consumers. The big question I have is whether a hybrid system can work. That is what California has, a hybrid system. You cannot deregulate on the wholesale side and keep retail rates regulated. The dilemma facing the State, in my view, is going to be either move to a completely deregulated market and do so in a structured, commonsense way, or begin to reregulate. Thus far, the moves California has made show me, by beginning to buy power, by legislation that would buy the utility's transmission lines and then lease them back, that California is slowly beginning a path to reregulation. I make no value judgment. My value judgment at this stage is, we can't have both worlds. We can't deregulate the wholesale end and regulate the retail end because it breaks the market. California has been a victim of that broken market into which generaters have charged the highest possible rates. Long-term contracts obviously play a major role. The 1996 legislation prohibited those contracts. If I may, I will send, on behalf of Senator Boxer and I, an alternative piece of legislation to committee. I ask unanimous consent to be able to send that legislation to the desk at this time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise today to introduce a bill to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to institute cost-of-service based rates with a reasonable rate of return on energy produced in the western energy market. I had planned on introducing this bill as an amendment to the pipeline safety bill but I understand that the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski and the ranking member of that committee, Senator Bingaman, would be amendable to scheduling a hearing on this bill before the end of the month, if the legislation is introduced as a stand-alone bill rather than as an amendment to the pipeline safety bill. After the hearing, I intend to exercise my right under the rules of the committee to ask that the chairman put this bill on the schedule for mark-up.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very proud today to introduce legislation designed to help small businesses hurt by the power crisis in the Western United States. This bill authorizes funds for the Economic Development Administration to operate a revolving loan fund to assist small business owners in California and other States affected by the shortage. This fund will help dozens of small manufacturers with so-called ``interruptible contracts'' that have been forced to lay off employees and, in many cases, close their doors. Interruptible contracts are defined as price discounts to users who agree to reduce consumption during peak demand periods. But while companies can withstand infrequent power interruptions, the fact is that California has been hit hard by the electricity crisis and the service interruptions have come far too frequently. Today, even small business owners who chose not to join the interruptible list--and opted instead to brave the higher gas and electric bills--have found the price spikes too much to handle. Sadly, many of these firms have discovered that they too are being forced to shut down because they can't pay their electricity bills. Here are a few examples of companies that have been affected: A small business owner in San Diego operating a fluff-and-fold laundry facility was forced to close when his December electricity bill jumped fourfold to $4,000. At this time last year, his monthly bill was roughly $1,000. The Saint-Gobain Calmar company--a plastics manufacturer in Los Angeles with roughly 300 employees--has been forced to stop production 22 times in the past six months because of the business' ``interruptible'' status. Although the company has been able to avoid layoffs up to now, the owners say the outlook is not good. Another example is the McKoen and Associates potato-flake plant in Tulelake, California. The owner of the facility says he may be forced to lay off about 100 employees permanently due to the mandatory shut downs. While all California companies, both large and small, are feeling the crunch of the power shortage, smaller firms are taking a larger hit because these companies pay a larger percentage of their budgets to energy and gas bills. Small businesses, classified as those with 500 workers or fewer, employ 37 percent of the California's total workforce. This current power drain has led to higher costs for businesses throughout the Northwest. Some aluminum and paper manufacturers in Washington and Oregon have already been forced out of business--and they are not alone. The bill I am introducing today authorizes $25 million for a revolving no-interest loan fund to be operated by the Economic Development Administration. The bill allows small businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration to be eligible for loans if their monthly gas or electric bills are at least double what they were a year ago. If a company's gas bill, for example, was $4,000 in the months of January, February, and March 2001 and the company averaged only $2,000 in January, February, and March 2000, that company is eligible for a loan. The legislation will allow small business customers of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, or San Diego Gas and Electric who are not covered by a State-mandated cap to apply for the no-interest loans to stave off lay offs, re-hire employees, and keep their facilities up and running. Small business that were covered by a State cap on energy expenses will not be eligible for the loan program. The bill is designed to help both small business owners who opted for the ``interruptible list'' and those who tried to brave the cost spikes and failed. The legislation will not affect those who are not covered by a State mandated program that caps retail electric commodity rates. I believe this measure will be of great assistance to the hundreds of small businesses in the Western region that are facing skyrocketing costs for power. I urge my colleagues to join me on this important legislation to help keep these hard working businessmen and women from being forced to lay off employees and close their doors.