Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I associate myself with the comments made by the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. My assessment of this nominee is approximately the same. I will vote for her, and I want to take a few moments to explain to this honorable body why I will vote for her. I am a new member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As such, I had an opportunity to hear her answers to questions presented firsthand, and I also had an opportunity to talk with her in my office. I talked with her about specific California issues. The first was something called CALFED; second, the Colorado River decision; third, oil drilling off the coast of California; fourth, the land and water conservation fund. I think virtually all Members of this body know about the energy or electricity crisis in California, but I think what perhaps many Members of this body might not understand is that water is close behind. Beginning in 1993, I asked Interior Secretary Babbitt if he would sit down and meet with the so-called water constituencies in California-- the agricultural farmers, the environmentalists, the urban water users, a group called stakeholders in California's water future. As often said, whiskey is for drinking but water is for fighting. Lawsuit after lawsuit had characterized the situation with respect to water. The basic fact is that California has a water infrastructure for 16 million people. That is when it was built, when Pat Brown was Governor of the State. Today the State has 34 million people, and it will be 50 million people within 20 years--with the same water infrastructure. That is not good for the ecosystem, not good for the largest agricultural State in the Nation, and it is certainly not good for clean drinking water for the people of California. To make a long story short, this CALFED venture culminated last year in an agreement between the Governor of the State and the Secretary of the Interior called ``A Plan For Action.'' That plan for action involved the State water project, which is the California water project, and the federally run, built, and operated project, the Central Valley Project. It is to be a $7 billion shared program over the next 7 years with some 700 individual projects. That program needs both an authorization this year and an appropriation this year as well. There was an attempt last year and it failed. So to have a Secretary of the Interior who would be willing, one, to put an appropriation, which is a substantial one, in her budget to send up to the Office of Management and Budget this year is important to me. Secondly, to have a Secretary of the Interior who is willing to designate a high-level member of her Department, just as Secretary Babbitt designated the Under Secretary to oversee the development of this State-Federal program, is important to me as well. Ms. Norton has agreed to do both. She has agreed to take a good look--I know she has called the Office of Management and Budget and advocated for the CALFED program because we were called by OMB and they said that she had done so. Secondly, she has assured us that she will appoint a high-level official to oversee the various meetings with the stakeholders. So for me, my No. 1 environmental priority this year is the authorization and the appropriation of the first year of a new CALFED program. I believe she has an open mind. I think she understands the importance of water. I think she understands the outdated nature of the water infrastructure, the struggle to keep the salmon running, to keep high-quality water for people to drink, and enough water to be able to produce what is in excess of a $25 billion agricultural industry. I also discussed with her the recent 15-year Colorado River agreement, which has been now agreed to by seven States, which will ensure that California will receive no more than its annual allowance of 4.4 million acre feet of water from the Colorado River. The fact is, because of this water shortage, California has been overdrawing the Colorado River allotment by some 800,000 acre feet a year. Southern California, which uses water from the Colorado, has employed all sorts of additional water conservation methodology, water recycling and water transfer measures, to ensure that there will be enough water for the other States. I am a strong supporter of this agreement. I would like to see it go forward. I believe this Secretary will do her due diligence on the agreement and also agree that it is a major and positive step forward for the seven affected States. She has also categorically assured me that there will be no offshore oil drilling off the coast of California. That is something the people of California have very strong opposition to, and I believe she will keep her word. We also spoke about the importance of the land and water conservation fund. I happen to believe it can be the most important environmental program. I think there is an accumulation of $13 billion in offshore oil revenues that can go for appropriation into the land and water conservation fund. I supported a bill Senator Murkowski and Senator Landrieu had put together, plus my own bill, which would assure the appropriation of some of this money on a regular basis--approximately $900 million of that money. I see the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on which I am a lowly member, and I know appropriators don't necessarily like being told how to appropriate. However, I can say this: I think the Land & Water Conservation Fund offers this Senate and the House of Representatives an opportunity for major improvements in our environmental legacy. I am hopeful that issue might be settled. I know there has been some significant opposition to Gale Norton. As a former Colorado attorney general, she has taken some positions with which I disagree. However, she had every right to do so. I, for example, was troubled by her 1997 op-ed when she said there was no consensus on global warming. And quite categorically, to our committee, she stated that times have changed--and indeed they have-- and that she has had an opportunity to reconsider her point of view and does in fact believe that global warming is real. I think what came through to me the most clearly when I had an opportunity to talk with her was that this is a very talented woman. She has strong skills. She is flexible. She is trying very hard to maintain an open mind, and I think it is very possible that she is going to do an excellent job as Secretary of the Interior. At the very least, she has convinced me that she is willing to work on issues in a bipartisan fashion. She is willing to address the difficult issues which will confront her, as I believe she is open minded and I feel as though I can pick up the phone and call her and that she will, A, either return that call, or, B, listen to my concerns and try to work them out. As a Senator from the largest State in the Nation, that means a great deal to me. I want to say one thing. I returned last night from Switzerland where I attended the World Economic Forum. I cannot tell you how deeply troubled other nations are by the fact that, as they see it, the United States is unwilling to put forward a major environmental presence. They express concern that the United States, with 4 percent of the world's population, uses 25 percent of the energy. They are concerned about global warming--particularly nations that are low lying that see the sea rising and have the possibility, within decades, of some of their coastal cities being wiped out. They are concerned about deforestation of the rain forest and the loss of wetlands, and they are concerned about clean air and clean water. I share their concerns. I believe this new Secretary of the Interior will also share these concerns as the chief steward of land managed by the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Service. In California alone, this includes the Mojave National Preserve, Yosemite, Joshua Tree, and Death Valley National Parks. She has a tremendous responsibility. I end my remarks by saying, once again, that she is a talented woman. She is flexible. She is committed, I believe, and she has the opportunity to be a very positive Secretary of the Interior. I will be very happy to cast my vote for Gale Norton. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today, along with Senator Sessions of Alabama, to reintroduce the James Guelff Body Armor Act for the fourth consecutive Congress. This bill closes a glaring gap in our criminal law that permits individuals with even the grimmest history of criminal violence to use body armor. It is unquestionable that criminals with violent intentions are more dangerous when they are wearing body armor, and are more difficult for police to disarm and disable. This bill is named in memory of San Francisco Police Officer James Guelff. On November 13, 1994, Officer Guelff was shot to death in a fire-fight by a heavily armed gunman wearing a bullet-proof vest and kevlar helmet on a major street corner in San Francisco. Because of his protective gear, the assailant was subsequently able to hold off over a hundred police officers. California is not the only state where heavily armored criminals have assaulted police officers and the community. In 1999, Officer James Snedigar of the Chandler, Arizona Police department was shot and killed by a gunman firing an AK-47 who was also protected by a kevlar vest. In March of 2000, Deputy Ricky Kinchen of Atlanta, Georgia, was killed in a shootout with a gunman who wore a bulletproof vest. On July 15, 2000, Sergeant Todd Stamper of the Crandon, Wisconsin police department, was killed in a gun fight by a heavily armed man wearing a kevlar helmet and body armor. Lee Guelff, James Guelff's brother, wrote to me about the need to revise the laws relating to body armor. His words eloquently explain the need for the legislation: It's bad enough when officers have to face gunmen in possession of superior firepower. * * * But to have to confront suspects shielded by equal or better defensive protection as well goes beyond the bounds of acceptable risk for officers and citizens alike. No officer should have to face the same set of deadly circumstances again. Our laws need to recognize that body armor in the possession of a criminal is an offensive weapon. Police officers serving on the streets should have ready access to body armor, and hardened-criminals need to be deterred from using it. The James Guelff Body Armor Act of 2001 has three key provisions. First, it directs the United States Sentencing Commission to develop a penalty enhancement for criminals who commit violent crimes while wearing body armor. Second, it prohibits violent felons from purchasing, using, or possessing body armor. Third, this bill enables Federal law enforcement agencies to directly donate surplus body armor to local police. I will address each of these three provisions. I. Enhanced criminal penalties for wearing body armor during violent crimes.--Criminals who wear body armor while engaged in violent crimes deserve enhanced penalties because they pose an enhanced threat to police and civilians alike. Assailants shielded by body armor can shoot at the police and civilians with less fear than individuals not so well protected. The James Guelff Body Armor Act directs the United States Sentencing Commission to develop an appropriate sentence enhancement for wearing body armor during a violent crime. The bill also expresses the Sense of the Senate that any enhancement should be at least two levels. II. Prohibiting violent felons from wearing body armor.--This section makes it a crime (up to three years in jail) for individuals with a violent criminal record to wear, possess, or own body armor. It is unconscionable that criminals can obtain and wear body armor without restriction when so many of our police lack comparable protection. To account for those rare circumstances when a felon may need body armor as part of a lawful occupation, the section provides an affirmative defense against prosecution if the felon wore armor after obtaining permission from employer, and possession of armor was necessary for safe performance of lawful business activity. III. Direct donation of body armor.--The James Guelff Body Armor Act of 2001 also empowers Federal agencies to expedite the donation of body armor to local police departments. Far too many local police officers do not have access to bullet-proof vests. The United States Department of Justice estimates that 25% of State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, approximately 150,000 officers, are not issued body armor. Supplying local police officers with more body armor will save lives. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, greater than 30% of the approximately 1,300 officers killed by guns in the line of duty since 1980 could have been saved by body armor, and the risk of dying from gunfire is 14 times higher for an officer without a bulletproof vest. Body armor saves an estimated 150 police officers' lives each year. The James Guelff Body Armor Act is backed by law enforcement officers all across America. Organizations representing over 500,000 police officers have endorsed the legislation. These organizations include the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National Troopers Coalition, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the International Association of Police Chiefs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to recognize and honor two exceptional research scientists from one of the world's finest oceanographic research facilities who lost their lives in recent weeks. Both were two of the brightest stars at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in La Jolla, California. Michael Mullin, a research biologist at Scripps, and undergraduate professor at the University of California, San Diego, died December 19th of complications following surgery. He was 63 years old. His research over the past 36 years at Scripps has included the study of phytoplankton, zooplankton and larval fish in the marine food web. He was the author of more than 70 scientific publications, including his own book ``Webs and Scales.'' He also served as chief editor of the scientific journal ``Fisheries Oceanography.'' Dr. Mullin's personal sense of the social and moral obligations of science made him a true leader in undergraduate programs at UCSD and at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He was as committed to the education of young students as he was to the practice of science and he will be greatly missed. Mia Jean Tegner, a research marine biologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography since 1969, died Sunday, January 7th in a scuba diving accident off the San Diego coast. She was 53 years old. An experienced scuba diver, Dr. Tegner made more than 4,000 dives throughout the world during her 31 years at Scripps. Her research focused on the ecology of kelp forest communities and near shore marine resources. Her most recent research included studies of the effects of El Nino and La Nina events on the coastal ecosystem. Also socially active and committed to the marine environment, Mia Tegner helped to guide the City of San Diego in developing public policy based on science as it related to ocean pollution. Her work led the way in focusing the nation's attention to the true impacts of human development on the health of our marine environment. As we take the time to honor the work of Dr. Michael Mullin and Dr. Mia Tegner we must also reflect on their commitment to providing us with a better understanding of our world and our relationship with it. I am pleased to recognize and salute these great scientists as two of our nation's outstanding citizens and noble public servants.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today, along with Senator Sessions of Alabama, to reintroduce the James Guelff Body Armor Act for the fourth consecutive Congress. This bill closes a glaring gap in our criminal law that permits individuals with even the grimmest history of criminal violence to use body armor. It is unquestionable that criminals with violent intentions are more dangerous when they are wearing body armor, and are more difficult for police to disarm and disable. This bill is named in memory of San Francisco Police Officer James Guelff. On November 13, 1994, Officer Guelff was shot to death in a fire-fight by a heavily armed gunman wearing a bullet-proof vest and kevlar helmet on a major street corner in San Francisco. Because of his protective gear, the assailant was subsequently able to hold off over a hundred police officers. California is not the only state where heavily armored criminals have assaulted police officers and the community. In 1999, Officer James Snedigar of the Chandler, Arizona Police department was shot and killed by a gunman firing an AK-47 who was also protected by a kevlar vest. In March of 2000, Deputy Ricky Kinchen of Atlanta, Georgia, was killed in a shootout with a gunman who wore a bulletproof vest. On July 15, 2000, Sergeant Todd Stamper of the Crandon, Wisconsin police department, was killed in a gun fight by a heavily armed man wearing a kevlar helmet and body armor. Lee Guelff, James Guelff's brother, wrote to me about the need to revise the laws relating to body armor. His words eloquently explain the need for the legislation: It's bad enough when officers have to face gunmen in possession of superior firepower. * * * But to have to confront suspects shielded by equal or better defensive protection as well goes beyond the bounds of acceptable risk for officers and citizens alike. No officer should have to face the same set of deadly circumstances again. Our laws need to recognize that body armor in the possession of a criminal is an offensive weapon. Police officers serving on the streets should have ready access to body armor, and hardened-criminals need to be deterred from using it. The James Guelff Body Armor Act of 2001 has three key provisions. First, it directs the United States Sentencing Commission to develop a penalty enhancement for criminals who commit violent crimes while wearing body armor. Second, it prohibits violent felons from purchasing, using, or possessing body armor. Third, this bill enables Federal law enforcement agencies to directly donate surplus body armor to local police. I will address each of these three provisions. I. Enhanced criminal penalties for wearing body armor during violent crimes.--Criminals who wear body armor while engaged in violent crimes deserve enhanced penalties because they pose an enhanced threat to police and civilians alike. Assailants shielded by body armor can shoot at the police and civilians with less fear than individuals not so well protected. The James Guelff Body Armor Act directs the United States Sentencing Commission to develop an appropriate sentence enhancement for wearing body armor during a violent crime. The bill also expresses the Sense of the Senate that any enhancement should be at least two levels. II. Prohibiting violent felons from wearing body armor.--This section makes it a crime (up to three years in jail) for individuals with a violent criminal record to wear, possess, or own body armor. It is unconscionable that criminals can obtain and wear body armor without restriction when so many of our police lack comparable protection. To account for those rare circumstances when a felon may need body armor as part of a lawful occupation, the section provides an affirmative defense against prosecution if the felon wore armor after obtaining permission from employer, and possession of armor was necessary for safe performance of lawful business activity. III. Direct donation of body armor.--The James Guelff Body Armor Act of 2001 also empowers Federal agencies to expedite the donation of body armor to local police departments. Far too many local police officers do not have access to bullet-proof vests. The United States Department of Justice estimates that 25% of State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, approximately 150,000 officers, are not issued body armor. Supplying local police officers with more body armor will save lives. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, greater than 30% of the approximately 1,300 officers killed by guns in the line of duty since 1980 could have been saved by body armor, and the risk of dying from gunfire is 14 times higher for an officer without a bulletproof vest. Body armor saves an estimated 150 police officers' lives each year. The James Guelff Body Armor Act is backed by law enforcement officers all across America. Organizations representing over 500,000 police officers have endorsed the legislation. These organizations include the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National Troopers Coalition, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the International Association of Police Chiefs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise, along with Senators Hutchinson of Texas, Senator Kyl of Arizona, and Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, to introduce the Southwest Border Judgeship Act of 2001. This legislation would enact the United States Judicial Conference recommendation of nine permanent and nine temporary judgeships for the five Southwestern border districts of Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, Western Texas, and Southern Texas. The judicial districts on the Southwestern Border are facing an unparalleled surge of cases, and lack the resources to handle them. From March 1994 through March 1999, criminal case filings in Southwestern border courts increased by 125 percent (from 6,460 to 14,517), drug prosecutions in these same districts increased by 189 percent (from 2,864 to 5,414), and immigration prosecutions by 431 percent (from 1,056 to 5,614). The Five ``Border Courts'' (Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas, Southern Texas) now handle 26 percent of all federal court criminal filings in the United States, and are projected to handle one- third within two years. The 89 other district courts handle the other 74 percent of criminal filings. All five border courts currently are among the top ten most burdened districts in the country in terms of weighted caseload. While these courts have faced an ever rising caseload, their resources have remained stagnant. The Southern District of California, for example, has not been authorized a new judgeship since 1990. Nowhere is the judicial crisis greater than in the Southern District of California. On October 30, 2000, the district took the unprecedented step of declaring a ``judicial emergency.'' The Southern district had a weighted caseload of 978 cases per judgeship in Fiscal year 2000. That's nearly two and a half times the national standard of 430 cases per judgeship. The court's criminal caseload is the heaviest in the nation, with 55 trials per judge for the year 2000. In civil case, many judges no longer hear oral arguments; they base their opinions solely on written briefs. The Chief Judge in San Diego, Marilyn Huff, has resorted to desperate measures to hold back this tide of cases, including asking seven retired judges to return to the bench. Two of these judges, Judge Edward Schwartz and Judge Leland Nielsen, have recently died. The Southern District of California and other border districts cannot continue to function effectively with a skeleton crew of judges. The crisis in San Diego, in particular, has reached a point where citizen access to justice is being threatened. It is imperative that Congress act proactively to address this shortage of resources. The Southwest Border Judges Act would authorize nine permanent judgeships (5 judgeships for the Southern District of California, 1 judgeship for the district of New Mexico, 1 judgeship for the Southern District of Texas, and 2 judgeships for the western district of Texas) and nine temporary judgeships (four for Arizona, 3 for the Southern District of California, 1 for New Mexico, and 1 for the Western district of Texas). I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this urgent legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment that President Bush chose yesterday to announce that as his first major policy action since becoming President he is reinstating the ``global gag rule'' restricting United States assistance to international family planning organizations. There have been few issues in recent years that have been more debated, with people of good intention on both sides of the issue, and I am dismayed that the President has opted to start his Administration with such a divisive action. The world now has more than 6 billion people. The United Nations estimates this figure could be 12 billion by the year 2050. Almost all of this growth will occur in the places least able to bear up under the pressures of massive population increases. The brunt of this decision will be felt not in the United States but in developing countries lacking the resources needed to provide basic health or education services. 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. In fact, 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. Under the leadership of both Democratic and Republican Presidents, and under Congresses controlled by Democrats and Republicans alike, the United States has established a long and distinguished record of world leadership on international family planning and reproductive health issues. Unfortunately, in recent years these programs have come under increasing partisan attack by the anti-choice wing of the Republican party--despite the fact that no U.S. international family planning funds are spent on international abortion. I do not expect President Bush to change his mind. He is the President, and, under legislation passed by the last Congress it is now his prerogative to determine how U.S. international family planning assistance will be used. But I would ask him, and his advisors, to think long and hard about this decision, about how this decision squares with ``humble'' U.S. leadership of the international community and our commitment to help those around the world who need and want our help and assistance. I would ask the women of America, as they consider their own reproductive rights, to consider the aim and intent of a policy in which the reproductive rights of American women are approached one way, and those of women in the developing world another. And I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who feel as strongly about this issue as I do to consider what legislative remedies and options we may have available to address this decision. Mr. President, it had been my sincere hope that under President Bush international family planning would have been an issue that Republicans and Democrats, the Administration and Congress, could have worked on together, in a bipartisan fashion. It is with no small amount of regret that I say that that no longer appears to be the case.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reform the longstanding inequity in the Medicare Direct Graduate Medical Education (DGME) formula that has unfairly compensated many teaching hospitals across the country in the past 15 years. The Medicare DGME payment compensates teaching hospitals for many of the costs related to the graduate training of physicians. This legislation is timely as many of our nation's 400 teaching hospitals are in the midst of a serious financial crisis. Over 72 percent of all teaching hospitals are currently operating with negative margins, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Approximately 42 percent of the 100 major teaching hospitals could be operating at a loss by 2002. Teaching hospitals are losing millions of dollars annually. The University of Pennsylvania reported a $200 million deficit in 1999. In Massachusetts, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the New England Medical Center posted operating losses for the six month period of October 1998 to March 1999 totaling more than $63 million. The University of Minnesota sold its hospital to a private company in 1997 because ``it was bleeding red ink,'' according to the university's senior Vice-President for health sciences. Wayne State University in Michigan lost nearly $200 million in 1998 and 1999. Georgetown University lost $83 million in 1999, $62 million in 1998, and $57 million in 1997. In my State, the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) has seen its net income plunge $50 million and bottom out close to zero. The University of California San Francisco faces a $25 million loss over the next year. Excluding the University of California San Francisco, all University of California teaching hospitals collectively lost $90 million in net income since 1997. Many factors are to blame for the financial crisis of our nation's teaching hospitals. Balanced Budget Act of 1997: The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 took a major blow at teaching hospitals, significantly cutting federal Medicare payments. The cuts included in BBA 1997, for example, has meant a loss of $25 million over three years to UCLA. Penetration of Managed Care: Managed care payments to many teaching hospitals barely cover costs. Twenty-eight percent of all privately insured Americans are enrolled in an HMO. In California, this number is 88 percent. For example, California's capitation rate is one of the lowest in the nation. The average capitation rate in the State reached its peak in 1993 at $45 per month. Last year, the rate sunk to $29, while the cost of living jumped 25.2 percent. Increasing Number of Uninsured: The number of uninsured has exploded. Today, 44 million Americans are without health insurance, California alone has 7 million uninsured residents. The high rate of uninsured impacts teaching hospitals because they are a major safety net provider--teaching hospitals provide approximately 44 percent of all care to the indigent. This means that when our nation's uninsured require medical care for complicated and complex pathologies, they find their way to teaching hospitals. Academic medical centers affiliated with the University of California, for example, are the second largest safety net for a State that has the fourth highest uninsured rate in the country. These are three examples of the forces behind the financial crisis of our nation's teaching hospitals. Low DGME payments further erode and destabilize the health care system. Academic medical centers have three major responsibilities and missions--teaching, research, and patient care--which cause them to incur costs unique to such facilities. ``If just one leg of that three- legged stool is weak, it [academic medical centers] becomes destabilized,'' said Dr. Gerald Levey, UCLA's provost for health sciences. Low DGME payments are weakening teaching hospitals' ability to train future physicians. Teaching hospitals account for only 6 percent of the nation's 5,000 hospitals. Despite the small number of teaching hospitals, they are a major provider of care. Teaching hospitals house: Forty percent of all neonatal intensive care units; fifty-three percent of pediatric intensive care units; and seventy percent of all burn units. Teaching hospitals also handle: Twenty percent of all inpatient admissions; twenty-two percent of outpatient visits; nineteen percent of surgical operations, including 82 percent of all open heart surgeries; sixteen percent of emergency visits; and nineteen percent of all births. The bottom line is that the financial crisis faced by teaching hospitals is impacting patient access to and quality of care. California has been particularly impacted by this financial crisis. Let me tell you how an outpatient eye clinic at the University of California, San Francisco has been impacted by the financial crisis facing teaching hospitals. The clinic has a patient mix that is approximately 70 percent Medicare and 30 percent Medi-Cal. Due in part to historically low DGME payments, the clinic has had to decrease the number of staff, increase patient load, and cut faculty salaries by 15 percent. The number of patients seen on an average day, for example, has increased from 12 per half day to 18. Less time with each patient compromises quality of care. According to a 1965 Medicare rule, Medicare paid for its share of DGME costs based on each hospital's ``Medicare allowable costs.'' This allowed for open-ended reimbursement. Congress changed the methodology used to determine payments in 1986, and retroactively established Fiscal Year 1985 as the base year for all future calculations for DGME payments. The problem, which created this disparity in payments, is that some teaching hospitals narrowly interpreted the law and did not claim such expenses as faculty costs and benefits in 1985. Submitted claims for 1985 were then used to determine a ``base formula'' for each teaching hospital. The base formula determined for each teaching hospital in 1985 has been used to determine all DGME payments since 1985 and disadvantages many teaching hospitals. To give you an idea of the large variation in payments, 10 percent of teaching hospitals had per-resident payments of more than $98,800 in 1995, whereas the average payment for another 10 percent was below $37,400. The national mean in 1995 was $62,700. A study conducted last year based on data from the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) further highlights the variations among teaching hospitals. The study shows that: Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan received an average Medicare payment of $57,010 a year for each resident it trains. In comparison, Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in Manhattan received an average of $24,444 per resident. Even when cost-of-living and training expenses are presumably similar (both hospitals are in Manhattan), there is great variation in the payment received by hospitals for training residents. Additional examples of variations in payments include: Montefiore Medicare Center in the Bronx received an average of $55,073 per resident; Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston received an average of $29,843 per resident; Cleveland Clinic Hospital received an average of $16,118 per resident, and the University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center received an average of $11,908 per resident. In an attempt to level the playing field, the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BRA) contained provision that created a 70 percent floor and a 140 percentage ceiling for Medicare DGME payments. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Improvement Act of 2000 also contained provision to increase the floor to 85 percent in 2002. While Congress has begun to address the tissue of variations in DGME payments by implementing a floor and a ceiling for payments in 1999 and 2000, more must be done. I believe all teaching hospitals should receive reimbursement from Medicare that equal the national average. Bringing all teaching hospitals up to the national average, without undermining the financial stability of those teaching hospitals currently receiving payments above the national average, could help stabilize our nation's health care system. The legislation that I am introducing today takes good steps to reduce variations in DGME and restore stability to the system. As established in current law, the floor for Medicare reimbursements for teaching hospitals would equal 85 percent by Fiscal Year 2002. Over a period of four years (from FY 2003-2006), this legislation would bring teaching hospitals that are currently reimbursed by Medicare below the national average up to the national average. The phase in is as follows: Beginning in Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004, the floor would be increased to 90 percent. In Fiscal Year 2005 the floor would be increased to 95 percent. By Fiscal Year 2006, all teaching hospitals would be receiving per resident payments that equal at least 100 percent of the national average. Those teaching hospitals receiving payments above the national average would be held harmless. Approximately thirty-eight States benefit under the proposed legislation. Teaching hospitals in several states will benefit over the next several years due in combination to the proposed legislation and the changes made in both 1999 and 2000 to increase the floor for DGME payments. California to Benefit: California will gain approximately $61.5 million over the next 6 years as a result of this legislation and the changes made to the DGME floor in 1999 and 2000. For example, the University of California Medical Centers will gain $16.3 million over six years. The medical center at the University of Davis will gain $3.2 million; the medical center at the University of Irvine will gain $1.6 million; UCLA's medical center will gain $5.8 million; the medical center at the University of San Diego will gain $1.8 million; and the medical center at the University of San Francisco will gain approximately $3.9 million. This is merely an example of State impact under the proposed legislation. These numbers are significant. Many of our nation's teaching hospitals would greatly benefit under the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation would use new money to move teaching hospitals below the national average up to the average. Less than $500 million over 4 years would be borrowed from the Medicare Part A Trust fund to pay for the increase in Medicare payments to direct graduate medical education. So as to keep the Medicare Part A Trust Fund solvent beyond 2025, this legislation authorizes the Senate to appropriate to the Trust Fund annually an amount equal to what is taken out to reimburse teaching hospitals at this higher rate. Teaching hospitals rely heavily on DGME payments to train and support their medical students and faculty. For example, medical education funding in California helps support 108 hospitals that train more than 6,700 residents over three-to-five year periods. California received $75.1 million in DGME payments in 1997. Many of the nation's teaching hospitals will be forced to close down beds and lower the quality of care they provide. UCLA has had to lay off 300 employees in the past few years due to budget constraints. In a statement issued April 2000 by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AMC), the association said that: To enhance the credibility of the payment system and to eliminate inequities in payment levels, the AMC believes that payments to any hospital whose per resident DGME amount is below the national average per resident DGME payment levels (adjusted for local variability in cost of living wages) should be raised closer to the national average; additional funding resources should be used to accomplish this adjustment. This legislation does just that--over a period of four years, teaching hospitals receiving payments below the national average will be brought up to the national average using new money. It is that simple. ``Teaching hospitals are a national resource,'' says Albert Carnesale, Chancellor of UCLA. I agree with Chancellor Carnesale. I believe that the vitality of our nation's teaching hospitals should be of highest concern to Congress. As our nation's uninsured rate continues to grow and the population continues to explode, we must work to ensure that we have an adequate supply of physicians to provide medical care. Training physicians and providing teaching hospitals with the funds necessary to offer this training should be of highest priority. I believe that a teaching hospital's ability to serve their communities and train physicians will be further compromised if we do not enact this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last year on Mother's Day, supporters of sensible gun laws came together by the hundreds of thousands to participate in the Million Mom March and say to Congress: ``Enough is Enough.'' Those women, men and children all shared a common purpose: The passage of sensible gun laws--laws that will hopefully help save lives. The primary stated goal of the Million Mom March was to push for legislation to license gun owners and keep track of guns. We know it will be a long process of educating the Congress and the public on this issue. But we will not give in until we succeed. So today I rise, along with Senators Schumer and Boxer, to reintroduce the ``Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act,'' which I believe represents a common-sense approach to guns and gun violence in America. Mr. President, in this country, when you want to hunt, you get a hunting license; when you want to fish, you get a fishing license. But when you want to buy a gun, no license is necessary. That makes no sense. We register cars and license drivers. We register pesticides and license exterminators. We register animal carriers and researchers, we register gambling devices. And we register a whole host of other goods and activities--even ``international expositions'' must be registered with the Bureau of International Expositions! But when it comes to guns and gun owners--no license and no registration, despite the loss of more than 32,000 lives a year from gun violence. To this end, my staff and I worked for months with law enforcement officials and other experts in drafting the bill we introduced last year. And since that time, we have refined the bill, corrected some vague sections, and made it even more clear what the bill would do, and what it would not do. Upon enactment of this