Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I begin by thanking the Senator from Connecticut. I don't think there is anyone else in the Senate who has the kind of expertise about South America as has Senator Dodd of Connecticut. He speaks the language. He has studied. He has traveled in the country widely. He has been to Colombia. On how many occasions has the Senator been to Colombia?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Only 3 percent of that entire drug budget, which the Senator just accurately stated, goes to international narcotics control. Yet we know the drugs are coming in in 5-ton lots. We know the one area of responsibility we have is to control the borders in international drug control. No local government can do that, most certainly, and yet only 3 percent of the budget goes for that.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No, it is 3 percent.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I was interested in finding out how much of our entire drug control budget is devoted to international drug control efforts. Does the Senator have an idea what that amount is?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Can I bring up another subject? One of the criticisms I have heard is we spend too much on this kind of activity already, and we need to spend more on demand. In fact, as we both know, there are provisions in this bill to meet the demand needs in our own country.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Can I ask the Senator a question? I believe the Senator was in the Senate when President Bush gave the order to send American troops to Panama because so many heavy narcotics were coming through Panama, much of it under the control of one person, a general by the name of Manuel Noriega. They picked up this general and brought him back to the United States for trial. To this day, he is in Federal prison in the United States, and the problem has been remedied in Panama. This was the kind of direct recognition of a problem and a response that has solved the problem. Does the Senator agree?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have seen it impact our border areas in the United States. I go down to Otay Mesa where trucks are lined up by the thousands and you have Customs agents who maybe earn $45,000 or $50,000 a year--we know some trucks are loaded with tons of cocaine, with street values of millions of dollars--taking a bribe, maybe half a million dollars just to turn their head and let that truck go through. This is where the corruption becomes so evil and where it is not just confined to jungle areas of Colombia or outposts in Mexico or anywhere else in the Andean region but comes right into the United States as well.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know there is a great deal of discussion going on about the marriage penalty tax. I wanted to stay out of the politics of it, if I could, and just speak about the merits of the proposals for a few moments. Essentially, what we have are three proposals: the Finance Committee proposal of $248 billion, over 10 years; the Moynihan proposal, which is the Democratic proposal, of $150 billion over 10 years; and then I believe a proposal that is really worthy of very serious consideration by this body, and one which I would support, which is a proposal by Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana for $90 billion over 10 years. I believe this proposal is the most sensible and most fiscally responsible way to go about addressing the issue. More than 21 million couples suffer from the marriage tax penalty. In my State, there are close to 3 million of them. I think providing marriage tax penalty relief is a measure of common sense and a measure of decency. The Tax Code not only can be used for revenue producing, but it is also used to encourage behavior that one believes one should encourage. Certainly getting married is a behavior that one wishes to encourage. Who generally believes that the marriage tax penalty is unfair? They are young couples. They are getting married. Both of them work. They find out, for the first time, they actually pay more taxes if they get married than they do if they remain single. These people are generally under the $100,000 earning limit. I have never heard anyone at the top brackets say they find the marriage tax penalty to be unfair. But I have heard considerable testimony from young couples getting married, young professionals: My goodness, we have to pay this penalty. Why is it? How is it fair? Senator Bayh's proposal strikes right at that heart, and it does so in a way that you can say and I can say--every one of us in this body can say--we eliminate the marriage tax penalty for those earning under $120,000 all across this land within 4 years. I think it is simple. I think it is direct. It is cost effective. And it gets the job done. I think it makes a great deal of sense. The targeted Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act provides significant relief by creating a dollar-for-dollar tax credit, calculated by the taxpayer, using a simple worksheet, which offsets and eliminates the marriage penalty for families making under $120,000. The credit is phased out at $140,000. The bill would also broaden the availability of the earned-income tax credit for low-income working families. Under this legislation, half of all taxpayers with marriage penalties will have their penalties eliminated the first year. By 2004, it completely eliminates the penalty on earned income for all couples making under $120,000. That is approximately 17.5 million couples. If you look at the fact that the impact of the majority proposal by the Finance Committee eliminates most of the marriage tax penalty on 21.6 million couples who currently face penalties by year 10, and provides a bonus--this does not provide a bonus; the phaseout in that bill is over 10 years--the phase in the Bayh bill is over 4 years. In the Moynihan bill, 21.6 million couples who currently incur a marriage tax penalty would find relief by year 10. The beauty of this bill is that all of the marriage tax penalty is eliminated for 17.5 million people by year 4. And less than 10 percent of all households earn more than $120,000 a year. So, effectively, it covers not only 17.5 million people, but it covers over 90 percent of the population who would be affected. It does it at a cost that is much lower than the other two bills--$90 billion. What I like about it is it gives us the opportunity to actually see tax reduction happen, to actually say that within 4 years the marriage penalty tax is completely eliminated for working families earning under $120,000 a year. We do it for a modest amount of $90 billion over 10 years. The other bills deal with all kinds of different so-called hidden penalties, but those are not the real things that I think impact the people's drive to eliminate the marriage penalty. It is what happens when you get married. It is the increase in the tax when you get married. This is entirely eliminated within a 4-year period of time. I support Senator Bayh's proposal, and I will be pleased, when he offers it, to be a cosponsor of it. I hope it will have very serious debate and discussion before this body. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak as in morning business for a period not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in all too many places and in all too many conflicts in recent years we have witnessed the use of rape and sexual torture as instruments of war. I am sad to say, some incidence of rape has always accompanied war and turmoil in human history, but the record of the past few years, with the use of organized, systematic campaigns of rape to terrorize civilian populations, suggests a new chapter in the barbarity of human history has been opened. It was disturbing to learn there are serious and credible allegations that rebel forces used systematic rape as an instrument of terror in the eight-year civil war in Sierra Leone. While statistics are not yet available, there is clear and credible evidence that thousands of girls and women, ranging from ages 5 to 75, were abducted during the civil war and gang raped. Many were used as sex slaves and forced labor. And it is possible many are still being held captive, subject to the depravations of their inhuman captors. This horrific story was detailed in an article in yesterday's Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent to have the article, entitled ``A War Against Women'' from the April 11, 2000, Washington Post printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks. The civilized world must send a strong, unambiguous message that rape and sexual torture are not acceptable under any circumstances and will not be tolerated. The United States must be at the forefront of efforts to help the Government of Sierra Leone bring to justice those responsible for the systematic rape and sexual torture that took place during the civil war. [From the Washington Post, Apr. 11, 2000] A War Against Women--Sierra Leone Rebels Practiced Systematic Sexual Terror (By Douglas Farah) Blama Camp, Sierra Leone--The women slip one at a time into a bamboo hut in this displaced persons camp, and most begin to cry quietly as they tell of being gang-raped and held as sex slaves by rebels who had sought to overthrow the government of Sierra Leone. One 25-year-old woman said she had delivered a still-born baby the day before rebels of the Revolutionary United Front attacked her village in 1998. She was unable to flee with most of the other villagers, and five rebels took turns raping her, she said. When her husband tried to intervene, they killed him. ``I thought at first I was dealing with human beings, so I said I was sad and confused because I had just delivered a dead baby, I was bloody and weak,'' she said between sobs. ``But they were not human beings. After they left I gave up, and I wanted to die. I had no reason to live anymore.'' Human rights workers says the woman, who was rescued by a patrol of government troops, is one of thousands who were raped by insurgent forces and other armed gangs during the nation's eight-year civil war. While statistics are not yet available, rights workers said the rebels' rape campaign was as widespread and systematic as similar assaults in the 1992- 1995 Bosnian war but has received far less attention. Unlike at least some of the perpetrators in Bosnia, those responsible here likely will never be tried because of a blanket amnesty that was part of the accord that ended the conflict last July. Even more worrisome, U.N. officials and government officials say, is that the rebels may still hold thousands of women in remote strongholds despite the fact that the peace accord required them to free all captive civilians. ``The [rebels] perpetrated systematic, organized and widespread sexual violence against girls and women,'' the New York-based group Human Rights Watch said in a recent report. ``The rebels planned and launched operations in which they rounded up girls and women, brought them to rebel command centers and then subjected them to individual and gang rape. Young girls under 17, and particularly those deemed to be virgins were specifically targeted. While some were released or managed to escape, hundreds continue to be held in sexual slavery after being `married' to rebel combatants.'' Rose Luz, a physician with the International Rescue Committee, said that what is most shocking about the hundreds of rape cases she is documenting is the ages of the