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 248, a bill to amend the Helms-Biden agreement on United Nations arrears payments. I have long supported the goals of the United Nations as it works to promote peace, to protect human rights, and to improve economic and social development throughout the world. Participation in the UN acts as an incentive to promote peace and provides a forum for negotiations and international action which can avert the need for more expensive unilateral or bilateral military interventions in the future. I believe repaying United States arrears to the UN is crucial to ensure that the organization can continue to be a force for peace and security in the 21st Century. As you know, significant steps have been undertaken in the last several years by the UN to reform their administrative structure and to reduce costs as called for by the Helms-Biden agreement. Among other things, the UN has reduced its budget and staffing levels, and has strengthened its Office of Internal Oversight. In addition, the UN has agreed to reduce the US assessment for the UN regular budget from 25 percent to 22 percent, and the peacekeeping assessment from more than 30 percent. I congratulate Senator Helms, Senator Biden, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and Secretary-General Kofi Annan for their efforts and hard work on these issues. It is my hope that the UN will continue in this direction and enact further reforms designed to save costs and to make the UN a more effective and efficient organization. This bill recognizes that efforts have been made and will continue to be made towards achieving this goal. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday a Scottish court, meeting in the Netherlands, convicted Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi for the 1988 bombing of Pan American flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. That court sentenced him to life in prison. Two-hundred seven people, including 189 Americans, lost their lives in this barbaric act. In addition, the court conclusively tied the planning and execution of the bombing to Libya and Libya intelligence. While no verdict could have fully comforted the families of the victims, eased their anguish, or removed the haunting images from their minds, they can take some solace in the fact that guilt has now been established. I would like to personally thank the families of the victims for their hard work, for their dedication, and for the unyielding determination to ensure that their loved ones did not die in vain. The international community truly owes them a debt of gratitude. Nevertheless, the quest for justice is not over. Now some have suggested the verdict brings the matter to a close, and at the sanctions in place since 1992 should now be lifted. We, however, believe that would be a serious mistake and an insult to the victims and their families. U.N. Resolutions have required Libya to pay compensation to the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 if a guilty verdict is rendered, and, second, to officially end support for international terrorism before the multilateral sanctions can permanently be lifted. A formal lifting of the sanctions now would send Libya the wrong signal. It would indicate that the international community has absolved Libya of its role in the bombing, a role, to repeat, clearly established by the Scottish court. It would say that Libya should be accepted back into the community of responsible nations. It would bestow upon Colonel Qadhafi's regime a respect and credibility it seeks but has not earned. The United States must press Libya to publicly accept its role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, issue an apology, and compensate the victims' families. Consequently, today we are introducing the Justice for the Victims of Pan Am 103 Act of 2001. This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Helms, Brownback, Leahy, Reid of Nevada, Nelson of Nebraska, Clinton, Dodd, Baucus, Boxer, Byrd, and Carper. The legislation states that it shall be the policy of the United States to oppose lifting U.N. and U.S. sanctions against Libya until all cases of American victims of Libyan terrorism have been resolved; the Government of Libya has accepted responsibility, has issued an apology, has paid compensation to the victims' families of Pan Am 103; and has taken real and concrete steps to end support of international terrorism; and the legislation would prohibit assistance to the Government of Libya until the President determines and certifies that Libya has fulfilled the above requirements. In addition, the legislation expresses the sense of the Senate that the Government of Libya should be condemned for its support of international terrorism and the bombing of Pan Am 103. Second, the Government of Libya should accept responsibility for the bombing, issue a public apology, and provide due compensation. Finally, the President, the Secretary of State, and other U.S. officials should encourage other countries and the United Nations to maintain sanctions against Libya until it fulfills the above requirements. Until Libya accepts responsibility for its actions, apologizes, and ends its support for international terrorism, the United States should leave and will leave no stone unturned in the quest for justice. We owe the victims of Pan Am 103 no less. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. FEINSTEIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 244 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday a Scottish court, meeting in the Netherlands, convicted Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi for the 1988 bombing of Pan American flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. That court sentenced him to life in prison. Two-hundred seven people, including 189 Americans, lost their lives in this barbaric act. In addition, the court conclusively tied the planning and execution of the bombing to Libya and Libya intelligence. While no verdict could have fully comforted the families of the victims, eased their anguish, or removed the haunting images from their minds, they can take some solace in the fact that guilt has now been established. I would like to personally thank the families of the victims for their hard work, for their dedication, and for the unyielding determination to ensure that their loved ones did not die in vain. The international community truly owes them a debt of gratitude. Nevertheless, the quest for justice is not over. Now some have suggested the verdict brings the matter to a close, and at the sanctions in place since 1992 should now be lifted. We, however, believe that would be a serious mistake and an insult to the victims and their families. U.N. Resolutions have required Libya to pay compensation to the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 if a guilty verdict is rendered, and, second, to officially end support for international terrorism before the multilateral sanctions can permanently be lifted. A formal lifting of the sanctions now would send Libya the wrong signal. It would indicate that the international community has absolved Libya of its role in the bombing, a role, to repeat, clearly established by the Scottish court. It would say that Libya should be accepted back into the community of responsible nations. It would bestow upon Colonel Qadhafi's regime a respect and credibility it seeks but has not earned. The United States must press Libya to publicly accept its role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, issue an apology, and compensate the victims' families. Consequently, today we are introducing the Justice for the Victims of Pan Am 103 Act of 2001. This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Helms, Brownback, Leahy, Reid of Nevada, Nelson of Nebraska, Clinton, Dodd, Baucus, Boxer, Byrd, and Carper. The legislation states that it shall be the policy of the United States to oppose lifting U.N. and U.S. sanctions against Libya until all cases of American victims of Libyan terrorism have been resolved; the Government of Libya has accepted responsibility, has issued an apology, has paid compensation to the victims' families of Pan Am 103; and has taken real and concrete steps to end support of international terrorism; and the legislation would prohibit assistance to the Government of Libya until the President determines and certifies that Libya has fulfilled the above requirements. In addition, the legislation expresses the sense of the Senate that the Government of Libya should be condemned for its support of international terrorism and the bombing of Pan Am 103. Second, the Government of Libya should accept responsibility for the bombing, issue a public apology, and provide due compensation. Finally, the President, the Secretary of State, and other U.S. officials should encourage other countries and the United Nations to maintain sanctions against Libya until it fulfills the above requirements. Until Libya accepts responsibility for its actions, apologizes, and ends its support for international terrorism, the United States should leave and will leave no stone unturned in the quest for justice. We owe the victims of Pan Am 103 no less. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINSTEIN

Mr. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I truly believe that a President is entitled to his, or her, cabinet. I am aware that virtually all of President Clinton's cabinet was approved by voice vote, with one exception, which was a roll call vote, and that nominee was overwhelmingly approved. However, the background record of this nominee is not mainstream on the key issues. I know he is strong and tough on law and order issues. However, his views on certain issues--civil rights and desegregation, a woman's right to choose and guns--make him an enormously divisive and polarizing figure. This record can best be characterized as ultra-right wing. That is not where most of the people in this nation are. Senator Ashcroft's commitment to enforce the law in view of the extremeness of his record, as well as, on occasion, the harshness of his rhetoric, makes it difficult to believe that he can, in fact, fairly and aggressively enforce laws he deeply believes are wrong. When Senator John Ashcroft opposed Bill Lann Lee's nomination to head the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, he argued that Lee was ``an advocate who is willing to pursue an objective and to carry it with the kind of intensity that belongs to advocacy, but not with the kind of balance that belongs to administration . . . his pursuit of specific objectives that are important to him limit his capacity to have the balanced view of making the judgments that will be necessary for the person who runs [the Civil Rights] Division.'' If the Senator's own standard is applied to this nomination, he would not be confirmed. Last week, this committee held four days of hearings into the nomination of Senator Ashcroft. During that time, we witnessed a man who had undergone a major transformation on many key issues of importance to the people of my State and the nation. The question that each Senator must now ask, is whether that transformation is plausible after more than 25 years of advocating the other side. On a woman's right to choose, for example, the new John Ashcroft would have us believe that he fully accepts Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, and he will do nothing to try to overturn it. He would fully fund task forces to protect women as they enter abortion clinics, and stated firmly that ``no woman should fear being threatened or coerced in seeking constitutionally protected health services.'' Contrast that with the John Ashcroft of the past 25 years, who has long argued