Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Marianne Clark of my staff be permitted floor privileges during the pendency of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my privilege to recognize the truly world-changing efforts of Roger Sant, a distinguished and successful businessman who, in his six years as Chairman of World Wildlife Fund, has brought profound changes to the way conservation is accomplished here in the United States and, indeed, around the world. Having taught corporate finance at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business early in his career, Mr. Sant moved east to lead the Ford Administration's energy conservation efforts as head of the energy conservation program at the Federal Energy Administration. In 1981, he founded AES Corporation, a publicly held global power company characterized by its innovative approaches to energy production. Throughout his career, culminating in his chairmanship of WWF, Mr. Sant has been committed to conservation in all its aspects, inspired by the imperative of leaving a living planet to future generations. As the involved and inspiring chairman of World Wildlife Fund, Mr. Sant has encouraged the organization to think big, working to achieve conservation results at a new ecoregional, landscape scale. He has applied his business acumen as well as a range of skills and approaches honed through his work in government, academia, and the nonprofit world to make a compelling case for conservation to decision makers around the world, from heads of state to government leaders in the United States. Encouraging partnerships, he has supported significant and innovative cooperative arrangements between conservation organizations, governments and private entrepreneurs, and among governments, all with the goal of advancing conservation priorities at a scale that can achieve lasting results. His personal support of conservation initiatives has made a world of difference. As Roger Sant steps down on September 19 after six years as WWF Chairman, he continues his personal commitment to conserving the world's endangered species and spaces. Based on his track record, we all can give thanks for his substantial conservation achievements as well as for all we know he will achieve for conservation in the coming years.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Thompson amendment, and then I hope I can make a few comments on what I believe to be one of the most important pieces of legislation on which this Congress will be voting. Let me begin by saying this. If I believed this amendment would keep our country safe, I would vote for it. I do not believe that is the case. Rather, I believe the amendment is deeply flawed and it has major procedural and review problems. I want to point those out. Let me say, first of all, to most of us, the draft of this amendment was available Monday night, a little more than a day ago. Yet it is a major, long-range piece of legislation that has major implications for national security, for peace, and stability in the Asia Pacific region. To pass it without careful analysis, without full hearings, and without careful judgment is something to which I am not willing to be a party. There have been no hearings on this or any draft of this legislation. The National Security Council and the State Department have not had the opportunity to provide a full analysis of this latest version of the amendment or assess its likely short- and long-term impact. I am one of those who believes it would, in fact, doom giving China permanent normal trading status. I am simply not willing to do that. Most importantly, from what I have been able to perceive, I believe the legislation has serious flaws. First, it focuses on three countries. It separates them from all the other countries. It applies a standard to them that exists for no one else. And I do not believe that is in the best interests of sound decisionmaking. Second, the mandatory sanctions put in place by this amendment have hair triggers which are tripped by minimal evidence--indeed not necessarily even evidence. The raw intelligence data that provides the ``credible information'' trigger of this amendment requires followup, substantiation, and analysis before it is used to initiate action. It should be the starting point for processes that weigh options and consider appropriate action, not an end point that instantly triggers strong responses. Let me give you one example: In 1993, the Yin He incident, where based on ``credible information'' the United States publicly accused China of shipping proscribed chemical precursors to Iran. The Chinese freighter in question was diverted and every single container searched, at great cost and inconvenience to all involved. There were no banned chemicals aboard. The Thompson amendment would have mandated sanctions. Second, there is no way to target the sanctions which would be triggered by this amendment, and no effective Presidential waiver for national security interests. It is a blunt instrument more likely to hurt American interests than to change China's behavior. Third, the amendment invites diplomatic and, yes, maybe even legal problems with other countries, including allies. The amendment as drafted could create a situation whereby sanctions would be placed on corporations of allied countries that are not acting illegally. Fourth, especially chilling is the way in which the amendment's wording could, in effect, blacklist any company tagged as a proliferating agent under this amendment's low standard of proof. These are just a few of the examples of some of the problems with this amendment. Several of my colleagues have discussed other shortcomings at greater length. Automatic sanctions set off by low thresholds of evidence offer little to entice allies to join us in implementing an effective sanctions regime, but they most certainly will damage U.S.-China relations. They most certainly will weaken our ability to engage the Chinese in any kind of worthwhile dialog or influence them to change their behavior. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this amendment. Let me, if I might, say a few things about the bilateral agreement that really is the issue before us today. I reviewed it carefully, and I believe that in this agreement China has made significant market- opening concessions to the United States across virtually every economic sector. For example, on agricultural products, tariffs will drop from an average of 31 percent to 14 percent by January of 2004. Industrial tariffs will fall from an average of 24.6 percent in 1997 to 9.4 percent by 2005. China agrees to open up distribution services, such as repair and maintenance, warehousing, trucking, and air courier services. Import tariffs on autos, now ranging between 80 percent and 100 percent, are broken down to 25 percent by 2006 with tariff reductions accelerated. China will participate in the Information Technology Agreement and will eliminate tariffs on products such as computers, semiconductors, and related products by 2005. It will open its telecommunications sector, including access to China's growing Internet services, and expand investment and other activities for financial services firms. The agreement also preserves safeguards against dumping and other unfair trade practices. Specifically, the ``special safeguard rule''-- to prevent import surges into the United States--will remain in force for 12 years, and the ``special anti-dumping methodology'' will remain in effect for 15 years. No matter how you look at it, this benefits the United States. I think many people have confused this PNTR vote with a vote to approve China joining the World Trade Organization. It needs to be understood that China will likely join the WTO within the next year regardless of our action. The issue will, in fact, be decided by the WTO's working group and a two-thirds vote of the WTO membership as a whole. Under WTO rules, only the countries that have ``nondiscriminatory'' trade practices--that is PNTR--are entitled to receive the benefit of WTO agreements. Without granting China permanent normal trading status, the United States effectively cuts itself out of China's vast markets, while Britain, Japan, France, and all other WTO nations are allowed to trade with few barriers. In my view, this has been an interesting exercise because it has been highly politicized. The bottom line is if we don't grant China PNTR based on the November bilateral agreement, an agreement in which the United States received many important trade concessions and gave up nothing, we effectively shoot ourselves in the foot. We take ourselves out of the agreement, China still goes into the WTO, and those other strategic trading blocks such as the European Union receive the benefits of the bilateral agreement. We do not. I think it is much broader than this. But I think there is an ultimate issue at stake. That is this: The People's Republic of China is today undergoing its most significant period of economic and social activity since its founding 50 years ago. The pace is fast and the changes are large. I am one who studies Chinese history. I have been watching China for over 30 years. I made my first trip in 1979. I try to visit China every year, if I can, and I have watched and I have seen. In a relatively short time, China has become a key Pacific rim player, and a major world trader. It is a huge producer and consumer of goods and services--a magnet for investment and commerce. Because of its size and potential, the choices China makes over the next few years will greatly influence the future of peace and prosperity in Asia. In a very real sense, the shaping of Asia's future begins with choices America will make in how to deal with China. I come from a Pacific rim State; 60 percent of the people of the world live on both sides of the Pacific Ocean. The trade on that ocean long ago over took the trade on the Atlantic Ocean. It is, in fact, the ocean of the future. We can try to engage China and integrate it into the global community. We can be a catalyst for positive change. Few objective observers would argue that despite the problems that still remain, there have not been significant benefits and advances in China that have come from two decades of interaction with the United States and the West. Or, we can deal antagonistically with China. We can lose our leverage in guiding China along positive paths of economic, political, and social development, and sacrifice business advantage to competitor nations while gaining nothing in return. As I see it, for the foreseeable future America faces no greater challenge than the question of how to persuade China that it is in China's own national interests to move away from authoritarian government and toward a more open, a more pluralistic and freer society. How do we convince China to make the political, economic and social changes that will help China evolve the leadership that will make it guarantor of peace and stability in the Pacific rim, throughout Asia and the world? I am convinced that Congress will debate few issues more important this year than the question of China's entry into the World Trade Organization and whether or not we will deal with the Chinese on the basis of a permanent normal trade relationship. Trade means change in China. Economic engagement with the United States has been one of the prime motivating factors in China's decision to move toward a market economy and away from its self-isolation of decades. The past 20 years have brought massive social reform and economic advancement for China's people. I remember the first time I traveled to China in 1979. I saw a land of subdued people, grey Mao suits, few consumer goods, no conveniences, poor living conditions and little personal, economic or political freedom. The economy was all centrally controlled; little private property and private business existed. Today, the goods, services, housing, and freedoms available to residents of Chinese cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou are greatly improved. People have become interested in what happens outside of China. People will speak more freely. Living standards are higher. China is increasing turning to private ownership--as much as 50 percent of the economy is in private hands in boom areas like the Pearl River Delta in Southern China. Large, inefficient state enterprises are closing or being converted to private ownership. Entrepreneurship is on the rise in the cities in much of the countryside. Cutting