victims. Most were under 14 or over 45--many of whom were too slow or too infirm to flee. Luz said the youngest victim documented so far was 5; the oldest was 75. ``It is the ones who could not get away,'' Luz said. ``They raped whomever they stumbled across.'' With the consent of the women involved, Rescue Committee officials arranged for a reporter to be present during some interviews. It was agreed that no names would be used or photographs taken. The interviews were conducted at this camp--about 160 miles southeast of the capital, Freetown-- which shelters 22,500 people who were driven from their homes in eastern Sierra Leone by insurgent forces. If the rebels considered a woman attractive or physically fit enough to work, she would likely be taken along with them--not just to be a sex slave, but a domestic servant as well, Luz and other aid workers said. Often, they said, a captive woman would try to attach herself to one leader to avoid repeated gang rape. In a culture in which rape victims are often ostracized, such wholesale assaults were effective not only in spreading terror, but in breaking apart communities, social workers said. The first victims began telling their stories to the Rescue Committee when the aid group started reproductive health classes here several months ago, said counselor Dolly Williams. Last month, in an effort to refer the women for urgently needed medical attention and help them cope with their shame and humiliation, the Rescue Committee began documenting their stories. As word of the program spread, hundreds of women have come forward, waiting their turn patiently while Williams and Luz record the accounts of other victims. ``Child and women abductees and victims of gender violence are far too numerous, and we do not yet even have a clear picture as to how many there really are,'' said U.S. Ambassador Joseph H. Melrose Jr., who is trying to arrange for U.S. funds to help the victims. ``What is clear is that these victims and their injuries, both physical and psychological, must not be ignored. If these injuries do not heal, they will have implications for future generations of Sierra Leoneans and the success of the peace process.'' Williams said the rate of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis and gonorrhea among the women is extremely high, a reflection of the 92 percent infection rate found among demobilized rebels. Neither the combatants nor the women are tested for AIDS or HIV infection because the cost is too great and there are no resources to treat anyone who tests positive. The first woman to arrive at the palm-thatched interview room one day last week was a 60-year-old who came to tell how she was grabbed in her village by a group of raiders because she was unable to outrun them. When they could not find any other women, she said, they raped her. ``I begged them not to,'' she said. I told them I was old. I could be their grandmother,'' but they did not listen; they just laughed at me. Afterward they let me go because I was old and useless. Now I have pain when I urinate. I have sores; I can't sleep.'' A 35-year-old woman said she had been abducted and raped by four rebels in 1997. When they had finished, she said, they took her to their commander, who decided to keep her. She finally escaped three years later, during a firefight between the rebel unit and government troops. ``I can't have a man again,'' she told the interviewer. ``I have lost my life.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, yesterday, I spoke on S. 2285. I now ask unanimous consent that an ARCO letter concerning gas prices be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am as upset by the gasoline price spikes as anyone else. Price spikes have been worse in California than in any other State. Today, as I speak, though prices have recently started to come down a bit, they still average more than $2 per gallon in some parts of California. Having said that, I feel obliged to oppose S. 2285, despite understanding the sentiment behind it. The problem with S. 2285 is that there is no way to guarantee that a reduction in the federal gasoline tax will be passed on to consumers. Why is this? Because price is a function of supply and demand, not taxes. And right now, world oil markets are extremely tight, so prices are high. The way to relieve the pressure on the market is to boost supply and reduce demand. With regard to supply, fourteen nations sell oil to the U.S. under a cartel known as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. Like any monopoly, OPEC controls the price of oil by limiting supply. Decreased production in non-OPEC countries like Venezuela, Mexico, and Norway has also contributed to the squeeze. Since OPEC is not bound by U.S. law, there are only a few things the U.S. can do to encourage the cartel to increase supply. The preferred alternative is diplomacy. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has had some success on this front. OPEC ministers announced last month that the cartel would immediately increase supply by 1.7 million barrels a day. Mexico has also agreed to increase production by a small amount. It takes several weeks for production increases to be felt at the pump, in lower prices. And California has unique problems affecting its supply. No other State requires the kind of reformulated gasoline that California does. So the gasoline has to be refined in California. And California refiners have had problems--including two fires--operating their plants at full capacity. They are at full capacity now. Notwithstanding these problems, the announcement of OPEC production increases has driven spot gasoline prices down. They have dropped more than 40 cents, for instance, in the greater Los Angeles area. The spot price is the price of gasoline on the open market without taxes and other markups figured in. Spot prices are usually good harbingers of the price movement we will eventually see at the pump about a month or two later. But the increase in OPEC production is, at best, a short-term solution. By the middle of summer when demand for gasoline will peak, we may be back in the same predicament. As I said a moment ago, S. 2285 doesn't solve the problem of high gasoline prices. Under California law, if the federal gasoline tax drops by 9 cents per gallon or more, then the State tax automatically rises to off-set the federal decrease. The law is designed to protect the Highway Trust Fund. I have spoken with members of the California legislature about this. They do not seem inclined to change the law. Even if the law were changed, the price still wouldn't drop. At least that's what the chief executive officers of the three major California refiners told me. Collectively, they produce 70 percent of California's gasoline. None could guarantee that prices would drop at the pump. They cited the fundamental problem with supply, and also pointed out that they have no control over other entities in the supply chain. What are our options? The fact is, we have limited control over supply. Too much of the world's oil is produced elsewhere. The one thing we can control is demand. The best way to reduce demand is to require that sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and light duty trucks get the same fuel efficiency that passenger vehicles do. If SUVs and light duty trucks had the same fuel efficiency standards as passenger cars, the U.S. would use one million fewer barrels of oil each day. This is roughly equal to the U.S. shortfall before OPEC increased production. The Department of Transportation is responsible for setting fuel efficiency requirements under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. Abut two-thirds of all petroleum used goes to transportation, so boosting fuel efficiency is an important way to wean ourselves off OPEC oil and reduce the price motorists pay for gasoline. Consider, too, the significant environmental and health benefits of higher fuel efficiency. But CAFE standards have not increased since the mid- 1980s. And the situation is made worse by a loophole in the CAFE regulations. SUVs and light duty trucks--which are as much passenger vehicles as station wagons and sedans--are only required to average 20.7 miles per gallon per fleet versus 27.5 miles per gallon for automobiles. Since half of all new vehicles sold in this country are fuel-thirsty SUVs and light duty trucks, this stranglehold on energy efficiency has produced an American fleet with the worst fuel efficiency since 1980. We are going backwards! According to the non-partisan American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the U.S. saves 3 million barrels of oil a day because of CAFE standards. Close the SUV loophole, as I said a moment ago, and save another million barrels each day. Overall, SUV and light duty truck owners spend an extra $25 billion a year at the pump because of the ``SUV loophole.'' Making SUVs and light duty trucks get better gas mileage would save their owners some $640 at the pump each year when the price of gasoline averages $2 per gallon. The ``bottom line'' is that eliminating some or all of the federal gasoline tax won't lower prices at the pump. The best way to do that is to reduce our demand. The best way to reduce demand is to increase the gas mileage requirements for SUVs and light duty trucks.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bill entitled the Breast Cancer Research Stamps Reauthorization Act of 2000. I am pleased that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has joined me as the lead cosponsor. The Breast Cancer Research stamp is the first stamp in our nation's history dedicated to raising funds for a special cause. Since the stamp's issuance in the summer of 1998, the U.S. Postal Service has sold 164 million Breast Cancer Research stamps--raising over $12 million for breast cancer research. In addition, the stamp has focused public awareness on the devastating disease and has stood out as a beacon of hope and strength around which breast-cancer survivors can rally. Unfortunately, without congressional action, the Breast Cancer Research stamp will expire on July 28, 2000. The Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2000 would permit the sale of the Breast Cancer Research stamp for 2 additional years. The stamp would continue to cost 40 cents and sell as a first class stamp. The extra money collected will be directed to breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. A Breast Cancer Research stamp remains just as necessary today as 2 years ago. Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in every major ethnic group in the United States. More than 2 million women are living with breast cancer in America, 1 million of whom have yet to be diagnosed. Breast cancer continues to be the number one cancer killer of women between the ages of 15 and 54. This year alone, 182,800 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 40,800 women will die from the disease. The disease claims another woman's life every 15 minutes in the United States. Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more people are becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. According to the American Association for Cancer Research, 8 million people are alive today as a result of cancer research. The bottom line is that every dollar we continue to raise will save lives. I am pleased to report that this reauthorization bill has over 39 original cosponsors and broad support within the health community. Let me just repeat a couple of the glowing comments from the many groups in support of this bill. It shows the truly astounding impact of this stamp. The Susan G. Komen Foundation writes: The Breast Cancer Research stamp has not only raised millions of dollars by providing a convenient and innovative mechanism for public participation in the [battle against breast cancer], but it has also focused public awareness on this devastating disease. Betsy Mullen of Women's Information Network--Against Breast Cancer adds: This bill, if passed will provide an innovative, simple and now proven way for individuals to make a substantial contribution to fund federal cancer research and to continue to be a part of what has become an effective public-private partnership. The American Association of Health Plan attests: We've heard from our physicians about women who have scheduled examinations or mammograms after purchasing the stamp or receiving a card or letter posted with it. Oliver Goldsmith, chairman of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group, writes: The Breast Cancer Research stamp captures the essence of innovation, volunteerism and partnership that are such an integral aspect of our country's history and spirit. This vital legislation will give all of us the opportunity to continue to work together to eradicate breast cancer. The American people can realistically continue to raise millions of dollars a year to fund cutting edge research to end this rampant disease that claims the lives of all too many breast cancer victims in this country and around the world. Other supporters of the Breast Cancer Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2000 include the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the Y-Me National Breast Cancer Organization, Leadership America, the National Association of Women's Health, the American Cancer League, the American College of Surgeons, Friends of Cancer Research, the California Nurses Association, the Association of Reproductive Health Care Professionals, and many others. I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bill entitled the Breast Cancer Research Stamps Reauthorization Act of 2000. I am pleased that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has joined me as the lead cosponsor. The Breast Cancer Research stamp is the first stamp in our nation's history dedicated to raising funds for a special cause. Since the stamp's issuance in the summer of 1998, the U.S. Postal Service has sold 164 million Breast Cancer Research stamps--raising over $12 million for breast cancer research. In addition, the stamp has focused public awareness on the devastating disease and has stood out as a beacon of hope and strength around which breast-cancer survivors can rally. Unfortunately, without congressional action, the Breast Cancer Research stamp will expire on July 28, 2000. The Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2000 would permit the sale of the Breast Cancer Research stamp for 2 additional years. The stamp would continue to cost 40 cents and sell as a first class stamp. The extra money collected will be directed to breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense. A Breast Cancer Research stamp remains just as necessary today as 2 years ago. Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in every major ethnic group in the United States. More than 2 million women are living with breast cancer in America, 1 million of whom have yet to be diagnosed. Breast cancer continues to be the number one cancer killer of women between the ages of 15 and 54. This year alone, 182,800 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 40,800 women will die from the disease. The disease claims another woman's life every 15 minutes in the United States. Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more people are becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. According to the American Association for Cancer Research, 8 million people are alive today as a result of cancer research. The bottom line is that every dollar we continue to raise will save lives. I am pleased to report that this reauthorization bill has over 39 original cosponsors and broad support within the health community. Let me just repeat a couple of the glowing comments from the many groups in support of this bill. It shows the truly astounding impact of this stamp. The Susan G. Komen Foundation writes: The Breast Cancer Research stamp has not only raised millions of dollars by providing a convenient and innovative mechanism for public participation in the [battle against breast cancer], but it has also focused public awareness on this devastating disease. Betsy Mullen of Women's Information Network--Against Breast Cancer adds: This bill, if passed will provide an innovative, simple and now proven way for individuals to make a substantial contribution to fund federal cancer research and to continue to be a part of what has become an effective public-private partnership. The American Association of Health Plan attests: We've heard from our physicians about women who have scheduled examinations or mammograms after purchasing the stamp or receiving a card or letter posted with it. Oliver Goldsmith, chairman of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group, writes: The Breast Cancer Research stamp captures the essence of innovation, volunteerism and partnership that are such an integral aspect of our country's history and spirit. This vital legislation will give all of us the opportunity to continue to work together to eradicate breast cancer. The American people can realistically continue to raise millions of dollars a year to fund cutting edge research to end this rampant disease that claims the lives of all too many breast cancer victims in this country and around the world. Other supporters of the Breast Cancer Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2000 include the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the Y-Me National Breast Cancer Organization, Leadership America, the National Association of Women's Health, the American Cancer League, the American College of Surgeons, Friends of Cancer Research, the California Nurses Association, the Association of Reproductive Health Care Professionals, and many others. I urge my colleagues to join me in enacting this important legislation.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is with great regret that I rise in opposition to this Republican budget resolution. It is with regret because I had sincerely hoped that this year, thanks to a booming economy and a federal budget surplus, Congress would be able to approach the budget resolution in a bipartisan and responsible manner, and do what is necessary to protect Social Security and Medicare, make sure we have adequate funds to meet important domestic priorities like education and the environment, and provide fair tax cuts for working Americans. Indeed, thanks to unprecedented economic growth, the tough choices we made on the budget in 1993, and the discipline we have demonstrated since passing the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997, this year we have an opportunity to structure a fiscally responsible budget that pays down the national debt and makes important investments in America's domestic priorities. Unfortunately, this Republican budget resolution threatens to blow a hole in the budget by instituting irresponsibly large tax cuts. It does not provide sufficient funding for important domestic priorities and the long-term fiscal solvency of Social Security and Medicare. When I first came to the Senate seven years ago, we faced $200 billion annual federal deficits as far as the eye could see. Thanks to fiscal discipline and the current economic boom we are running surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the non- Social Security budget surplus over the next ten years will be over $890 billion. Thanks to the size of the surplus we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to pay down our national debt and meet the challenges of the future. We have the opportunity to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare so that these programs are available for the next several generations of recipients. We have the opportunity to invest in education, the environment, and health care. To reduce class size and increase Title I funding. To clean up our environmental treasures, including Lake Tahoe. To provide health care for all children. We have the opportunity to provide prescription drugs for seniors who currently have to make the choice between paying for food or prescription drugs. And we have the opportunity to provide fiscally responsible and targeted tax cuts for working Americans. Unfortunately, this budget resolution is not fiscally responsible, and it does not meet these needs. The budget resolution calls for $150 to $200 billion in tax cuts over the next five years. Who knows how much these cuts will cost over the next ten years? Tax cuts that appear to be modest and reasonable at first will mushroom in years six to ten to something like $1 trillion. To hide this the Republicans on the Budget Committee did not even try to estimate the size of these tax cuts in the so-called ``out'' years. They did not even try because the reality is that these tax cuts will be greater than the non-Social Security budget surplus over 10 years, just as they are over 5 years. This budget resolution uses the surplus for tax cuts, not debt reduction. The non-Social Security budget surplus is expected to be $171 billion over the next five years, but this budget resolution calls for $168 to $218 billion in tax cuts over the same period. Quite simply, this resolution does not protect Social Security surpluses. The Republican budget calls for increases in spending on defense, education, veterans health care, and income support payments for farmers. I applaud these increases. We need a strong defense. To take care of veterans. To educate our children. To protect our farmers from income fluctuations that are the result of weather, disease and market conditions. Unfortunately, to increase funding for these priorities while providing almost $1 trillion in tax breaks would result in a ten percent across-the-board cut in all other non-defense discretionary spending. Let me tell you what this means for ordinary people. Over the next 5 years a 10 percent across-the-board budget cut would cut: 750,000 low- income women, infants and children from WIC; 1,100 FBI and 900 DEA agents; 316,000 Pell Grants for needy students; and 40,000 students from Head Start. This budget resolution would leave the COPS program about 40,000 police officers short of the goal of 150,000. It would prevent us from providing urgent repairs for 5,000 schools. It could force us to abandon plans to put 100,000 new teachers in our classrooms and reduce class sizes. The reality is that even though this budget is predicated on slashing these programs, and more, the Republican Congress has not been able to slash non-defense discretionary spending. Domestic spending grew in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. In fact, it grew by more than ten percent last year. So what are our options? This budget resolution forces us to decide between an across-the- board ten percent budget cut in domestic spending or dipping into the Social Security Trust Fund. This is not fiscal discipline. This is not fiscally responsible. We must extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. This budget resolution opens the door to raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, thereby