legislation, anyone purchasing a handgun or semi-automatic weapon that takes detachable ammunition magazines will be required to have a license. Shotguns and a large number of common hunting guns are not covered by the requirements of this bill. Current owners of these weapons will have up to 10 years to obtain a license, on a rolling basis, much like many states now handle drivers licenses. The bill sets up a federal system, but allows states to opt out if they adopt a system at least as effective as the federal program. Under this bill, anyone wishing to obtain a firearm license will need to go to a federally licensed firearms dealer. There are currently more than 100,000 such dealers across the country--to put that in some perspective, there are four times more gun dealers in America than there are McDonald's restaurants in the entire world. Operating the federal licensing system through these licensed dealers will minimize the burden on those wishing to obtain a license. If a state opts-out of the federal program, an individual will go to a State-designated entity, like a local sheriff, local police department, or even Department of Motor Vehicles. It will all depend on where the state feels is best. Either way, the purchaser will then need to: Provide information as to date and place of birth and name and address; Submit a thumb print; Submit a current photograph; Sign, under penalty of perjury, that all of the submitted information is true and that the applicant is qualified under Federal law to possess a firearm; Pass a written firearms safety test, requiring knowledge of the safe storage and handling of firearms, the legal responsibilities of firearm ownership, and other factors as determined by the state or federal authority; Sign a pledge to keep any firearm safely stored and out of the hands of juveniles (this pledge will be backed up by criminal penalties of up to three years in jail for anyone failing to do so); Undergo state and federal background checks. Licenses will be renewable every five years, and can be revoked at any time if the licensee becomes disqualified under federal law from owning or possessing a gun. And Mr. President, the fee for a license cannot exceed $25. Once the bill takes effect, all future sales and transfers of firearms falling within the scope of the bill will have to be recorded through a federally licensed firearms dealer, with an accompanying NICS background check. That way, law enforcement agencies will have easier access to information leading to the arrest of persons who use guns in crime. The bill covers both handguns and other guns that are semi-automatic and can accept detachable magazines. The legislation covers handguns because statistically, these guns are used in more crimes than any other. In fact, approximately 85 percent of all firearm homicides involve a handgun. And the legislation also covers semi-automatic firearms that can accept detachable magazines, because these are the kind of assault weapons that have the potential to destroy the largest number of lives in the shortest period of time. A gun that can take a detachable magazine can also take a large capacity magazine. Combine that with semi-automatic, rapid fire, and you have a deadly combination--as we have seen time and again in recent years. Put simply, this legislation will cover those firearms that represent the greatest threat to the safety of innocent men, women and children in this nation. Common hunting rifles, shotguns and other firearms that cannot accept detachable magazines will remain exempt. Penalties will vary depending on the severity of the violation. But in no case will gun owners face jail time simply because they forgot to get a license: Those who fail to get a license will face fines of between $500 (for a first offense) and $5,000 for subsequent offenses. Failing to report a change of address or the loss of a firearm will also result in penalties between $500 and $5,000, because this system works best for law enforcement when the perpetrators of gun crime can be quickly traced and arrested; Dealers who fail to maintain adequate records will face up to 2 years in prison--dealers know their responsibilities, and this will give law enforcement the tools necessary to root out bad dealers and prevent the straw purchases and other violations of law that allow criminals easy access to a continuing flow of guns; And adults who recklessly or knowingly allow a child access to a firearm face up to three years in prison if the child uses the gun to kill or seriously injure another person. In this way, the bill truly puts a new sense of responsibility onto gun owners in America. Mr. President, law enforcement in California tells me that a licensing and record of sale system like the one I am introducing today will help law enforcement, upon recovery of a firearm used in crime, to track the gun down to the person who sold it, and then to the person who bought it. And this legislation also sets in place a method through which we can better attempt to ensure that gun owners are responsible and trained in the use and care of their dangerous possessions. We have tried to minimize the burden of this bill at every turn: The licensing process will take place through federally licensed firearms dealers--as I mentioned earlier, there are currently more than 100,000 in this country; The fee for a license will be only $25; Current gun owners will have as many as ten years to get a license, on a rolling basis, and guns now in homes will not have to be registered; Future gun transfers will simply be recorded by licensed dealers--as they are now--and a system will be put in place to allow the quick tracing of guns used in crime. Gun owners themselves will not have to register their old guns or send any paperwork to the government. This nation is awash in guns--there are more than 200 million of them in the United States. The problem of gun violence is not going away, and accidental deaths from firearms rob us of countless innocents each year. Too many lives are lost every year simply because gun owners do not know how to use or store their firearms--particularly around children. In fact, according to a study released in 1999, in 1996 alone there were more than 1,100 unintentional shooting deaths and more than 18,000 firearm suicides--many of which might have been prevented if the person intent on suicide did not have easy access to a gun owned by somebody else. It is my hope that the provisions of this bill, particularly with regard to child access prevention, will begin the process of making it harder for children and others to gain easy access to firearms. As I said, I know that this bill will not pass overnight. We have a long process of education ahead of us. But the American people are with us. The facts are with us. And common sense is with us. I thank the Senate for its consideration of this measure, and I look forward to working with each of my colleagues to move this bill forward in the coming months. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today to address problems with the California energy market and the unwillingness of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take the necessary action. Last week, the lights went off in California and the governor declared a state of emergency. More than 1 million businesses and homeowners throughout the state lost power. Computers shut off, ATMs stopped dispensing cash, traffic lights went dark and heaters went cold, jeopardizing public safety, the economy, and people's lives. The situation continues to worsen, and the prognosis for the future is dire. Unfortunately, the problem is not just limited to California. PG&E and Southern California Edison, our two largest blue chip utilities are on the brink of bankruptcy and have lost billions. The state's economy has also lost billions from work stoppages that seem to occur every single workday. As goes California so goes the rest of the country, I believe. California is the 6th largest economy in the world. Already financial institutions and banks that have underwritten the debts of our utilities are being saddled with their own problems due to the uncertainty over whether they will be paid. Those who believe that California deserves its present plight because of the state's deregulation bill are near-sighted. California passed a very flawed de-regulation bill in 1996. It was flawed because it relied almost entirely on a free market and assumed that there will always be adequate energy supply. What has resulted is an uncompetitive market and an absence of adequate supply. I believe California shares a major responsibility here and I am encouraged that the state legislature is beginning to take action. However, the federal government also has a major responsibility because the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act holds the only authority over energy generators and marketers. The state cannot address this. Unfortunately, the FERC, even after concluding that rates in California are ``unjust and unreasonable,'' has failed to take the necessary action to solve the crisis. I am thus proposing legislation today to empower the Secretary of Energy to take the same action available to the FERC in instances when FERC has failed to take decisive action. Individual states would be able to opt out of any order from the Secretary as this bill is aimed at helping those states that need and want help. I urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to strengthen the penalties for organized smuggling of fruits, plants, and vegetables into the United States. A felony statute for agriculture product smuggling is needed to reflect the serious impact these crimes have on our farmers and the entire agriculture industry. Recent breaches of the agriculture safeguarding system have proven the need for strong criminal penalties for organized smuggling: multiple exotic fruit fly infestations have decimated California and Florida; the Asian longhorn beetle has been found in New York and Illinois; the Asian gypsy moth has been introduced in North Carolina and Oregon; and plum pox from Western Europe has devastated peach production in Pennsylvania. This widespread invasion of foreign species requires a strong federal response. The consequences of failing to adequately combat agriculture smuggling are clear. Until recently, a 72 square mile area of San Diego was under quarantine due to an infestation of Mexican Fruit Flies. The quarantine effected 1,470 growers of at least 20 specialty crops. The Department of Agriculture has encouraged California producers to grow specialty fruits and vegetables in an effort to reduce the risk of exotic pest introduction from smuggled fruit. Yet, no pre or post harvest treatment for many of these crops has been provided by the USDA. As a result of 2 fruit flies, roughly 150 growers lost virtually their entire harvest-- estimated more than $3 million. Problems with existing laws The current system that charges low fines and encourages few prosecutions is not a meaningful deterrent for violators. The USDA can assess a maximum fine of $1,000 for passenger and cargo violations. For an illegal shipper, this is simply a minor cost of doing business and not an effective deterrent. In addition, the lack of serious penalties for such crimes has resulted in a reduced number of criminal investigations, violators prosecuted, and sentences given to those convicted. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the USDA, the law enforcement arm of the Department, has placed a low priority on agriculture smuggling violations because they are only misdemeanors and the OIG is forced to devote the bulk of its resources to felony violations. Of the 4,400 investigations completed since October 1, 1994, fewer than 50 involved smuggling. The sentences given to the relatively few convicted smugglers is also effected by the attitude that this is not a serious crime. In the State of Washington, two people were caught smuggling agricultural products into the country on numerous occasions. Their third arrest came after 400 pounds of illegal and infested fruit was found in the walls of their station wagon. Despite their repeated crimes, the smugglers received only two days of jail time and a fine of $1,000. penalties for violations This legislation would make it a felony to knowingly and willfully smuggle large amounts of agriculture products into the country. Persons caught smuggling foreign plant pests, more than 50 pounds of plants, more than 5 pounds of plant products, more than 50 pounds of noxious weeds, or possession with intent to distribute these products, would be punished with imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of as much as $25,000, or both. Repeat violators would face 10 years of jail time and/or a fine of $50,000. The legislation would also make smuggling lesser amounts of products a misdemeanor crime punishable by one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. Subsequent violations would result in three years of jail time and/or a fine of $10,000. These penalties will provide law enforcement with the needed tools to investigate, arrest, and prosecute individuals and organizations engaged in the organized smuggling of agriculture products. property forfeitures Another inadequacy in current law is the lack of a specific forfeiture provision for agriculture product smuggling. I have been told of cases at the San Diego border in which a person has been caught smuggling fruits or vegetables across the border. After receiving a slap on the wrist from the judicial system, his truck was returned to him, and he was allowed to return to his criminal occupation with the tools of his trade intact. It is astonishing to me that, not only is the government incapable of punishing illegal traffickers of agriculture products, but we are unable to take even modest steps to prevent recurrences of the same crime. According to this legislation, anyone convicted of violating the law would forfeit any property used to commit or facilitate the violation. They would also forfeit any money acquired through a violation of the law. The proceeds of the sale of forfeited property would be used to reimburse the costs of the prosecution. Any additional funds would go towards the USDA's interdiction efforts. I believe that Congress must send a message to our farmers and growers that the federal government is committed to protecting the agriculture sector from invasive species. We can do this by passing this legislation as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to create a demonstration grant program to help school districts create master teacher positions. The bill authorizes $100 million for a five-year demonstration program under which the Secretary of Education would award competitive grants to school districts to create master teacher positions. Federal funds would be equally matched by states and local governments so that $200 million total would be available. Under the bill, 6,600 master teacher positions could be created if each master teacher were paid $30,000 on top of the current average teacher's salary. As defined in this bill, a master teacher is one who is credentialed; has at least five years of teaching experience; is judged to be an excellent teacher by administrators and teachers who are knowledgeable about the individual's performance; is currently teaching; and enters into a contract and agrees to serve at least five more years. The master teacher would help other teachers to improve instruction, strengthen other teachers' skills, mentor less experienced teachers, develop curriculum, and provide other professional development. The goal of this bill is for districts to pay each master teacher up to $30,000 on top of his or her regular salary. Nationally, the average teacher salary is $40,574. In California, it is $45,317. School principals receive $76,768 on average nationally and $72,805 in California. School superintendents nationally earn $106,122 and in California, $102,054. The purpose of the master teacher concept in this bill is to pay teachers a salary closer to that of an administrator to keep good teachers in teaching. The bill requires State and/or local districts to match federal funds dollar for dollar. It requires the U.S. Department of Education to give priority to school districts with a high proportion of economically disadvantaged students and to ensure that grants are awarded to a wide range of districts in terms of the size and location of the school district, the ethnic and economic composition of students, and the experience of the districts' teachers. There are several reasons we need this bill. Beginning teachers face overwhelming challenges in their first year, but in the real world, they get little guidance or support, in a year that will have a profound impact on the rest of their professional career. They often feel ``out there'' and ``alone,'' thrown into an unfamiliar school and classroom with a room full of new faces. By the current sink-or-swim method, new teachers often find themselves ill equipped to deal with the educational and disciplinary tasks of their first year. A new teacher can get experienced guidance from a master teacher who is paired with the new teacher. The master teacher can help plan lessons, improve instructional methods, and deal with discipline problems. Having this kind of professional support can give these new teachers the skills and confidence to stay in teaching. Second, master teacher programs can bring more prestige to teaching as a profession, by increasing the teacher's salary, by rewarding experience, and by giving teachers opportunities to supervise others. A master teacher designation is a way to recognize outstanding ability and performance, and to reward the good teachers. A master teacher position can give teachers a professional goal, a higher level to pursue. A 1996 report by the National Commission for Teaching and American's Future said that creating new career paths for teachers is one of the best ways to give educators the respect they deserve and to ensure that proven teaching methods spread quickly and broadly. In one survey of teachers which asked which factors make teachers stay in teaching, 79 percent of teachers said that respect for the teaching profession is needed in order to retain qualified teachers. Eighty percent said that formal mentoring programs for beginning teachers is key (Scholastic/Chief State School Officers' Teacher Voices Survey, 2000). Over 70 percent of teachers said that more planning time with peers is needed to keep teachers in the classroom. This amendment should help. Because of the higher pay and enhanced prestige, a master teacher program can help to recruit and retain teachers. Mentor systems provide new teachers with a support network, someone to turn to. Studies indicate higher retention rates among new teachers who participate in mentoring programs. According to Yvonne Gold of California State University-Long Beach, 25 percent of beginning teachers do not teach more than two years and nearly 40 percent leave in the first five years. In the Rochester, New York, system, the teacher retention rate was nearly double the national average five years after establishing a mentoring program. As Jay Matthews wrote in the May 16, 2000, Washington Post, programs like this ``can provide a large boost to the profession's image for a relatively small amount of money.'' These programs can keep good teachers in the classroom, instead of losing them to school administration or industry. Higher salaries and prestige for master teachers could deter the drain from the classrooms. Another reason for this bill is that teacher mentoring programs can make teacher performance more accountable. A master teacher can help novice teachers improve their teaching and get better student achievement. ``Teachers cannot be held accountable for knowledge based, client-oriented decisions if they do not have access to knowledge, as well as opportunities for consultation and evaluation of their work,'' said Adam Urbanski, President of the Rochester, New York, Teachers Association. He went on: ``Unsatisfactory teacher performance often stems from inadequate and incompetent supervision. Administrators often lack the training and the resources to supervise teachers and improve the performance of those who are in serious trouble.'' Good teachers are key to learning. Lower math test scores have been correlated with the percentage of math teachers on emergency permits and higher math test scores were linked both to the teachers' qualifications and to their years of teaching experience, according to ``Professional Development for Teachers, 2000.'' This bill could be very helpful in California where one-fifth of our teachers will leave the profession in three years, according to an article in the February 9, 2000, Los Angeles Times. One-half of our teachers are over age 44. California will need 300,000 new teachers by 2010. ``More students to teach, smaller classes, and teachers leaving or retiring means that California school districts are now having to hire a record 26,000 new teachers each year,'' says the report, ``Teaching and California's Future, 2000.'' California's enrollment is growing at three times the national rate. With these kinds of demands, understaffing often leads to under qualified and new teachers entering the classroom. We have to do all we can to attract and retain good teachers. The true beneficiaries of master teacher programs are the students and that is, of course, my fundamental goal. As stated in Rochester's teaching manual, the goal is ``to improve student outcomes by developing and maintaining the highest quality of teaching, providing teachers with career options that do not require them to leave teaching to assume additional responsibilities and leadership roles.'' I believe this bill can begin to provide teachers the real professional support they need, can attract and retain teachers and can bring to the teaching profession the prestige it deserves. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation to change the way unaccompanied immigrant children are treated while in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). If enacted, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2001 would ensure that the federal government addresses the special needs of thousands of unaccompanied alien children who enter the U.S. It will ensure that these children have a fair opportunity to obtain humanitarian relief. Central throughout this legislation are two concepts: The United States government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and in all proceedings and actions, the government's ultimate priority should be to protect the best interests of children. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2001 would ensure that children who are apprehended by the INS are treated humanely and appropriately by transferring jurisdiction over their welfare from the INS Detention and Deportation division to a newly created Office of Children's Services within the Department of Justice. This legislation would also centralize responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied children in this new Office of Children's Services. By doing so, it would resolve the conflict of interest inherent in the current system--that is, the INS retains custody of children and is charged with their care while, at the same time, it seeks their deportation. Under this bill, the Office of Children's Services would be required to establish standards for the custody, release, and detention of children, ensuring that children are housed in appropriate shelters or foster care rather than juvenile jails. In 1999, the INS held some 2,000 children in juvenile jails even though they had never committed a crime. Equally as important, the bill would require the Office to establish clear guidelines and uniformity for detention alternatives such as shelter care, foster care, and other child custody arrangements. The bill would improve unaccompanied aliens' access to existing options for permanent protection when U.S. immigration and child welfare authorities believe such protection is warranted. Finally, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act would provide unaccompanied minors with access to legal counsel, who would ensure that the children appear at all immigration proceedings and assist them as the INS and immigration court consider their cases. The bill would also provide the children with access to a guardian ad litem to ensure that they are properly placed in a safe and caring environment. The guardian ad litem would also work to ensure that each child's best interests are protected throughout the process. Let me turn for a moment to the issue of access to counsel. Children, even more than adults, have incredible difficulty understanding the complexities of the asylum system without the assistance of counsel. Despite this reality, most children in INS detention are overlooked and unrepresented. Without legal representation, children are at risk of being returned to their home countries where they may face further human rights abuses. I am aware of two cases that demonstrate the compelling need for counsel on behalf of these children. The first case involves two 17- year old boys from China. Li and Wang, who were apprehended on an island near Guam and had been in INS custody for almost two years. During their detention in Guam, the two boys testified in federal court against the smugglers who brought them to Guam. In their testimony, they described being beaten by the smugglers even before leaving China, and stated that others were beaten during the trip to Guam. In the spring of 2000, the two boys were brought to a corrections facility in Los Angeles and detained in the INS section of that facility. This is where the similarity in their cases end. Mr. President, while both of the boys would face danger from the smugglers if they returned to China because of their testimony, only one was granted asylum. Li applied for asylum and was denied. He was not represented by counsel at his hearing. Despite the fact that the INS trial attorney mentioned that Li had testified in federal court against the smugglers, the judge did not include this information in her decision on the claim. Luckily for Li, an attorney overheard the hearing, and after speaking with Li, agreed to appeal his asylum claim. Li is still being held in a Los Angeles corrections facility. The story is different for Wang. Wang had an attorney and won his asylum hearing. But INS is appealing the decision so Wang remains in a Los Angeles corrections facility, as well. Mr. President, these cases demonstrate the pressing need for legal representation of children. Had he been represented by counsel and if his testimony would have been incorporated into his case, Li may have won his asylum claim. Instead, a 17-year-old boy unfamiliar with our immigration system and our language was forced to navigate the complex court system alone. According to Human Rights Watch, children detained by the INS, whether in secure detention or less restrictive settings, often have great difficulty obtaining information about their legal rights. On a 1998 visit to the Berks County Juvenile Detention Center in Reading, Pennsylvania, Human Rights Watch staff found that none of the children they interviewed had received information from the INS or the facility's staff about their rights or the legal services available to them. Unaccompanied alien children are among the most vulnerable of the immigrant population; many have often entered the country under traumatic circumstances. They are young and alone, subject to abuse and exploitation. These unaccompanied children are unable to articulate their fears, their views, or testify to their needs as accurately as adults can. Despite these facts, U.S. immigration laws and policies have been developed and implemented without caring about their effect on children, particularly on unaccompanied alien children. Sadly, the INS detains more than 5,000 children nationwide each year. They are apprehended for not having proper documentation at ports-of- entry into the United States. Their detention may last for months--or sometimes for years--as they undergo complex and arduous immigration proceedings. Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed primarily for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles and procedures. Children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable to being deported back to the very abusive situations from which they fled before they are able to make their case before the INS or an immigration judge. Under current law, the INS is responsible for the apprehension, detention, care, placement, legal protection, and deportation of unaccompanied children. I believe that these are conflicting responsibilities that undercut the best interests of the child. Too often, the INS has fallen short in fulfilling the protection side of these responsibilities. The INS uses a variety of facilities to house children. Some are held in children's shelters in which children are offered some of the services they need but still may experience prolonged detention, lack of access to counsel, and other troubling conditions. The INS relies on juvenile correctional facilities to house many children, even in the absence of any criminal wrongdoing. Today, one out of every three children in INS custody is detained in secure, jail- like facilities. These facilities are highly inappropriate, particularly for children who have already experienced painful trauma in their homelands. There is currently no provision of federal law providing guidance for the placement of unaccompanied alien children. In 1987, the Flores v. Reno settlement agreement on behalf of minors in INS detention established the nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of children in the custody of INS. The Flores agreement requires that the INS treat minors with dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability. It also requires the INS to place each detained minor in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the child's age and special needs. In response to Flores, the INS issued regulations that permitted its officers to detain children in secure facilities only in limited circumstances. The INS officers were required to provide written notice to the child of the reasons for such placement. More importantly, the regulations required the INS to segregate immigration detainees from juvenile criminal offenders. Although INS officials have contended that these children are placed in these facilities largely because they are charged with other offenses, the INS statistics do not bear out this claim. In fiscal year 1999, only 19 percent of the children placed in secure detention were chargeable or adjudicated as delinquents. According to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Human Rights Watch and the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the INS regularly violates these regulations. The NGOs contend that all too often children are placed in jail-like facilities for seemingly arbitrary reasons, seldom notified of the reasons why, and forced to share rooms and have extensive contact with convicted juvenile offenders. I was also astonished to learn that many of these children, some as young as four and five years old, are placed behind multiple layers of locked doors, surrounded by walls and barbed wire. They are strip searched, patted down, placed in solitary confinement for punishment, forced to wear prison uniforms and shackles, and are forbidden to keep personal objects. Often they have no one to speak with because of the language barrier. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2001 would ensure that the particular needs of the thousands of unaccompanied alien children who enter INS custody each year are met and that these children have a fair opportunity to obtain immigration relief when eligible. In 1999, the INS held approximately 4,600 children under the age of 18 in its custody. Some of these children fled human rights abuses or armed conflict in their home countries, some were victims of child abuse or had otherwise lost the support and protection of their families, some came to the United States to join family members, and some came to escape economic deprivation. Many of these children came from troubled and war-torn countries around the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, Honduras, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Colombia, Guatemala, Cuba, former Yugoslavia, and others. They range in age from toddlers to teenagers. Some traveled to the United States alone, while others were accompanied by unrelated adults. Sadly, a significant number are victims of smuggling or trafficking rings. In one recent instance, Phanupong Khaisri, a two-year old Thai child, was brought to the U.S. by two individuals falsely claiming to be his parents, but who were actually part of a major alien trafficking ring. The INS was prepared to deport the child back to Thailand. It was not until Members of Congress and the local Thai community had intervened, however, that the INS decided to allow the child to remain in the U.S. until the agency could provide proper medical attention and determine what course of action would be in his best interest. Now his case is before a federal district court judge who will determine whether he should be eligible to apply for asylum. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act aims to prevent situations like this from recurring by centralizing the care and custody of unaccompanied children into a new Office of Children's Services within the INS, but outside the jurisdiction of the District Directors. By doing so, the Act resolves the conflict of interest inherent in the current system--that is, the INS retains custody of children and is charged with their care while, at the same time, it seeks their deportation. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to share with you a few other examples of how the federal government has fallen short in the manner in which we handle vulnerable unaccompanied minors. One would think that our country would treat unaccompanied minors with the sensitivity and care their situations demand. Unfortunately, in too many instances, that has not been the case. Too often, these children are often treated like adults and, under the worst circumstances, like criminals. Xaio Ling, a young girl from China who spoke no English, was detained by the INS at the Berks County Juvenile Detention Center. The INS placed her among children guilty of violent crimes, including rape and murder. Xaio was never guilty of any crime, and yet she slept in a small concrete cell, was subjected to humiliating strip searches, and forced to wear handcuffs. She was forbidden to keep any of her clothes or possessions and, under the policies of the Berks Center, Xaio was not allowed to laugh--not that she had anything to laugh about. Imagine the fear this child had to endure: thrust into a system she did not understand, given no legal aid, placed in jail that housed juveniles with serious criminal convictions, including murder, car jacking, rape, and drug trafficking. She did not speak English and was unable to speak to any staff who knew her language, and she had to submit to strip searches. It is hard to believe that our country would have allowed this innocent child to be treated in such a horrible manner. Situations like that of this young Chinese girl make a compelling case for changes in the way our nation treats unaccompanied alien children. Under the legislation I have introduced today, this youngster never would have been placed in a detention center with criminal offenders. Rather, she would have immediately been placed in shelter care, foster care, or a home more appropriate for her situation. She would have been provided an attorney for her immigration proceedings and a social worker would have been appointed as guardian ad litem to ensure that her needs were being met. Sadly, this young girl was given none of these options. Neither was a 16 year-old boy from Colombia, who fled Colombia to escape a life of violence on the streets of Bogota, where FARC guerillas attempted to recruit him and the F-2 branch of the Colombian government harassed him in its attempt to get rid of street children. Fearing for his life, he fled Colombia for Venezuela where he lived without shelter or sufficient food. In search of a safer life, he sneaked into the machine room of a cargo ship bound for the United States. He was lucky to survive; many other stowaways were thrown overboard when discovered by the ship's crew. The boy remained on the ship from November 1998 until March 1999, when he arrived in Philadelphia. He was soon turned over to the INS and placed into the same detention center in which the young Chinese girl was held. He, too, was kept with criminal offenders. He did not understand English, which created a myriad of problems because he was unable to understand what was expected of him in the detention center. He was held in an inappropriately punitive environment for six months. I have one last story to share with you today. Placed on a boat bound for the United States by her very own parents, a 15-year-old girl fled China's rigid family planning laws. Under these laws she was denied citizenship, education, and medical care. She came to this country alone and desperate. And what did our immigration authorities do when they found her? They held her in a juvenile jail in Portland, Oregon. She was held for eight months and was detained for an additional four months after being granted political asylum. At her asylum hearing, the young girl could not wipe away the tears from her face because her hands were chained to her waist. According to her lawyer, ``her only crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a better life over here.'' Mr. President, for years children's rights and human rights activists have implored Congress to improve the way our immigration system handles unaccompanied minors--just like the ones whose stories I have just told. I believe my bill would do just that. We cannot continue to allow children, who come to our country, often traumatized and guilty of no crime, to be held in jails and treated like criminals. We cannot continue to allow children, scared and helpless, to be thrown into a system they do not understand without sufficient legal aid and a guardian to look after their best interests. We must adhere to the principles of our justice system. What kind of message do we send when we deprive children who come to our country seeking refuge of their basic rights and protections? As a nation that holds our democratic ideals and constitutional rights paramount, how then can we continue to avert our attention from repeated violations of some of the most basic human rights against children who have no voice in the immigration system? We should be outraged that children who come to the U.S. alone, many against their will, are subjected to such inhumane, excessive conditions. I am proud to have the support of the United States Catholic Conference and the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me by cosponsoring this important measure.