our bilateral economic ties will accomplish nothing except to turn back the clock in China to favor more government controls, seek to isolate this growing economy, and very likely strengthen repressive political interests linked to protectionism and economic nationalism within the PRC. It is evident to me that flourishing business relationships have developed increased contacts, improved mutual understandings, and personal relationships between Americans and Chinese. This, in turn, has fostered many positive changes, as different ways of thinking percolate through Chinese society at many levels. It is there; I have seen it. American firms have brought new management styles, innovative ideas, and new work styles to China. Through their presence in China's economy, Americans have spread their corporate philosophies, teaching Chinese entrepreneurs, managers, and workers about market economics, commitment to free flows of information, the rule of law--the most important thing--dedication to environmental responsibility, and worker rights and safety. Yes, it is far from perfect. But are things changing? The answer by any objective criteria has to be yes. Are there flaws? Are there problems? Does China very often do stupid things? Yes: The crackdown on Falun Gong, in my view a stupid thing, an unnecessary thing, something that, once again, pushes it backwards rather than forwards. Its treatment of Tibet--has China done the wrong thing? Absolutely. For 10 years I have been saying that and will continue to say it. It makes no sense for a great nation to treat a major minority the way in which the Tibetan people are treated. I will say that over and over again. I will work to change it. And one day we will succeed and do that, too. But we cannot do it if we isolate China. We cannot do it if we play into the hands of the hardliners. We cannot do it if we create the kind of adversarial relationship that is determined to make China into the next Soviet Union. I believe that firmly, and 30 years of watching has confirmed it. American firms exercise a very real influence over the changes occurring in Chinese society. That influence will not survive the elimination of PNTR. American businesses in China bring American values to China. But, they cannot bring them if their ability to operate is undercut. History clearly shows us a nation's respect for political pluralism, human rights, labor rights, and environmental protection grows alongside that nation's positive interaction with others and achieving a level of sustainable economic development and social well- being. People who have a full stomach then begin to say: What is next? People who have an education then begin to question the leadership. That will happen in China just as it did in Taiwan, just as it did in South Korea. Not too long ago, both were governed by dictatorships. Given a chance, China can change as well. If we are serious about building a peaceful, prosperous and stable Asia, if we are serious about being a force for good in the Pacific rim in the 21st century, if we are serious about working to bring about democratic reforms, human rights reforms, and labor reforms in China, we also must establish permanent normal trade relations with China. This is part of the equation for making China into a member of the WTO and the world community as a whole, and saying that China must, in return, play by the same rules all other members follow. It also exposes China to sanctions in the WTO should they not. As a WTO member, China commits to eliminate barriers to its markets; to accept WTO rulings concerning trade practices and procedures; and to abide by WTO decisions concerning trade disputes. The November 15, 1999 U.S.-China WTO Agreement marked successful completion of 13 years of difficult U.S.-China negotiations. I, for one, am convinced that normalizing our trade relationship with China is absolutely in our own best interest. But it is absolutely in the best interests of seeing China becoming a pluralistic society, of developing the concern for human rights that we in the Western World hold so dear, of understanding the freedoms provided to us because of our due process of law, of understanding how important it is that a judiciary be independent from the politics of government, having a modern commercial code and a modern criminal code. None of these things China has today. As has often been said, it has to be remembered that China, for 5,000 years, has been ruled by despotic emperors and for 50 years by revolutionary leaders who had no education. This is really, in over 5,000 years, the first time this largest nation on Earth has had an educated leadership who is now, today, striving to open the door to the Western World. Remember the Boxer Rebellion? Remember what happened? Remember the humiliation, the isolation of China, and look what happened. We now have a chance in this legislation to take a different course. Most importantly--and this is what has amazed me so much about this debate-- PNTR is nothing special. It simply means we will conduct our trade with China in the same manner and under the same rules that we conduct trade with almost every other nation in the world. In fact, there are only six countries with which we do not have normal trade relations-- Afghanistan, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Serbia-Montenegro, and Vietnam. All of them are small nations. In my view, the damage of denying China permanent normal trade relations would strike even deeper. Punitive U.S. economic policies aimed at unpalatable Chinese domestic practices will not only cut into American jobs, it will slice at China's newly emerging market-oriented entrepreneurial class, the driving force behind the very changes we seek to cultivate without eliminating the targeted abuses in Chinese society. What kind of sense does that make? Responsible American voices in business, in education, in law, and in religion understand that attacking China through economic ties is counterproductive. It endangers the very social elements within China that are most compatible with ethical American norms. Trade relations do not only benefit business. They are a key part of the foundation that supports the entire U.S.-China relationship. I believe that not only do we shoot ourselves in the foot by denying PNTR, we strike a blow against encouraging China to see that it is to its interest to make the necessary changes, to understand that it, too, by open doors, more ties across the Pacific, more pluralistic government, more freedoms for its people evolves as a stronger nation, not a weaker nation. That was the case with Taiwan. That has been the case with South Korea. I submit to you, Mr. President, it is the case of virtually every country that lives under dictatorship or absolute rule. Pluralism results from an evolution and a growth in human standards, in economic standards, in interaction with the rest of the world. China will be no different if we enable it to open itself to the world. We should be prudent, we should be watchful, we should be strong, we should confront them where wrong--no question about that. I believe we have the adequate tools to do it. I have seen sanctions placed since I have been in this body, and I do not believe the amendment before this body will encourage the kind of behavior that can enable China to eventually be a stable, sound partner anywhere in the Pacific or elsewhere. I feel very strongly about this. I thank the Chair for his forbearance. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to explain why I oppose all amendments offered to H.R. 4444, a bill to establish Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China. Much is at stake here; the effects of this vote may be felt for years to come. I am convinced that amendments at this stage create a procedural problem that could derail passage of this important bill. Adopting any amendments would mean sending this bill to conference, where it could become mired in wrangling over differences of language and content. It is clear to me that we do not have time remaining in this Congress to resolve a bicameral conflict over this bill. We can allow nothing to interfere with what may be this Congress's most important decision concerning China. I am convinced we must not let our focus be drawn away from the real point in question: pure and simple, this vote is about deciding whether or not the United States wishes to join with the world community in having normal trade relations with China, and whether we are prepared to conduct our dealings with China according to the terms and conditions established by that community under the World Trade Organization framework (WTO). This vote is about protecting U.S. interests in an increasingly competitive global marketplace and about ensuring that American workers, managers, entrepreneurs, and investors do not miss out on the opportunities that are bound to grow as China brings itself further into the modern world. I do not think we further U.S. interests by undermining this nation's ability to function effectively in the world's most important multinational trade organization, or by cutting Americans off from the full benefits of WTO membership. This is what will happen if we pass a bill that does not conform to WTO requirements, or if we are forced to send the bill to conference, and fail to pass a bill, at all. I believe it is in America's best interests that this body pass a clean, focused bill establishing permanent normal trade relations with China that is the same as the House bill and does not need conferencing.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose amendment No. 4122, which calls for annual trade reviews with China, offered by the distinguished junior Senator from South Carolina on H.R. 4444, Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. This amendment, if passed as part of the China PNTR bill, would be tantamount to unilaterally establishing special conditions on China's membership in the WTO, a violation of World Trade Organization precepts the United States, as a member, commits to follow. In such a case, China would be legitimately entitled to deny American workers, entrepreneurs, investors--in short, our Nation--the benefits of open access to China's markets and the privileges of important WTO- related agreements, such as the International Telecommunications Agreement, conferred by WTO membership. I am also convinced that amendments at this stage create a procedural problem that could derail passage of this extremely important bill. Adopting any amendments at this stage would require sending this bill to conference. It is clear to me that we do not have the time remaining in this Congress to resolve a bicameral conflict over this bill. I believe it is crucial that we let nothing interfere with what may be the most important decision concerning China for years to come. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to the legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison. Essentially, this bill would--for 1 year only--suspend the certification process with respect to Mexico. It is my hope that this one-year hiatus will be viewed as a sign of good faith between our nations, and that our two countries will dramatically increase the level of our cooperation in the coming year. The problem of drugs is as serious as any we face, and only with a true partnership with Mexico and other source countries can we hope to succeed in the battle against illegal narcotics. Mr. President, let me be very clear--my support for this legislation this year should not be taken as a sign that I am any less concerned with the rampant corruption and increasingly serious problem of illegal narcotics flowing from Mexico into the United States. I sincerely hope that President-elect Fox and the government of Mexico will with innovation and commitment launch a new and effective war against the cartels that are currently of unparalleled strength and viciousness. The Zedillo administration has made some progress in cooperating with the United States in this fight. For instance, the Zedillo administration: Allowed, for the first time, the extradition of two Mexican Nationals on drug charges--although these were lower level participants in the drug trade. This is a beginning, but just that--there is still a long way to go. Fired more than 1400 of 3500 federal police officers for corruption; and so far, more than 350 officers have been prosecuted. Cooperated with the FBI late last year in an investigation on Mexican soil. And greatly increased seizures of illegal narcotics. On the other hand, not nearly enough has been done: Mexico is still the conduit to as much as 70% of the cocaine consumed in the United States (much of it originating in Colombia); Mexico supplies the majority of marijuana to the U.S., and, according to the United States Forest Service, Mexican cartels are now sending people across the border to grow marijuana in our national forests and on other federal lands; Despite recent successes in disrupting methamphetamine production in Mexico, the meth cartels are now increasingly setting up meth labs in the United States; To date, not one major drug kingpin of Mexican nationality has yet been extradited to this country, nor has a major kingpin even been arrested, with the exception of the Amezcua brothers, currently in jail, while the Mexican government decides whether to extradite. Until the cartel leaders are arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned, there can be no real improvement. In the meantime, Mexican drug cartels are becoming ever more vicious. Tijuana, for instance recently saw its second police chief gunned down in less than 6 years, as dozens of judges, prosecutors and drug agents have been killed in Tijuana alone in recent years. Last April, the bodies of two Mexican drug agents and a special prosecutor for the Mexican Attorney General's anti-narcotics unit were found in such a mangled state that identification--even by the spouse of one of the agents--was impossible. According to press accounts, one investigator who saw the photographs of the crime scene said ``They told me it was a body. I've never seen anything like that.'' The Arellano Felix organization is responsible for many of these crimes. They hold such a strong grip over their community that former DEA Administrator Thomas Constantine recently said that ``in Tijuana and Baja, they have become more powerful than the instruments of government in Mexico.'' The Arellano Felix cartel operates with an estimated one million dollars in bribe money every day. With that money they pay law enforcement to look the other way, prosecutors to leave them alone, judges to let them go free, and for information about their enemies. This leads to the largest single threat in this war against drugs-- the level of corruption within Mexican law enforcement and even extending into this country. Honest law enforcement officers cannot know who to trust. Anyone who gets too close to capturing cartel members is subject to exposure and assassination. And the cycle of corruption and failure continues. The corruption is evident at all levels of Mexican law enforcement, and this is a problem that can only be solved through a concerted, comprehensive effort on the part of the Fox administration. Until the history of corruption is reversed and the drug cartels are brought to justice, this nation will have no respite from the scourge of drugs flowing across our borders. I cosponsor this legislation today as an experiment to see that, if by putting aside the contentiousness of a certification debate next March, there can be a new, more productive process. I will follow this closely. If reports do not reflect substantial, positive change, we will know clearly that decertification may be the only course. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to the legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison. Essentially, this bill would--for 1 year only--suspend the certification process with respect to Mexico. It is my hope that this one-year hiatus will be viewed as a sign of good faith between our nations, and that our two countries will dramatically increase the level of our cooperation in the coming year. The problem of drugs is as serious as any we face, and only with a true partnership with Mexico and other source countries can we hope to succeed in the battle against illegal narcotics. Mr. President, let me be very clear--my support for this legislation this year should not be taken as a sign that I am any less concerned with the rampant corruption and increasingly serious problem of illegal narcotics flowing from Mexico into the United States. I sincerely hope that President-elect Fox and the government of Mexico will with innovation and commitment launch a new and effective war against the cartels that are currently of unparalleled strength and viciousness. The Zedillo administration has made some progress in cooperating with the United States in this fight. For instance, the Zedillo administration: Allowed, for the first time, the extradition of two Mexican Nationals on drug charges--although these were lower level participants in the drug trade. This is a beginning, but just that--there is still a long way to go. Fired more than 1400 of 3500 federal police officers for corruption; and so far, more than 350 officers have been prosecuted. Cooperated with the FBI late last year in an investigation on Mexican soil. And greatly increased seizures of illegal narcotics. On the other hand, not nearly enough has been done: Mexico is still the conduit to as much as 70% of the cocaine consumed in the United States (much of it originating in Colombia); Mexico supplies the majority of marijuana to the U.S., and, according to the United States Forest Service, Mexican cartels are now sending people across the border to grow marijuana in our national forests and on other federal lands; Despite recent successes in disrupting methamphetamine production in Mexico, the meth cartels are now increasingly setting up meth labs in the United States; To date, not one major drug kingpin of Mexican nationality has yet been extradited to this country, nor has a major kingpin even been arrested, with the exception of the Amezcua brothers, currently in jail, while the Mexican government decides whether to extradite. Until the cartel leaders are arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned, there can be no real improvement. In the meantime, Mexican drug cartels are becoming ever more vicious. Tijuana, for instance recently saw its second police chief gunned down in less than 6 years, as dozens of judges, prosecutors and drug agents have been killed in Tijuana alone in recent years. Last April, the bodies of two Mexican drug agents and a special prosecutor for the Mexican Attorney General's anti-narcotics unit were found in such a mangled state that identification--even by the spouse of one of the agents--was impossible. According to press accounts, one investigator who saw the photographs of the crime scene said ``They told me it was a body. I've never seen anything like that.'' The Arellano Felix organization is responsible for many of these crimes. They hold such a strong grip over their community that former DEA Administrator Thomas Constantine recently said that ``in Tijuana and Baja, they have become more powerful than the instruments of government in Mexico.'' The Arellano Felix cartel operates with an estimated one million dollars in bribe money every day. With that money they pay law enforcement to look the other way, prosecutors to leave them alone, judges to let them go free, and for information about their enemies. This leads to the largest single threat in this war against drugs-- the level of corruption within Mexican law enforcement and even extending into this country. Honest law enforcement officers cannot know who to trust. Anyone who gets too close to capturing cartel members is subject to exposure and assassination. And the cycle of corruption and failure continues. The corruption is evident at all levels of Mexican law enforcement, and this is a problem that can only be solved through a concerted, comprehensive effort on the part of the Fox administration. Until the history of corruption is reversed and the drug cartels are brought to justice, this nation will have no respite from the scourge of drugs flowing across our borders. I cosponsor this legislation today as an experiment to see that, if by putting aside the contentiousness of a certification debate next March, there can be a new, more productive process. I will follow this closely. If reports do not reflect substantial, positive change, we will know clearly that decertification may be the only course. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, under rule XXII of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that my hour to speak under cloture for the motion to proceed be yielded to Senator Moynihan.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 3007 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I very much appreciate those comments. Last Friday night, I took a tumble down stone stairs and managed to have a compound fracture of my tibia and crack a couple of ribs, so I can't say I am none the worse for wear, but I thank the Senator very much for his warm words. I greatly appreciate it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for some time in morning business for the purposes of introducing a bill.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lugar in introducing the Unilateral Palestinian Statehood Disapproval Act. This is cosponsored by Senators Moynihan, Specter, Inhofe, Santorum, Grams, Collins and Murkowski. We are now 7 days away from September 13. That is the day that the Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has set, in the past, as a day when he would declare, unilaterally, Palestinian statehood. He has recently said that he would reassess his intention to declare an independent Palestinian state unilaterally. I am hopeful that he will. But, nonetheless, I am concerned that neither he nor other senior Palestinian leaders have repudiated the idea of a unilateral declaration of statehood. As part of the 1993 Oslo accords, the Israelis and Palestinians committed to resolving all outstanding issues through negotiation. Chairman Arafat reiterated this position on July 25 of this year, at the conclusion of the last round of the Camp David negotiations when he and Prime Minister Barak issued a statement agreeing on the importance of ``avoiding unilaterally action that prejudiced the outcome of negotiations.'' Indeed, one of the keys to the success of the peace process thus far has been the commitment by each side to avoid any unilateral action that would undermine the search for a mutually satisfactory agreement. A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would violate the commitments of Oslo. A unilateral declaration of statehood would be a grave blow to the peace process, one from which that process might not be able to recover. I believe very strongly, and my cosponsors do as well, that any Palestinian state should be the result of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, not the result of the unilateral action of either one side or the other. It is my sincere hope that in the next few days, Mr. Arafat and others in the Palestinian leadership will step back from the September 13 deadline and recommit themselves to the Oslo process and negotiations with Israel. This legislation is necessary, however, because should Mr. Arafat go forward with the unilateral declaration, the repercussions for the peace process and stability in the Middle East are, indeed, both serious and severe. The United States must make it clear that we will not recognize or condone a unilateral declaration and that the United States will work to make sure the international community neither accepts nor supports a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. The legislation we introduce today would do the following: It would state that the United States should not recognize any unilaterally declared Palestinian state. It would urge the President and the Secretary of State to use all diplomatic means to work with other countries to deny recognition to such a unilaterally declared state. It would prohibit any direct U.S. assistance to a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, except for humanitarian assistance or cooperation on antiterrorism efforts. It would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to oppose membership in any international financial institution by a unilaterally declared Palestinian state and oppose any financial assistance from these institutions to such a state. It would state the sense of the Congress that the President should downgrade the status of the Palestinian office in the United States to an information office. It would also state the sense of the Congress that the President should oppose Palestinian membership in the United