reducing the solvency of these entitlements. We must take this once in a lifetime opportunity to provide prescription drugs for seniors that cannot afford them. This budget resolution will not do so. We must take this opportunity to expand Title I, secure funding for 100,000 new teachers, modernize schools, and increase Head Start funding. To extend the 100,000 COPS program and protect our children from gun violence. To bolster the Immigration and Naturalization Service's ability to protect our borders. To protect the environment and expand mass transit in California and other states. Let me be clear: In addition to spending on these important domestic priorities, I also believe that we have a responsibility to provide tax relief. In fact, last year Senator Grassley and I introduced the Tax Relief for Working Americans Act of 1999. This is legislation to provide tax relief for working families in a fiscally responsible manner--$271 billion over ten years--and in a budget framework which protects Social Security and Medicare. It includes provisions to eliminate the marriage penalty for 21 million working couples, provide for health insurance and child care, promote long-term care, create more affordable housing, make education more affordable, and keep our economy strong through incentives such as the research and development tax credit. We must provide targeted tax relief; Eliminate the marriage penalty; Expand the earned income tax credit; Establish a long-term care tax credit; Establish educational savings accounts and Individual Development Accounts; Permanently expand the research and experimentation tax credit. I believe that given the health of our economy and the Federal budget surplus we can provide the American people with real tax relief, responsible tax relief. But this Republican budget resolution does not do so. The current economic boom has presented us with a unique opportunity--we can save Social Security and Medicare, invest in domestic priorities, provide for a strong national defense and give working Americans targeted tax relief. All while paying down the national debt. Unfortunately, this budget resolution includes unrealistic tax cuts that risk upsetting the current economic climate. This resolution may set us down a path of fiscal irresponsibility that will endanger all of our gains of the past few years. I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget resolution.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor the Specter-Harkin amendment to increase funding for health research by $2.7 billion, an increase of 15 percent over last year. For Fiscal Year 2001, the President is requesting a 5.6 percent increase. That is not enough. Congress has shown its commitment to our five-year goal of doubling NIH funding. In 1997, the Senate voted 98-0 to adopt the Mack-Feinstein amendment, which urged Congress to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health over 5 years. To stay on target, we must add 15 percent again this year, bringing NIH funding to $20.5 billion. That is what this amendment does. This Fiscal Year, the National Institutes of Health is only funding an estimated 31 percent of grant applications. The National Institute on Aging is only funding 22 percent, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 25 percent. NIH officials believe that at least 35 percent of applicants are worthy of funding and others say 50 percent should be funded. Without a significant increase in funding, hundreds of important projects will go without funding. What is it we aren't learning? How many millions of people aren't treated, or cured? Every day 1,500 people in the U.S. die of cancer, our nation's second leading cause of death. This year over half a million people will die of cancer, and 1.2 million will face a new cancer diagnosis. While the mortality rate has dropped for major cancers, including lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate, the mortality rate has risen for liver cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The National Cancer Institute has a number of promising areas of research, including: (1) better understanding the unique characteristics of cells and how they become cancerous; (2) molecule- directed prevention approaches, such as Herceptin for advanced breast cancer, Rituximab for non-Hodgin's lymphoma, and STI 571 for leukemia; and (3) early detection of cancer and cancer risk through genetic explanation for cancer risks, environmental influences, and responses to therapies. But we spend one-tenth of one cent of every federal dollar on cancer research. There are still too many diseases for which we have no cure. AIDS has surpassed accidents as the leading killer of young adults; it is now the leading cause of death among Americans ages 25 to 44. Diabetes and asthma rates are rising. Forty-thousand infants die each year from devastating diseases. Seven to 10 percent of children are learning disabled. Birth defects affecting function occur in 7 percent of deliveries; that's 250,000 children. Another compelling reason to double NIH funding is that the baby boom generation is getting older. Over the next 30 years, the number of Americans over age 65 will double. As our population ages, we are seeing an increase in chronic and degenerative diseases like arthritis, cancer, osteoporosis, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. For example, the 4 million people with Alzheimer's Disease today will more than triple, to 14 million, by the middle of the next century--unless we find a way to prevent or cure it. Health care costs will grow exponentially and we see that in part reflected in our budget debates over Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. The total annual cost of Alzheimer's today is $100 billion. By finding new treatments through research, if we delay the onset of this disease by 5 years, we can save $50 billion annually. This increase in funding for the NIH is important to California. California organizations receive 20 percent of all NIH grants, and the University of California is one of the top recipients of NIH funding. I am proud to say that California and the UC system contribute immeasurably to medical research supported by NIH grants. With support of NIH, many California researchers have helped find new cures and treatments. For example, Dr. Naomi Balaban at the University of California, Davis, with funding from the NIH, discovered a revolutionary way to fight staph infections without antibiotics by blocking the occurrences that make the bacteria harmful to humans. Then, she created a vaccine that successfully aided mice in resisting this infection. We have made tremendous strides in medical research in the last decade. The Association of American Medical Colleges states, in a June 1999 paper on clinical research: Perhaps the most profound challenge of this era is the sheer scope of scientific and technologic opportunity. The future of scientific advancement and its potential to transform medical practice and improve the health of the public have never been brighter. Astonishing advancements in the basic sciences have profoundly increased understanding of disease mechanisms and identified a plentitude of novel targets for therapeutic and preventive interventions. Better treatments are available, and scientists are learning more and more about how to treat diseases. Patient access to cutting-edge treatments is critical to further research and improve the health of Americans. The NIH is beginning to expand clinical research and, with additional funds, more people can reap the benefits of clinical trials and more effective treatments can be found. For example, the NIH is working on a vaccine for AIDS, better treatments for diabetes, and a better understanding of the entire human genome and its implications. Understanding a person's genetic make-up is helping researchers understand how genes affect a person's susceptibility to disease. This year's development of a new flu drug is a direct result of AIDS research, and a drug now used to treat hepatitis B was originally created to treat AIDS. Additionally, studies have produced better glucose-sensing devices that will greatly reduce the number of finger pricks that diabetics endure. The United States is the world's leader in understanding disease, in developing sophisticated treatments for illnesses and diseases, in making important medical discoveries, and in improving human life expectancy. Yet, we are spending only three cents of every health care dollar on health research. NIH's budget is less than one percent of the federal budget. Inconsistent funding for the NIH discourages the medical community from pursuing research. According to the National Academy of Sciences, we are not producing enough research scientists. That is, in part, due to the uncertainty in health research funding. Simply put, we can do better. We must try to ensure that all promising areas of research are pursued. The public is with us. Fifty-five percent of Californians said they would spend one dollar more in taxes per week for medical research, and 55 percent of Americans said that it is important for the U.S. to remain a world leader in medical research. Every day, I hear from Californians who want a cure for their children, a better treatment for a parent, and more knowledge to prevent disease in themselves. I believe the public wants us to fight a war on disease and that the public sees medical research as a top priority for the federal government. I urge passage of this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as we debate the priorities for spending in the federal budget for the next fiscal year, I am pleased to have voted yesterday for the Bingaman education amendment. Unfortunately, the Senate tabled this amendment yesterday by a 54 to 46 vote. This amendment begins to address some of the critical needs of our schools. But more importantly, it says, ``We think education is important. We think education is a priority. We think education should be nourished, not starved.'' This amendment adds important resources in several ways: It supports the $4.5 billion or 12.6 percent increase for education that the President proposed for FY 2001 over the previous year. It adds $1 billion for Title I, the program that helps school districts educate disadvantaged students. If Congress follows through with FY 2001 appropriations, this would bring total Title I funding next year to $9.9 billion, up from $8.5 billion in FY 2000. It adds $2 billion to train new teachers and current teachers. It provides $1.75 billion to continue to reduce class sizes in the early grades. It increases funds for afterschool programs to give students extra help. It provides $1.3 billion to repair schools in high-need areas. It adds $1 billion for special education, programs to help disabled students. It raises the maximum Pell Grant, aid for needy college students, from $3,500 to $3,700. This amendment is timely because the federal share of elementary and secondary education has declined from 14 percent in 1980 to 6 percent in 1999-2000. Hopefully, this amendment will begin to reverse that decline. The schools in my state face huge challenges--low test scores, crowded classrooms, teacher shortages, growing enrollments, decrepit buildings. In short, they are overwhelmed. California has 5.8 million students, more students in school than 36 states have in total population and one of the highest projected enrollments in the country. California will need 300,000 new teachers by 