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President: I rise today with my colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, to introduce legislation to expand the federal loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers. Head Start is one of the most important federal programs because it has the potential to reach children early in their formative years when their cognitive skills are just developing. We know that poor children disproportionately start school behind their peers--they are less likely to count to 10 or to recite the alphabet. Providing low-income children with access to programs that encourage cognitive learning and prepare them to enter school ready to learn is important. Head Start is one example of a Federal program that has the potential to reach every low-income child; to help every eligible child learn to count to ten and begin to recite the alphabet. Many of our Nation's youngsters, however, enter elementary school without the basic skills necessary to succeed. Often these children lag behind their peers throughout their academic career. As taxpayers, we will spend millions on efforts to help these children catch up. Many of these children will never catch up. Several studies confirm the importance of providing low-income children with the opportunity early on to gain basic cognitive skills: A study conducted on a preschool program in Chicago showed that for every dollar invested, $8 was saved by society in projected costs. Additionally, 26 percent more children were likely to finish high school and 40 percent were less likely to repeat a grade. The National Head Start Association found that for every dollar invested in Head Start, at least $2.50 is saved because these children need less remedial education and are less likely to be on welfare programs or involved with the juvenile justice system than non-Head Start peers. The Rand Corporation found that for every dollar invested in early childhood learning programs, taxpayers save between $4 and $7 later by reducing the need for alcohol and drug treatment programs, special education programs, mental health services, and the likelihood of incarceration. We can save millions by providing low-income children with access to quality preschool where they will gain the necessary cognitive skills to succeed in school and life. In order to give every child a head start in life, we must continue to recruit qualified teachers to the Head Start field who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning. Obtaining and maintaining teachers with such qualifications is the only way to jump-start cognitive learning and to ensure that our youngsters start elementary school ready to learn. Several recent studies confirm the importance of investing in the education and training of those who work with preschoolers. A study conducted by the National Research Council at the request of the U.S. Department of Education recommends that: Each group of children in an early childhood education and care program should be assigned a teacher who has a bachelor's degree with specialized education related to early childhood. . . . Progress toward a high-quality teaching force will require substantial public and private support and incentive programs, including innovative education programs, scholarship and loan programs, and compensation commensurate with the expectations of college graduates. The Head Start 2010 National Advisory Panel presided over fifteen national hearings and open forums. The panel found: There was a tremendous amount of testimony about the fact that, despite increases resulting from Federal quality set- aside funding, relatively low salaries and poor or non- existent benefits make it difficult to attract and retain qualified staff over the long term. Witnesses stated that many staff positions remain vacant and turnover is likely to worsen if compensation does not improve significantly . . . comments included passionate exhortations for greater investment in staff, observing that, in Head Start . . . the quality of the program is tied directly to the quality of the staff. Many Head Start programs are losing qualified teachers to local school districts because the pay is better, and working in an elementary or secondary school assists these teachers in qualifying to receive up to $5,000 of their federal loans forgiven. Every teacher Head Start loses impacts access to services for our nation's most vulnerable youngsters. I believe that leveling the playing field by offering Head Start teachers the same loan forgiveness benefit currently afforded to elementary and secondary school teachers could encourage more college graduates to enter the field. Following the recommendations of the Head Start 2010 National Advisory Panel and the National Research Council, I believe we must create programs to encourage highly educated and trained individuals to commit to long-term careers in the Head Start arena. To encourage recent graduates, current Head Start teachers without a degree, and college students to enter and remain in the Head Start field, I am introducing legislation that will expand the federal loan forgiveness program to include Head Start teachers. In exchange for 5 years of service, a Head Start teacher could receive up to $5,000 of their federal Stafford loan forgiven. I believe we must continue to improve the Head Start program such that children leave the program able to count to ten, to recognize sizes and colors, and can begin to recite the alphabet, to name a few indicators of cognitive learning. To ensure cognitive learning, we must also continue to raise the standards for Head Start teachers. Offering Head Start teachers similar compensation for their educational achievements and expenses afforded to other teachers should be a priority of this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill now appear in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to re-introduce the same ban on importing large capacity ammunition magazines that passed both Houses of Congress in 1999 during the Juvenile Justice debate. That amendment passed the Senate by voice vote after a Motion to Table failed 59-39. The same provision, offered by then-Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde on the House floor, passed by voice vote as an amendment to the House Juvenile Justice Gun Bill. Nevertheless, these clips continue to flood into the country, because the Juvenile Justice bill became stalled in Conference, and never got to the President's desk. It is time to take care of this once and for all--outside of politics, and outside of partisan bickering over other provisions. We simply cannot stand by and watch millions of these killer clips flood our shores. Large-capacity ammunition clips are ammunition feeding devices, such as clips, magazines, drums and belts, which hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. The 1994 assault weapons ban prohibited the domestic manufacture of these devices, but foreign companies are still sending them to our shores by the hundreds of thousands. As the author of the 1994 provision, I can assure you that this was not our intent. We intended to ban the future manufacture of all high capacity clips, leaving only a narrow clause allowing for the importation of clips already on their way to this country. Instead, due to the grandfather clause inserted into the 1994 legislation, BATF has allowed millions of foreign clips into this country, with no true method of determining date of manufacture. Between March 1998 and March 1999, BATF approved more than 11.4 million large-capacity clips for importation into America. By voting for the amendment to the Juvenile Justice bill in 1999, a significant majority of this body has already agreed that it is both illogical and irresponsible to permit foreign companies to sell items to the American public--particularly items that are so often used for deadly purposes--that U.S. companies are prohibited from selling. Supporting this legislation once again will simply finish what we already started during the juvenile justice debate, and bring foreign companies into greater compliance with the original intent of the 1994 law. Opposing this bill would effectively allow foreign companies to continue to flout our laws, while domestic companies remain in compliance. Let me just outline a bit of the history behind this issue. Because of strong NRA opposition to the 1994 assault weapons ban and fears that businesses with inventories of the newly illegal products would be adversely impacted, we carved out a clause during negotiations to allow pre-existing guns and clips to remain on the shelves of stores across this country. This so-called ``grandfather clause'' was also meant to allow guns and clips already on their way to this country to get here. Some Senators did not want to penalize companies that already had shipments in transit. But it has now been more than six years, and these companies have had more than enough time to ship their pre-existing supplies of clips to the United States. Without question, many of these clips now flooding this country were made after the 1994 ban took effect. But because the ATF cannot tell when the clips were made, they must allow their import. In 1998, President Clinton stopped the importation of most copycat assault weapons to this country with an Executive Order. However, the Justice Department advised us that the President does not have the authority to ban importation of big clips. As a result, millions of high capacity ammunition magazines continue to flow onto our shores and into the hands of criminals and, indeed, our children. These clips come from at least 17 different countries, from Austria to Zimbabwe. They come in sizes ranging from 15 rounds per clip to 30, 75, 90, or even 250 rounds per clip. In one recent one-year period: 20,000 clips of 250-rounds came from England; Two million 15-round magazines came from Italy; 5,000 clips of 70-rounds came from the Czech Republic. And the list goes on, and on, and on. Mr. President, 75, 90 and even 250-round clips have no sporting purpose. They are not used for self defense. They have only one use-- the purposeful killing of other men, women and children. The legislation I re-introduce today will stop the flow of these clips into this country. I know that we cannot eliminate these clips from existence. But we can make them harder to obtain and, over time, dry up their supply. These big clips allow disgruntled workers, angry children and psychopathic killers to exponentially increase the damage of their crimes. Let me give you just two examples. In the now famous Springfield, Oregon shooting, a 15 year-old gunman with a 30-round clip killed two people and injured 22 more. Two dead, 22 wounded, all from one ammunition clip. It was only when his clip was finally empty and he had to pause to change clips that a fellow student was able to tackle and subdue him. Just imagine if the clip had held 75 rounds. Or 90. Or 250. In the Jonesboro, Arkansas shooting, the two boys were armed with ten guns, one of which was a Universal carbine equipped with a 15-round killer clip. All 15 of the bullets in the killer clip were fired--more rounds than in all of the other nine guns combined. Five people were killed, ten other wounded. Mr. President, in passing this legislation, we will not put an end to all incidents of gun violence now or in the near future. But we will begin to limit the destructive power of that violence. It will not stop every troubled child or adult who decides to commit an act of violence from doing so, but we can limit the tools used to carry out that act. Passing this bill will not infringe on the legitimate rights of any adult gun owner or prevent a son or daughter from protecting the family from harm. It will not create a new category of banned guns. But it will save some lives. It is just that simple. So let us do our best to ensure that the next time a troubled or vengeful child decides to strike out at his classmates, he cannot so easily find a gun that fires a hundred rounds a minute, or holds dozens of armor-piercing bullets. Mr. President, I urge any of my colleagues who remain skeptical to look beyond the opposition rhetoric and into the heart of this legislation. And I urge them to look into their own hearts, and to realize that there are some things we can do to keep future Littletons from happening. This legislation is one of them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following the statement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation to change the way unaccompanied immigrant children are treated while in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). If enacted, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2001 would ensure that the federal government addresses the special needs of thousands of unaccompanied alien children who enter the U.S. It will ensure that these children have a fair opportunity to obtain humanitarian relief. Central throughout this legislation are two concepts: The United States government has a fundamental responsibility to protect unaccompanied children in its custody; and in all proceedings and actions, the government's ultimate priority should be to protect the best interests of children. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2001 would ensure that children who are apprehended by the INS are treated humanely and appropriately by transferring jurisdiction over their welfare from the INS Detention and Deportation division to a newly created Office of Children's Services within the Department of Justice. This legislation would also centralize responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied children in this new Office of Children's Services. By doing so, it would resolve the conflict of interest inherent in the current system--that is, the INS retains custody of children and is charged with their care while, at the same time, it seeks their deportation. Under this bill, the Office of Children's Services would be required to establish standards for the custody, release, and detention of children, ensuring that children are housed in appropriate shelters or foster care rather than juvenile jails. In 1999, the INS held some 2,000 children in juvenile jails even though they had never committed a crime. Equally as important, the bill would require the Office to establish clear guidelines and uniformity for detention alternatives such as shelter care, foster care, and other child custody arrangements. The bill would improve unaccompanied aliens' access to existing options for permanent protection when U.S. immigration and child welfare authorities believe such protection is warranted. Finally, the Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act would provide unaccompanied minors with access to legal counsel, who would ensure that the children appear at all immigration proceedings and assist them as the INS and immigration court consider their cases. The bill would also provide the children with access to a guardian ad litem to ensure that they are properly placed in a safe and caring environment. The guardian ad litem would also work to ensure that each child's best interests are protected throughout the process. Let me turn for a moment to the issue of access to counsel. Children, even more than adults, have incredible difficulty understanding the complexities of the asylum system without the assistance of counsel. Despite this reality, most children in INS detention are overlooked and unrepresented. Without legal representation, children are at risk of being returned to their home countries where they may face further human rights abuses. I am aware of two cases that demonstrate the compelling need for counsel on behalf of these children. The first case involves two 17- year old boys from China. Li and Wang, who were apprehended on an island near Guam and had been in INS custody for almost two years. During their detention in Guam, the two boys testified in federal court against the smugglers who brought them to Guam. In their testimony, they described being beaten by the smugglers even before leaving China, and stated that others were beaten during the trip to Guam. In the spring of 2000, the two boys were brought to a corrections facility in Los Angeles and detained in the INS section of that facility. This is where the similarity in their cases end. Mr. President, while both of the boys would face danger from the smugglers if they returned to China because of their testimony, only one was granted asylum. Li applied for asylum and was denied. He was not represented by counsel at his hearing. Despite the fact that the INS trial attorney mentioned that Li had testified in federal court against the smugglers, the judge did not include this information in her decision on the claim. Luckily for Li, an attorney overheard the hearing, and after speaking with Li, agreed to appeal his asylum claim. Li is still being held in a Los Angeles corrections facility. The story is different for Wang. Wang had an attorney and won his asylum hearing. But INS is appealing the decision so Wang remains in a Los Angeles corrections facility, as well. Mr. President, these cases demonstrate the pressing need for legal representation of children. Had he been represented by counsel and if his testimony would have been incorporated into his case, Li may have won his asylum claim. Instead, a 17-year-old boy unfamiliar with our immigration system and our language was forced to navigate the complex court system alone. According to Human Rights Watch, children detained by the INS, whether in secure detention or less restrictive settings, often have great difficulty obtaining information about their legal rights. On a 1998 visit to the Berks County Juvenile Detention Center in Reading, Pennsylvania, Human Rights Watch staff found that none of the children they interviewed had received information from the INS or the facility's staff about their rights or the legal services available to them. Unaccompanied alien children are among the most vulnerable of the immigrant population; many have often entered the country under traumatic circumstances. They are young and alone, subject to abuse and exploitation. These unaccompanied children are unable to articulate their fears, their views, or testify to their needs as accurately as adults can. Despite these facts, U.S. immigration laws and policies have been developed and implemented without caring about their effect on children, particularly on unaccompanied alien children. Sadly, the INS detains more than 5,000 children nationwide each year. They are apprehended for not having proper documentation at ports-of- entry into the United States. Their detention may last for months--or sometimes for years--as they undergo complex and arduous immigration proceedings. Under current immigration law, these children are forced to struggle through a system designed primarily for adults, even though they lack the capacity to understand nuanced legal principles and procedures. Children who may very well be eligible for relief are often vulnerable to being deported back to the very abusive situations from which they fled before they are able to make their case before the INS or an immigration judge. Under current law, the INS is responsible for the apprehension, detention, care, placement, legal protection, and deportation of unaccompanied children. I believe that these are conflicting responsibilities that undercut the best interests of the child. Too often, the INS has fallen short in fulfilling the protection side of these responsibilities. The INS uses a variety of facilities to house children. Some are held in children's shelters in which children are offered some of the services they need but still may experience prolonged detention, lack of access to counsel, and other troubling conditions. The INS relies on juvenile correctional facilities to house many children, even in the absence of any criminal wrongdoing. Today, one out of every three children in INS custody is detained in secure, jail- like facilities. These facilities are highly inappropriate, particularly for children who have already experienced painful trauma in their homelands. There is currently no provision of federal law providing guidance for the placement of unaccompanied alien children. In 1987, the Flores v. Reno settlement agreement on behalf of minors in INS detention established the nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of children in the custody of INS. The Flores agreement requires that the INS treat minors with dignity, respect, and special concern for their particular vulnerability. It also requires the INS to place each detained minor in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the child's age and special needs. In response to Flores, the INS issued regulations that permitted its officers to detain children in secure facilities only in limited circumstances. The INS officers were required to provide written notice to the child of the reasons for such placement. More importantly, the regulations required the INS to segregate immigration detainees from juvenile criminal offenders. Although INS officials have contended that these children are placed in these facilities largely because they are charged with other offenses, the INS statistics do not bear out this claim. In fiscal year 1999, only 19 percent of the children placed in secure detention were chargeable or adjudicated as delinquents. According to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Human Rights Watch and the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, the INS regularly violates these regulations. The NGOs contend that all too often children are placed in jail-like facilities for seemingly arbitrary reasons, seldom notified of the reasons why, and forced to share rooms and have extensive contact with convicted juvenile offenders. I was also astonished to learn that many of these children, some as young as four and five years old, are placed behind multiple layers of locked doors, surrounded by walls and barbed wire. They are strip searched, patted down, placed in solitary confinement for punishment, forced to wear prison uniforms and shackles, and are forbidden to keep personal objects. Often they have no one to speak with because of the language barrier. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2001 would ensure that the particular needs of the thousands of unaccompanied alien children who enter INS custody each year are met and that these children have a fair opportunity to obtain immigration relief when eligible. In 1999, the INS held approximately 4,600 children under the age of 18 in its custody. Some of these children fled human rights abuses or armed conflict in their home countries, some were victims of child abuse or had otherwise lost the support and protection of their families, some came to the United States to join family members, and some came to escape economic deprivation. Many of these children came from troubled and war-torn countries around the world, including the Peoples Republic of China, Honduras, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Colombia, Guatemala, Cuba, former Yugoslavia, and others. They range in age from toddlers to teenagers. Some traveled to the United States alone, while others were accompanied by unrelated adults. Sadly, a significant number are victims of smuggling or trafficking rings. In one recent instance, Phanupong Khaisri, a two-year old Thai child, was brought to the U.S. by two individuals falsely claiming to be his parents, but who were actually part of a major alien trafficking ring. The INS was prepared to deport the child back to Thailand. It was not until Members of Congress and the local Thai community had intervened, however, that the INS decided to allow the child to remain in the U.S. until the agency could provide proper medical attention and determine what course of action would be in his best interest. Now his case is before a federal district court judge who will determine whether he should be eligible to apply for asylum. The Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act aims to prevent situations like this from recurring by centralizing the care and custody of unaccompanied children into a new Office of Children's Services within the INS, but outside the jurisdiction of the District Directors. By doing so, the Act resolves the conflict of interest inherent in the current system--that is, the INS retains custody of children and is charged with their care while, at the same time, it seeks their deportation. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to share with you a few other examples of how the federal government has fallen short in the manner in which we handle vulnerable unaccompanied minors. One would think that our country would treat unaccompanied minors with the sensitivity and care their situations demand. Unfortunately, in too many instances, that has not been the case. Too often, these children are often treated like adults and, under the worst circumstances, like criminals. Xaio Ling, a young girl from China who spoke no English, was detained by the INS at the Berks County Juvenile Detention Center. The INS placed her among children guilty of violent crimes, including rape and murder. Xaio was never guilty of any crime, and yet she slept in a small concrete cell, was subjected to humiliating strip searches, and forced to wear handcuffs. She was forbidden to keep any of her clothes or possessions and, under the policies of the Berks Center, Xaio was not allowed to laugh--not that she had anything to laugh about. Imagine the fear this child had to endure: thrust into a system she did not understand, given no legal aid, placed in jail that housed juveniles with serious criminal convictions, including murder, car jacking, rape, and drug trafficking. She did not speak English and was unable to speak to any staff who knew her language, and she had to submit to strip searches. It is hard to believe that our country would have allowed this innocent child to be treated in such a horrible manner. Situations like that of this young Chinese girl make a compelling case for changes in the way our nation treats unaccompanied alien children. Under the legislation I have introduced today, this youngster never would have been placed in a detention center with criminal offenders. Rather, she would have immediately been placed in shelter care, foster care, or a home more appropriate for her situation. She would have been provided an attorney for her immigration proceedings and a social worker would have been appointed as guardian ad litem to ensure that her needs were being met. Sadly, this young girl was given none of these options. Neither was a 16 year-old boy from Colombia, who fled Colombia to escape a life of violence on the streets of Bogota, where FARC guerillas attempted to recruit him and the F-2 branch of the Colombian government harassed him in its attempt to get rid of street children. Fearing for his life, he fled Colombia for Venezuela where he lived without shelter or sufficient food. In search of a safer life, he sneaked into the machine room of a cargo ship bound for the United States. He was lucky to survive; many other stowaways were thrown overboard when discovered by the ship's crew. The boy remained on the ship from November 1998 until March 1999, when he arrived in Philadelphia. He was soon turned over to the INS and placed into the same detention center in which the young Chinese girl was held. He, too, was kept with criminal offenders. He did not understand English, which created a myriad of problems because he was unable to understand what was expected of him in the detention center. He was held in an inappropriately punitive environment for six months. I have one last story to share with you today. Placed on a boat bound for the United States by her very own parents, a 15-year-old girl fled China's rigid family planning laws. Under these laws she was denied citizenship, education, and medical care. She came to this country alone and desperate. And what did our immigration authorities do when they found her? They held her in a juvenile jail in Portland, Oregon. She was held for eight months and was detained for an additional four months after being granted political asylum. At her asylum hearing, the young girl could not wipe away the tears from her face because her hands were chained to her waist. According to her lawyer, ``her only crime was that her parents had put her on a boat so she could get a better life over here.'' Mr. President, for years children's rights and human rights activists have implored Congress to improve the way our immigration system handles unaccompanied minors--just like the ones whose stories I have just told. I believe my bill would do just that. We cannot continue to allow children, who come to our country, often traumatized and guilty of no crime, to be held in jails and treated like criminals. We cannot continue to allow children, scared and helpless, to be thrown into a system they do not understand without sufficient legal aid and a guardian to look after their best interests. We must adhere to the principles of our justice system. What kind of message do we send when we deprive children who come to our country seeking refuge of their basic rights and protections? As a nation that holds our democratic ideals and constitutional rights paramount, how then can we continue to avert our attention from repeated violations of some of the most basic human rights against children who have no voice in the immigration system? We should be outraged that children who come to the U.S. alone, many against their will, are subjected to such inhumane, excessive conditions. I am proud to have the support of the United States Catholic Conference and the Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children, with whom I have worked closely to develop this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me by cosponsoring this important measure.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last year on Mother's Day, supporters of sensible gun laws came together by the hundreds of thousands to participate in the Million Mom March and say to Congress: ``Enough is Enough.'' Those women, men and children all shared a common purpose: The passage of sensible gun laws--laws that will hopefully help save lives. The primary stated goal of the Million Mom March was to push for legislation to license gun owners and keep track of guns. We know it will be a long process of educating the Congress and the public on this issue. But we will not give in until we succeed. So today I rise, along with Senators Schumer and Boxer, to reintroduce the ``Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act,'' which I believe represents a common-sense approach to guns and gun violence in America. Mr. President, in this country, when you want to hunt, you get a hunting license; when you want to fish, you get a fishing license. But when you want to buy a gun, no license is necessary. That makes no sense. We register cars and license drivers. We register pesticides and license exterminators. We register animal carriers and researchers, we register gambling devices. And we register a whole host of other goods and activities--even ``international expositions'' must be registered with the Bureau of International Expositions! But when it comes to guns and gun owners--no license and no registration, despite the loss of more than 32,000 lives a year from gun violence. To this end, my staff and I worked for months with law enforcement officials and other experts in drafting the bill we introduced last year. And since that time, we have refined the bill, corrected some vague sections, and made it even more clear what the bill would do, and what it would not do. Upon enactment of this legislation, anyone purchasing a handgun or semi-automatic weapon that takes detachable ammunition magazines will be required to have a license. Shotguns and a large number of common hunting guns are not covered by the requirements of this bill. Current owners of these weapons will have up to 10 years to obtain a license, on a rolling basis, much like many states now handle drivers licenses. The bill sets up a federal system, but allows states to opt out if they adopt a system at least as effective as the federal program. Under this bill, anyone wishing to obtain a firearm license will need to go to a federally licensed firearms dealer. There are currently more than 100,000 such dealers across the country--to put that in some perspective, there are four times more gun dealers in America than there are McDonald's restaurants in the entire world. Operating the federal licensing system through these licensed dealers will minimize the burden on those wishing to obtain a license. If a state opts-out of the federal program, an individual will go to a State-designated entity, like a local sheriff, local police department, or even Department of Motor Vehicles. It will all depend on where the state feels is best. Either way, the purchaser will then need to: Provide information as to date and place of birth and name and address; Submit a thumb print; Submit a current photograph; Sign, under penalty of perjury, that all of the submitted information is true and that the applicant is qualified under Federal law to possess a firearm; Pass a written firearms safety test, requiring knowledge of the safe storage and handling of firearms, the legal responsibilities of firearm ownership, and other factors as determined by the state or federal authority; Sign a pledge to keep any firearm safely stored and out of the hands of juveniles (this pledge will be backed up by criminal penalties of up to three years in jail for anyone failing to do so); Undergo state and federal background checks. Licenses will be renewable every five years, and can be revoked at any time if the licensee becomes disqualified under federal law from owning or possessing a gun. And Mr. President, the fee for a license cannot exceed $25. Once the bill takes effect, all future sales and transfers of firearms falling within the scope of the bill will have to be recorded through a federally licensed firearms dealer, with an accompanying NICS background check. That way, law enforcement agencies will have easier access to information leading to the arrest of persons who use guns in crime. The bill covers both handguns and other guns that are semi-automatic and can accept detachable magazines. The legislation covers handguns because statistically, these guns are used in more crimes than any other. In fact, approximately 85 percent of all firearm homicides involve a handgun. And the legislation also covers semi-automatic firearms that can accept detachable magazines, because these are the kind of assault weapons that have the potential to destroy the largest number of lives in the shortest period of time. A gun that can take a detachable magazine can also take a large capacity magazine. Combine that with semi-automatic, rapid fire, and you have a deadly combination--as we have seen time and again in recent years. Put simply, this legislation will cover those firearms that represent the greatest threat to the safety of innocent men, women and children in this nation. Common hunting rifles, shotguns and other firearms that cannot accept detachable magazines will remain exempt. Penalties will vary depending on the severity of the violation. But in no case will gun owners face jail time simply because they forgot to get a license: Those who fail to get a license will face fines of between $500 (for a first offense) and $5,000 for subsequent offenses. Failing to report a change of address or the loss of a firearm will also result in penalties between $500 and $5,000, because this system works best for law enforcement when the perpetrators of gun crime can be quickly traced and arrested; Dealers who fail to maintain adequate records will face up to 2 years in prison--dealers know their responsibilities, and this will give law enforcement the tools necessary to root out bad dealers and prevent the straw purchases and other violations of law that allow criminals easy access to a continuing flow of guns; And adults who recklessly or knowingly allow a child access to a firearm face up to three years in prison if the child uses the gun to kill or seriously injure another person. In this way, the bill truly puts a new sense of responsibility onto gun owners in America. Mr. President, law enforcement in California tells me that a licensing and record of sale system like the one I am introducing today will help law enforcement, upon recovery of a firearm used in crime, to track the gun down to the person who sold it, and then to the person who bought it. And this legislation also sets in place a method through which we can better attempt to ensure that gun owners are responsible and trained in the use and care of their dangerous possessions. We have tried to minimize the burden of this bill at every turn: The licensing process will take place through federally licensed firearms dealers--as I mentioned earlier, there are currently more than 100,000 in this country; The fee for a license will be only $25; Current gun owners will have as many as ten years to get a license, on a rolling basis, and guns now in homes will not have to be registered; Future gun transfers will simply be recorded by licensed dealers--as they are now--and a system will be put in place to allow the quick tracing of guns used in crime. Gun owners themselves will not have to register their old guns or send any paperwork to the government. This nation is awash in guns--there are more than 200 million of them in the United States. The problem of gun violence is not going away, and accidental deaths from firearms rob us of countless innocents each year. Too many lives are lost every year simply because gun owners do not know how to use or store their firearms--particularly around children. In fact, according to a study released in 1999, in 1996 alone there were more than 1,100 unintentional shooting deaths and more than 18,000 firearm suicides--many of which might have been prevented if the person intent on suicide did not have easy access to a gun owned by somebody else. It is my hope that the provisions of this bill, particularly with regard to child access prevention, will begin the process of making it harder for children and others to gain easy access to firearms. As I said, I know that this bill will not pass overnight. We have a long process of education ahead of us. But the American people are with us. The facts are with us. And common sense is with us. I thank the Senate for its consideration of this measure, and I look forward to working with each of my colleagues to move this bill forward in the coming months. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today to address problems with the California energy market and the unwillingness of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take the necessary action. Last week, the lights went off in California and the governor declared a state of emergency. More than 1 million businesses and homeowners throughout the state lost power. Computers shut off, ATMs stopped dispensing cash, traffic lights went dark and heaters went cold, jeopardizing public safety, the economy, and people's lives. The situation continues to worsen, and the prognosis for the future is dire. Unfortunately, the problem is not just limited to California. PG&E and Southern California Edison, our two largest blue chip utilities are on the brink of bankruptcy and have lost billions. The state's economy has also lost billions from work stoppages that seem to occur every single workday. As goes California so goes the rest of the country, I believe. California is the 6th largest economy in the world. Already financial institutions and banks that have underwritten the debts of our utilities are being saddled with their own problems due to the uncertainty over whether they will be paid. Those who believe that California deserves its present plight because of the state's deregulation bill are near-sighted. California passed a very flawed de-regulation bill in 1996. It was flawed because it relied almost entirely on a free market and assumed that there will always be adequate energy supply. What has resulted is an uncompetitive market and an absence of adequate supply. I believe California shares a major responsibility here and I am encouraged that the state legislature is beginning to take action. However, the federal government also has a major responsibility because the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act holds the only authority over energy generators and marketers. The state cannot address this. Unfortunately, the FERC, even after concluding that rates in California are ``unjust and unreasonable,'' has failed to take the necessary action to solve the crisis. I am thus proposing legislation today to empower the Secretary of Energy to take the same action available to the FERC in instances when FERC has failed to take decisive action. Individual states would be able to opt out of any order from the Secretary as this bill is aimed at helping those states that need and want help. I urge the Senate to take up and pass this bill as soon as possible.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to strengthen the penalties for organized smuggling of fruits, plants, and vegetables into the United States. A felony statute for agriculture product smuggling is needed to reflect the serious impact these crimes have on our farmers and the entire agriculture industry. Recent breaches of the agriculture safeguarding system have proven the need for strong criminal penalties for organized smuggling: multiple exotic fruit fly infestations have decimated California and Florida; the Asian longhorn beetle has been found in New York and Illinois; the Asian gypsy moth has been introduced in North Carolina and Oregon; and plum pox from Western Europe has devastated peach production in Pennsylvania. This widespread invasion of foreign species requires a strong federal response. The consequences of failing to adequately combat agriculture smuggling are clear. Until recently, a 72 square mile area of San Diego was under quarantine due to an infestation of Mexican Fruit Flies. The quarantine effected 1,470 growers of at least 20 specialty crops. The Department of Agriculture has encouraged California producers to grow specialty fruits and vegetables in an effort to reduce the risk of exotic pest introduction from smuggled fruit. Yet, no pre or post harvest treatment for many of these crops has been provided by the USDA. As a result of 2 fruit flies, roughly 150 growers lost virtually their entire harvest-- estimated more than $3 million. Problems with existing laws The current system that charges low fines and encourages few prosecutions is not a meaningful deterrent for violators. The USDA can assess a maximum fine of $1,000 for passenger and cargo violations. For an illegal shipper, this is simply a minor cost of doing business and not an effective deterrent. In addition, the lack of serious penalties for such crimes has resulted in a reduced number of criminal investigations, violators prosecuted, and sentences given to those convicted. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the USDA, the law enforcement arm of the Department, has placed a low priority on agriculture smuggling violations because they are only misdemeanors and the OIG is forced to devote the bulk of its resources to felony violations. Of the 4,400 investigations completed since October 1, 1994, fewer than 50 involved smuggling. The sentences given to the relatively few convicted smugglers is also effected by the attitude that this is not a serious crime. In the State of Washington, two people were caught smuggling agricultural products into the country on numerous occasions. Their third arrest came after 400 pounds of illegal and infested fruit was found in the walls of their station wagon. Despite their repeated crimes, the smugglers received only two days of jail time and a fine of $1,000. penalties for violations This legislation would make it a felony to knowingly and willfully smuggle large amounts of agriculture products into the country. Persons caught smuggling foreign plant pests, more than 50 pounds of plants, more than 5 pounds of plant products, more than 50 pounds of noxious weeds, or possession with intent to distribute these products, would be punished with imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of as much as $25,000, or both. Repeat violators would face 10 years of jail time and/or a fine of $50,000. The legislation would also make smuggling lesser amounts of products a misdemeanor crime punishable by one year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. Subsequent violations would result in three years of jail time and/or a fine of $10,000. These penalties will provide law enforcement with the needed tools to investigate, arrest, and prosecute individuals and organizations engaged in the organized smuggling of agriculture products. property forfeitures Another inadequacy in current law is the lack of a specific forfeiture provision for agriculture product smuggling. I have been told of cases at the San Diego border in which a person has been caught smuggling fruits or vegetables across the border. After receiving a slap on the wrist from the judicial system, his truck was returned to him, and he was allowed to return to his criminal occupation with the tools of his trade intact. It is astonishing to me that, not only is the government incapable of punishing illegal traffickers of agriculture products, but we are unable to take even modest steps to prevent recurrences of the same crime. According to this legislation, anyone convicted of violating the law would forfeit any property used to commit or facilitate the violation. They would also forfeit any money acquired through a violation of the law. The proceeds of the sale of forfeited property would be used to reimburse the costs of the prosecution. Any additional funds would go towards the USDA's interdiction efforts. I believe that Congress must send a message to our farmers and growers that the federal government is committed to protecting the agriculture sector from invasive species. We can do this by passing this legislation as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to create a demonstration grant program to help school districts create master teacher positions. The bill authorizes $100 million for a five-year demonstration program under which the Secretary of Education would award competitive grants to school districts to create master teacher positions. Federal funds would be equally matched by states and local governments so that $200 million total would be available. Under the bill, 6,600 master teacher positions could be created if each master teacher were paid $30,000 on top of the current average teacher's salary. As defined in this bill, a master teacher is one who is credentialed; has at least five years of teaching experience; is judged to be an excellent teacher by administrators and teachers who are knowledgeable about the individual's performance; is currently teaching; and enters into a contract and agrees to serve at least five more years. The master teacher would help other teachers to improve instruction, strengthen other teachers' skills, mentor less experienced teachers, develop curriculum, and provide other professional development. The goal of this bill is for districts to pay each master teacher up to $30,000 on top of his or her regular salary. Nationally, the average teacher salary is $40,574. In California, it is $45,317. School principals receive $76,768 on average nationally and $72,805 in California. School superintendents nationally earn $106,122 and in California, $102,054. The purpose of the master teacher concept in this bill is to pay teachers a salary closer to that of an administrator to keep good teachers in teaching. The bill requires State and/or local districts to match federal funds dollar for dollar. It requires the U.S. Department of Education to give priority to school districts with a high proportion of economically disadvantaged students and to ensure that grants are awarded to a wide range of districts in terms of the size and location of the school district, the ethnic and economic composition of students, and the experience of the districts' teachers. There are several reasons we need this bill. Beginning teachers face overwhelming challenges in their first year, but in the real world, they get little guidance or support, in a year that will have a profound impact on the rest of their professional career. They often feel ``out there'' and ``alone,'' thrown into an unfamiliar school and classroom with a room full of new faces. By the current sink-or-swim method, new teachers often find themselves ill equipped to deal with the educational and disciplinary tasks of their first year. A new teacher can get experienced guidance from a master teacher who is paired with the new teacher. The master teacher can help plan lessons, improve instructional methods, and deal with discipline problems. Having this kind of professional support can give these new teachers the skills and confidence to stay in teaching. Second, master teacher programs can bring more prestige to teaching as a profession, by increasing the teacher's salary, by rewarding experience, and by giving teachers opportunities to supervise others. A master teacher designation is a way to recognize outstanding ability and performance, and to reward the good teachers. A master teacher position can give teachers a professional goal, a higher level to pursue. A 1996 report by the National Commission for Teaching and American's Future said that creating new career paths for teachers is one of the best ways to give educators the respect they deserve and to ensure that proven teaching methods spread quickly and broadly. In one survey of teachers which asked which factors make teachers stay in teaching, 79 percent of teachers said that respect for the teaching profession is needed in order to retain qualified teachers. Eighty percent said that formal mentoring programs for beginning teachers is key (Scholastic/Chief State School Officers' Teacher Voices Survey, 2000). Over 70 percent of teachers said that more planning time with peers is needed to keep teachers in the classroom. This amendment should help. Because of the higher pay and enhanced prestige, a master teacher program can help to recruit and retain teachers. Mentor systems provide new teachers with a support network, someone to turn to. Studies indicate higher retention rates among new teachers who participate in mentoring programs. According to Yvonne Gold of California State University-Long Beach, 25 percent of beginning teachers do not teach more than two years and nearly 40 percent leave in the first five years. In the Rochester, New York, system, the teacher retention rate was nearly double the national average five years after establishing a mentoring program. As Jay Matthews wrote in the May 16, 2000, Washington Post, programs like this ``can provide a large boost to the profession's image for a relatively small amount of money.'' These programs can keep good teachers in the classroom, instead of losing them to school administration or industry. Higher salaries and prestige for master teachers could deter the drain from the classrooms. Another reason for this bill is that teacher mentoring programs can make teacher performance more accountable. A master teacher can help novice teachers improve their teaching and get better student achievement. ``Teachers cannot be held accountable for knowledge based, client-oriented decisions if they do not have access to knowledge, as well as opportunities for consultation and evaluation of their work,'' said Adam Urbanski, President of the Rochester, New York, Teachers Association. He went on: ``Unsatisfactory teacher performance often stems from inadequate and incompetent supervision. Administrators often lack the training and the resources to supervise teachers and improve the performance of those who are in serious trouble.'' Good teachers are key to learning. Lower math test scores have been correlated with the percentage of math teachers on emergency permits and higher math test scores were linked both to the teachers' qualifications and to their years of teaching experience, according to ``Professional Development for Teachers, 2000.'' This bill could be very helpful in California where one-fifth of our teachers will leave the profession in three years, according to an article in the February 9, 2000, Los Angeles Times. One-half of our teachers are over age 44. California will need 300,000 new teachers by 2010. ``More students to teach, smaller classes, and teachers leaving or retiring means that California school districts are now having to hire a record 26,000 new teachers each year,'' says the report, ``Teaching and California's Future, 2000.'' California's enrollment is growing at three times the national rate. With these kinds of demands, understaffing often leads to under qualified and new teachers entering the classroom. We have to do all we can to attract and retain good teachers. The true beneficiaries of master teacher programs are the students and that is, of course, my fundamental goal. As stated in Rochester's teaching manual, the goal is ``to improve student outcomes by developing and maintaining the highest quality of teaching, providing teachers with career options that do not require them to leave teaching to assume additional responsibilities and leadership roles.'' I believe this bill can begin to provide teachers the real professional support they need, can attract and retain teachers and can bring to the teaching profession the prestige it deserves. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to re-introduce the same ban on importing large capacity ammunition magazines that passed both Houses of Congress in 1999 during the Juvenile Justice debate. That amendment passed the Senate by voice vote after a Motion to Table failed 59-39. The same provision, offered by then-Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde on the House floor, passed by voice vote as an amendment to the House Juvenile Justice Gun Bill. Nevertheless, these clips continue to flood into the country, because the Juvenile Justice bill became stalled in Conference, and never got to the President's desk. It is time to take care of this once and for all--outside of politics, and outside of partisan bickering over other provisions. We simply cannot stand by and watch millions of these killer clips flood our shores. Large-capacity ammunition clips are ammunition feeding devices, such as clips, magazines, drums and belts, which hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. The 1994 assault weapons ban prohibited the domestic manufacture of these devices, but foreign companies are still sending them to our shores by the hundreds of thousands. As the author of the 1994 provision, I can assure you that this was not our intent. We intended to ban the future manufacture of all high capacity clips, leaving only a narrow clause allowing for the importation of clips already on their way to this country. Instead, due to the grandfather clause inserted into the 1994 legislation, BATF has allowed millions of foreign clips into this country, with no true method of determining date of manufacture. Between March 1998 and March 1999, BATF approved more than 11.4 million large-capacity clips for importation into America. By voting for the amendment to the Juvenile Justice bill in 1999, a significant majority of this body has already agreed that it is both illogical and irresponsible to permit foreign companies to sell items to the American public--particularly items that are so often used for deadly purposes--that U.S. companies are prohibited from selling. Supporting this legislation once again will simply finish what we already started during the juvenile justice debate, and bring foreign companies into greater compliance with the original intent of the 1994 law. Opposing this bill would effectively allow foreign companies to continue to flout our laws, while domestic companies remain in compliance. Let me just outline a bit of the history behind this issue. Because of strong NRA opposition to the 1994 assault weapons ban and fears that businesses with inventories of the newly illegal products would be adversely impacted, we carved out a clause during negotiations to allow pre-existing guns and clips to remain on the shelves of stores across this country. This so-called ``grandfather clause'' was also meant to allow guns and clips already on their way to this country to get here. Some Senators did not want to penalize companies that already had shipments in transit. But it has now been more than six years, and these companies have had more than enough time to ship their pre-existing supplies of clips to the United States. Without question, many of these clips now flooding this country were made after the 1994 ban took effect. But because the ATF cannot tell when the clips were made, they must allow their import. In 1998, President Clinton stopped the importation of most copycat assault weapons to this country with an Executive Order. However, the Justice Department advised us that the President does not have the authority to ban importation of big clips. As a result, millions of high capacity ammunition magazines continue to flow onto our shores and into the hands of criminals and, indeed, our children. These clips come from at least 17 different countries, from Austria to Zimbabwe. They come in sizes ranging from 15 rounds per clip to 30, 75, 90, or even 250 rounds per clip. In one recent one-year period: 20,000 clips of 250-rounds came from England; Two million 15-round magazines came from Italy; 5,000 clips of 70-rounds came from the Czech Republic. And the list goes on, and on, and on. Mr. President, 75, 90 and even 250-round clips have no sporting purpose. They are not used for self defense. They have only one use-- the purposeful killing of other men, women and children. The legislation I re-introduce today will stop the flow of these clips into this country. I know that we cannot eliminate these clips from existence. But we can make them harder to obtain and, over time, dry up their supply. These big clips allow disgruntled workers, angry children and psychopathic killers to exponentially increase the damage of their crimes. Let me give you just two examples. In the now famous Springfield, Oregon shooting, a 15 year-old gunman with a 30-round clip killed two people and injured 22 more. Two dead, 22 wounded, all from one ammunition clip. It was only when his clip was finally empty and he had to pause to change clips that a fellow student was able to tackle and subdue him. Just imagine if the clip had held 75 rounds. Or 90. Or 250. In the Jonesboro, Arkansas shooting, the two boys were armed with ten guns, one of which was a Universal carbine equipped with a 15-round killer clip. All 15 of the bullets in the killer clip were fired--more rounds than in all of the other nine guns combined. Five people were killed, ten other wounded. Mr. President, in passing this legislation, we will not put an end to all incidents of gun violence now or in the near future. But we will begin to limit the destructive power of that violence. It will not stop every troubled child or adult who decides to commit an act of violence from doing so, but we can limit the tools used to carry out that act. Passing this bill will not infringe on the legitimate rights of any adult gun owner or prevent a son or daughter from protecting the family from harm. It will not create a new category of banned guns. But it will save some lives. It is just that simple. So let us do our best to ensure that the next time a troubled or vengeful child decides to strike out at his classmates, he cannot so easily find a gun that fires a hundred rounds a minute, or holds dozens of armor-piercing bullets. Mr. President, I urge any of my colleagues who remain skeptical to look beyond the opposition rhetoric and into the heart of this legislation. And I urge them to look into their own hearts, and to realize that there are some things we can do to keep future Littletons from happening. This legislation is one of them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following the statement.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reform the longstanding inequity in the Medicare Direct Graduate Medical Education (DGME) formula that has unfairly compensated many teaching hospitals across the country in the past 15 years. The Medicare DGME payment compensates teaching hospitals for many of the costs related to the graduate training of physicians. This legislation is timely as many of our nation's 400 teaching hospitals are in the midst of a serious financial crisis. Over 72 percent of all teaching hospitals are currently operating with negative margins, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Approximately 42 percent of the 100 major teaching hospitals could be operating at a loss by 2002. Teaching hospitals are losing millions of dollars annually. The University of Pennsylvania reported a $200 million deficit in 1999. In Massachusetts, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the New England Medical Center posted operating losses for the six month period of October 1998 to March 1999 totaling more than $63 million. The University of Minnesota sold its hospital to a private company in 1997 because ``it was bleeding red ink,'' according to the university's senior Vice-President for health sciences. Wayne State University in Michigan lost nearly $200 million in 1998 and 1999. Georgetown University lost $83 million in 1999, $62 million in 1998, and $57 million in 1997. In my State, the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) has seen its net income plunge $50 million and bottom out close to zero. The University of California San Francisco faces a $25 million loss over the next year. Excluding the University of California San Francisco, all University of California teaching hospitals collectively lost $90 million in net income since 1997. Many factors are to blame for the financial crisis of our nation's teaching hospitals. Balanced Budget Act of 1997: The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 took a major blow at teaching hospitals, significantly cutting federal Medicare payments. The cuts included in BBA 1997, for example, has meant a loss of $25 million over three years to UCLA. Penetration of Managed Care: Managed care payments to many teaching hospitals barely cover costs. Twenty-eight percent of all privately insured Americans are enrolled in an HMO. In California, this number is 88 percent. For example, California's capitation rate is one of the lowest in the nation. The average capitation rate in the State reached its peak in 1993 at $45 per month. Last year, the rate sunk to $29, while the cost of living jumped 25.2 percent. Increasing Number of Uninsured: The number of uninsured has exploded. Today, 44 million Americans are without health insurance, California alone has 7 million uninsured residents. The high rate of uninsured impacts teaching hospitals because they are a major safety net provider--teaching hospitals provide approximately 44 percent of all care to the indigent. This means that when our nation's uninsured require medical care for complicated and complex pathologies, they find their way to teaching hospitals. Academic medical centers affiliated with the University of California, for example, are the second largest safety net for a State that has the fourth highest uninsured rate in the country. These are three examples of the forces behind the financial crisis of our nation's teaching hospitals. Low DGME payments further erode and destabilize the health care system. Academic medical centers have three major responsibilities and missions--teaching, research, and patient care--which cause them to incur costs unique to such facilities. ``If just one leg of that three- legged stool is weak, it [academic medical centers] becomes destabilized,'' said Dr. Gerald Levey, UCLA's provost for health sciences. Low DGME payments are weakening teaching hospitals' ability to train future physicians. Teaching hospitals account for only 6 percent of the nation's 5,000 hospitals. Despite the small number of teaching hospitals, they are