Nations or any other international organization, and that the United States should oppose economic or other assistance to a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, except for humanitarian or security assistance. Finally, it would urge the President to expedite and upgrade the ongoing review of strategic relations between the United States and Israel. We have included a Presidential national interest waiver authority so that if the President deems that even with a unilateral declaration that the peace process can move forward, the United States will have the flexibility to continue that process. I realize that it is a little unusual to say, but it is my sincere hope that this legislation will never require action, let alone implementation. I have been a long-time supporter of the peace process and for a peace agreement that provides security for Israel and leads to the consensual establishment of a Palestinian state that will be a peaceful neighbor of Israel. Since coming to the Senate, I have worked long and hard as an advocate for peace in the Middle East and as a supporter of the negotiations led by President Clinton, Secretaries Christopher and Albright, and conducted so ably by Dennis Ross. Because of this support, it is my sincere hope that Mr. Arafat will not choose to heed those who have suggested that the Palestinian Authority should unilaterally declare a Palestinian state on September 13. If Mr. Arafat is willing to continue to work within the context of the peace process and stick to his commitments at Oslo and Camp David not to take unilateral steps, then I believe the United States should continue our partnership with the Palestinian people in search for peace. Under such circumstances, there is no need for this legislation. I was deeply disappointed that the last round of negotiations at Camp David did not succeed in reaching an agreement. Prime Minister Barak appeared to make every effort to reach out and extend the hand of peace and placed items on the table for negotiation that no Israeli Prime Minister was previously even willing to discuss with the Palestinian leadership. Although there is still a long way to go, I believe that if both sides are sincere in their desire for peace, a negotiated settlement is still possible, and it is my hope that Israel and its Palestinian neighbors will once again find themselves at the negotiating table in the not too distant future. I understand that Mr. Arafat, Prime Minister Barak, and President Clinton will be meeting in New York this week, and I hope the talks can get back on track. But if the Palestinians should choose to endanger the peace process by a unilateral declaration of statehood on September 13, the United States must be clear what our policy should be. The United States has a vital and an important role to play as an honest broker in the region and as a guarantor of the peace process and any peace that may result. It is precisely our role as an honest broker that compels me to offer this legislation. If the Palestinians take unilateral steps that undermine the peace process, the United States must make it clear that we will neither condone nor support such actions. I urge my colleagues to join the Senator from Indiana and me in sending a clear and compelling message in support of the Middle East peace process. Unilateral actions are not acceptable to the United States, and should the Palestinian Authority choose to break with the peace process, the United States will act accordingly. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Specter may well be coming to the floor to make some comments on this. If he does, I ask unanimous consent that his comments be reflected directly following mine and Senator Lugar's.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lugar in introducing the Unilateral Palestinian Statehood Disapproval Act. This is cosponsored by Senators Moynihan, Specter, Inhofe, Santorum, Grams, Collins and Murkowski. We are now 7 days away from September 13. That is the day that the Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has set, in the past, as a day when he would declare, unilaterally, Palestinian statehood. He has recently said that he would reassess his intention to declare an independent Palestinian state unilaterally. I am hopeful that he will. But, nonetheless, I am concerned that neither he nor other senior Palestinian leaders have repudiated the idea of a unilateral declaration of statehood. As part of the 1993 Oslo accords, the Israelis and Palestinians committed to resolving all outstanding issues through negotiation. Chairman Arafat reiterated this position on July 25 of this year, at the conclusion of the last round of the Camp David negotiations when he and Prime Minister Barak issued a statement agreeing on the importance of ``avoiding unilaterally action that prejudiced the outcome of negotiations.'' Indeed, one of the keys to the success of the peace process thus far has been the commitment by each side to avoid any unilateral action that would undermine the search for a mutually satisfactory agreement. A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood would violate the commitments of Oslo. A unilateral declaration of statehood would be a grave blow to the peace process, one from which that process might not be able to recover. I believe very strongly, and my cosponsors do as well, that any Palestinian state should be the result of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, not the result of the unilateral action of either one side or the other. It is my sincere hope that in the next few days, Mr. Arafat and others in the Palestinian leadership will step back from the September 13 deadline and recommit themselves to the Oslo process and negotiations with Israel. This legislation is necessary, however, because should Mr. Arafat go forward with the unilateral declaration, the repercussions for the peace process and stability in the Middle East are, indeed, both serious and severe. The United States must make it clear that we will not recognize or condone a unilateral declaration and that the United States will work to make sure the international community neither accepts nor supports a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. The legislation we introduce today would do the following: It would state that the United States should not recognize any unilaterally declared Palestinian state. It would urge the President and the Secretary of State to use all diplomatic means to work with other countries to deny recognition to such a unilaterally declared state. It would prohibit any direct U.S. assistance to a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, except for humanitarian assistance or cooperation on antiterrorism efforts. It would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to oppose membership in any international financial institution by a unilaterally declared Palestinian state and oppose any financial assistance from these institutions to such a state. It would state the sense of the Congress that the President should downgrade the status of the Palestinian office in the United States to an information office. It would also state the sense of the Congress that the President should oppose Palestinian membership in the United Nations or any other international organization, and that the United States should oppose economic or other assistance to a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, except for humanitarian or security assistance. Finally, it would urge the President to expedite and upgrade the ongoing review of strategic relations between the United States and Israel. We have included a Presidential national interest waiver authority so that if the President deems that even with a unilateral declaration that the peace process can move forward, the United States will have the flexibility to continue that process. I realize that it is a little unusual to say, but it is my sincere hope that this legislation will never require action, let alone implementation. I have been a long-time supporter of the peace process and for a peace agreement that provides security for Israel and leads to the consensual establishment of a Palestinian state that will be a peaceful neighbor of Israel. Since coming to the Senate, I have worked long and hard as an advocate for peace in the Middle East and as a supporter of the negotiations led by President Clinton, Secretaries Christopher and Albright, and conducted so ably by Dennis Ross. Because of this support, it is my sincere hope that Mr. Arafat will not choose to heed those who have suggested that the Palestinian Authority should unilaterally declare a Palestinian state on September 13. If Mr. Arafat is willing to continue to work within the context of the peace process and stick to his commitments at Oslo and Camp David not to take unilateral steps, then I believe the United States should continue our partnership with the Palestinian people in search for peace. Under such circumstances, there is no need for this legislation. I was deeply disappointed that the last round of negotiations at Camp David did not succeed in reaching an agreement. Prime Minister Barak appeared to make every effort to reach out and extend the hand of peace and placed items on the table for negotiation that no Israeli Prime Minister was previously even willing to discuss with the Palestinian leadership. Although there is still a long way to go, I believe that if both sides are sincere in their desire for peace, a negotiated settlement is still possible, and it is my hope that Israel and its Palestinian neighbors will once again find themselves at the negotiating table in the not too distant future. I understand that Mr. Arafat, Prime Minister Barak, and President Clinton will be meeting in New York this week, and I hope the talks can get back on track. But if the Palestinians should choose to endanger the peace process by a unilateral declaration of statehood on September 13, the United States must be clear what our policy should be. The United States has a vital and an important role to play as an honest broker in the region and as a guarantor of the peace process and any peace that may result. It is precisely our role as an honest broker that compels me to offer this legislation. If the Palestinians take unilateral steps that undermine the peace process, the United States must make it clear that we will neither condone nor support such actions. I urge my colleagues to join the Senator from Indiana and me in sending a clear and compelling message in support of the Middle East peace process. Unilateral actions are not acceptable to the United States, and should the Palestinian Authority choose to break with the peace process, the United States will act accordingly. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Specter may well be coming to the floor to make some comments on this. If he does, I ask unanimous consent that his comments be reflected directly following mine and Senator Lugar's.