2010. Eleven percent or 30,000 of our 285,000 teachers are on emergency credentials. California has 40 percent of the nation's immigrants; we have 50 languages in some schools. Children from these families need special attention, not just in English language learning but in dealing with huge adjustments of learning to live in a new country. California's students lag behind students from other states. Only about 40 to 45 percent of the state's students score at or above the national median, on the Stanford 9 reading and math tests. For school construction, modernization and deferred maintenance, California needs $21 billion by 2003 or 7 new classrooms per day. Two million California children go to school today in 86,000 portable classrooms. California's Head Start programs serve only 13 percent of eligible children. For higher education, the University of California has the most diverse student body in the US. Federal programs provide nearly 55 percent of all student financial aid funding that UC students received. Our colleges and universities are facing ``Tidal Wave II,'' the demographic bulge created by children of the baby boomers who will inundate California's colleges and universities between 2000 and 2010 because the number of high school graduates will jump 30 percent. California's schools are in crisis. The needs of my state are huge. While these needs cry out for resources, the federal government is contributing only 6 percent of total education funding. Funds are so short in my state that California teachers are spending around $1,000 a year out of their own pockets to pay for books, magic markers, scissors and other school supplies, according to the San Diego Tribune, August 16, 1999. Why should we be increasing funds for education? Let me answer that question by giving you an example of the state of our schools, as expressed by a young student. I would like to read a letter from Hannah Wair, a 14-year-old from Santa Rosa, California, who graphically describes her school: Santa Rosa, CA, December 13, 1999. Diane Feinstein, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Ms. Feinstein: My name is Hannah Wair, and I am 14 years old and I attend Rincon Valley Middle School in California. I am writing you this letter because I am concerned about the amount of money that is given to the Santa Rosa City Schools. It seems as though far too many kids attend these schools without enough supplies, computers, books, and sports equipment. On top of that, most of the schools (with an exception of a few new ones) are in need of extreme repairs. Many schools have trashy, dirty, bathrooms and locker rooms that have not been repaired or updated in about 20 years. The fields and tracks are invaded with weeds and rocks, and there have been many injuries because of this. Many of the classes are over-populated, with an average of 30 or 35 students per class. This gives the students less attention, which makes it harder to learn. Although there are many aspects that need to be improved about our schools, they are all still great schools, and I'm sure that you could change all of this in only a matter of time. Thank you so very much for your time. I hope to hear from you soon! Sincerely, Hannah Wair. The Clinton-Gore Administration has proposed to increase education funding in FY 2001 by 12.6 percent, to $40.1 billion. Yet the budget before us does not add, it cuts the President's education request by $4.7 billion. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is no time to be cutting education: American students lag behind their international counterparts in many ways. American twelfth grade math students were outperformed by students from 21 other countries, scoring higher than students from only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa. Three-quarters of our school children cannot compose a well- organized, coherent essay, says the National Assessment Governing Board in September. U.S. eighth graders score below the international average of 41 other countries in math. U.S. twelfth graders score among the lowest of 21 countries in both math and science general knowledge. Three-quarters of employers say that recent high school graduates do not have the skills they need to succeed on the job. Forty-six percent of college professors say entering students do not have the skills to succeed in college, according to a February Public Agenda poll. These statistics speak for themselves. Our schools are failing many of our youngsters. It is not the students' fault. It is our fault. We need to be nourishing education, not starving it, especially at a time of budget surpluses when the needs of our children are so stark. I am especially pleased that this amendment increases funds for Title I, adding $1 billion to the program. Title I provides grants to help disadvantaged children, grants designed by Congress in 1965 to provide supplementary services to low- achieving children in areas with high concentrations of poverty. Title I reaches virtually every school district and is very important in my state. Schools serving disadvantaged populations of students receive fewer resources than other schools, according to the Public Policy Institute of California in a new report. With 18 percent of the country's Title I students, California only receives 11.4 percent of Title I funds. At least, 775,000 eligible Title I students are not getting services in my state. It is my hope that when Congress takes up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization and the FY 2001 appropriations bill, we will rectify the long-standing inequities in the funding formula to give fast-growing states like mine their fair share of Title I and other funds. In 1994, Congress included in the Title I law a requirement to annually update the number of poor children so that the allocation of funds would truly reflect the most up-to-date number of poor children. This is a very important provision to growing states like mine. However, despite my opposition, a ``hold harmless'' provision has been included in annual appropriations bills, effectively overriding the census update requirement and locking in historic funding amounts for states despite the change in the number of poor children. As Secretary of Education Riley said last year, ``a basic principle in targeting should be to drive funds to where the poor children are, not to where they were a decade ago.'' While today's amendment includes an assumption that Title I would go up $1 billion and does not address the ``hold harmless'' one way or another, I want to make it clear that a ``hold harmless'' should not be part of our final funding bill. I am also pleased that the amendment adds $2 billion for teacher training. What are the needs? For starters, my state has 30,000 teachers on emergency credentials. That is 11 percent of our 285,000 teachers. We have high teacher turnover. We face a severe teacher shortage. California will need 300,000 new teachers by 2010. Not only do we face a serious teacher shortage, we need to beef up training of current teachers in order to improve student learning. There is no substitute for a good teacher. A good teacher can make a lifetime of difference in a student, especially a struggling or low- performing student. Teacher quality has more impact on student achievement than any other single factor, including family income and parent education, according to a Texas study by Ronald Ferguson of Harvard University. Studies show that the teacher's qualifications account for more than 90 percent of the variation in student achievement in reading and math. Another disturbing statistic in my state is this: In California, the lowest-scoring students are five times more likely than high-scoring children to be placed in a classroom with under qualified teachers, concluded a study by the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning last December. ``More than a million children in California go to school where they have particularly high concentrations of teachers who are under prepared to teach them,'' the study said. Similarly, the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future noted, In the nation's poorest schools, where hiring is most lax and teacher turnover is constant, the results are disastrous. Thousands of children are taught throughout their school careers by a parade of teachers without preparation in the fields they teach, inexperienced beginners with little preparation and no mentoring, and short-term substitutes trying to cope with constant staff disruptions. It is more surprising that some of these children manage to learn than that so many fail to do so. Without strong teachers, our children suffer. We must enhance teacher training. The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that teacher training has suffered for years saying it has been ``historically thin, uneven and poorly financed.'' That commission has called for strengthening teacher training requirements and better rewarding teaching knowledge and skill. I welcome the additional funds in this amendment to train more teachers and to strengthen teacher training. This debate today is not just about raw numbers, this increase or that decrease. This debate is about the future of our nation. We must ask some fundamental questions about our spending priorities. Why it is important to increase spending on education? Here are some reasons: The economy of my state is transitioning from manufacturing toward a more higher-skilled, service and technology jobs. Since 1980, jobs in the ``new economy'' (services and trade) have jumped nearly 60 percent. Over the next 10 years, nationally, computer systems analyst jobs will grow by 94 percent; computer support specialists, by 102 percent; computer engineers, 108 percent. Jobs for the non-college educated are stagnating. High tech employers say they cannot find qualified people. They plead for Congress to expand visas to bring in employees from abroad. Low literacy levels are powerful predictors of welfare dependency and incarceration. More than half the adult prison population has literacy levels below those required by the labor market. Near 40 percent of adjudicated juvenile delinquents have treatable learning disabilities that went untreated in school. Seventeen years ago, the nation's attention was jolted by a report titled A Nation at Risk. In April 1983, the Reagan Administration's Education Secretary, Terrell Bell, told the nation that we faced a fundamental crisis in the quality of American elementary and secondary education. The report said: Our nation is at risk. If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. The report cited declines in student achievement and called for strengthening graduation requirements, teacher preparation and establishing standards and accountability. Today, we still face mediocrity in our schools. While there are always exceptions and clearly there are many excellent teachers and many outstanding schools, we can do better. To those who say we cannot afford to spend more money on education, I say we cannot afford to fail our children. Our children do not choose to be illiterate or uneducated. It is our responsibility and we must face up to it. I urge adoption of the education amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Amendment by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. In supporting this Amendment, however, I would like to make clear my views on the question of the repeal of the federal gas tax. I do not think that, under present circumstances, repeal of the federal