a major provider of care. Teaching hospitals house: Forty percent of all neonatal intensive care units; fifty-three percent of pediatric intensive care units; and seventy percent of all burn units. Teaching hospitals also handle: Twenty percent of all inpatient admissions; twenty-two percent of outpatient visits; nineteen percent of surgical operations, including 82 percent of all open heart surgeries; sixteen percent of emergency visits; and nineteen percent of all births. The bottom line is that the financial crisis faced by teaching hospitals is impacting patient access to and quality of care. California has been particularly impacted by this financial crisis. Let me tell you how an outpatient eye clinic at the University of California, San Francisco has been impacted by the financial crisis facing teaching hospitals. The clinic has a patient mix that is approximately 70 percent Medicare and 30 percent Medi-Cal. Due in part to historically low DGME payments, the clinic has had to decrease the number of staff, increase patient load, and cut faculty salaries by 15 percent. The number of patients seen on an average day, for example, has increased from 12 per half day to 18. Less time with each patient compromises quality of care. According to a 1965 Medicare rule, Medicare paid for its share of DGME costs based on each hospital's ``Medicare allowable costs.'' This allowed for open-ended reimbursement. Congress changed the methodology used to determine payments in 1986, and retroactively established Fiscal Year 1985 as the base year for all future calculations for DGME payments. The problem, which created this disparity in payments, is that some teaching hospitals narrowly interpreted the law and did not claim such expenses as faculty costs and benefits in 1985. Submitted claims for 1985 were then used to determine a ``base formula'' for each teaching hospital. The base formula determined for each teaching hospital in 1985 has been used to determine all DGME payments since 1985 and disadvantages many teaching hospitals. To give you an idea of the large variation in payments, 10 percent of teaching hospitals had per-resident payments of more than $98,800 in 1995, whereas the average payment for another 10 percent was below $37,400. The national mean in 1995 was $62,700. A study conducted last year based on data from the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) further highlights the variations among teaching hospitals. The study shows that: Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan received an average Medicare payment of $57,010 a year for each resident it trains. In comparison, Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in Manhattan received an average of $24,444 per resident. Even when cost-of-living and training expenses are presumably similar (both hospitals are in Manhattan), there is great variation in the payment received by hospitals for training residents. Additional examples of variations in payments include: Montefiore Medicare Center in the Bronx received an average of $55,073 per resident; Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston received an average of $29,843 per resident; Cleveland Clinic Hospital received an average of $16,118 per resident, and the University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center received an average of $11,908 per resident. In an attempt to level the playing field, the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 (BRA) contained provision that created a 70 percent floor and a 140 percentage ceiling for Medicare DGME payments. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Improvement Act of 2000 also contained provision to increase the floor to 85 percent in 2002. While Congress has begun to address the tissue of variations in DGME payments by implementing a floor and a ceiling for payments in 1999 and 2000, more must be done. I believe all teaching hospitals should receive reimbursement from Medicare that equal the national average. Bringing all teaching hospitals up to the national average, without undermining the financial stability of those teaching hospitals currently receiving payments above the national average, could help stabilize our nation's health care system. The legislation that I am introducing today takes good steps to reduce variations in DGME and restore stability to the system. As established in current law, the floor for Medicare reimbursements for teaching hospitals would equal 85 percent by Fiscal Year 2002. Over a period of four years (from FY 2003-2006), this legislation would bring teaching hospitals that are currently reimbursed by Medicare below the national average up to the national average. The phase in is as follows: Beginning in Fiscal Year 2003 and 2004, the floor would be increased to 90 percent. In Fiscal Year 2005 the floor would be increased to 95 percent. By Fiscal Year 2006, all teaching hospitals would be receiving per resident payments that equal at least 100 percent of the national average. Those teaching hospitals receiving payments above the national average would be held harmless. Approximately thirty-eight States benefit under the proposed legislation. Teaching hospitals in several states will benefit over the next several years due in combination to the proposed legislation and the changes made in both 1999 and 2000 to increase the floor for DGME payments. California to Benefit: California will gain approximately $61.5 million over the next 6 years as a result of this legislation and the changes made to the DGME floor in 1999 and 2000. For example, the University of California Medical Centers will gain $16.3 million over six years. The medical center at the University of Davis will gain $3.2 million; the medical center at the University of Irvine will gain $1.6 million; UCLA's medical center will gain $5.8 million; the medical center at the University of San Diego will gain $1.8 million; and the medical center at the University of San Francisco will gain approximately $3.9 million. This is merely an example of State impact under the proposed legislation. These numbers are significant. Many of our nation's teaching hospitals would greatly benefit under the proposed legislation. The proposed legislation would use new money to move teaching hospitals below the national average up to the average. Less than $500 million over 4 years would be borrowed from the Medicare Part A Trust fund to pay for the increase in Medicare payments to direct graduate medical education. So as to keep the Medicare Part A Trust Fund solvent beyond 2025, this legislation authorizes the Senate to appropriate to the Trust Fund annually an amount equal to what is taken out to reimburse teaching hospitals at this higher rate. Teaching hospitals rely heavily on DGME payments to train and support their medical students and faculty. For example, medical education funding in California helps support 108 hospitals that train more than 6,700 residents over three-to-five year periods. California received $75.1 million in DGME payments in 1997. Many of the nation's teaching hospitals will be forced to close down beds and lower the quality of care they provide. UCLA has had to lay off 300 employees in the past few years due to budget constraints. In a statement issued April 2000 by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AMC), the association said that: To enhance the credibility of the payment system and to eliminate inequities in payment levels, the AMC believes that payments to any hospital whose per resident DGME amount is below the national average per resident DGME payment levels (adjusted for local variability in cost of living wages) should be raised closer to the national average; additional funding resources should be used to accomplish this adjustment. This legislation does just that--over a period of four years, teaching hospitals receiving payments below the national average will be brought up to the national average using new money. It is that simple. ``Teaching hospitals are a national resource,'' says Albert Carnesale, Chancellor of UCLA. I agree with Chancellor Carnesale. I believe that the vitality of our nation's teaching hospitals should be of highest concern to Congress. As our nation's uninsured rate continues to grow and the population continues to explode, we must work to ensure that we have an adequate supply of physicians to provide medical care. Training physicians and providing teaching hospitals with the funds necessary to offer this training should be of highest priority. I believe that a teaching hospital's ability to serve their communities and train physicians will be further compromised if we do not enact this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, this past weekend, our nation lost one of its finest public servants with the passing of former California Senator Alan Cranston. Senator Cranston served California well, and our hearts and thoughts go to his son Kim and the rest of his family at this difficult time. Senator Cranston holds the distinction of being the only Democrat in our State's history to win four terms to the United States Senate, serving 24 years. Born in Palo Alto, California in 1914, Alan Cranston was a tireless champion for peace, justice, and human rights. He was also a steadfast advocate for the poor and oppressed. Senator Cranston was educated at Stanford University where he excelled as both a student and athlete. After graduating, Senator Cranston worked as a correspondent for the International News Service and then served his nation well in the U.S. Army in World War II. In 1939, Alan Cranston edited the first unexpurgated English translation of Adolf Hitler's ``Mein Kampf'' published in the U.S. in an effort to alert Americans to the dangers of the Third Reich. In fact, Senator Cranston had the very unique experience of being sued by Hitler for copyright violation for his work on this editing project--and in true Alan Cranston form--he wore this as a badge of honor and demonstrated that he would stand up to anyone in pursuit of Democratic principles and ideals. His first service in elected office was when he won his race for California State Controller in 1962. He then ran successfully for the Senate in 1968 and was elected seven times as party whip. He was called by many as one of the best ``nose counters'' in the Senate. My esteemed colleague and former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd said of Senator Cranston, ``He is absolutely superb when it comes to knowing how the votes will fall in place on a given issue.'' Senator Cranston also was a strong leader in an effort to protect our environment. I am proud to say that he was the original author of the Desert Protection Act and he called me shortly after I won election to the Senate in 1992 to ask me if I would take over the effort to get the bill approved. In 1994, we amended the bill a number of times but were able to get it passed and make the legislation a reality. This landmark measure created two new national parks--Death Valley and Joshua Tree--and one national preserve--the Mojave. In total, the measure has permanently saved and protected over 7 million acres of pristine California desert wilderness for all time. As Thomas Jefferson said in 1809 that ``the care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government,'' it appears to me that Senator Cranston demonstrated this view with strong and forceful advocacy of arms control. In the Senate, Alan Cranston played a leading role in moving the SALT and START arms control treaties through this body, and he drafted the first bill to eliminate funding for the Vietnam War. In 1983, Alan Cranston said that ending the arms race would be the paramount goal of his run for the Presidency. That effort was not successful, but his effort to promote an honest dialogue on this issue grew and he continued to work toward a more peaceful planet right up until the time of his death. In 1996, he became chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation USA based in San Francisco, founded by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and devoted to nuclear disarmament. More recently, he served as President of the Global Security Institute, a think tank devoted to same end. The Institute recently persuaded more than 100 international civilian leaders, including 44 former presidents and prime ministers, to sign on to its nuclear weapon elimination initiative. Signators included former President Jimmy Carter, former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, Nobel Laureates Kenneth Arrow and Elie Weisel, Coretta Scott King, astronaut Sally Ride and retired Supreme Allied Commander General Andrew Goodpaster. Former Representative Lionel Van Deerlin describes Senator Cranston's devotion to nuclear disarmament well when he said, ``He's got to be remembered for pioneering, when the Cold War was still on, limiting the worst weapons ever conceived.'' In summing up the career of Senator Alan Cranston, I believe a recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times aptly sums up his life and his service to our Nation: [Senator Cranston] toiled in the trenches during a long political career in behalf of California and world peace. The value of his efforts and dedication was not fully appreciated at the time and was overshadowed by his departure from the Senate. It's that body of work that should be remembered and celebrated now. Mr. President, our Nation is no doubt a better place because of Senator Alan Cranston's service, and we will miss him deeply.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senators McConnell and Torricelli to introduce the Election Reform Act. I believe that this legislation will play an important role in improving elections in the United States. The situation in Florida with different counties using different equipment, different standards and different methodologies in the conduct of the election is a clear indication that reform is needed. Although elections are within the purview of the states, if the Federal government can provide incentives and financial assistance to update equipment and administration to ensure that every vote counts, that would be a giant step forward. Our democracy is based on the principle that our political leaders are chosen through a fair and accurate election process. While the aftermath of this year's election brought much disagreement, it is clear that the voting system is antiquated and in need of reform. This legislation establishes a permanent, federal Commission dedicated to election administration. This Commission will consist of four Commissioners appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioners will serve four-year terms, with no more than two Commissioners affiliated with the same political party. The Commission would do the following: study various aspects of election administration and make periodic recommendations on such topics as ballot design, accuracy, security, and technological advances in voting equipment; develop and update voluntary standards for voting systems at least every four years; study accessibility to polling places and recommend voluntary guidelines to increase access to polling places; allocate $100 million in matching funds to States and localities that improve their voting systems in a manner consistent with voluntary recommendations developed by the Commission. This legislation has the support of the Voting Integrity Project, the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate and the National Organization on Disability, the American Foundation for the Blind, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. As we move forward in the 21st century, it is essential that the all Americans, and nations throughout the world, continue to have confidence in our electoral process. This means modernizing the system to include new, cost-effective technologies that can improve election administration. The reforms embodied in this legislation will permit these advances. I am hopeful one of the first acts of the 107th Congress will be to pass this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable public servant who has been taken from us all too quickly. The sudden loss of Representative Julian Dixon has shocked and saddened us all. Without a doubt, Julian served California's Thirty- Second District with passion and distinction. He was a man of the highest integrity and credibility and his departure is a terrible loss to all of us. He was a gentleman in every sense of the word who was willing to work across partisan lines to improve the lives of his constituents and so many Americans. I was privileged as a member of the Senate Appropriations to work with Julian Dixon, who was a member of the House Appropriations Committee. In this role, Julian always put California's needs first. He helped aid small businesses in Southern California who had been hurt by military base closures and defense downsizing. He also was a champion of the Los Angeles Metro Subway and the Alameda Corridor, an underground connection between the port of Los Angeles and the major east-west rail lines. He also consistently fought to maintain our Nation's commitment to civil rights and to increase the economic upward mobility of the people of the Thirty-Second District. Julian was also a leader through his role on the Appropriations Committee to secure funds to rebuild after the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and to improve public transportation throughout Los Angeles. Julian Dixon served in Congress for 22 years, first being elected in 1978. He completed his undergraduate studies at California State University in Los Angeles and attended Southwestern School of Law. He served in the United States Army, practiced law in Los Angeles and then was elected to the California State Assembly in 1972. He was also Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and worked tirelessly to establish a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. here in our Nation's Capital. In 1999, Julian became an active participant in protecting America's national security through his role as ranking Democrat on the Select Intelligence Committee. Julian Dixon was a man of principle and fairness whose grace and humility will be sorely missed. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Betty and the entire Dixon family during this very difficult time. Put simply, this Nation owes much to Julian Dixon and the United States Congress was truly made a much better place because of his service.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to John J. Hock, the devoted father of my press secretary Jim Hock. John Hock will be remembered by friends and family for his deep devotion to his religious faith, family, and football. His family members recall that although he was not one to yell or scream, he always commanded great respect from everyone who knew him. His greatest treasure was his family. Jim always spoke of the selflessness of this father, who even in his last days, wanted to ensure that his family would be taken care of once he was gone. A natural athlete, Mr. Hock played in the National Footfall League as an offensive tackle for the Chicago Cardinals. During the Korean war, Mr. Hock, a participant in the Olympic trials in the late 1940's, also entertained troops while on USO football teams in Japan. After returning from the Korean war, he was traded to the Los Angeles Rams, where he played as a guard from 1953-1957. As captain of the Santa Clara University's football team, Mr. Hock led his teammates to victory over the top-ranked University of Kentucky in the 1965 Orange Bowl. During the off-season, Mr. Hock taught high school in Los Angeles to make ends meet. It was while he was working as a teacher that he met his wife, Bernadette. His family remembers how devoted they were to one another. Because her husband was too humble to promote himself, Mrs. Hock carried around his paying cards to give to friends. Their son Joseph put it best when he said that his mother and father were one. In 1960, his pro-football career over and family growing, Mr. Hock moved into sales and marketing at Western Carloading, a Los Angeles- based trucking and shipping company. From 1988 until this year, he worked as a sales agent for Coldwell Baker Realty in Mahwah, spending his freetime with his grandchildren, his family members said. He is survived by his wife of 45 years, Bernadette, his sister, Ruth Rahe, his children, Jay, Joseph, Jim, Mary, Susan, Anna, and Lisa, and 11 of his grandchildren. Mr. President, Mr. Hock will be greatly missed, not because he entertained us, but because he stands as a reminder of the importance of family. As the holiday season draws near, let us all remember what John Hock always knew: Family and friends are truly the sweetest rewards.