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senators Byrd, Boxer and I are introducing legislation to allow States, at their option, to enroll parents in the State-Children's Health Insurance Program, known as S- CHIP. This bill could provide insurance to 2.7 million parents nationwide and 356,000 parents in California by using unspent allocations States will otherwise lose on September 30, 2000. Congress has appropriated a total of $12.9 billion for S-CHIP for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, or about $4.3 billion for each fiscal year. California received $854.6 million in 1998, $850.6 million in 1999, and $765.5 million in 2000. Right now California stands to lose $588 million just in fiscal year 1998 funds because California has faced many hurdles in enrolling children. That is in part why we are introducing this bill, to enhance enrollment of more children and to help states use available S-CHIP funds. S-CHIP is a low-cost health insurance program for low-income children up to age 19 that Congress created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. After three years, S-CHIP covers approximately two million children across the country, out of the three to four million children estimated to be eligible. Congress created it as a way to provide affordable health insurance for uninsured children in families that cannot afford to buy private insurance. States can choose from three options when designing their S-CHIP program: (1) expansion of their current Medicaid program; (2) creation of a separate State insurance program; or (3) a combination of both approaches. In California, S-CHIP, known as Health Families, is set up as a public-private program rather than a Medicaid expansion. Healthy Families allows California families to use federal and State S-CHIP funds to purchase private managed care insurance for their children. Under the federal law, States generally cover children in families with incomes up to 200 percent of poverty, although States can go higher if their Medicaid eligibility was higher than that when S-CHIP was enacted in 1997. In California, eligibility was raised to 250 percent in November 1999, increasing the number of eligible children by 129,000. Basic benefits in the California S-CHIP program include inpatient and outpatient hospital services, surgical and medical services, lab and x- ray services, and well-baby and well-child care, including immunizations. Additional services which States are encouraged to provide, and which California has elected to include, are prescription drugs and mental health, visions, hearing, dental, and preventive care services such as prenatal care and routine physical examinations. In California, enrollees pay a $5.00 co-payment per visit which generally applies to inpatient services, selected outpatient services, and various other health care services. The United States faces a serious health care crisis that continues to grow as more and more people are becoming uninsured. Despite the robust health of the economy, the U.S. has seen an increase in the uninsured by nearly five million since 1994. Currently, 44 million people (or 18 percent) of the non-elderly population are uninsured. In California, 23.5 percent, or 7.3 million, are uninsured. One study cited in the May 2000 California Journal found that as many as 2,333 Californians lose health insurance every day. A May 29, 2000 San Jose Mercury article cited California's emergency room doctors who ``estimate that anywhere from 20 percent to 40 percent of their walk-in patients have no health coverage.'' This a problem that needs to be addressed now. The bill we are introducing would allow States to expand S-CHIP coverage to parents whose children are eligible for the program. In my State, that would be families up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level. For the year 2000, the federal poverty level for a family of four is $17,050. In California, with the upper eligibility limit of 250 percent of poverty, families of four making up to $42,625 are eligible. This bill could reach approximately 2.7 million parents nationwide and more than 356,000 parents in California. The bill we are introducing retains the current funding formula, State allotments, benefits, eligibility rules, and cost-sharing requirements. An S-CHIP expansion should be accomplished without substituting S- CHIP coverage for private insurance or other public health insurance that parents might already have. The current S-CHIP law requires that State plans include adequate provisions preventing substitution and my bill retains that. For example, many States require that an enrollee be uninsured before he or she is eligible for the program. This bill is important for several reasons. Many State officials say that by covering parents of uninsured children we can actually cover more children. More than 75 percent of uninsured children live with parents who are uninsured. If an entire family is enrolled in a plan and seeing the same group of doctors--in other words, if the care is convenient for the whole family--all the members of the family are more likely to be insured and to stay healthy. This is a key reason for this legislation, bringing in more children by targeting the whole family. Private health insurance in the commercial market can be very expensive. The average annual cost of family coverage in private health plans for 1999 was $5,742, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. California has some of the lowest-priced health insurance, yet the State ranks fifth in uninsured for 1998-1996. In California, high housing costs, high gas prices, expensive commutes, and a high cost-of- living make it difficult for many California families to buy health insurance. According to the California Institute, the median price of single family home rose 17 percent, to $231,710, from February 1999 to February 2000. The California Housing Affordability Index, which measures the percentage of Californians that are able to purchase mid- priced homes, declined 11 percent from 1999 to 2000. With prices like these, many families are unable to afford health insurance even though they work full-time. Many low-income people work for employers who do not offer health insurance. In fact, forty percent of California small businesses (those employing between three and 50 employers) do not offer health insurance, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study in June. We need to give hard-working, lower income American families affordable, comprehensive health insurance, and this bill does that. The President has proposed to cover parents under the S-CHIP program. The California Medical Association and Alliance of Catholic Health Care support our bill. Current law requires States to spend federal S-CHIP dollars within three years of the appropriation. Many States, including California, could lose millions of dollars of unspent federal Fiscal Year 1998 funds on September 30, 2000. I am working to get an extension of that deadline. In the meantime, we could begin to cover parents while getting that extension and working to increase funds for the program. According to estimates from the Health Care Financing Administration, the following 39 States could lose the following amounts, totaling $1.9 billion. Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, and Texas stand to lose the most money. These eight States alone would lose $1.4 billion. States Millions Arizona...........................................................$77.2 Arkansas...........................................................45.4 California........................................................588.8 Colorado...........................................................12.9 Connecticut.........................................................9.4 Delaware..............................................................6 District of Columbia................................................2.4 Florida............................................................41.5 Georgia............................................................78.1 Hawaii..............................................................8.9 Idaho...............................................................4.1 Illinois...........................................................84.2 Iowa................................................................1.4 Kansas..............................................................1.5 Louisiana..........................................................73.3 Maryland...........................................................26.7 Michigan...........................................................51.4 Minnesota..........................................................28.3 Montana.............................................................1.8 Nevada.............................................................18.6 New Hampshire.......................................................7.5 New Jersey............................................................2 New Mexico.........................................................57.9 North Dakota........................................................2.9 Ohio...............................................................19.8 Oklahoma...........................................................37.6 Oregon.............................................................18.3 Pennsylvania.......................................................0.64 Rhode Island........................................................4.6 South Dakota........................................................4.4 Tennessee..........................................................26.4 Texas.............................................................443.6 Utah................................................................1.7 Vermont.............................................................1.6 Virginia...........................................................38.4 Washington.........................................................45.1 West Virginia......................................................11.3 Wisconsin............................................................23 Wyoming.............................................................6.9 Our bill would offer another option for States like mine to use these unspent funds. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting and passing this bill. By giving States the option to cover parents--whole families--we can reduce the number of uninsured with existing funds and encourage the enrollment of more children and we can help keep people healthy by better using this valuable, but currently under-utilized program.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to Senate consideration of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China based on the bilateral trade agreement negotiated between our two nations this past November. Much is at stake in this vote. In the bilateral agreement signed this past November China made significant market-opening concessions to the United States across virtually every economic sector. For example: On U.S. priority agricultural products, tariffs will drop from an average of 31 percent to 14 percent by January 2004 and industrial tariffs on U.S. products will fall from an average of 24.6 percent in 1997 to an average of 9.4 percent by 2005. China will open up distribution services, such as repair and maintenance, warehousing, trucking, and air courier services. Import tariffs on autos, now averaging 80-100 percent, will be phased down to an average of 25 percent by 2006, with tariff reductions accelerated. China will participate in the Information Technology Agreement and will eliminate tariffs on products such as computers, semiconductors, and related products by 2005. China will open its telecommunications sector, including access to China's growing Internet services, and expand investment and other activities for financial services firms. The agreement also preserves safeguards against dumping and other unfair trade practices. Specifically, the ``special safeguard rule'' (to prevent import surges into the U.S.) will remain in force for 12 years and the ``special anti-dumping methodology'' will remain in effect for 15 years. America benefits by having China follow the rules and norms of the global marketplace. By some estimates, China is already the world's seventh largest economy. China's total worldwide trade grew from $21 billion in 1978 to over $324 billion in 1998. Trade makes up 33 percent of China's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), estimated at roughly one trillion dollars in 1998. China is already America's fourth largest trading partner. U.S.-China two-way trade, less than $1 billion in 1978, was roughly $85 billion in 1998. I would also like to take a few minutes to discuss why China's accession to the WTO is so important to California. California is the nation's number one exporting State, and well over one-fourth of California's trillion dollar economy now depends on international trade and investment. For California workers and companies, this means jobs and improved export opportunities across a broad range of manufacturing, agricultural, and service industries. For California, the growth of trade relations with China over the past two decades has been dramatic. In 1998, China and Hong Kong together were California's fourth largest export destination, with exports topping $6.1 billion. In 1998, while California's total exports declined 4.17 percent, due to the Asian financial crisis, our exports to China (not including Hong Kong) increased 9.28 percent. One third of the total U.S. exports to China come from California; all told over 100,000 California jobs have been generated thus far by trade with China. California's top exports to China look a lot like a list of new and emerging technologies fueling California's current economic boom: Electronic and electrical equipment; industrial equipment and computers; transportation equipment; and instruments. And China is also an important market for the traditional mainstays of the California economy: China and Hong Kong in 1998 received 4.9 percent of California's food exports and 6.4 percent of our crop exports. No matter how you look at it, this benefits the United States. Unfortunately, many people have confused this PNTR vote with a vote to approve China joining the World Trade Organization (WTO). It needs to be understood, however, that China will likely join the WTO within the next year regardless. That issue will be decided by the WTO's working group and a two-thirds vote of the WTO membership as a whole. Under WTO rules, only the countries that have ``non-discriminatory'' trade practices (PNTR) are entitled to receive the benefits of WTO agreements. Without granting China permanent normal trading status, the United States would be effectively shut out of China's vast markets, while Britain, Japan, France and all the other WTO-member nations would be allowed to trade with few barriers. If we do not grant China PNTR based on the November bilateral agreement--an agreement in which the U.S. received many important trade concessions and gave up nothing--we effectively shoot ourselves in the foot. Let us also be clear about the ultimate issue at stake here today: The People's Republic of China is today undergoing its most significant period of economic and social activity since its founding over 50 years ago. The pace is fast; the changes large. In a relatively short time, China has become a key Pacific Rim player and major world trader. It is now a huge producer and consumer of goods and services, and a magnet for investment and commerce. Because of its size and potential, the choices China makes over the next few years will greatly influence the future of peace and prosperity in Asia. But, in a very real sense, the shaping of Asia's future also begins with choices America will make in deciding how to deal with China. We can try to engage China and integrate it into the global community. We can be a catalyst for positive change, as our management styles, business techniques and the philosophies that underlie them take root in Chinese society. We can work for change in China, as the benefits of trade and rising living standards bring about the goals we seek, or we can deal antagonistically with China and lose our leverage in guiding China along paths of positive economic and social development. And we can sacrifice business advantage to competitor nations. History clearly shows us a nation's respect for political pluralism, human rights, labor rights, and environmental protection grows in direct proportion to that nation's positive interaction with others and as that nations achieves a level of sustainable economic development and social well-being. This was true in Taiwan; it was true in South Korea. Not too long ago, both were governed by dictatorships. Given a chance, it will also be true in China. As I see it, America will face no challenge more important than this in the foreseeable future. I am convinced we will debate no issue more important than the question of China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and whether or not we will deal with the Chinese on the basis of a permanent normal trading relationship--PNTR--and I intend to speak to this issue at greater length when the Senate returns to work this September. I urge my colleagues to support this cloture motion.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to benefit 17 million citizens of Southern California and visitors from around the country and world through the development of the Western Center for Archaeology and Paleontology. At this center, visitors will be able to marvel at the archaeological and paleontological past of inland southern California. This bill would help create an interpretive center and museum around Diamond Valley Lake to highlight the animals and habitat of the Ice Age up to the European settlement period. I understand that the paleontological resources are world class and include hundreds of thousands of historic and pre-historic artifacts. These include a mastodon skeleton, a mammoth skeleton, a seven-foot long tusk, and bones from extinct species previously not believed to have lived in the area, including the giant long-horned bison and North American lion. Additionally, visitors will enjoy unprecedented recreational opportunities through a system of hiking, biking, and equestrian trails wandering through the grasslands, chaparral, and oak groves that surround the reservoir. The total cost of the project is $58 million. The State has agreed to commit one quarter of the tab, the Metropolitan Water District has agreed to contribute one-quarter, and other local governments will also contribute one-quarter. This bill would authorize the federal government's share of one-quarter or $14 million. I urge the Senate to adopt this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to benefit 17 million citizens of Southern California and visitors from around the country and world through the development of the Western Center for Archaeology and Paleontology. At this center, visitors will be able to marvel at the archaeological and paleontological past of inland southern California. This bill would help create an interpretive center and museum around Diamond Valley Lake to highlight the animals and habitat of the Ice Age up to the European settlement period. I understand that the paleontological resources are world class and include hundreds of thousands of historic and pre-historic artifacts. These include a mastodon skeleton, a mammoth skeleton, a seven-foot long tusk, and bones from extinct species previously not believed to have lived in the area, including the giant long-horned bison and North American lion. Additionally, visitors will enjoy unprecedented recreational opportunities through a system of hiking, biking, and equestrian trails wandering through the grasslands, chaparral, and oak groves that surround the reservoir. The total cost of the project is $58 million. The State has agreed to commit one quarter of the tab, the Metropolitan Water District has agreed to contribute one-quarter, and other local governments will also contribute one-quarter. This bill would authorize the federal government's share of one-quarter or $14 million. I urge the Senate to adopt this legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Health Benefits Integrity Act to make sure that most health care dollars that people and employers pay into a managed care health insurance plan get spent on health care and not on overhead. Under my bill, managed care plans would be limited to spending 15 percent of their premium revenues on administration. This means that if they spend 15 percent on administration, they would spend 85 percent of premium revenues on health care benefits or services. This bill was prompted by study by the Inspector General (IG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported under a USA Today headline in February, ``Medicare HMOs Hit for Lavish Spending.'' The IG reviewed 232 managed care plans that contract with Medicare and found that in 1999 the average amount allocated for administration ranged from a high of 32 percent to a low of three percent. The IG recommended that the Department establish a ceiling on the amount of administrative expenditures of plans, noting that if a 15 percent ceiling had been placed in 1998, an additional $1 billion could have been passed on to Medicare beneficiaries in the form of additional benefits or reduce deductibles and copayments. The report said, ``This review, similar OIG reviews, and other studies have shown that MCOs' [managed care organizations'] exorbitant administrative costs have been problematic and can be the source for abusive behavior.'' Here are some examples cited by the Inspector General on page 7 of the January 18 report: $249,283 for food, gifts and alcoholic beverages for meetings by one plan; $190,417 for a sales award meeting in Puerto Rico for one plan; $157,688 for a party by one plan; $25,057 for a luxury box at a sports arena by one plan; $106,490 for sporting events and/or theater tickets at four plans; $69,700 for holiday parties at three plans; and $37,303 for wine gift baskets, flowers, gifts and gift certificates at one plan. It is no wonder that people today are angry at HMOs. When our hard- earned premium dollars are frittered away on purchases like these, we have to ask whether HMOs are really providing the best care possible. Furthermore, in the case of Medicare, we are also talking about wasted taxpayer dollars since Part B of Medicare is funded in part by the general treasury. One dollar wasted in Medicare is one dollar too much. Medicare needs all the funds it can muster to stay solvent and to be there for beneficiaries when they need it. I feel strongly that if HMOs are to be credible, they must be more prudent in how they spend enrollees' dollars. Administrative expenses must be limited to reasonable expenses. An October 1999 report by Interstudy found that for private HMO plans, administrative expenses range from 11 percent to 21 percent and that for-profit HMOs spend proportionately more on administrative cost than not-for-profit HMOs. This study found the lowest rate to be 3.6 percent and the highest 38 percent in California! In some states the maximums were even higher. The shift from fee-for-service to managed care as a form of health insurance has been rapid in recent years. Nationally, 86 percent of people who have employment-based health insurance (81.3 million Americans) are in some form of managed care. Around 16 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are in managed care nationally (40 percent in California), a figure that doubled between 1994 and 1997. By 2010, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that 31 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will be in managed care. Between 1987 and 1999, the number of health plans contracting with Medicare went from 161 to 299. As for Medicaid, in 1993, 4.8 million people (14 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries) were in managed care. Today, 16.6 million (54 percent) are in managed care. In California, the State which pioneered managed care for the nation, an estimated 88 percent of the insured are in some form of managed care. Of the 3.7 million Californians who are in Medicare, 40 percent (1.4 million) are in managed care, the highest rate in the U.S. As for Medicaid in California, 2.5 million people (50 percent) of beneficiaries are in managed care. And so managed care is growing and most people think it is here to stay. I am pleased to say that in California we already have a regulation along the lines of the bill I am proposing. We have in place a regulatory limit of 15 percent on commercial HMO plans' administrative expenses. This was established in my State for commercial plans because of questionable expenses like those the HHS IG found in Medicare HMO plans and because prior to the regulation, some plans had administrative expense as high as 30 percent of premium revenues. This bill would never begin to address all the problems patients experience with managed care in this country. That is why we also need a strong Patients Bill of Rights bill. I hope, however, this bill will discourage abuses like those the HHS Inspector General found and will help assure people that their health care dollars are spent on health care and are not wasted on outings, parties, and other activities totally unrelated to providing health care services. I call on my colleagues to join me in enacting this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, Senators Byrd, Boxer and I are introducing legislation to allow States, at their option, to enroll parents in the State-Children's Health Insurance Program, known as S- CHIP. This bill could provide insurance to 2.7 million parents nationwide and 356,000 parents in California by using unspent allocations States will otherwise lose on September 30, 2000. Congress has appropriated a total of $12.9 billion for S-CHIP for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, or about $4.3 billion for each fiscal year. California received $854.6 million in 1998, $850.6 million in 1999, and $765.5 million in 2000. Right now California stands to lose $588 million just in fiscal year 1998 funds because California has faced many hurdles in enrolling children. That is in part why we are introducing this bill, to enhance enrollment of more children and to help states use available S-CHIP funds. S-CHIP is a low-cost health insurance program for low-income children up to age 19 that Congress created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. After three years, S-CHIP covers approximately two million children across the country, out of the three to four million children estimated to be eligible. Congress created it as a way to provide affordable health insurance for uninsured children in families that cannot afford to buy private insurance. States can choose from three options when designing their S-CHIP program: (1) expansion of their current Medicaid program; (2) creation of a separate State insurance program; or (3) a combination of both approaches. In California, S-CHIP, known as Health Families, is set up as a public-private program rather than a Medicaid expansion. Healthy Families allows California families to use federal and State S-CHIP funds to purchase private managed care insurance for their children. Under the federal law, States generally cover children in families with incomes up to 200 percent of poverty, although States can go higher if their Medicaid eligibility was higher than that when S-CHIP was enacted in 1997. In California, eligibility was raised to 250 percent in November 1999, increasing the number of eligible children by 129,000. Basic benefits in the California S-CHIP program include inpatient and outpatient hospital services, surgical and medical services, lab and x- ray services, and well-baby and well-child care, including immunizations. Additional services which States are encouraged to provide, and which California has elected to include, are prescription drugs and mental health, visions, hearing, dental, and preventive care services such as prenatal care and routine physical examinations. In California, enrollees pay a $5.00 co-payment per visit which generally applies to inpatient services, selected outpatient services, and various other health care services. The United States faces a serious health care crisis that continues to grow as more and more people are becoming uninsured. Despite the robust health of the economy, the U.S. has seen an increase in the uninsured by nearly five million since 1994. Currently, 44 million people (or 18 percent) of the non-elderly population are uninsured. In California, 23.5 percent, or 7.3 million, are uninsured. One study cited in the May 2000 California Journal found that as many as 2,333 Californians lose health insurance every day. A May 29, 2000 San Jose Mercury article cited California's emergency room doctors who ``estimate that anywhere from 20 percent to 40 percent of their walk-in patients have no health coverage.'' This a problem that needs to be addressed now. The bill we are introducing would allow States to expand S-CHIP coverage to parents whose children are eligible for the program. In my State, that would be families up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level. For the year 2000, the federal poverty level for a family of four is $17,050. In California, with the upper eligibility limit of 250 percent of poverty, families of four making up to $42,625 are eligible. This bill could reach approximately 2.7 million parents nationwide and more than 356,000 parents in California. The bill we are introducing retains the current funding formula, State allotments, benefits, eligibility rules, and cost-sharing requirements. An S-CHIP expansion should be accomplished without substituting S- CHIP coverage for private insurance or other public health insurance that parents might already have. The current S-CHIP law requires that State plans include adequate provisions preventing substitution and my bill retains that. For example, many States require that an enrollee be uninsured before he or she is eligible for the program. This bill is important for several reasons. Many State officials say that by covering parents of uninsured children we can actually cover more children. More than 75 percent of uninsured children live with parents who are uninsured. If an entire family is enrolled in a plan and seeing the same group of doctors--in other words, if the care is convenient for the whole family--all the members of the family are more likely to be insured and to stay healthy. This is a key reason for this legislation, bringing in more children by targeting the whole family. Private health insurance in the commercial market can be very expensive. The average annual cost of family coverage in private health plans for 1999 was $5,742, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. California has some of the lowest-priced health insurance, yet the State ranks fifth in uninsured for 1998-1996. In California, high housing costs, high gas prices, expensive commutes, and a high cost-of- living make it difficult for many California families to buy health insurance. According to the California Institute, the median price of single family home rose 17 percent, to $231,710, from February 1999 to February 2000. The California Housing Affordability Index, which measures the percentage of Californians that are able to purchase mid- priced homes, declined 11 percent from 1999 to 2000. With prices like these, many families are unable to afford health insurance even though they work full-time. Many low-income people work for employers who do not offer health insurance. In fact, forty percent of California small businesses (those employing between three and 50 employers) do not offer health insurance, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study in June. We need to give hard-working, lower income American families affordable, comprehensive health insurance, and this bill does that. The President has proposed to cover parents under the S-CHIP program. The California Medical Association and Alliance of Catholic Health Care support our bill. Current law requires States to spend federal S-CHIP dollars within three years of the appropriation. Many States, including California, could lose millions of dollars of unspent federal Fiscal Year 1998 funds on September 30, 2000. I am working to get an extension of that deadline. In the meantime, we could begin to cover parents while getting that extension and working to increase funds for the program. According to estimates from the Health Care Financing Administration, the following 39 States could lose the following amounts, totaling $1.9 billion. Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, and Texas stand to lose the most money. These eight States alone would lose $1.4 billion. States Millions Arizona...........................................................$77.2 Arkansas...........................................................45.4 California........................................................588.8 Colorado...........................................................12.9 Connecticut.........................................................9.4 Delaware..............................................................6 District of Columbia................................................2.4 Florida............................................................41.5 Georgia............................................................78.1 Hawaii..............................................................8.9 Idaho...............................................................4.1 Illinois...........................................................84.2 Iowa................................................................1.4 Kansas..............................................................1.5 Louisiana..........................................................73.3 Maryland...........................................................26.7 Michigan...........................................................51.4 Minnesota..........................................................28.3 Montana.............................................................1.8 Nevada.............................................................18.6 New Hampshire.......................................................7.5 New Jersey............................................................2 New Mexico.........................................................57.9 North Dakota........................................................2.9 Ohio...............................................................19.8 Oklahoma...........................................................37.6 Oregon.............................................................18.3 Pennsylvania.......................................................0.64 Rhode Island........................................................4.6 South Dakota........................................................4.4 Tennessee..........................................................26.4 Texas.............................................................443.6 Utah................................................................1.7 Vermont.............................................................1.6 Virginia...........................................................38.4 Washington.........................................................45.1 West Virginia......................................................11.3 Wisconsin............................................................23 Wyoming.............................................................6.9 Our bill would offer another option for States like mine to use these unspent funds. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting and passing this bill. By giving States the option to cover parents--whole families--we can reduce the number of uninsured with existing funds and encourage the enrollment of more children and we can help keep people healthy by better using this valuable, but currently under-utilized program.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Health Benefits Integrity Act to make sure that most health care dollars that people and employers pay into a managed care health insurance plan get spent on health care and not on overhead. Under my bill, managed care plans would be limited to spending 15 percent of their premium revenues on administration. This means that if they spend 15 percent on administration, they would spend 85 percent of premium revenues on health care benefits or services. This bill was prompted by study by the Inspector General (IG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported under a USA Today headline in February, ``Medicare HMOs Hit for Lavish Spending.'' The IG reviewed 232 managed care plans that contract with Medicare and found that in 1999 the average amount allocated for administration ranged from a high of 32 percent to a low of three percent. The IG recommended that the Department establish a ceiling on the amount of administrative expenditures of plans, noting that if a 15 percent ceiling had been placed in 1998, an additional $1 billion could have been passed on to Medicare beneficiaries in the form of additional benefits or reduce deductibles and copayments. The report said, ``This review, similar OIG reviews, and other studies have shown that MCOs' [managed care organizations'] exorbitant administrative costs have been problematic and can be the source for abusive behavior.'' Here are some examples cited by the Inspector General on page 7 of the January 18 report: $249,283 for food, gifts and alcoholic beverages for meetings by one plan; $190,417 for a sales award meeting in Puerto Rico for one plan; $157,688 for a party by one plan; $25,057 for a luxury box at a sports arena by one plan; $106,490 for sporting events and/or theater tickets at four plans; $69,700 for holiday parties at three plans; and $37,303 for wine gift baskets, flowers, gifts and gift certificates at one plan. It is no wonder that people today are angry at HMOs. When our hard- earned premium dollars are frittered away on purchases like these, we have to ask whether HMOs are really providing the best care possible. Furthermore, in the case of Medicare, we are also talking about wasted taxpayer dollars since Part B of Medicare is funded in part by the general treasury. One dollar wasted in Medicare is one dollar too much. Medicare needs all the funds it can muster to stay solvent and to be there for beneficiaries when they need it. I feel strongly that if HMOs are to be credible, they must be more prudent in how they spend enrollees' dollars. Administrative expenses must be limited to reasonable expenses. An October 1999 report by Interstudy found that for private HMO plans, administrative expenses range from 11 percent