gas tax is necessary or warranted. Yes, gas prices have gone up precipitously over the past several months--to more than $2 a gallon in California--but there is some evidence that prices may now be easing. More important, I have discussed this issue with the chief executive officers of several major U.S. oil companies, and none could promise that any of these savings would be passed on to consumers. Market forces--supply and demand--dictate how much, if any, of a fuel tax cut would be seen at the pump. For California, repealing more than 9 cents of the federal gasoline tax merely triggers an automatic increase in the state gasoline tax. Under the California tax code, if the federal gas tax drops below 9 cents per gallon and if Federal Highway Trust Fund payments to California are reduced accordingly, the state tax goes up. In other words, if all federal fuel taxes are eliminated and funding for the highway trust fund is therefore reduced, the overall tax will remain the same in California and Californians hurt by high gasoline prices will not benefit. I am also concerned that repeal of the federal fuel tax may endanger the Highway Trust Fund and imperil important highway projects. The highway trust fund, which is funded by the federal fuel tax, provides about half a billion dollars a year for California, money which is used to seismically retrofit bridges to protect them against earthquakes; replace the I-80, which was destroyed by the 1992 earthquake; repair potholes; and otherwise maintain our roads and bridges. The bottom line is that the current spike in gas prices is due to a supply squeeze: There is simply not enough oil in the market to meet demand. Although I was pleased that members of OPEC, as well as Norway, Mexico, and Venezuela, have agreed to increase production somewhat, it is still unclear if these production increases will be sufficient to meet demand over the next several months. For that reason, I think it is important to underscore that just as I do not feel we should repeal the federal fuel tax now, I do not believe we should precipitously foreclose our options. Alongside initiatives to increase fuel efficiency and develop alternate sources, suspension or repeal of a portion of the federal fuel tax in a way that benefits the consumer and does not harm highway spending may be necessary later if this crisis does not ease, and I intend to continue keeping a close eye on this issue.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last May, in the wake of the Columbine massacre, this Senate took action, passing a comprehensive juvenile justice bill that would begin the long process of addressing the problems that plague the youth in this country. Parts of the bill addressed our crisis of violence. These provisions included: A comprehensive package of measures I authored with Senator Hatch to fight criminal gangs; increased penalties for adults who recruit children into criminal activity or provide them with firearms; the James Guelff Body Armor Act, an amendment I authored, which contains reforms to take body armor out of the hands of criminals and put it into the hands of police; and other provisions related to juvenile confinement, juvenile record-keeping, and countless other important issues. Parts of the bill addressed our crisis of guns: a ban on juvenile possession of assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines; a provision to close the gun show loophole; a requirement that safety locks be included with every handgun sold in America; and my provision to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition magazines. But the crisis in leadership remains. Despite passage by both Houses of Congress almost one year ago, the conference committee on this bill has met only once--in early August of last year. No real issues have been discussed. No progress has been made. The bills sit in legislative purgatory, apparently never to see the light of day again. It now seems clear that these bills will die a quiet death at the end of this short session. As a result, all of the important issues we debated will remain un-addressed. Gang violence, juvenile detention, firearm regulation reform, and a host of other problems will remain unsolved. And nobody within the walls of this Chamber or elsewhere has any doubt why this stalemate persists. This bill would have passed months ago were it not for those four, simple, targeted gun measures buried within the text of the bill. This, Mr. President, demonstrates just how deeply this Congress is dominated by just one special interest group--these people who fervently resist any regulations on firearms, no matter how mild, no matter how targeted, and no matter how much the American people want it. Some argue that we don't need more gun control laws--enforcing our current laws would be enough. But those arguments miss the point entirely. Of course we should be enforcing our current laws. And we are. The evidence clearly shows that gun prosecutions are up. In fact; since 1992, the total number of federal and state prosecutions has increased sharply--about 25 percent more criminals are sent to prison for state and federal weapons offenses now than in 1992 (from 20,681 to 25,186). The number of higher-level federal firearms offenders sent to prison (those sentenced to five or more years) has gone up more than 34 percent (from 1049 to 1406) in six years. The number of inmates in federal prisons on firearm or arson charges (the two are counted together) increased 51 percent from 1993 to 1998, to 8,979. And we are working to improve this situation. Just last week, my colleague Senator Kohl and I introduced legislation that would expand Project Exile to 50 cities and provide law enforcement with ballistics technology that will make it far easier to identify and to punish the perpetrators of gun violence. Early last year, I wrote the Secretary of the Treasury several times to demand greater attention to those who violate the Brady Law. I asked why so few violators had been prosecuted, and I was told that the resources just aren't there. That is why I support the President's request to fund at least 500 additional ATF agents and 1,000 new prosecutors to focus on guns. But enforcing our current laws has been made tougher by the concerted efforts of the NRA to disparage and to destroy the very people tasked with enforcing those laws. The NRA called AFT agents ``jack-booted thugs,'' in a letter that was completely contradictory to what they are saying they want now. In fact, every time the opportunity arises to increase federal law enforcement capabilities by increasing ATF investigatory ability, the NRA fights it tooth and nail: The NRA fought the Brady bill for 10 years. They successfully defeated all attempts to allow the Consumer Products Safety Commission to regulate the safety of firearms. In 1986, the NRA got legislation passed which restricts ATF inspection of gun dealers to once per year. Even dealers who are the source for hundreds of crime guns cannot be routinely inspected more than once a year without a special court warrant. For years, the NRA has successfully blocked ATF computerization of gun sale records from gun dealers that have gone out of business. As a result, when a gun is traced as part of a criminal investigation, the files must often be retrieved manually from warehouses where the old records are kept. This can add days or even weeks to the time it takes to start tracking down the perpetrators of gun violence. By the time the records are found, the trail may already be cold. And most importantly, the NRA fights against funding our law enforcement agencies at levels adequate to enforce our current laws. As former New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton has said, ``The NRA has strenuously opposed increased financing for the [ATF] and has successfully lobbied against giving it the authority to quickly investigate the origins of guns sales.'' The ATF has been left underfunded, understaffed, and unable to adequately enforce our current gun laws. And the simple fact is that our current laws--even if fully enforced--are just not enough. Those laws are riddled with NRA-induced loopholes. Guns are still too easy to get. And too many children die every day for us to ignore the problem. The Columbine incident shocked this nation and this Congress to its core--as did the school shootings in Jonesboro, Arkansas; West Paducah, Kentucky; Pearl, Mississippi; Springfield, Oregon; and Edinboro, Pennsylvania. And in my own state of California, we saw a hateful bigot kill a postal worker and then wound five others at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills. Those incidents were tragic. But countless incidents go relatively unreported, but with equally tragic results. Every day in this country, another dozen children die of gunshot wounds. A new study published in the April issue of the American Journal of Public Health found that over a third of American children live in a home where there is also a gun--in 43% of those homes, the firearm is stored unlocked. Who knows how may lives could be saved if trigger locks were made available to gun owners? The pictures of those young children in Granada Hills being led away from the scene of the tragedy were not only heart-wrenching but also clearly depicted the trickle-down of gun crimes in this country. The victims of gun violence get younger, and younger. We must close the gun law loopholes for those children. We must pass the juvenile justice bill so that we can at least begin the process of solving some of these problems. We must pass this bill for the fifth grader from San Francisco who wrote me that ``One day I saw a neighbor of mine get shot on her way to the candy house. She got shot 4 times. She got shot 3 times in her side and once in her leg. Now she's paralyzed for life. That really hurt me and a lot of other people. She was only 12 years old and she was a nice little girl.'' We should pass this bill for the other fifth grader who told me ``every year I hear at least 20 gunshots. I am scared at night because I think it's going to be a drive-by. I even sometimes can't go outside to recess because gunshots are heard.'' We must pass this bill for the little girl who wrote me that ``I do not like to be locked in my room just because my mom feels I can't be safe in my own neighborhood and I think everybody deserves to live just like human beings.'' We must pass this bill so that the next six year old child who decides to seek revenge on a classmate is not able to find a gun so easily. And so that the next kindergartner who gets a timeout from the teacher and tries to bring his grandfather's gun to school the next day to get revenge is likewise left without a weapon. I say, enough is enough. The least this Congress can do is turn to the juvenile justice bill and move forward with the Senate-passed gun provisions. These provisions are no-brainers. And there is no excuse for inaction. Before I conclude, I want to talk briefly about the problem of gang violence in this country. This is a problem that I have taken seriously for many years--every since my days on the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors and as Mayor for 9 years when I worked to create the city's first anti-gang task force after the infamous gang massacre at the Golden Dragon Restaurant in 1977. In those shooting, gang members killed five people, including two tourists, and injured 11 others. For the last 4 years in the Senate, I have worked with Senator Hatch to craft national legislation