Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the fact that last week the Senate voted to provide an additional $300 million for medical research in the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. I joined with several of my colleagues in urging that critical funding for cancer research be included in the bill. Included in this account are $175 million for breast cancer research, $75 million for prostate cancer research, and $50 million for other medical research including ovarian cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes and childhood asthma. In recent years, the DOD's Department for Health Affairs has made great strides in innovative medical research. The DOD Breast Cancer Research Program is an excellent example of these advancements. During its six years in existence, the program has grown from a small isolated project to a well-funded, efficient, and effective part of the cancer research community. As was recommended by the Institute of Medicine, the program is overseen by a group of scientists and patient activists, which helps the program keep up with advancements of the scientific community. This structure has fostered a program praised for its innovation, flexibility, and efficiency. Approximately 90 percent of the program's funds are devoted to research grants. The DOD Breast Cancer Research Program grants have encouraged scientific research to extend beyond traditional research. Specifically, Innovative Developmental and Exploratory Awards (IDEA) grants are targeted for innovative research efforts that explore new approaches in areas that offer the greatest potential. The program also incorporates consumer and community needs in its research priorities. By including consumer advocates in decision-making and by bringing clinical trials into the community, the program has integrated the goals of advocates, scientists, and patients. This unique approach has proven successful both in the research the Program has produced and the future research it has inspired. Similar to the Breast Cancer Research Program, the DOD Prostate Cancer Research Program is conducted according to the model established by the Breast Cancer Program. According to the American Cancer Society, approximately 179,300 American men will develop prostate cancer this year, and about 37,000 will die of this disease. Though I am encouraged by the news that the survival rate for this type of cancer has increased from 50% to 85%, we clearly can and must do more. Replicating the much-praised Breast Cancer Program mission and structure, prostate research encourages innovation while creating a partnership between advocates and scientists. Research grants are designed to stimulate innovative research and to bolster the national effort against prostate cancer. As co-chair of the Senate Cancer Coalition, I am very familiar with current cancer research efforts. The DOD cancer research programs are some of the most innovative and effective public-private partnerships that our country has in the battle against cancer. I am confident that commitment to this program will strengthen our nation's cancer research program and help to stop the spread of this dread disease. The additional funding in the DOD appropriation bill is compatible with other progressive funding sources that have been explored in recent years. The Breast Cancer Research Stamp, which I sponsored in the Senate, has raised $6.6 million for breast cancer research. Thirty percent of these funds go to the DOD program. With the work of research programs across the country, we have made some progress in the war on cancer: new cancer cases and deaths in the United States fell between 1990 and 1996; survival time has been extended dramatically for some cancers; we have improved therapies with fewer adverse side effects; and there is increased cancer screening and detection. And yet, sadly, we have a long way to go. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the US, exceeded only by heart disease. The American Cancer Society estimates that over 1.2 million new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed in 1999 and about one half million Americans are expected to die of cancer this year alone. But we must look at these disturbing statistics as an opportunity. What these statistics tell us is that we need to multiply, accelerate, and intensify our war on cancer. The additional $300 million for medical research in the Department of Defense Appropriations bill sends a strong signal that we are committed to combating this destructive disease. The Senate should be proud of sending this powerful message.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking Senator Harry Reid who has worked so hard with me on the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Dick Bryan for cosponsoring this important legislation. This legislation really comes directly out of the Tahoe Summit. I am one that spent her childhood at lake Tahoe, but I had not been back for a number of years. When I went there for the Tahoe Summit in 1997 with the President, I saw things I had never seen before at Lake Tahoe. I saw the penetration of MTBE in the water. I saw the gasoline spread over the water surface. I saw that in fact 30 percent of the South Lake Tahoe water supply has been eliminated by MTBE. I saw 25 percent of the magnificent forest that surrounds the lake dead or dying. I saw land erosion problems on a major level that were bringing all kinds of sediment into the lake and which had effectively cut its clarity by thirty feet since the last time I had visited. And then I learned that the experts believe that in ten years the clouding of the amazing crystal water clarity would be impossible to reverse and in thirty years it would be lost forever. For me, that was a call to action, and today I am proud to introduce the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. This legislation will designate federal lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin as a National Scenic Forest and Recreation area and will authorize $300 million of Federal monies on a matching basis over ten years for environmental restoration projects to preserve the region's water quality and forest health. Lake Tahoe is the crown jewel of the Sierra Nevada and its clear, blue water is simply remarkable. Some people may not know that Lake Tahoe contributes $1.6 billion dollars every year to the economy from tourism alone. However, one in every seven trees in the forest surrounding Emerald Bay is either dead or dying. Insect infestations and drought have killed over 25 percent of the trees in the forests surrounding Lake Tahoe, creating a severe risk of wildfire. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency estimates that restoring the lake and its surrounding forests will cost $900 million dollars over the next ten years. This is not a cursory evaluation but a careful evaluation made by this agency over several years. Local governments and businesses in Lake Tahoe have agreed to raise $300 million locally in the next ten years for this effort. The Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition, a coalition of 18 businesses and environmental groups, including Placer County, El Dorado County, the City of South Lake Tahoe, Douglass County in Nevada and Washoe County in Nevada have all agreed. This is an extraordinary commitment for a region with only 50,000 year round residents. The Governors of California and Nevada have pledged to provide another $300 million, but only if the Federal government will step up and provide $300 million of its own because we must remember that 77 percent of the forest is owned by the Federal Government. President Clinton took an important first step in 1997 when he held an environmental summit at Lake Tahoe and promised $50 million over two years for restoration activities around the lake. These commitments included: $4.5 million to reduce fire risk at the lake; $3.5 million for public transportation; $4 million for acquisition of environmentally sensitive land; $1.3 million dollars to decommission old, unused logging roads that are a major source of sediment into Lake Tahoe; $7.5 million to replace an aging waste water pipeline that threatens to leak sewage into the lake; and $3 million for scientific research. Unfortunately, the President's commitments lasted for only two years, so important areas like land acquisition and road decommissioning were not funded at the levels the President tried to accomplish. So what is needed is a more sustained, long-term effort, and one that will meet the federal government's $300 million dollar responsibility to save the environment at Lake Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act will build upon the President's commitment to Lake Tahoe and authorize full funding for a new environmental restoration program at the lake. The bill designates U.S. Forest Service lands in the Lake Tahoe basin as the Lake Tahoe National Scenic Forest and Recreation Area. This designation, which is unique to Lake Tahoe, is strongly supported by local business, environmental, and community leaders. The designation will recognize Lake Tahoe as a priceless scenic and recreational resource. The legislation explicitly says that nothing in the bill gives the U.S. Forest Service regulatory authority over private or non-federal land. The bill also requires the Forest Service to develop an annual priority list of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $200 million over ten years to the forest service to implement these projects on federal lands. The list must include projects that will improve water quality, forest health, soil conservation, air quality, and fish and wildlife habitat around the lake. In developing the environmental restoration priority list, the Forest Service must rely on the best available science, and consider projects that local governments, businesses, and environmental groups have targeted as top priorities. The Forest Service also must consult with local community leaders. The bill requires the Forest Service to give special attention on its priority list to four key activities: acquisition of environmentally sensitive land from willing sellers, erosion and sediment control, fire risk reduction, and traffic and parking management, including promotion of public transportation. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act also requires that $100 million of the $300 million over ten years be in payments to local governments for erosion control activities on non-federal lands. These payments will help local governments conduct soil conservation and erosion mitigation projects, restore wetlands and stream environmental zones, and plant native vegetation to filter out sediment and debris. I have been working on the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act for over a year, in conjunction with Senator Reid and over a dozen community groups at Lake Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition, a local consensus group of 18 businesses and environmental groups, has worked extremely hard on this bill, and I am grateful for their input and support. Thanks in large part to their work, the bill has strong, bi-partisan support from nearly every major group in the Tahoe Basin. The bill is supported by the League to Save Lake Tahoe, the South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, and the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, to name just a few. Major environmental groups also support the bill, including the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and California League of Conservation Voters. The bottom line is that time is running out for Lake Tahoe. We have ten years to do something major or the water quality deterioration is irreversible. We have a limited period of time, or the 25 percent of the dead and dying trees and the combustible masses that it produced are sure to catch fire, and a major forest fire will result. Mr. President, this crown jewel deserves the attention, and the fact that the federal government owns 77 percent of that troubled area makes the responsibility all so clear. I am hopeful that the United States Senate will move quickly to consider the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in preserving this national treasure for generations to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking Senator Harry Reid who has worked so hard with me on the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Dick Bryan for cosponsoring this important legislation. This legislation really comes directly out of the Tahoe Summit. I am one that spent her childhood at lake Tahoe, but I had not been back for a number of years. When I went there for the Tahoe Summit in 1997 with the President, I saw things I had never seen before at Lake Tahoe. I saw the penetration of MTBE in the water. I saw the gasoline spread over the water surface. I saw that in fact 30 percent of the South Lake Tahoe water supply has been eliminated by MTBE. I saw 25 percent of the magnificent forest that surrounds the lake dead or dying. I saw land erosion problems on a major level that were bringing all kinds of sediment into the lake and which had effectively cut its clarity by thirty feet since the last time I had visited. And then I learned that the experts believe that in ten years the clouding of the amazing crystal water clarity would be impossible to reverse and in thirty years it would be lost forever. For me, that was a call to action, and today I am proud to introduce the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. This legislation will designate federal lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin as a National Scenic Forest and Recreation area and will authorize $300 million of Federal monies on a matching basis over ten years for environmental restoration projects to preserve the region's water quality and forest health. Lake Tahoe is the crown jewel of the Sierra Nevada and its clear, blue water is simply remarkable. Some people may not know that Lake Tahoe contributes $1.6 billion dollars every year to the economy from tourism alone. However, one in every seven trees in the forest surrounding Emerald Bay is either dead or dying. Insect infestations and drought have killed over 25 percent of the trees in the forests surrounding Lake Tahoe, creating a severe risk of wildfire. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency estimates that restoring the lake and its surrounding forests will cost $900 million dollars over the next ten years. This is not a cursory evaluation but a careful evaluation made by this agency over several years. Local governments and businesses in Lake Tahoe have agreed to raise $300 million locally in the next ten years for this effort. The Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition, a coalition of 18 businesses and environmental groups, including Placer County, El Dorado County, the City of South Lake Tahoe, Douglass County in Nevada and Washoe County in Nevada have all agreed. This is an extraordinary commitment for a region with only 50,000 year round residents. The Governors of California and Nevada have pledged to provide another $300 million, but only if the Federal government will step up and provide $300 million of its own because we must remember that 77 percent of the forest is owned by the Federal Government. President Clinton took an important first step in 1997 when he held an environmental summit at Lake Tahoe and promised $50 million over two years for restoration activities around the lake. These commitments included: $4.5 million to reduce fire risk at the lake; $3.5 million for public transportation; $4 million for acquisition of environmentally sensitive land; $1.3 million dollars to decommission old, unused logging roads that are a major source of sediment into Lake Tahoe; $7.5 million to replace an aging waste water pipeline that threatens to leak sewage into the lake; and $3 million for scientific research. Unfortunately, the President's commitments lasted for only two years, so important areas like land acquisition and road decommissioning were not funded at the levels the President tried to accomplish. So what is needed is a more sustained, long-term effort, and one that will meet the federal government's $300 million dollar responsibility to save the environment at Lake Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act will build upon the President's commitment to Lake Tahoe and authorize full funding for a new environmental restoration program at the lake. The bill designates U.S. Forest Service lands in the Lake Tahoe basin as the Lake Tahoe National Scenic Forest and Recreation Area. This designation, which is unique to Lake Tahoe, is strongly supported by local business, environmental, and community leaders. The designation will recognize Lake Tahoe as a priceless scenic and recreational resource. The legislation explicitly says that nothing in the bill gives the U.S. Forest Service regulatory authority over private or non-federal land. The bill also requires the Forest Service to develop an annual priority list of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $200 million over ten years to the forest service to implement these projects on federal lands. The list must include projects that will improve water quality, forest health, soil conservation, air quality, and fish and wildlife habitat around the lake. In developing the environmental restoration priority list, the Forest Service must rely on the best available science, and consider projects that local governments, businesses, and environmental groups have targeted as top priorities. The Forest Service also must consult with local community leaders. The bill requires the Forest Service to give special attention on its priority list to four key activities: acquisition of environmentally sensitive land from willing sellers, erosion and sediment control, fire risk reduction, and traffic and parking management, including promotion of public transportation. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act also requires that $100 million of the $300 million over ten years be in payments to local governments for erosion control activities on non-federal lands. These payments will help local governments conduct soil conservation and erosion mitigation projects, restore wetlands and stream environmental zones, and plant native vegetation to filter out sediment and debris. I have been working on the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act for over a year, in conjunction with Senator Reid and over a dozen community groups at Lake Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality Coalition, a local consensus group of 18 businesses and environmental groups, has worked extremely hard on this bill, and I am grateful for their input and support. Thanks in large part to their work, the bill has strong, bi-partisan support from nearly every major group in the Tahoe Basin. The bill is supported by the League to Save Lake Tahoe, the South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, and the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, to name just a few. Major environmental groups also support the bill, including the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and California League of Conservation Voters. The bottom line is that time is running out for Lake Tahoe. We have ten years to do something major or the water quality deterioration is irreversible. We have a limited period of time, or the 25 percent of the dead and dying trees and the combustible masses that it produced are sure to catch fire, and a major forest fire will result. Mr. President, this crown jewel deserves the attention, and the fact that the federal government owns 77 percent of that troubled area makes the responsibility all so clear. I am hopeful that the United States Senate will move quickly to consider the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in preserving this national treasure for generations to come.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the underlying McCain-Dodd-Wyden-Lieberman-Feinstein bill, because I believe this bill is a once in a millennium, 3-year law. Without it, I believe we could see the destruction or dismemberment of America's cutting-edge lead in technology. We all know that the year 2000 is rapidly approaching and with it there comes a wide variety of possible disruptions relating to the so-called Y2K problem. It is true, though, that no one really knows how big the problem will be or how small it will be, so government organizations, businesses large and small, and private individuals are all scrutinizing the area from their own particular perspective. The area that has received the most attention is concern over a possible flood of lawsuits that could clog courts and distract businesses from solving these problems early in the next millennium. Several well-known consultants and firms, including the Gartner Group, have established that Y2K litigation could quickly reach as high as $1 trillion. So concerned Members of Congress, including Senators McCain, Hatch, Dodd, and others, have been working for many months in an attempt to craft a solution to what has recently been described as this trillion-dollar headache. The genesis of the bill now pending on the floor was a request by literally dozens of companies and more than 80 industry groups-- including the Semiconductor Industry Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Information Technology Association--to develop legislation to prevent frivolous and baseless lawsuits that could jeopardize companies moving to quickly solve Y2K problems. The trick was not at the same time to prevent the suit with merit. I began working on a similar bill with Senator Hatch almost 6 months ago, because I became convinced that the Congress did need to intervene in order to ensure that Y2K problems are quickly and efficiently solved. Now, after several months of negotiating and a combined effort among a number of different Senators, I believe we have reached a fair compromise. This bill is especially important to California where over 20 percent of the Nation's high-tech jobs are located. The problem actually extends even beyond high-tech companies to the lives of employees, stockholders, and customers in a wide range of American businesses. One of the first indications I had of the depth of the concern was when groups of consultants began to come to us saying they refused to become involved in helping companies solve Y2K problems for fear that they would open themselves up to being sued later on. Instead, they would rather just not get involved. One such group was the American Association of Computer Consulting Businesses that represent 400 companies and more than 15,000 consultants. They told me personally that they were going to refuse to enter into any Y2K consulting contract until they had some kind of additional protection. So it became very clear to me that, indeed, we do have a real problem. I believe the underlying bill crafts a real solution. I think it is important to say, and say again and again, that nothing in this bill is permanent. It is simply a 3-year bill, limited to specific cases. The bill applies only to Y2K failures and only to those failures that occur before January 1, 2003. Let me quickly go over the provisions as I see them. The 90-day cooling off period during which time no suit may be filed enables businesses to concentrate on solving Y2K problems rather than on fending off lawsuits. The bill provides for proportionate liability in many cases, so that defendants are punished according to their fault and not according to their deep pockets. I am not an attorney and I have always felt this was the most fair way to go, except in certain situations, and the bill does provide for those certain situations. I would like to go into this in greater detail. The bill also encourages parties to request and use alternative dispute resolution at any time during this 90-day cooling off period. For Y2K class actions, the bill requires, in order to qualify, that a majority of plaintiffs must have suffered some minimal injury. That would avoid cases in which thousands of unknowing plaintiffs are lumped together in an attempt to force a quick settlement. For small businesses, the bill limits punitive damages to $250,000, or three times compensatory damages, so as to deter frivolous suits. It prevents the ``tortification'' of contracts with several provisions that require businesses to live up to their agreements rather than turning to the courts in the hopes of avoiding their responsibilities. These are not the only provisions in the legislation, but these provisions represent the basic premise of a bill that does not seek to prevent the truly injured from recovering damages, but will hopefully prevent the frivolous lawsuit and keep companies from solving problems without delay. There is much that is not in this bill, and there have been many changes made in the bill, certainly since I became involved in it. I would like to just indicate a few of them. All caps on attorney's fees have been removed. Punitive damage caps for large businesses have been eliminated. Punitive damage caps for small businesses have been increased from three times actual damages to three times compensatory damages. All government regulatory or enforcement actions have been exempted from the bill, and three exceptions to the elimination of joint and several liability are provided in order to protect smaller plaintiffs and those who cannot recover from every defendant. The caps on liability for officers and directors have been removed, and the bill has been changed to provide that per suit there is only one 90-day cooling off period. I think the cooling off period is probably very well known and probably very well accepted, so