to 21 percent and that for-profit HMOs spend proportionately more on administrative cost than not-for-profit HMOs. This study found the lowest rate to be 3.6 percent and the highest 38 percent in California! In some states the maximums were even higher. The shift from fee-for-service to managed care as a form of health insurance has been rapid in recent years. Nationally, 86 percent of people who have employment-based health insurance (81.3 million Americans) are in some form of managed care. Around 16 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are in managed care nationally (40 percent in California), a figure that doubled between 1994 and 1997. By 2010, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that 31 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will be in managed care. Between 1987 and 1999, the number of health plans contracting with Medicare went from 161 to 299. As for Medicaid, in 1993, 4.8 million people (14 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries) were in managed care. Today, 16.6 million (54 percent) are in managed care. In California, the State which pioneered managed care for the nation, an estimated 88 percent of the insured are in some form of managed care. Of the 3.7 million Californians who are in Medicare, 40 percent (1.4 million) are in managed care, the highest rate in the U.S. As for Medicaid in California, 2.5 million people (50 percent) of beneficiaries are in managed care. And so managed care is growing and most people think it is here to stay. I am pleased to say that in California we already have a regulation along the lines of the bill I am proposing. We have in place a regulatory limit of 15 percent on commercial HMO plans' administrative expenses. This was established in my State for commercial plans because of questionable expenses like those the HHS IG found in Medicare HMO plans and because prior to the regulation, some plans had administrative expense as high as 30 percent of premium revenues. This bill would never begin to address all the problems patients experience with managed care in this country. That is why we also need a strong Patients Bill of Rights bill. I hope, however, this bill will discourage abuses like those the HHS Inspector General found and will help assure people that their health care dollars are spent on health care and are not wasted on outings, parties, and other activities totally unrelated to providing health care services. I call on my colleagues to join me in enacting this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Hollings, Inouye, and I are introducing a bill to create a demonstration grant program to help school districts create master teacher positions. Our bill authorizes $50 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 $100 million total would be available. Under the bill, 5,000 master teacher positions could be created, or 100 per State, if each master teacher were paid $20,000 on top of the current average teacher's salary. As defined in this amendment, a master teacher is one who is credentialed; has a 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; and 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 lesser experienced teachers, develop curriculum, and provide other professional development. The intent of this bill is for districts to pay each master teacher up to $20,000 on top of his or her regular salary. Nationally, the average teacher salary is $40,582. In California, it is $44,585. Elementary school principals receive $64,653 on average nationally and $72,385 in California. The thrust 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. new teachers need support First, new teachers face overwhelming responsibilities and challenges in their first year, but in the real world, they get little guidance. When first-year teachers enter the classroom, there is typically little help available to them, in a year that will have a profound impact on the rest of their professional career. They are ``out there alone,'' virtually isolated in their classroom, 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. In California, 23 percent of teachers in kindergarten through the third grade are novices. Furthermore, we have 30,000 inexperienced teachers on emergency credentials in California, over ten percent of our teaching workforce. 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. ``If you're [a master teacher] teaching a class, then you can say, `last week I handled a discipline problem this way.' It's much more credible.'' said Carl O'Connell, a New York mentor teacher. enhancing the teaching profession 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. 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 America'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. improving retention, reducing turnover 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 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. Larkspur, California, School Superintendent Barbara Wilson says she is ``witnessing a steady exodus to dotcom and other, more lucrative industries.'' (San Francisco Chronicle, March 26, 2000). Higher salaries and prestige for master teachers could deter the drain from the classrooms. holding teachers accountable Another reason for this amendment 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.'' california would benefit 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. California will need 300,000 new teachers by 2010. ``More students to teach, smaller classes, 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. examples of master teacher programs California has instituted several programs along these lines. California has a program to help beginning teachers. It has grown from $5 million (supporting 1,100 new teachers in 1992) to nearly $72 million (serving 23,000 new teachers in 1999-2000). But even with this increase, the program still does not serve all new teachers,'' according to the report, Teaching and California's Future, 2000. The Rochester City, New York, school system has a Peer Assistance and Review Program, begun by the schools and the Rochester Teacher Association. The Rochester program is working. ``The evaluation is absolutely spectacular. The program has been a terrific success. It has been deemed a success by mentors, by the panel, by the district, by the union, and, most importantly, by the interns themselves,'' reported the newspaper, New York Teacher. Delaware provides mentors for beginning teachers. ``Not only are beginning teachers receiving the support they need, but the mentoring program is also developing networks among teachers within districts and across the state, and the mentors have `a new enthusiasm' for teaching,'' as reported in ``Promising Practices'' in 1998. Columbus, Ohio, schools instituted a Peer Assessment and Review program similar to Rochester's. It has two components: the intern program for all newly hired teachers and the intervention program for teachers who are having difficulties in the classroom teaching. According to the State Education Agency, ``the district has a lower rate of attrition than similar districts because of PAR.'' (Promising Practices, 1998). The funds provided in this bill can supplement and expand existing State programs and help other States start new programs. students are the winners The true beneficiaries of master teacher programs are the students and that is, or course, our 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 profession the prestige it deserves. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Hollings, Inouye, and I are introducing a bill to create a demonstration grant program to help school districts create master teacher positions. Our bill authorizes $50 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 $100 million total would be available. Under the bill, 5,000 master teacher positions could be created, or 100 per State, if each master teacher were paid $20,000 on top of the current average teacher's salary. As defined in this amendment, a master teacher is one who is credentialed; has a 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; and 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 lesser experienced teachers, develop curriculum, and provide other professional development. The intent of this bill is for districts to pay each master teacher up to $20,000 on top of his or her regular salary. Nationally, the average teacher salary is $40,582. In California, it is $44,585. Elementary school principals receive $64,653 on average nationally and $72,385 in California. The thrust 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. new teachers need support First, new teachers face overwhelming responsibilities and challenges in their first year, but in the real world, they get little guidance. When first-year teachers enter the classroom, there is typically little help available to them, in a year that will have a profound impact on the rest of their professional career. They are ``out there alone,'' virtually isolated in their classroom, 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. In California, 23 percent of teachers in kindergarten through the third grade are novices. Furthermore, we have 30,000 inexperienced teachers on emergency credentials in California, over ten percent of our teaching workforce. 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. ``If you're [a master teacher] teaching a class, then you can say, `last week I handled a discipline problem this way.' It's much more credible.'' said Carl O'Connell, a New York mentor teacher. enhancing the teaching profession 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. 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 America'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. improving retention, reducing turnover 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 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. Larkspur, California, School Superintendent Barbara Wilson says she is ``witnessing a steady exodus to dotcom and other, more lucrative industries.'' (San Francisco Chronicle, March 26, 2000). Higher salaries and prestige for master teachers could deter the drain from the classrooms. holding teachers accountable Another reason for this amendment 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.'' california would benefit 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. California will need 300,000 new teachers by 2010. ``More students to teach, smaller classes, 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. examples of master teacher programs California has instituted several programs along these lines. California has a program to help beginning teachers. It has grown from $5 million (supporting 1,100 new teachers in 1992) to nearly $72 million (serving 23,000 new teachers in 1999-2000). But even with this increase, the program still does not serve all new teachers,'' according to the report, Teaching and California's Future, 2000. The Rochester City, New York, school system has a Peer Assistance and Review Program, begun by the schools and the Rochester Teacher Association. The Rochester program is working. ``The evaluation is absolutely spectacular. The program has been a terrific success. It has been deemed a success by mentors, by the panel, by the district, by the union, and, most importantly, by the interns themselves,'' reported the newspaper, New York Teacher. Delaware provides mentors for beginning teachers. ``Not only are beginning teachers receiving the support they need, but the mentoring program is also developing networks among teachers within districts and across the state, and the mentors have `a new enthusiasm' for teaching,'' as reported in ``Promising Practices'' in 1998. Columbus, Ohio, schools instituted a Peer Assessment and Review program similar to Rochester's. It has two components: the intern program for all newly hired teachers and the intervention program for teachers who are having difficulties in the classroom teaching. According to the State Education Agency, ``the district has a lower rate of attrition than similar districts because of PAR.'' (Promising Practices, 1998). The funds provided in this bill can supplement and expand existing State programs and help other States start new programs. students are the winners The true beneficiaries of master teacher programs are the students and that is, or course, our 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 profession the prestige it deserves. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.