giving law enforcement the tools they need to fight gang crime and gang violence. Criminal youth gangs have become a national problem, extending their virulent reach and bringing with them murder, drive-by shootings, drug sales, intimidation, and destruction of theft of property. Gangs plague more than 4,700 cities in all 50 states. There are some 25,000 gangs with over 650,000 members, and the problem continues to spread. In Los Angeles, for example, there are currently 408 gangs with more than 64,000 members. This is 15,000 more members than 10 years ago. That means that there are currently more gang members in L.A. alone than there are people in most of America's cities and towns. For instance, the number of gang members in L.A. is almost double the population of the largest city in Vermont. And these gang members do not stay in California. The state ``exports'' more gang members than any other state. For instance, two of the largest gangs, the Bloods and Crips--with more than 60,000 members--are based in Southern California, but operate in more than 119 cities in the West and Midwest. In fact, one recent survey found gangs claiming affiliation with the Bloods and/or Crips in 180 cities in 42 states. (Department of Justice) The mere existence of gangs is a terrible social problem. Gang members are far more likely to commit crimes than non-gang youths, even those who may have grown up under similar circumstances. This is especially true for homicides; drive-by shootings; using, selling, and stealing drugs; auto theft; carrying concealed weapons in school; and intimidating or assaulting victims and witnesses. In fact, the Los Angeles Police Department has told me that almost half of violent crime in the city is committed by gang members. And the problem is just as acute in other cities, big and small. Just a few months ago in my home city of San Francisco, for example, an innocent bystander was caught in the crossfire between two warring gangs in the Mission District. He was shot through both legs and may be crippled for life. A brave witness assisted police in apprehending the perpetrators. But gang members later cornered the witness, held a automatic gun to his head and threatened to blow his head off if he continued to help the police. Also, recently in San Francisco, gang members stuck an assault weapon in the face of a victim in an attempted robbery. When the victim resisted, he was shot 17 times. The victim survived but will never walk again. Let me give some specifics about gang-sponsored violent crime. Killings: Around the country, every year, gang members kill over 3,000 people. Last year in Los Angeles alone, there were 136 gang- related killings. Drugs: A survey of law enforcement agencies suggests that about 75% of gang members are involved in illegal drug sales; that about one- third of gangs are organized specifically for the purpose of trafficking in drugs; and that gangs make over 30% of crack cocaine and marijuana sales. (Department of Justice) Guns: Ninety percent of gang members report that their fellow gang members carry concealed weapons and 80% report that those members had taken guns to school. Worse, the study showed that gang members favor powerful, lethal weapons over smaller caliber handguns. (Ohio State University study). The Senate-passed juvenile justice bill includes a number of key measures to address this complex problem. The bill: Provides $100 million annually in federal aid for certain intense gang activity areas, so those communities can afford to create joint task forces with federal and local law enforcement and to support community gang prevention efforts; Increases sentences for interstate drug gang activity; Makes it a Federal offense to recruit youngsters into a gang; Enables Federal law enforcement to prosecute gangs who cross state lines to commit gang crimes such as drive-by shootings; and Increases penalties for transferring handguns to minors. Since we passed the juvenile justice bill last May, an estimated 30,000 people have died from gunshot wounds, including 3,700 children. If history is any judge, millions of large capacity ammunition feeding devices have been approved for import--in the year preceding the juvenile justice bill, more than 11 million of those clips were approved. All of the commonsense gun, gang, and other provisions in the juvenile justice bill are now at risk of disappearing without a trace, and I urge the majority to proceed with the conference and come to a compromise. The compromise should preserve intact the Senate-passed gun control legislation, which represents the bare minimum we should do this year to stem the gun violence that is increasingly common on our streets and in our schools. I also urge this body to pass the President's gun enforcement initiative. That initiative, which will fund more than 500 new ATF agents and 1,000 new prosecutors, is vital to the enforcement of our current gun laws. The crisis of leadership has come to a head. It is time for this Congress to take serious and bipartisan steps to stem the tide of youth and gun violence that continues to plague this nation. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak in morning business for a time not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to send to the desk a bill cosponsored by Senator Kyl of Arizona and Senator Grassley of Iowa for reference to committee. The bill is entitled the ``Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000.'' The crime of identity theft has become one of the major law enforcement challenges of the new economy because vast quantities of sensitive personal information are now vulnerable to criminal interception and misuse. What is identity theft? Identity theft occurs when one person uses another person's Social Security number, birth date, driver's license number, or other identifying information to obtain credit cards, car loans, phone plans, or other services in the potential victim's name. Of course, the victim does not know the theft has happened until he or she receives bills for items he or she didn't buy; plans for which he or she didn't contract, and so on. Identity thieves get personal information in a myriad of ways. They steal wallets and purses containing identification cards. They use personal information found on the Internet. They steal mail, including preapproved credit offers and credit statements. They fraudulently obtain credit reports or they get someone else's personnel records at work. All indications are that there is an alarming growth of this highly invasive crime. I believe the time has come to do something about it. A national credit bureau has reported that the total number of identity theft inquiries to its Theft Victim Assistance Department grew from 35,000 theft inquiries in 1992 to over one-half million in 1997. That is over a 1,400-percent increase. It is national. It touches every State and it impacts every area of our citizenry. The United States Postal Inspection Service reports that 50,000 people a year have become victims of identity theft since it first began collecting information on identity theft in the mid-1990s. In total, the Treasury Department estimates that identity theft annually causes between $2 and $3 billion in losses from credit cards alone. The legislation I introduce today, along with Senators Kyl and Grassley, tackles this issue. It makes it harder for criminals to access another person's private information, it gives consumers more tools to uncover fraudulent activity conducted in their name, and it expands the authority of the Social Security Administration to prosecute identity theft. The Identity Theft Prevention Act makes it harder for criminals to steal personal information. First, it closes a loophole in the Fair Credit Reporting Act that permits personal identifying information such as Social Security numbers, one's mother's maiden name, and birth date to be distributed without restriction to marketers. This sensitive information would be treated under this bill like any other part of the credit report, with its disclosure restricted to businesses needing the data for extensions of credit, employment applications, insurance applications, or other permissible purposes. This bill codifies, also, the practice of placing fraud alerts on a consumer's credit file and gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to impose fines against credit issuers that ignore the alert. Too many credit issuers are presently ignoring fraud alerts to the detriment of identity theft victims. Additionally, the bill requires credit bureaus to investigate discrepancies between their records and the address, birth date, and other personal information submitted as a part of an individual's application for credit, so that telltale signs of fraudulent applications such as incorrect addresses are immediately flagged. The bill improves how credit card companies monitor requests for new credit cards or changes of address. For example, it requires that credit card holders always be notified at their original address when a duplicate card is sent to a new address. This legislation also gives consumers more access to the personal information collected about them, which is a critical tool in combating identity theft. Currently, six States--Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, and New Jersey--have statutes that entitle consumers to one free personal credit report annually. This act makes this a national requirement. Every consumer across this Nation would have access to a free credit report. In addition, consumers could review the personal information collected about them by individual reference services for a reasonable fee. With greater access to their own personal information, consumers can proactively check their records for evidence of identity theft and uncover other errors. We have worked with the staff of the Federal Trade Commission in preparing this legislation. I believe the staff of the FTC is supportive of this bill. This bill is also supported by the Consumer Federation of America. We try to empower victims in this bill. This legislation calls for measures to help identity theft victims recover from the crime. In cases of identity theft, all too often victims get treated as if they were the criminals. Victims receive hostile notices from creditors who mistakenly believe they have not paid their bills. Victims' access to credit is jeopardized, and they can spend years trying to restore their good name. This legislation calls upon the credit industry to assist victims in notifying credit issuers of fraudulent charges by developing a single model credit reporting form. However, should the credit industry fail to implement these measures, the Federal Trade Commission would then be authorized to take action. Maureen Mitchell, an identity theft victim, recently described why this assistance is needed at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information, a subcommittee on which I am ranking member. She said: I have logged over 400 hours of time trying to clear my name and restore my good credit. Words are unable to adequately express the gamut of emotions that I feel as a victim. Another victim wrote to me: I have spent an ungodly number of hours trying to correct the damage that has been done by the individual who stole my identity. Professionally, as a teacher and a tutor, my hours are worth $35. I have been robbed of $5,250 in time. I have been humiliated in my local stores because checks have been rejected at the checkout. I am emotionally drained. I am