that there is no constitutional right to abortion at all, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and in 1998 wrote that ``If I had the opportunity to pass but a single law. I would . . . ban every abortion except those medically necessary to save the life of the mother.'' This John Ashcroft supported a constitutional amendment to ban virtually all abortions, even in the cases of rape and incest--an amendment that would also likely ban some of the most common forms of birth control, including the pill and the IUD. The John Ashcroft of 25 years once stated, ``Battles (for the unborn) are being waged in courtrooms and state legislatures all over the country. We need every arm, every shoulder, and every hand we can find. I urge you to enlist yourself in that fight.'' The new John Ashcroft claims to have laid down his arms entirely. On gun control, the new John Ashcroft says he supports background checks at gun shows, says that he voted to deny the right to bear arms to domestic violence offenders, and says he would support re- authorizing the assault weapons ban when it expires in 2004, although he has called it ``wrong-headed.'' The old John Ashcroft, on the other hand, voted against mandatory background checks at gun shows, trigger locks on guns sold, and a ban on large capacity ammunition magazines. He supported a concealed weapons law that would allow the people of Missouri to carry a concealed firearm into a grocery store, a church, or on school grounds or on a school bus, superceding the Federal Gun Free Schools Act. He was, and still may be, an active member of the National Rifle Association. On civil rights, the old John Ashcroft strenuously fought a desegregation plan in Missouri. In fact, the judge in the case stated that Attorney General Ashcroft, ``as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the authority of this court.'' The old John Ashcroft spoke at Bob Jones University, that to this day remains highly questionable for its religious and racial bias; at the hearing he demurred when Senator Biden urged him to return the honorary degree and did not rule out returning to the college in the future. And the old John Ashcroft, in stating his reasons for voting against James Hormel as Ambassador for Luxemburg, stated that Hormel had ``actively supported the gay lifestyle,'' and that a person's sexual conduct is ``within what could be considered and what is eligible for consideration'' for ambassadorial nominees. Yet the new John Ashcroft promises never to discriminate against gays or lesbians for employment and said the reason for voting against Ambassador Hormel was because he knew him personally. Mr. Hormel called to tell me that he not only does not know Mr. Ashcroft, but that the Senator had refused to meet with him prior to his confirmation. For over a quarter-century of public life, John Ashcroft has established a record of right-wing conservatism, and of views far to the right of the average American, and even of many in his own party. Senator Ashcroft has spent a career fighting against a woman's right to choose. He obstructed the nominations of several women and minority candidates to the federal bench. Senator Aschcroft said just two short years ago that `There are voices in the Republican Party today who preach pragmatism, who champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. I stand here today to reject those deceptions. If ever there was a time to unfurl the banner of unabashed conservatism, it is now.'' In 1997, Senator Ashcroft remarked that ``People's lives and fortunes [have] been relinquished to renegade judges--a robed, contemptuous intellectual elite.'' He continued that ``Judicial despotism . . . stands like a behemoth over this great land.'' In a speech entitled ``Courting Disaster: Judicial Despotism in the Age of Russell Clark,'' Senator Ashcroft reveals deep and antagonistic feelings toward the courts of our country with this sentence: ``Can it be said that the `people govern'? Can it still be said that citizens control that which matters most? Or have people's lives and fortunes been relinquished to renegade judges--a robed contemptuous, intellectual elite that has turned the courts into `nurseries of vice and the bane of liberty'?'' And in the case of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White's nomination to the federal bench, Senator Ashcroft was responsible for a dark day in the Senate. When a home-state Senator objects to a nominee, it is very unlikely that the nomination will go forward. But instead of quietly objecting early on and allowing White to withdraw his nomination with dignity if he so wished, John Ashcroft waited until the nominee reached the floor of the Senate--after waiting for two full years--to derail the nomination and humiliate the nominee by stating, ``We do not need judges with a tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' Whatever Senator Ashcroft's problem with Ronnie White, there was no need to destroy White's reputation on the floor of the Senate, with no warning and no chance for Judge White to either defend himself or withdraw. This one act has become a stumbling block to my support, which I have not been able to get around. It says to me that it was done for political purposes. Taken as a whole, Senator Ashcroft's positions and statements, in my view, do not unite, but rather divide. They send strong signals to the dispossessed, the racial minorities of our country, and particularly to all women who have fought long and hard for reproductive freedom that this Attorney General will not be supportive of laws for which they fought, no matter what he has said in the past weeks. How can our citizens feel that this man will stand up for them when their civil rights are violated? How can the left out, the rape victim who needs an abortion have faith that this man would enforce their rights? In the end, every Senator must live with his or her own vote, and for this Senator, that vote will be ``no.''