let me dispense with any further explanation on that point. But let's go to one of the more controversial parts, proportionate liability. One of the reasons this bill is important to the affected companies is that it prevents plaintiffs from forcing quick settlements from innocent defendants who should be trying to solve Y2K problems. Additionally, under the system of joint and several liability, a defendant found to be only 20, 10, or even 1 percent at fault can nonetheless be forced to pay 100 percent of the damages. This system, as we all know, encourages plaintiffs to go after deep-pocket defendants first in order to force that quick settlement. It is my basic belief that this is fundamentally unfair, and the bill eliminates joint and several liability in some Y2K cases. Under the new system, for this brief 3-year period, defendants will be responsible only for that portion of damage that can be attributed to them. The bill does have, as I have said, three specific exceptions to the elimination of joint and several liability, and those were taken from the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act recently passed overwhelmingly by the Congress and signed into the law by the President. First, any plaintiff worth less than $200,000 and suffering harm of more than 10 percent of that net worth may recover against all defendants jointly and severally. This exception in the bill protects those plaintiffs with a low net worth but will not unduly injure defendants, because the damages recovered will not be that great. Second, any defendant who acts with an intent to injure or defraud a plaintiff loses the protections under this bill and is again subject to joint and several liability. The bill does not protect those acting with an intent to harm. Finally, the bill provides a compromise for those cases in which defendants are judgment-proof. In cases where a plaintiff cannot recover from certain defendants, the other defendants in the case are each liable for an additional portion of the damages. However, in no case can a defendant be forced to pay more than 150 percent of its level of fault. These proportionate liability provisions offer a more fair and, I truly believe, rational approach to the system of damages in Y2K cases. Without this more balanced system, a few large companies will soon be forced to bear the entire brunt of Y2K litigation regardless of fault, and that is the problem. That is what will destroy the cutting edge of American prominence in this area, and that will result in jobs being lost. Under the system of proportionate liability, this bill holds defendants responsible for the extent of their fault and no more, with the exceptions I have just mentioned. Another area that I think deserves a little bit of clarification is the class action area. Under the class action section of this bill, a year 2000 class action suit cannot proceed unless the defect upon which the action is based is material to a majority of class members. This section is very important. Essentially, this clause prevents the type of ``strike suits'' we saw in the securities litigation area. In the Y2K context, this provision will stop overly aggressive plaintiffs from searching out small defects in computer programs, gathering together thousands of software users who do not even know they have been injured, and trying to force a quick settlement out of the software manufacturer. Once this bill passes, if a class action suit alleges that software does not function properly, the action can proceed only if the alleged defect affects a majority of the class members in some significant way. Trivial defects that would not even be noticed by most class members would not be cause for a class action. Again, plaintiffs with good cause may still proceed, but frivolous suits would be stopped. That is the purpose of the provision and the purpose of the bill. There has been a lot of discussion in this Chamber about punitive damage caps. The Dodd-McCain compromise caps punitive damages, for small businesses only, at the lesser of $250,000 or three times compensatory damages. The idea of capping punitive damages is one of the most controversial issues in this or any other bill dealing with changes to our system of civil justice. In this case, I believe reasonable and carefully drafted caps on punitive damages can deter frivolous suits. Additionally, capping punitive damages reduces the incentive to settle meritless suits because companies will not be at risk for huge, unwarranted verdicts. I recognize that this is a controversial issue and that intelligent, well-meaning people may disagree over whether this is the time or the place to address punitive damages. But I have continually emphasized that this bill is not about punitive damages, and the compromise dramatically limits the punitive damage caps compared to earlier versions. In summary, this $1 trillion litigation headache is approaching. This Congress can provide thoughtful, preventive medicine and some anticipatory pain relief in the form of reasoned, fair, and thoughtful compromise. I think the bill sets forward clear rules to be followed in all Y2K cases. I believe it levels the playing field for all parties who will be involved in these suits. Companies and individuals alike will know the rules and will know what they have to do. Most important, there is an element of stability that can come from this bill which will allow companies to prevent Y2K problems when possible, fix Y2K defects when necessary, and proceed to remediate damages in an orderly and fair manner. It is true that some plaintiffs may have to wait a little bit longer to file a suit for damages, but their rights will not be curtailed and recovery will not be prevented. In fact, the waiting period in the bill will make it far more likely that problems will be solved quickly, allowing potential plaintiffs to get on with the activities that were disrupted by the Y2K problem at issue. This bill has been through a tortuous legislative drafting process with criticisms, suggestions, and changes made from every side and by every sector of our society. I hope we can pass this bill and send it to the President, and let us show the Nation that the Y2K crisis will not cripple our courts, will not disrupt our economy, and will not slow our progress toward a 21st century world. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree. Funding the vessel will be a win, win, win proposition for the military. The Marine Corps will get their third MPF (E) in a timely manner and at minimal cost, the Army could reach an end state with all eight ships for prepositioning being identical, and the new ship would fill a current sealift shortage of 70,000 square feet of RO/RO in surge sealift. The previous LMSRs have been delivered ahead of schedule and under budget. Funding the 20th ship at this time will save taxpayer dollars in the long run, by keeping the production lien open.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their willingness to work with me on this issue. Innovative readiness training

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Marine Corps has an unfunded requirement for one additional sealift ship to complete their Maritime Prepositioning Force Enhancement [MPF (E)] program. In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lieutenant General Martin Steele concluded that ``obtaining a 20th Large, Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off vessel (LMSR) and converting an LMSR to meet all MPF (E) requirements is the best solution to our third ship requirement.'' General Steele also notes that the situation in Kosovo has highlighted the need for the additional ship. In light of these comments, I believe that it is essential that Congress fund the procurement of the 20th LMSR.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help teachers use technology in their teaching, the Teacher Technology Training Act of 1999. This bill has three major provisions: It authorizes $500 million for state education departments to award grants to local public school districts on the basis of need to train teachers in how to use technology in the classroom. It specifies that grants may be used to strengthen instruction and learning, provide professional development, and pay the costs of teacher training in using technology in the classroom. It requires the Secretary of Education to evaluate the technology training programs for teachers developed by school districts within three years. I am introducing this bill because teachers say they need to learn how to use computers and other technology in their teaching. In a 1998 survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, only 20 percent of teachers said they felt ``well prepared'' to integrate educational technology into instruction. Furthermore, the training that does exist for these teachers is inadequate. In the same Department of Education survey, among full- time, public school teachers, 78 percent said they had participated in professional development programs on using educational technology in their instruction, but only 23 percent of those teachers said they felt ``well prepared'' in this area. Of the teachers who report having received some training, 40 percent felt that it had improved their classroom teaching only ``somewhat'' or ``not at all.'' This is unacceptable. What we see now is that in many schools the students know more about how to use computers than the teachers do. In one Kentucky school profiled by Inside Technology Training magazine, the students run the school's computer systems. The article quoted the school district's technology coordinator as saying that the students had ``long surpassed'' what the teachers could do and reported that one student had recently trained twenty teachers on software for Web page construction (``Fast Times at Kentucky High,'' Inside Technology Training, June 1998). I see this problem in my own state. A report by the Los Angeles County Office of Education in 1996 found that in Los Angeles County, nearly half of the teachers had no experience with computers or had only limited familiarity with word processing software. According to a 1998 report by the California Teachers Association, teachers in California rank training in the use of new technology fourth among eighteen changes they believe could most improve public education. Forty-five percent of the teachers surveyed said more technology training would greatly improve conditions for teaching and learning (CTA for the Next Century, 1998). It is crucial that we given students the opportunity to become familiar with technology in their classrooms because post-high school education and most good jobs require experience using computers. U.S. Commerce Secretary William M. Daley has said, ``Opportunities are now dependent upon a person's ability to use computers and engage in using the Internet'' (CQ Weekly, ``Digital Haves and Have Nots,'' April 17, 1999). In my state, a 1997 Rand report found that there is currently a shift in the state's economy away from manufacturing and toward higher- skill service and technology industries, and employers are placing a higher premium on the computer skills necessary for these positions (Immigration in a Changing Economy, Rand, 1997). Students are better educated when their teachers are well trained. We cannot prepare students for the increasingly technological workplace without trained teachers. We have made great efforts to make technology available to students in their classrooms, and now we have a national student to computer ratio of 10 to 1. Seventy-eight percent of our nation's schools have Internet access. These are good first steps. But also essential is having teachers and students use all this technology in their day-to-day classroom activities when it can enhance learning. This will not happen until teachers are trained in how to include technology in their instruciton. One teacher expressed her frustration in an article in the National School Boards Association's Electronic School magazine: Most teachers have no model to show them the advantages of hooking up to the projects available on the Internet. And shrinking school budgets don't provide nearly enough money to train teachers in new or visionary techniques. Meanwhile, we can't escape the magazine and newspaper articles touting the Information Superhighway and heralding new ways of responding to, using, and learning information in our society. Well, who most needs to learn to traverse this road successfully? Society future leaders--and their teachers (Electronic School, ``Going Global,'' February 1995). I agree. Our teachers are not prepared to use technology in their classrooms. Students need to learn to use modern technology and it can help them learn. If we are expecting teachers to use up-to-date methods and tools, we must train them to do so. This bill will provide some of the funds needed to do that. By introducing this bill I am not suggesting that technology is a cure-all for the problems in our schools. Technology is one of many teaching and learning tools. It can bring some efficiencies to learning, for example, providing a new way to do math and spelling drills or keeping students engaged in learning while a teacher works with other students who need extra help. It can also be an important research tool by providing easy access to information that, without a computer, is not easily available. We expect a great deal from our teachers and students. We must give them the resources they need. This bill is one step.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help teachers use technology in their teaching, the Teacher Technology Training Act of 1999. This bill has three major provisions: It authorizes $500 million for state education departments to award grants to local public school districts on the basis of need to train teachers in how to use technology in the classroom. It specifies that grants may be used to strengthen instruction and learning, provide professional development, and pay the costs of teacher training in using technology in the classroom. It requires the Secretary of Education to evaluate the technology training programs for teachers developed by school districts within three years. I am introducing this bill because teachers say they need to learn how to use computers and other technology in their teaching. In a 1998 survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, only 20 percent of teachers said they felt ``well prepared'' to integrate educational technology into instruction. Furthermore, the training that does exist for these teachers is inadequate. In the same Department of Education survey, among full- time, public school teachers, 78 percent said they had participated in professional development programs on using educational technology in their instruction, but only 23 percent of those teachers said they felt ``well prepared'' in this area. Of the teachers who report having received some training, 40 percent felt that it had improved their classroom teaching only ``somewhat'' or ``not at all.'' This is unacceptable. What we see now is that in many schools the students know more about how to use computers than the teachers do. In one Kentucky school profiled by Inside Technology Training magazine, the students run the school's computer systems. The article quoted the school district's technology coordinator as saying that the students had ``long surpassed'' what the teachers could do and reported that one student had recently trained twenty teachers on software for Web page construction (``Fast Times at Kentucky High,'' Inside Technology Training, June 1998). I see this problem in my own state. A report by the Los Angeles County Office of Education in 1996 found that in Los Angeles County, nearly half of the teachers had no experience with computers or had only limited familiarity with word processing software. According to a 1998 report by the California Teachers Association, teachers in California rank training in the use of new technology fourth among eighteen changes they believe could most improve public education. Forty-five percent of the teachers surveyed said more technology training would greatly improve conditions for teaching and learning (CTA for the Next Century, 1998). It is crucial that we given students the opportunity to become familiar with technology in their classrooms because post-high school education and most good jobs require experience using computers. U.S. Commerce Secretary William M. Daley has said, ``Opportunities are now dependent upon a person's ability to use computers and engage in using the Internet'' (CQ Weekly, ``Digital Haves and Have Nots,'' April 17, 1999). In my state, a 1997 Rand report found that there is currently a shift in the state's economy away from manufacturing and toward higher- skill service and technology industries, and employers are placing a higher premium on the computer skills necessary for these positions (Immigration in a Changing Economy, Rand, 1997). Students are better educated when their teachers are well trained. We cannot prepare students for the increasingly technological workplace without trained teachers. We have made great efforts to make technology available to students in their classrooms, and now we have a national student to computer ratio of 10 to 1. Seventy-eight percent of our nation's schools have Internet access. These are good first steps. But also essential is having teachers and students use all this technology in their day-to-day classroom activities when it can enhance learning. This will not happen until teachers are trained in how to include technology in their instruciton. One teacher expressed her frustration in an article in the National School Boards Association's Electronic School magazine: Most teachers have no model to show them the advantages of hooking up to the projects available on the Internet. And shrinking school budgets don't provide nearly enough money to train teachers in new or visionary techniques. Meanwhile, we can't escape the magazine and newspaper articles touting the Information Superhighway and heralding new ways of responding to, using, and learning information in our society. Well, who most needs to learn to traverse this road successfully? Society future leaders--and their teachers (Electronic School, ``Going Global,'' February 1995). I agree. Our teachers are not prepared to use technology in their classrooms. Students need to learn to use modern technology and it can help them learn. If we are expecting teachers to use up-to-date methods and tools, we must train them to do so. This bill will provide some of the funds needed to do that. By introducing this bill I am not suggesting that technology is a cure-all for the problems in our schools. Technology is one of many teaching and learning tools. It can bring some efficiencies to learning, for example, providing a new way to do math and spelling drills or keeping students engaged in learning while a teacher works with other students who need extra help. It can also be an important research tool by providing easy access to information that, without a computer, is not easily available. We expect a great deal from our teachers and students. We must give them the resources they need. This bill is one step.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor with Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Pete Domenici and Connie Mack a resolution commending the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the Komen National Race for the Cure for their commitment to eradicating breast cancer. June 5 will be the Komen National Race for the Cure Day and this resolution urges the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the American people to observe the day with appropriate activities. Washington, D.C., will host the Race and there will be 98 races across the country will over 700,000 people participating. There are 2.6 million women in this country living with breast cancer and more than 178,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Over 43,000 will die. Diagnostic tools for breast cancer are very limited. Treatments for breast cancer are at best imperfect. We don't know how to prevent it. We don't know how to cure it. We need to redouble our effort to stop breast cancer now. Congress is taking some steps. During the FY 2000 appropriations process, I hope we can increase researching funding for all cancers. We must pass legislation, such as S. 784 which I have sponsored, to require Medicare coverage of routine costs of clinical research trials and S. 6, to require private insurance coverage of the routine costs of clinical research trials. We should enact legislation assuring access to specialists and coverage of second opinions. We should pass Medicaid coverage for women who are screened by CDC's breast and cervical cancer program but have no way to pay for treatment when they learn they have cancer. I call on my colleagues to join us in supporting the 10th anniversary Race by supporting this resolution and sending it to the President. As new understandings of cancer emerge almost weekly, we must do all we can to support increased research and access to services to end this scourge.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague from Iowa, to introduce the Tax Relief for Working Americans Act--what I consider to be a ``fair share'' tax plan. This bill, while protecting our Social Security and Medicare needs, will also allow all Americans to benefit from our economic prosperity. The American people are responsible for the more than $4 trillion in budget surpluses over the next 15 years, so it makes sense to give them some needed and deserved tax relief. The Tax Relief for Working Americans Act is a sensible and moderate bill that provides needed tax relief for working families. It does so, moreover, in a fiscally responsible manner which protects Social Security and Medicare. This tax plan is estimated to provide tax relief of $271 billion over ten years, fitting within the budget framework set out by the President to protect Social Security and Medicare. The legislation will provide relief to 21 million working couples who incur the marriage penalty by increasing the standard deduction to put them on equal footing with unmarried couples. A married couple in the 28% bracket, for example, will save $392. It includes tax incentives for the over 30 million Americans who purchase their own health insurance or who pay more than 50% of their employer provided health care insurance. This means a family that earns $60,000 and pays $4,000 a year for health insurance will receive a tax credit of $2,400. And it will raise the Social Security Earnings test to $30,000, so that the 1.1 million seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 who earn more than $15,500 would be able to keep more of their hard earned dollars. For a 67 year old secretary who earns $30,000 a year this would mean she will save nearly $5,000. Under this legislation, millions of Americans who struggle to afford decent child care, will receive increased benefits from the Dependent Care Tax Credit. The credit will increase from 30% to 50% by 2004 and millions more will qualify for the maximum credit. When fully in effect, a family which earns $30,000 and spends $5,000 a year on child care for their two children will receive a $2,400 tax credit which should eliminate any federal tax liability. This legislation will also help to expand our economy by making permanent the Research and Development tax credit. Research and development is the backbone of our new technology driven economy. It is creating millions of high wage, high skilled jobs. The R&D credit has been extended 9 times since 1981, but it has been allowed to expire 4 times during that period. Now is the time to make it permanent. There are also other important provisions in this legislation to promote long-term care, create more affordable housing, make education more affordable, and to help our farmers. I believe that this tax plan is one which can, and will, receive broad bipartisan support. It is a tax plan which Congress can pass and the President can sign. I urge my colleagues to work with the Senator from Iowa and myself, and to pass the Tax Relief for Working Americans Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague from Iowa, to introduce the Tax Relief for Working Americans Act--what I consider to be a ``fair share'' tax plan. This bill, while protecting our Social Security and Medicare needs, will also allow all Americans to benefit from our economic prosperity. The American people are responsible for the more than $4 trillion in budget surpluses over the next 15 years, so it makes sense to give them some needed and deserved tax relief. The Tax Relief for Working Americans Act is a sensible and moderate bill that provides needed tax relief for working families. It does so, moreover, in a fiscally responsible manner which protects Social Security and Medicare. This tax plan is estimated to provide tax relief of $271 billion over ten years, fitting within the budget framework set out by the President to protect Social Security and Medicare. The legislation will provide relief to 21 million working couples who incur the marriage penalty by increasing the standard deduction to put them on equal footing with unmarried couples. A married couple in the 28% bracket, for example, will save $392. It includes tax incentives for the over 30 million Americans who purchase their own health insurance or who pay more than 50% of their employer provided health care insurance. This means a family that earns $60,000 and pays $4,000 a year for health insurance will receive a tax credit of $2,400. And it will raise the Social Security Earnings test to $30,000, so that the 1.1 million seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 who earn more than $15,500 would be able to keep more of their hard earned dollars. For a 67 year old secretary who earns $30,000 a year this would mean she will save nearly $5,000. Under this legislation, millions of Americans who struggle to afford decent child care, will receive increased benefits from the Dependent Care Tax Credit. The credit will increase from 30% to 50% by 2004 and millions more will qualify for the maximum credit. When fully in effect, a family which earns $30,000 and spends $5,000 a year on child care for their two children will receive a $2,400 tax credit which should eliminate any federal tax liability. This legislation will also help to expand our economy by making permanent the Research and Development tax credit. Research and development is the backbone of our new technology driven economy. It is creating millions of high wage, high skilled jobs. The R&D credit has been extended 9 times since 1981, but it has been allowed to expire 4 times during that period. Now is the time to make it permanent. There are also other important provisions in this legislation to promote long-term care, create more affordable housing, make education more affordable, and to help our farmers. I believe that this tax plan is one which can, and will, receive broad bipartisan support. It is a tax plan which Congress can pass and the President can sign. I urge my colleagues to work with the Senator from Iowa and myself, and to pass the Tax Relief for Working Americans Act.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill regarding Russian nonproliferation and U.S.-Russian cooperation on commercial space launch service. This amendment is very simple: It states that a sustained Russian commitment to cooperation with the United States in preventing the proliferation of ballistic missile technology to Iran can provide the basis for an increase in the current quota limit on commercial space launches. Lifting the launch quota is an important incentive for Russia to cooperate with the U.S. on this issue. This amendment also demands continued Russian cooperation on non- proliferation, and calls on the United States to take every appropriate measure to encourage the Russian government to seek out and prevent the illegal transfer of fissile material or missile equipment or any other technology necessary for the acquisition or development of nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles. I offer this amendment because I believe that there may be no greater long term threat to peace and stability in the Middle East than an Iran actively seeking ballistic missile and nuclear weapons. Preventing the transfer of illegal nuclear and missile technology from Russia to Iran must be at the top of the U.S. policy agenda. There have been numerous reports over the past several years of Russian missile technology reaching Iran, sometimes with a semi- official wink from government authorities in Moscow, sometimes by rogue operators. Either way, the Russian Government must put a stop to these transfers. As much as we want good relations with Russia, cooperation in this area is crucial. In some ways, I believe it is a litmus test of what sort of player Russia wants to be in the post-cold war international system. There is ample reason for concern. According to a Congressional Research Service report: Despite pledges by Soviet leaders in 1990 and by various Russian leaders since then to ban missile exports, President Yeltsin's 1994 agreement to refrain from new arms sales to Iran, and Russia's entry into the Missile Technology Control Regime in October 1995, there are recurring reports that Russian companies are selling missile technology to Iran and other countries. On February 6, 1997, Vice President Gore issued a diplomatic warning to then-Premier Chernomyrdin regarding Russian transfers to Iran of parts and technology associated with SS-4 medium-range ballistic missiles. Over the next several months, press reports indicated that Russian enterprises provided Iran specialty steels and alloys, tungsten coated graphite, wind tunnel facilities, gyroscopes and other guidance technology, rocket engine and fuel technology, laser equipment, machine tools, and maintenance manuals. Russian assistance has apparently helped Iran overcome a number of obstacles and advance its missile development program faster than expected. The Rumsfeld Commission said, ``The ballistic missile infrastructure in Iran is now more sophisticated than that of North Korea and has benefitted from broad, essential assistance from Russia. * * *'' In February 1998, the Washington Times reported that Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB, a successor to the KGB) was still working with Iran's intelligence service to pass technology through a joint research center, Persepolis, with facilities in St. Petersburg and Tehran. In March 1998, the State Department listed (but did not make public) 20 Russian entities suspected of transferring missile technology to Iran. Lastly, there are still unanswered questions about Russian-Iranian nuclear cooperation raised by the January, 1995 contract signed by the Russian nuclear agency MINATOM to finish one unit of the Bushehr nuclear power project. Although the Bushehr plant itself is not considered a source of weapons material, the project is viewed as a proliferation risk because it entails massive involvement of Iranian personnel in nuclear technology, and extensive training and technological support from Russian nuclear experts. Last year, the American Jewish Committee released a report, ``The Russian Connection: Russia, Iran, and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction'' which provides an excellent overview of Russia's record in this area, as well as U.S.-Russian cooperation. In addition to the troubling questions raised by some of Russia's past actions, however, there are also indications that the Russian government is making efforts to control the proliferation of missile and nuclear technology to Iran. Although initially Moscow denied that its missiles or missile technology had been transferred to Iran, in September 1997, Russian officials reportedly stated that such transfers were being made without the consent of the government. In January 1998, in response to concerns raised by numerous U.S. officials, Yuri Koptev, head of the Russian space agency, said of 13 cases raised by the U.S. Government, 11 had no connection to technology transfers related to weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, or chemical) that were banned under a 1996 agreement. On July 15, 1998, Russian authorities announced that nine Russian entities were being investigated for suspected violation of laws governing export of dual-use technologies. The nine include the Inor NPO, Polyus Research Institute, and Baltic State Technical University cited earlier, plus the Grafit Research Institute, Tikhomirov Institute, the MOSO Company, the Komintern plant (Novosibirsk), Europalace 2000, and Glavcosmos. Also last year, Russia announced the cancellation of a 1997 contract between a Russian entity, NPO Trud, and Iran in which rocket engine components were to have been shipped under the guise of gas pipeline compressors. According to an April 15 letter I received from the Vice President, which I would like to submit for the Record, U.S. Special Ambassador Gallucci and Mr. Koptev have agreed to a work plan that addresses many of the concerns the U.S. has about missile proliferation, including the establishment of internal compliance offices at several of the entities of concern. U.S. experts have also developed a work plan with the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy on measures to sever the links between NIKIET, a leading Russian nuclear institute, and Iran, according to the Vice President. I believe that we should try to build on Russia's record of cooperation, and that the best and most effective way to work with Russia on this issue is to offer them a carrot--lifting the launch quota--as an inducement to continued cooperation on this vital matter. The current quota on commercial space launches is set at sixteen. Pending Russian cooperation, I believe that this quota can be raised to 20 and, if Russia continues to cooperate, incrementally raised again in the coming years. Each launch provides Russia with approximately $100 million in hard currency--a good incentive to cooperate. This amendment also states, however, that the United States must continue to demand full and complete cooperation from Russia on this issue, and that the United States should take every appropriate measure to assure that the government of Russia continues to cooperate on this issue. Russia must understand that just as we are willing to offer inducements to cooperate, there will also be a price to be paid for non-cooperation on this critical issue. This amendment, I believe, is rather simple and straightforward in its make-up. But it is also essential and far reaching in its impact. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent the letter I received dated April 15, 1999, from the Vice President be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Senators McCain and Levin authorizing a new round of base closures. As the senior Senator from the state that has suffered the greatest impact from the previous rounds, I believe that the base closure process is deeply flawed and fundamentally unfair. The first four rounds of base closure occurred too rapidly and too little effort was made to protect local communities from devastating lob loss and economic hardship. For those who say that adverse local impact is a necessary consequence of reducing military infrastructure, I would like to describe how this process has effected California where since the first BRAC round in 1988, 29 bases in California have been scheduled for closure or realignment. Some claim that the process has been streamlined and every effort has been made to expedite the transfer of bases to the local community. I have also heard claims that base closure can be a boon to the community by bringing new opportunities for job creation and economic development. Now let's look at the facts. The California Trade and Commerce Agency estimates that the four rounds of BRAC cost 97,337 military and civilian jobs. How many have been created? Less than 17,000. That is a net job loss of more than 80,000 jobs. The reason we are not seeing job creation or economic growth is because the land is simply not being transferred to the local communities as was originally planned. The process is so slow and bureaucratic that years go by before any development can be done on the closed bases. Again, the numbers prove this. The 29 closed bases represents 77,269 acres of land. The Federal Government has retained almost 25,000 for itself and 30,000 acres have yet to be transferred. That means that local communities have had access to less than 30 percent of the property that should have been made available to them. It is difficult to create jobs or stimulate economic growth without the land to do it. That is the big picture of how the State of California has been impacted by the base closure process. Here is the impact at the local level. Every member of this body who has had a major base close in his or her state can tell a base closure horror story, but I believe the magnitude of the loss that the city of Long Beach has faced makes it unique. In fact, if Long Beach were a state, it would rank in the top five in terms of the number of jobs lost due to base closure. The Long Beach Naval Station was closed as part of BRAC 1991. This resulted in the loss of more than 8,500 military and civilian jobs. The direct loss of wage and contract was $400 million with an estimated economic loss of another $1 billion annually. As the city struggled to deal with this devastating blow, the federal government dealt it another. In 1995, the Long Beach Naval Shipyard was scheduled for closure. The job loss from this action has been more than 4,000 and it has caused another $1 billion in total economic loss. The city's woes continued during negotiations with the Navy on the terms of the conveyance of the Naval Hospital. In 1964, the city had sold the property to the Navy for $10. Long Beach had a growing naval community and the Navy had, in large part, been a good neighbor. In recent years, that has proven not to be the case. The Navy demanded $8.5 million for the property. The same piece of property that the city gave to them for $10. In an effort to get the conveyance process moving, the city reluctantly agreed to the price. Now, at a time when the Clinton administration is proposing that all current and future economic development conveyances be done at no cost, the Department of Defense has thus far refused to renegotiate the deal. It appears that the Pentagon, with a budget in excess of $250 billion, has a greater need for the $8.5 million than Long Beach with a budget of just $330 million. This is only one example of the multitude of problems with base closure. It is an inefficient, bureaucratic, and ineffective process. I believe this is the wrong time to authorize a new round of closure. All we would be doing is following one flawed procedure with another. As California's example shows, local communities have not been given the opportunity to recover from the four previous rounds. Delays caused by lack of funding and red tape have prevented the completion of land transfers and the beginning of reuse. I believe it is essential that we allow enough time for the base closures of the 1990's to run their course before we deal them the challenges of the 21st century closures. If nothing else, we owe that to our local governments. I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation sponsored by Senator Schumer to phase out the antiquated sugar subsidy. The sugar program is nothing than a system of import restrictions, subsidized loans, and price supports that benefit a limited number of sugar growers. I find it incredible that the federal government continues to support a subsidy program that is driving the domestic refinery industry out of existence and costing thousands of good jobs. The US Department of Agriculture restricts the amount of sugar available to domestic refineries. Without sugar, a sugar refinery cannot operate and that is the result of this misguided program. It is clear that the U.S. sugar policy has served to strangle this country's sugar refining industry. By limiting the amount of raw cane sugar available for production, there has been a 40 percent decline in jobs in the sugar-cane refining industry. Since 1982, nine out of twenty one cane sugar refineries in the U.S. have been forced out of business. Those that have remained open are struggling to survive under onerous import restrictions. I first became involved with this issue in 1994 when David Koncelik, the President and CEO of the California and Hawaiian Sugar Company, informed me that his refinery was forced to temporarily cease operations because it had no sugar. This 93 year old refinery is the Nation's largest refinery and the only such facility on the West Coast. C&H refines about 15 percent of the total cane sugar consumed in the U.S. C&H is capable of producing and selling 700,000 tons of refined sugar annually. Therefore, the company requires in excess of 700,000 tons of raw cane sugar to meet its sales demand. Hawaii is C&H's sole source for its domestic raw cane sugar needs, but Hawaii's cane sugar industry has been in decline for over 10 years. This has meant that C&H is forced to cover over half its annual consumption through imports from other countries. The highly restrictive sugar import system forces C&H to pay an inflated price for raw sugar from both domestic and foreign suppliers. Even more devastating, however, the quota system limits the amount of sugar available to the refinery. Simply put, C&H has been unable to get enough sugar to refine and it has been forced to close it doors on several occasions. The reduced production capacity has resulted in a severe downsizing of the workforce. As recently as 1987, C&H employed over 1,400 people. These are not minimum wage jobs we are talking about: the average employee in the cane refining industry earns nearly $43,000 a year. In 1995, C&H had to eliminate 30 percent of its workforce just to remain viable under the quota system mandated by the sugar program. C&H now employees just over 500 people. These jobs and many others around the nation are at risk if reforms are not made to the sugar program. The overly restrictive manner that the USDA administers the sugar program has a number of other flaws. The sugar program's existing quota system was put in place in 1982, using trading patterns dating as far back as 1975. The system has remained largely unchanged over the past 17 years despite major alterations in the international sugar market. As a result, the current import quota system assigns export rights to countries that don't grow enough sugar to export or, in some cases, are net importers themselves. For example, the Philippines are granted one of the largest export privileges under the sugar import quota system. It, however, does not even grow enough sugar to meet it own domestics needs. What this means is that the Philippines sell their homegrown sugar crop to the United States at about 22 cents a pound. It then buys raw sugar on the world market at around 5 cents a pound. This is ridiculous. We are in effect giving money to foreign countries and forcing domestic consumers to pay the price. Beginning in September of 1994, I have asked the Administration on eight separate occasions to reform the sugar program. Simply increasing the amount of sugar available through the import program would provide immediate relief to C&H and the other domestic refineries. To date, no such permanent reform of the program has been made. In addition to choking off the refineries' access to sugar, the US sugar policy also has an adverse impact on US consumers. The General Accounting Office has found that the program costs sugar users an average of $1.4 billion annually. That equates to $3.8 million a day in hidden sugar taxes. The report found that ``Although the sugar program is considered a no-net-cost program because the government does not make payments directly to producers, it places the cost of the price supports on sweetener users--consumers and manufacturers of sweetener-containing products--who pay higher sugar and sweetener prices.'' What this means is that unlike traditional subsidy programs, the funds do not come directly from the Treasury. Instead, the sugar program places the cost consumers by restricting the supply of available sugar which causes higher domestic market prices. The legislation we are introducing will eliminate the sugar subsidy program by 2002. This is a simple, straight-forward, and fair way to end a program that has not worked for U.S. consumers or workers. Congress has had opportunities in the past to kill this program and we have not taken them. As a result, workers have lost jobs and consumers have lost money. I am pleased to join my colleagues in saying that enough is enough. It is time to end the sugar subsidy program once and for all.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation sponsored by Senator Schumer to phase out the antiquated sugar subsidy. The sugar program is nothing than a system of import restrictions, subsidized loans, and price supports that benefit a limited number of sugar growers. I find it incredible that the federal government continues to support a subsidy program that is driving the domestic refinery industry out of existence and costing thousands of good jobs. The US Department of Agriculture restricts the amount of sugar available to domestic refineries. Without sugar, a sugar refinery cannot operate and that is the result of this misguided program. It is clear that the U.S. sugar policy has served to strangle this country's sugar refining industry. By limiting the amount of raw cane sugar available for production, there has been a 40 percent decline in jobs in the sugar-cane refining industry. Since 1982, nine out of twenty one cane sugar refineries in the U.S. have been forced out of business. Those that have remained open are struggling to survive under onerous import restrictions. I first became involved with this issue in 1994 when David Koncelik, the President and CEO of the California and Hawaiian Sugar Company, informed me that his refinery was forced to temporarily cease operations because it had no sugar. This 93 year old refinery is the Nation's largest refinery and the only such facility on the West Coast. C&H refines about 15 percent of the total cane sugar consumed in the U.S. C&H is capable of producing and selling 700,000 tons of refined sugar annually. Therefore, the company requires in excess of 700,000 tons of raw cane sugar to meet its sales demand. Hawaii is C&H's sole source for its domestic raw cane sugar needs, but Hawaii's cane sugar industry has been in decline for over 10 years. This has meant that C&H is forced to cover over half its annual consumption through imports from other countries. The highly restrictive sugar import system forces C&H to pay an inflated price for raw sugar from both domestic and foreign suppliers. Even more devastating, however, the quota system limits the amount of sugar available to the refinery. Simply put, C&H has been unable to get enough sugar to refine and it has been forced to close it doors on several occasions. The reduced production capacity has resulted in a severe downsizing of the workforce. As recently as 1987, C&H employed over 1,400 people. These are not minimum wage jobs we are talking about: the average employee in the cane refining industry earns nearly $43,000 a year. In 1995, C&H had to eliminate 30 percent of its workforce just to remain viable under the quota system mandated by the sugar program. C&H now employees just over 500 people. These jobs and many others around the nation are at risk if reforms are not made to the sugar program. The overly restrictive manner that the USDA administers the sugar program has a number of other flaws. The sugar program's existing quota system was put in place in 1982, using trading patterns dating as far back as 1975. The system has remained largely unchanged over the past 17 years despite major alterations in the international sugar market. As a result, the current import quota system assigns export rights to countries that don't grow enough sugar to export or, in some cases, are net importers themselves. For example, the Philippines are granted one of the largest export privileges under the sugar import quota system. It, however, does not even grow enough sugar to meet it own domestics needs. What this means is that the Philippines sell their homegrown sugar crop to the United States at about 22 cents a pound. It then buys raw sugar on the world market at around 5 cents a pound. This is ridiculous. We are in effect giving money to foreign countries and forcing domestic consumers to pay the price. Beginning in September of 1994, I have asked the Administration on eight separate occasions to reform the sugar program. Simply increasing the amount of sugar available through the import program would provide immediate relief to C&H and the other domestic refineries. To date, no such permanent reform of the program has been made. In addition to choking off the refineries' access to sugar, the US sugar policy also has an adverse impact on US consumers. The General Accounting Office has found that the program costs sugar users an average of $1.4 billion annually. That equates to $3.8 million a day in hidden sugar taxes. The report found that ``Although the sugar program is considered a no-net-cost program because the government does not make payments directly to producers, it places the cost of the price supports on sweetener users--consumers and manufacturers of sweetener-containing products--who pay higher sugar and sweetener prices.'' What this means is that unlike traditional subsidy programs, the funds do not come directly from the Treasury. Instead, the sugar program places the cost consumers by restricting the supply of available sugar which causes higher domestic market prices. The legislation we are introducing will eliminate the sugar subsidy program by 2002. This is a simple, straight-forward, and fair way to end a program that has not worked for U.S. consumers or workers. Congress has had opportunities in the past to kill this program and we have not taken them. As a result, workers have lost jobs and consumers have lost money. I am pleased to join my colleagues in saying that enough is enough. It is time to end the sugar subsidy program once and for all.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to cosponsor the amendment offered by my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Louisiana expressing the sense of Congress regarding the need for vigorous prosecution of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. This amendment expresses the Sense of Congress that: The United States should provide sufficient resources for an expeditious investigation of the allegations of war crimes committed in Kosovo; The United States should provide all possible cooperation to the Tribunal in the gathering of evidence; Where evidence warrants, indictments should be issued for war crimes and that the United States and all nations have an obligation to honor arrest warrants; and, NATO should not accept a settlement in Kosovo that would bar the indictment, apprehension, or prosecution of war criminals. During the past two months, Kosovo has witnessed carnage and bloodshed unseen in Europe for almost fifty years. These events are the culmination of a decade-long campaign of terror and bloodshed in the Balkans engineered by Mr. Milosevic. Over 1.2 million Kosovar Albanians are now displaced, having been forced to flee their homes. Over 700,000 Kosovars are now refugees, most in Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Others have been forced to hide in the forests and mountains. The United States now has hard evidence that war crimes have been committed. A report issued by the State Department earlier this month entitled ``Erasing History: Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo'' argued that: ``At this writing, the forces of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic continue to burn, loot, rape, shell, and de-populate Kosovo, and thousands of refugees continue to flee into neighboring Albania and Macedonia. The refugees coming out of Kosovo are only now beginning to tell their stories. Yet even these fragmented accounts portray a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing.'' This report alleges that: Serbian forces have made Pristina, the capital of Kosovo, a ghost town. Serbian military, police, and paramilitary forces expelled between 100,000 to 120,000 persons from Pristina in only four days. Kosovars in Macedonia indicate that only 100 ethnic Albanians remain in Pristina. Serbian forces are stealing and ``confiscating'' furniture from abandoned homes. In Pec, Serbian forces herded young Albanian women to the Hotel Karagac [Kara-jack], and raped them repeatedly. The commander of the local base used a roster of soldiers' names to allow his troops to visit the hotel on a rotating basis. Violence in western Kosovo is stronger than in any other region of the province. Pec was emptied of ethnic Albanians in 24 hours. In Djakovica's [Jack-o-vika] old city, Serbian forces burned 200 to 600 homes the day after NATO airstrikes began. By the next day, the rest of the old city had been torched. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees stated that the Djakovica region, and I quote, ``undoubtedly has been one of the most violent and cruel in the whole of Kosovo, turning it at times into a virtual killing field.'' In fact, the bulk of these crimes are being committed by the Serb paramilitary units, such as the ``White Eagles'' and ``Tigers'' under the direct control of the Ministry of the Interior, and, in turn, accountable to Mr. Milosevic. Indeed, the campaign waged by Mr. Milosevic in Kosovo is a virtual catalog of systematic crimes which I believe merit investigation by the International War Crimes Tribunal. The crimes, to summarize, are: Forced expulsions: Over one million people have been forced from their homes; Looting and Burning: Some 500 residential areas have been burned since late March, including over 300 villages burned since April 4; Detentions: Consistent refugee reports that Serbian forces are separating military-aged men from their families in a systematic pattern. Some analysts estimate that the total number of missing men is as high as 100,000. Their fate is unknown; Summary Execution: Refugees have provided accounts of summary executions in at least 70 towns and villages throughout Kosovo; Rape: Ethnic Albanian women are reportedly being raped in increasing numbers. Refugee accounts indicate systematic and organized mass rapes in Djakovica and Pec; Identity Cleansing: Refugees report that Serbian authorities have confiscated passports and other identity papers, systematically destroyed voter registers and other aspects of Kosovo's civil registry, and even removed license plates from departing vehicles as part of a policy to prevent returns to Kosovo. The civilized world must send a strong and unambiguous message that ethnic cleansing, genocide, and mass rape are not acceptable, and will not be tolerated. I will never forget, about 4 years ago, I picked up a copy of the New York Times and opened it. There was a rather large picture of a young girl about 15 years old. She had sort of a Dutch cut, bangs hanging over her forehead. She had on a school uniform. But there was something very wrong with the picture: She was hanging from a tree. Dead in Srebrenica. And then it came out that there was a major massacre of thousands of people in that supposedly protected enclave by the Serbian military. And to this day, 5,000 to 7,000 Muslim men and boys are simply missing. A few have been found in mass graves, but the most still remain missing. This crime, too, was committed by those who followed Mr. Milosevic's orders. I would say that when any nation on earth permits their military police to wear hoods and cover their face while they are carrying out their official duties, then you know that what they are doing is not legal. And there can be little doubt that those who conduct these activities in Kosovo--be they in the Yugoslav military or in paramilitary outfits such as the ``White Eagles'' or the ``Tigers'' --that they are acting on orders which come from Mr. Milosevic. And now there are reports that Yugoslav authorities have begun to dig up the mass graves in Kosovo in an effort to destroy evidence that could be used against them in war crimes trials. Try as they might to hide their crimes, the world now knows what has happened in Kosovo. The regime of Mr. Milosevic has been waging war on the people of the Balkans for close to ten years now. The international community must stand up to this, or we will set the stage for further bloodshed and tragedy in Asia, in Africa, and elsewhere in Europe. Mr. Milosevic must be held accountable for the orders which he has given, and the crimes which he has ordered committed. I urge my colleagues to join me and the distinguished Senators from Pennsylvania and Louisiana and support this amendment. It sends a clear message to Mr. Milosevic and others who commit crimes against humanity: You will be held accountable, and you will be brought to justice.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I designate myself to control approximately 10 minutes of time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few moments today about a bill that many Senators, some 70 of us, believe will improve the lives of millions of disabled Americans. The Work Incentives Improvement Act would allow disabled adults to enter the workforce without placing their Medicaid or Medicare benefits at risk. I particularly thank Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Moynihan, and Roth for their outstanding leadership in crafting this legislation. I am very proud to be a cosponsor. Today, more than 8 million working-age adults receive disability payments from the Federal Government for conditions that range from paralysis to multiple sclerosis. A recent Harris poll showed that 72 percent of these disabled people would really like to work, but disabled Americans face a terrible Catch-22. The Federal Medicaid program won't cover people who continue to work and remain disabled. So if a disabled adult earns more than $500 a month, he or she loses their Medicaid. That is the rub. The eligibility criteria for Medicaid benefits have had a devastating effect on disabled Americans. The Medicaid program equates having a disability with being poor and unable to work, furthering inaccurate stereotypes about disability. To make things worse, the Medicaid program ensures that disabled people who do work end up having to shoulder the cost of their care by themselves. For all but the best-off disabled Americans, these costs are prohibitive. People with serious medical conditions can't pay the out- of-pocket costs of their medical treatment. These costs can run into the tens of thousands of dollars each year. In other words, if a disabled American does have a job, the minute that disabled American earns more than $500 a month, they fall off a cliff and they lose their Medicaid or their Medicare. So millions of disabled Americans remain dependent on cash assistance from the Federal Government simply because they can't work and keep Medicaid at the same time. Last year, I wrote to President Clinton urging a remedy to the situation. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Work Incentives Improvement Act. This bill allows Americans with disabilities to enter the workforce without losing their health coverage under Medicaid or Medicare. Even if disabled people are working in full-time jobs with health benefits, they will be able to buy their Medicaid coverage for medical expenses that their regular insurance does not cover. In addition, the Work Incentives Improvement Act sets up a new system called Ticket to Work, to provide better job training and placement services for the disabled. The Work Incentives Improvement Act will enable disabled Americans to pursue self-sufficiency, to achieve independence, and to contribute in meaningful ways to our economy. It is certainly an idea whose time has come. That is why over 70 Senators have signed on as cosponsors. Unfortunately, the Senate has not had the chance to vote on this important legislation. The reason I am on the floor today, as well as others who I hope will be coming to the floor, is to urge Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to bring the Work Incentives Improvement Act to the Senate floor for a vote soon. No one should have to choose between a job and their health. By preserving Federal health benefits for disabled workers, we can avoid the Catch-22 and, most importantly, we can help the disabled to live full and healthy lives. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished ranking member. I appreciate his comments about my State. I also compliment both the ranking member and the chairman of the committee for their drive, for their motivation, and for their staying power to get this conference report done. Mr. President, the room was crowded. The hours were long. The views were sometimes cantankerous. But both the chairman and the ranking member, I think, were steadfast in the desire to produce a conference report which could, in fact, be approved by both bodies. I also pay tribute to the chairman from the House, Mr. Young. I had never seen him preside before. What I observed, which I think is well worth noting, was his fairness, his equanimity, and really his ability to move the process along which, without rankling, can be a very diverse membership. I say the same for Mr. Obey, who really was steadfast in pursuing his own views. I support this report. It contains the $12 billion for Kosovo. I am especially pleased to note that the supplemental contains funding for the documentation of war crimes, including rapes that appear to have been committed as part of Serbia's brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing. As the ranking member and the chairman have pointed out, it contains the much-needed disaster assistance and the $574 million in agricultural funding to provide a measure of assistance to very hard- pressed farmers throughout this great country. I do want to speak about one small item. As we debate the conference report on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, I want to express my concerns about the inclusion of a ``hold harmless'' provision for what are called concentration grants authorized by Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In chapter 5, on page 91 of the conference report (Report 106-143), the conferees included $56.4 million for Title I concentration grants ``to direct the Department of Education to hold harmless all school districts that received Title I concentration grants in fiscal year 1998.* * *'' The report goes on to say, ``Neither the House nor the Senate bills contained these provisions.'' This provision is very disturbing for several reasons. First, it was not included in either the House or Senate bills. Therefore, it has not been considered by the authorizing committees of either house. It has not been considered by the appropriations committees of either house. There have been no hearings. It has not gone through the normal deliberative process under which we hear from experts, weigh the pros and cons and cast votes. Quite frankly, this provision appeared ``in the dark of night.'' Second, the hold harmless provision contravenes an important provision of the law, known as the census update, a requirement in law that the U.S. Department of Education must allocate Title I funds based on the newest child poverty figures, figures that are updated every two years. Congress adopted the census update requirement in 1994 so that Title I funds--which the law says are to help disadvantaged children-- truly follow the child, that dollars be determined generally by the number of children who are eligible. The holdharmless provision in this bill before us, guaranteeing that school districts that got funds in 1998 will get funds in 1999, even if their number of poor children has declined, violates the requirement that funds be allocated based on the most recent child poverty data available. The provision in this bill effectively rewards ``incumbents,'' despite their number of poor children, despite merit or need. Third, this provision disregards Title I's eligibility requirements. Title I concentration grants are supposed to be especially targeted to concentrations of poor children, under the law. Districts that have poor children exceeding 6,500 or 15% of their total school-aged children are eligible for these grants, which are in addition to the ``regular,'' basic Title I grants. Guaranteeing funds to districts, no matter what the number or percent of poor children in those districts, spreads limited funds to districts that are not eligible because they do not have concentrations of poverty. It effectively takes away funds from districts that do have high concentrations of poor children. It overrides the eligibility requirements we have set and agreed on in law. In my state, some school districts could benefit from this ``hold harmless'' provision because the number of poor children changed; it went below the eligibility threshold of the Title I concentration grants program. Like most Senators, I do not want any school district in my state to lose education funds. But we either have rules or we don't. We have eligibility criteria or we don't. If the current eligibility rules are wrong or are not working, we should change them in the authorizing process, a review which the Health and Education Committee is currently undertaking. We should not set up eligibility rules and then flagrantly ignore them, override them or ``freeze'' in place funds to districts that do not meet the requirements. We should not rewrite the rules in the ``dark of night'' outside the normal legislative process. Fourth, this provision violates the principle that funds should follow the child. Title I was created for poor, disadvantaged children. That is its fundamental purpose and funding to states is determined largely by the number of poor children, children that all agree have great educational needs. This amendment sends funds to districts merely because they got funds in the previous year, not because the districts have needy children and not in proportion to the number of poor children they have. Finally, this provision is very unfair to states like mine that have a very high growth rate in the number of poor children. In California, the number of poor children grew by 52 percent from 1990 to 1995. In Arizona, poor children grew 38 percent from 1990 to 1995. In Georgia, 35 percent. In Nevada, 56 percent. That is why Congress included a requirement for a child poverty update. This amendment is very unfair to those children. This amendment takes the funds away from the poor children for which the funds were intended.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished ranking member. Even though it ``freezes in'' funding to districts--including some in my state--that got funds last year, even though they do not qualify, it makes a mockery of the basic purpose of the Title I program, its eligibility rules and the requirement to use recent poverty data. If Congress continues to override these basic rules of the authorizing law, we are effectively operating with no rules, or at least, constantly changing rules. Districts will not know whether they are eligible or what they can or cannot count on. This is just plain wrong. In my state, even though 39 districts would have their funding ``frozen in'' by this provision, next year, California will have 166 new school districts that will become eligible. If these ``hold harmlesses'' keep appearing in the dark of night, these eligible districts, with concentrations of poor children, could be deprived of funds to which they are entitled. Because this is a conference report, under our procedures, I am not allowed to offer an amendment to delete this provision. But let me put my colleagues on notice that I find this provision and this procedure very objectionable. I hope my colleagues will join me in ending this practice so that our children can get the education Congress intended in creating the Title I program in the first place. I thank the Chair, and I thank the ranking member. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to thank the distinguished managers of this bill, Senators Leahy and Hatch, for including the Feinstein-Chafee amendment regarding separation of juveniles from adults in custody in the managers' ``technical amendment.'' I also wish to thank Senators Akaka, Feingold, Kohl, and Jeffords, who agreed to co-sponsor our amendment, for their support. This amendment resolves a major concern that many, many people had with this bill, and will help speed the way to its final passage. Our amendment is designed to strengthen the bill's requirements for separating juveniles in custody from adult criminals. We should not be counter-productive by allowing juvenile detention to be a school for crime, nor should we be cruel in permitting the victimization of youths by hardened adult criminals. Under current law, juveniles cannot have any contact with adult inmates. None whatsoever. When a juvenile is in an adult facility, that juvenile cannot be within ``sight or sound'' of any adult--ever! Why is that one of the four so-called ``core'' requirements? Because I remind my colleagues that we are talking about children. Children who may or may not have committed a violent offense. Children who may have been arrested for the first time. Children who perhaps are on the wrong path but most likely never commit another offense ever: statistically, over two-thirds of juveniles arrested never commit another crime. In the early 1970s, before there were protections for children who came into contact with our court system, a number of studies found that children in adult jails were subject to rape, assault, sodomy, murder, and other acts which sometimes, frankly too often, led to suicide. The Judiciary Committee at the time learned of numerous tragedies and outright atrocities, including a report on practices in Philadelphia which estimated that 2,000 sexual assaults occurred inside adult jails or ``sheriff's vans'' used to transport juvenile and adults to court over a 26-month period. One juvenile was raped five times while inside such a van. The numbers tell the story. Children in adult jails are 8 times more likely to commit suicide; 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted; twice as likely to be assaulted by staff; and 50 percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon than are children in juvenile facilities, according to studies by the Justice Department and others. In my state of California, we passed our laws to keep juveniles out of adult jails in the mid-1980s in the wake of tragedies such as the case of Kathy Robbins, a 15-year-old girl who hung herself when she was placed in an adult jail in Glenn County for violating a juvenile curfew. After those reports were released, Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act and subsequent renewals of the law to ensure that children would be treated fairly by the juvenile justice system and be kept safely away from adults in jail. Kentucky chose to forgo Federal money and continue placing juveniles in adult jails. This chart shows the result: four suicides, one attempted suicide, two physical assaults by other inmates, two sexual assaults by other inmates, and one rape by a deputy county jailer. Let me give you some of the names behind the numbers: In Oldham County, 15-year-old Robert Lee Horn, Jr. was put in jail for truancy and beyond parental control. He was paraded through the jail in front of adult inmates who called out to him for sex. He hung himself. In McCracken County, a 16-year-old Todd Selke was put in adult jail for being a runaway and disorderly conduct. He committed suicide. In Franklin County, a 16-year-old runaway was raped by a deputy county jailer. The core protections help to prevent these tragedies elsewhere around the country. Yet, this bill as introduced would have weakened the core protections for children. I was puzzled by why the authors felt the need to weaken the current standard. According to the latest figures from the Justice Department, 48 of the 50 states are in compliance with the current standard for separating children from adults, including such large, rural states as Alaska and Montana. And yet this bill would have allowed for juveniles to be in close proximity to adult inmates. While it generally prohibits physical contact between juveniles and adults in custody, there is an exclusion. And the exclusion to the definition of prohibited physical contact said that the term ``does not include supervised proximity between a juvenile and an adult inmate that is brief and incidental or accidental.'' In other words, it permitted regular contact, planned contact, between delinquent juveniles and adult criminals, as long as it is deemed to be ``brief and incidental.'' Senator Chafee and I were concerned that this standard would have allowed juveniles to be paraded in front of adult inmates as they are being transported from one area of a facility to another. That means that every day the same youth could be required to walk by the adult cell block. Adult inmates would have a chance to tease, taunt, harass, use suggestive body language, expose areas of their private parts, spit, and otherwise scare juveniles as they are being transported through the facility. Now some might think that's OK. That to scare a child by exposing them to adults may reduce the likelihood of the child committing another crime. But, actually, these young children who might be tough on the outside, but not so tough on the inside, could be scared to death-- meaning scared enough to commit suicide--just as Robbie Horn was in Oldham County, Kentucky. Older gang members, or veteranos, could pass messages on to younger gang members to coordinate criminal activities, or to intimidate them from turning state's evidence. The amendment which we have agreed upon remedied this. In fact, it is even better than what Senator Chafee and I originally proposed. It makes two changes, which bring the bill into line with the current Justice Department regulations: 1. It eliminates any planned or regular contact between juvenile delinquents and adult criminals by changing the exception to ``brief and inadvertent, or accidental,'' contact. The minority report to last Congress' juvenile crime bill, S. 10, erroneously stated that the Justice Department's regulations, like the bill, excepted ``brief and incidental'' contact. However, there is a world of difference between ``incidental'' and ``inadvertent.'' Changing this exception to the Justice Department standard has the same effect as the amendment which Senator Chafee and I originally proposed, and will provide much greater protection for juveniles in custody. 2. The amendment passed in the manager's package then goes even further, limiting even this exception to nonresidential areas only. In other words, there is no exception at all in residential areas to the prohibition on physical contact between juveniles and adults. Specifically, the amendment provides that the inadvertent/accidental exception applies only ``in secure areas of a facility that are not dedicated to use by juvenile offenders and that are nonresidential, which may include dining, recreational, educational, vocational, health care, entry areas, and passageways.'' This language is taken almost verbatim from the Justice Department regulations. This amendment ensures that a juvenile cannot be in close proximity such as supervised ``brief and incidental'' parades by adult cells or other planned or spontaneous actions by adults to transport children from one area of a jail to another. Our amendment was endorsed by: The Department of Justice; the Children's Defense Fund; the National Network for Youth; and the National Collaboration for Youth, an alliance of 28 youth service groups, including Boy Scouts, 4-H, Girl Scouts, American Red Cross, National Urban League, United Way and YMCA. A coalition of 22 other organizations wrote to the Majority Leader, asking that the standard for separating delinquent juveniles and adult criminals be strengthened, including: Minorities in Law Enforcement, National Association for School Psychologists, National Council of Churches of Christ-Washington Office, the Alliance for Children and Families, Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy, and Covenant House. With the passage of this amendment, we have provided this protection, and substantially improved this bill. Coupled with the passage of other amendments that I offered, including banning imports of large-capacity ammunition magazines, the Federal Gang Violence Act, the James Guelff Body Armor Act, and anti-bombmaking legislation, this bill now represents a great step forward in the effort to reduce juvenile and violent crime. I ask that I be added as a co-sponsor of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage. early childhood development