a victim and Congress needs to recognize me as such. We try in this bill to do that. This legislation targets the theft and misuse of another person's Social Security number, a major cause of identity theft. While the Social Security Administration has the ability to impose civil penalties for misusing a Social Security number to falsely obtain government benefits, it has no authority over other offenses involving the misuse of Social Security numbers. This bill gives them that authority. The Identity Theft Prevention Act authorizes the Social Security Administration to impose civil monetary penalties against any individual who: (1) knowingly uses another's Social Security number on the basis of false information provided by them or another person; (2) falsely represents a number to be a Social Security number when it is not; That means, makes up a number, which people do. (3) alters a Social Security card; or (4) compels the disclosure of a Social Security card in violation of the law. I think these provisions enable the Social Security Administration to throw its full weight into the investigation and civil prosecution of identity theft involving Social Security numbers. In conclusion, I hope my colleagues find this bill worthy and pass it. This bill implements a number of practical, concrete measures to close down the flow of private information to individuals with criminal intent. In this new technology-driven economy, consumers don't need to be left vulnerable. They shouldn't be left without recourse to predators who are out to steal their good name. I think we have a very practical solution. It is well thought out. It is well drafted. It has been worked out with the staff of the FTC. My hope is, when it goes to the Banking Committee, that committee would take a good look at it and pass it. This is an increasing problem. There is no reason to believe it will stop. Without Congress providing basic protections to individuals who are the victims, it will continue to grow.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to send to the desk a bill cosponsored by Senator Kyl of Arizona and Senator Grassley of Iowa for reference to committee. The bill is entitled the ``Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000.'' The crime of identity theft has become one of the major law enforcement challenges of the new economy because vast quantities of sensitive personal information are now vulnerable to criminal interception and misuse. What is identity theft? Identity theft occurs when one person uses another person's Social Security number, birth date, driver's license number, or other identifying information to obtain credit cards, car loans, phone plans, or other services in the potential victim's name. Of course, the victim does not know the theft has happened until he or she receives bills for items he or she didn't buy; plans for which he or she didn't contract, and so on. Identity thieves get personal information in a myriad of ways. They steal wallets and purses containing identification cards. They use personal information found on the Internet. They steal mail, including preapproved credit offers and credit statements. They fraudulently obtain credit reports or they get someone else's personnel records at work. All indications are that there is an alarming growth of this highly invasive crime. I believe the time has come to do something about it. A national credit bureau has reported that the total number of identity theft inquiries to its Theft Victim Assistance Department grew from 35,000 theft inquiries in 1992 to over one-half million in 1997. That is over a 1,400-percent increase. It is national. It touches every State and it impacts every area of our citizenry. The United States Postal Inspection Service reports that 50,000 people a year have become victims of identity theft since it first began collecting information on identity theft in the mid-1990s. In total, the Treasury Department estimates that identity theft annually causes between $2 and $3 billion in losses from credit cards alone. The legislation I introduce today, along with Senators Kyl and Grassley, tackles this issue. It makes it harder for criminals to access another person's private information, it gives consumers more tools to uncover fraudulent activity conducted in their name, and it expands the authority of the Social Security Administration to prosecute identity theft. The Identity Theft Prevention Act makes it harder for criminals to steal personal information. First, it closes a loophole in the Fair Credit Reporting Act that permits personal identifying information such as Social Security numbers, one's mother's maiden name, and birth date to be distributed without restriction to marketers. This sensitive information would be treated under this bill like any other part of the credit report, with its disclosure restricted to businesses needing the data for extensions of credit, employment applications, insurance applications, or other permissible purposes. This bill codifies, also, the practice of placing fraud alerts on a consumer's credit file and gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to impose fines against credit issuers that ignore the alert. Too many credit issuers are presently ignoring fraud alerts to the detriment of identity theft victims. Additionally, the bill requires credit bureaus to investigate discrepancies between their records and the address, birth date, and other personal information submitted as a part of an individual's application for credit, so that telltale signs of fraudulent applications such as incorrect addresses are immediately flagged. The bill improves how credit card companies monitor requests for new credit cards or changes of address. For example, it requires that credit card holders always be notified at their original address when a duplicate card is sent to a new address. This legislation also gives consumers more access to the personal information collected about them, which is a critical tool in combating identity theft. Currently, six States--Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, and New Jersey--have statutes that entitle consumers to one free personal credit report annually. This act makes this a national requirement. Every consumer across this Nation would have access to a free credit report. In addition, consumers could review the personal information collected about them by individual reference services for a reasonable fee. With greater access to their own personal information, consumers can proactively check their records for evidence of identity theft and uncover other errors. We have worked with the staff of the Federal Trade Commission in preparing this legislation. I believe the staff of the FTC is supportive of this bill. This bill is also supported by the Consumer Federation of America. We try to empower victims in this bill. This legislation calls for measures to help identity theft victims recover from the crime. In cases of identity theft, all too often victims get treated as if they were the criminals. Victims receive hostile notices from creditors who mistakenly believe they have not paid their bills. Victims' access to credit is jeopardized, and they can spend years trying to restore their good name. This legislation calls upon the credit industry to assist victims in notifying credit issuers of fraudulent charges by developing a single model credit reporting form. However, should the credit industry fail to implement these measures, the Federal Trade Commission would then be authorized to take action. Maureen Mitchell, an identity theft victim, recently described why this assistance is needed at a hearing before the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information, a subcommittee on which I am ranking member. She said: I have logged over 400 hours of time trying to clear my name and restore my good credit. Words are unable to adequately express the gamut of emotions that I feel as a victim. Another victim wrote to me: I have spent an ungodly number of hours trying to correct the damage that has been done by the individual who stole my identity. Professionally, as a teacher and a tutor, my hours are worth $35. I have been robbed of $5,250 in time. I have been humiliated in my local stores because checks have been rejected at the checkout. I am emotionally drained. I am a victim and Congress needs to recognize me as such. We try in this bill to do that. This legislation targets the theft and misuse of another person's Social Security number, a major cause of identity theft. While the Social Security Administration has the ability to impose civil penalties for misusing a Social Security number to falsely obtain government benefits, it has no authority over other offenses involving the misuse of Social Security numbers. This bill gives them that authority. The Identity Theft Prevention Act authorizes the Social Security Administration to impose civil monetary penalties against any individual who: (1) knowingly uses another's Social Security number on the basis of false information provided by them or another person; (2) falsely represents a number to be a Social Security number when it is not; That means, makes up a number, which people do. (3) alters a Social Security card; or (4) compels the disclosure of a Social Security card in violation of the law. I think these provisions enable the Social Security Administration to throw its full weight into the investigation and civil prosecution of identity theft involving Social Security numbers. In conclusion, I hope my colleagues find this bill worthy and pass it. This bill implements a number of practical, concrete measures to close down the flow of private information to individuals with criminal intent. In this new technology-driven economy, consumers don't need to be left vulnerable. They shouldn't be left without recourse to predators who are out to steal their good name. I think we have a very practical solution. It is well thought out. It is well drafted. It has been worked out with the staff of the FTC. My hope is, when it goes to the Banking Committee, that committee would take a good look at it and pass it. This is an increasing problem. There is no reason to believe it will stop. Without Congress providing basic protections to individuals who are the victims, it will continue to grow.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I draw the attention of the Senate to a timely Opinion-Editorial, written by former Ambassador Leonard Woodcock, that appeared in the March 9, 2000 Los Angeles Times. Long a champion of workers' welfare and workers' rights, Ambassador Woodcock was also the first United States Ambassador's to the People's Republic of China. Ambassador Woodcock lays out, in a clear and well-reasoned manner, powerful arguments showing how the United States will benefit from establishing permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China, and why it is in our interest to see China in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Equally important, the author forces those who profess a concern for Chinese workers' rights to take a realistic look at how our decision concerning China PNTR will help or harm workers in China. I comment Ambassador Woodcock's thought-provoking commentary to all my colleagues in the Congress and, even more, to all persons interested in understanding the basics of the U.S.-China PNTR debate. I ask unanimous consent that Ambassador Woodcock's Opinion-Editorial be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks.