Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be very happy to answer that question. Essentially, a part of my amendment was also Senator Ashcroft's amendment, with some technical changes, particularly in the exemptions. What we are doing by this is accepting Senator Ashcroft's amendment and separating out the part of my amendment which would close the loophole in the assault weapons legislation and ban the importation of the big clips, just as these clips are now prohibited from domestic manufacture in this country.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the amendment the Senator has just submitted before the body. I believe directly following this amendment, I will be introducing an amendment. Last week, I announced I would be introducing an amendment which had essentially all the parts that Senator Ashcroft has just introduced, plus one additional part. Let me comment on how his amendment differs from mine in the sense of the parts he has just talked about. He has added exceptions relating to employment, ranching, farming, hunting, inheritance, target practice, and training. The exceptions in my amendment are military and law enforcement. He also creates a new penalty of up to 20 years for a juvenile who uses these weapons with the intent to commit a violent felony. I think that is a very positive addition. He does not make any transfer a felony, so the penalty would still be only up to 1 year. That is, if you transfer an assault weapon to a juvenile, the penalty is only up to 1 year. That is part of the problem. The penalty is so low, it is difficult to sustain or even make prosecutions. But I am very pleased he has seen fit to offer this amendment. I want for a moment to talk about what is missing from the amendment, which I will talk about more deeply on my own time. What is missing from the amendment is plugging a major loophole in the assault weapons legislation which I presented to this body in 1993 as an amendment to the crime bill and which is now law. When the amendment came before the body and we were standing down in the well, another Senator approached me and said: Would you mind if there were an amendment which would permit the continued grandfathering of big clips into this country, particularly for those that have bills of lading on them already and are in transit? I said no. The amendment went in and got broadened in the course of what turned out to be a rather cantankerous debate on the subject, back and forth between the two Houses. This is significant because the failsafe in the assault weapons legislation has to do with clips, in that the domestic manufacture of clips, drums, or strips of more than 10 bullets is prohibited in the United States subsequent to enactment of the assault weapons legislation. That is now the law. The loophole is that these clips are coming in from all around the world. Let me give a few examples. Between March of 1998 and July of 1998, BATF approved permits for over 8 million of these clips. They came in from countries all over--from Austria to Zimbabwe. Let me tell you some of the things that come in from Great Britain: 826,000 clips, drums or strips, 250-round magazines, 177-round magazines, 71-round magazines, 50-round magazines; from Germany, 426,300; from Italy, 5,900,000, and on and on. What is the significance of this? What gives an assault weapon the firepower is, first, you can hold it at your hip with two hands and spray fire; secondly, most of them are capable of having a very light trigger which you can pull very rapidly, and being semiautomatic, each time you pull it, it dispenses a bullet; and the clips are very big. The bigger the clip, the less the opportunity somebody has to disarm you. Hence, they have become the weapon of choice of grievance killers, of drive-by shooters, of gangs, and of drug dealers. None of these big clips are necessary for hunting. It always puzzles me why there is an exception. As a matter of fact, overwhelmingly, the great bulk of States prohibit more than seven bullets in a clip for hunting. Therefore, why you need to make an exception for hunting--I used to use a bow and arrow. I was pretty good at it. At least there was some sport in it. If you come along with a spray-fire assault weapon and you are hunting some poor deer, my goodness, I am rooting for the deer, that's for sure. I really question why we cannot plug this loophole. I tried last year. We received 44 votes. I was told some people did not like the timing of it and, therefore, I am trying at a time now when the juvenile justice bill is before this body. Unless we close this loophole, we will continue to build a nation that is awash with the kind of equipment that wreaks the devastation that is occurring all over this country. What the Senator has done is commendable. He has put forward certainly some improvements. I have done the same thing with not as many exceptions and added one other item. I will probably vote for that amendment. I will also, though, press my amendment because, as one who has lived this assault weapons issue now for the past 6 years, unless we close some of these loopholes, the point of the legislation, which is to dry up the huge supply of assault weapons as well as these big clips, essentially will not happen. This is an important loophole to be closed. That is essentially the difference between our two amendments. How much time remains on our side, Mr. President?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to take this time, if I may, to do something I have never done before, certainly on the floor of the Senate, and share with you my personal experience with guns and why I feel as strongly as I do with what is happening in this Nation with respect to them. In 1976, I was president of the board of supervisors in San Francisco. There was a terrorist group by the name of the New World Liberation Front that was operating in the far west. They had blown up power stations throughout the West. They targeted me and placed a bomb in a flower box outside my house. The bomb had a construction-grade explosive which does not detonate below freezing. It never drops below freezing in San Francisco. It was set to detonate at 1:30 in the morning. It did detonate, but the explosive washed up the side of the building and it did not explode. The timer went out in the street, and the next morning, we found the explosive on the side of the house. It was a very sobering thing because it was right below my daughter's window. Then this same group shot out about 15 windows in a beach house my husband and I owned. I went to the police department and asked for protection, and I asked if I could learn to carry a weapon. So I received, in 1976, a concealed weapon permit to carry a weapon. I was trained at the police range. The weapon I carried was a chief's special 38, five shots. I practiced regularly. My husband was going through cancer surgery at this time, and I remember walking back and forth to the hospital feeling safer because I had this small gun in my purse. A year later, arrests were made, and I returned the gun and, as a matter of fact, it was melted down with about eight others into a cross which I was able to present to the Holy Father in Rome in the early 1980s. Subsequent to that time, a direct contradictory incident changed my life dramatically, when a colleague of mine on the board of supervisors smuggled a gun in, a former police officer, and shot and killed the mayor and shot and killed a colleague. I spoke about this very briefly on the floor once before, but I was the one who found my colleague's body and put a finger through a bullet hole trying to get a pulse. I became mayor as a product of assassination in a most difficult time in my city's history. Between those two incidents, I have seen the reassurance, albeit false, that a weapon can give someone under siege. With a terrorist group, one does not know when they will strike. I was very frightened. I decided I would try to fight back, if I could, and did the legal things to be able to do it. So I understand that reassurance. On the other hand, I have seen the criminal use of weapons. Then I began to see very clearly, between the late seventies and today, the evolution of the gun on the streets of America and seeing these very high-powered weapons striking hard and killing innocent people. I actually walked a block in Los Angeles where, in 6 months, 30 people were mowed down by drive-by shooters carrying these weapons. I went to 101 California Street and saw the devastation that an aggrieved man brought about when he walked in with assault weapons and mowed down innocent people. Let me tell you a couple of the characteristics of some of these weapons. I will begin with the weapon that was used in Littleton. The Intratech TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 is a favorite weapon of drug dealers, according to BATF gun data. One out of every five assault weapons traced from a crime is a TEC-9, according to BATF. It comes standard with a 30- to 36-round ammunition magazine capable of being fired as fast as the operator can pull the trigger. It is one of the most inexpensive semiautomatic assault weapons available. The original pistol version, called KG-9, was so easily converted to fully automatic it was reclassified by the BATF in 1982 as a machine gun. The TEC-22 is very similar to the TEC-9 and TEC-DC9 and fires .22 caliber ammunition, manufactured in the United States. The other one widely used is the AK-47. It is the most widely used assault weapon in the world, now manufactured in many countries. An estimated 20 to 50 million have been produced. It comes standard with a 30-round ammunition magazine capable of being fired as fast as the operator can pull the trigger. Some models are available with collapsible stock to facilitate accountability, developed in 1947 in the Soviet Union. These are two of the weapons most used--banned by the assault weapons legislation. What is the problem? The problem is the gun manufacturers are so craven that whatever you write, they find a way to get around it, to produce a thumb-hole stock or some other device, but to continue the basics of the weapon--that it can be held in two hands, that it can be spray fired. And what enables it to be so lethal and used in grievance killings and used by drive-by shooters and used by gangs is the big clips. No one can get to you to disarm you if you have a 70-round clip, a 90-round clip, or two 30-round clips strapped together. So the purpose of the assault weapons legislation was to dry up that supply, not to take one away from anybody but over time dry up the supply. Today, no one in this country can manufacture a clip, drum, or strip of more than 10 bullets. No one can sell it legally. No one can possess it legally if it is made postban. The loophole is that they are pouring in from 20 different nations. I went to the President, and I said: Can you use your executive authority to stop it? Just as he did with the foreign importation of assault weapons. What I was told by Justice was, no, we need legislation to close the loophole. So I say to the Senator, where my legislation differs from yours is in exceptions and plugging this loophole. I very much hope we can plug the loophole. I very much hope the intent of your legislation isn't to submarine my legislation, isn't to prevent the closure of this loophole, which, as submitted to me right down there--I will never forget where it happened--was simply a grandfather clause to permit those weapons that had bills of lading on them in transport coming into this country. And I believe it should be closed. I believe the supply should be dried up. Let me talk about the school killings and how these clips come into it for a moment. I sent my staff to buy some of these clips. Let's see if it is easy; let's see if it is hard. On the Internet, no questions asked. It is $8, $10 for a clip; no questions asked. Give your mother's credit card and you get it in the mail within a couple of days. We bought a 75-round magazine for an AK- 47. And we bought several 30-round clips for $7.99, $8. And then if it slips into the weapon, you have a gun that can kill 30 people before you can be disarmed. That is why I so desperately want to plug this loophole. As I believe the time is up, I yield the floor and will continue this on my own time. I thank the Chair. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to submit a small technical correction to my amendment at the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in light of the action the Senate just took in adopting the ban on juvenile possession of assault weapons and large clips, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment by striking sections 503 and 504 which will do essentially the same thing.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 2\1/2\ minutes to wrap up the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New York be recognized for an additional minute.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Of course.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Once again, this describes the countries--Austria, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Nicaragua, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Zimbabwe--where during this 6-month period these big clips received permits. The final provision in this amendment will increase penalties on any person who sells or transfers a handgun, assault weapon, or high- capacity ammunition magazine to a juvenile. Any transfer of a handgun, assault weapon, or one of these clips to a juvenile, under my legislation, would become a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. And any person who transfers to a juvenile, knowing that it is going to be used to commit a crime, is subject to a maximum penalty of 20 years. As I said earlier, the legislation applies the handgun prohibition to assault weapons as well. Now, let me just speak for a moment about what we have seen happen in the last 3 years. Since I became, I might say, gun-sensitive in 1976, I have watched incidents develop in the United States. It is not hard for any of us to see that what has happened is a combination of things. In the first place, there are parents that, apparently, don't teach their youngsters values; schools that are too big; counselors that are too rare; the burgeoning group of youngsters who feel aggrieved or not accepted or not ``one of them,'' or is jealous, is going to essentially have the last laugh by going in and really taking out a large number of students. We saw it in Moses Lake, WA; Bethel, AK; Pearl, MS; West Paducah, KY; Jonesboro, AR, which involved 2 killers, one of them just 11 years old; Edinboro, PA; Fayetteville, TN; Springfield, OR; and now Littleton, CO. All of these took place not in Los Angeles, New York, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, or San Francisco, but in small suburban communities, many of them deeply religious, most of them middle to upper-class socioeconomically. So what has happened? I believe that what happened is we have seen the fomenting of a culture of violence surrounding youngsters. I have used this before and I will use it again. I would like to read directly from the Washington Post article dated Monday, May 11: Angry 5-year-old Took Gun to School. Memphis. Five-year-old kindergartner was arrested after bringing a loaded pistol to school because he wanted to kill his teacher for punishing him with a ``time out,'' according to police records. The .25 caliber semiautomatic pistol in the child's backpack was confiscated by teacher Maggie Foster on Friday after another pupil brought her a bullet. ``He said he wanted to shoot and kill several pupils as well as a teacher,'' the arrest ticket said. He stated he was going to shoot Ms. Foster for putting him in ``time out,'' a form of discipline for young children. The boy was charged with carrying a weapon. It was unclear if he would be prosecuted. ``A five-year-old is not capable of forming criminal intent,'' juvenile court Judge Kenneth Turner said. ``The boy got the gun from atop his grandfather's bedroom dresser,'' said Jerry Manassass, juvenile director of court services. The boy and his mother live with the grandfather. ``The State's Department of Children Services will investigate the boy's home situation,'' officials said. And that's that. Doesn't that frighten you? Doesn't it make you think that this Nation is so awash with guns that it has even trickled down to a five-year-old who knows enough to pick up a gun and take it to school? It frightens me, and I believe it concerns the dominant majority of American people. We have a chance to do something about it. We can't entirely change the culture. We can pass, as we have, certain pieces of legislation. We can use the bully pulpit. We can talk about parents keeping their guns safe. We can use trigger locks. We can make parents responsible--all of which I think we should do. But the one thing we can and we must do is keep large firepower out of the hands of juveniles. The more you proliferate these weapons and make it easy for youngsters to obtain the ammunition feeding devices, just by using their computer, just by punching in their family's credit card, we create the situation where more lives can be taken. Almost 1 in 12 high school students report having carried a gun in the last 30 days. This is despite Senator Dorgan and my gun-free schools bill. In 1996, 2,866 children and teenagers were murdered with guns, 1,309 committed suicide with guns, and 468 died in unintentional shootings. Gunshot wounds are now the second leading cause of death among people aged 10 to 34. What a commentary on this Nation. The firearm epidemic in this country is now 10 times larger than the polio epidemic of earlier this century. In the 1996-1997 school year alone, more than 6,000 students across this Nation were caught with firearms in school. Is there a Member of this body who saw guns in their classrooms as they were growing up? I don't think so. I sure didn't. But I will tell you this: I addressed the fourth grade class in Hollywood and I said: What is your greatest fear? And that fourth grade said being shot. I said: How many of you have heard shots? And every single hand in the class went up in Hollywood, CA, as having heard shots. What kind of a nation are we becoming when our youngsters have to be reared in this kind of environment? I notice the distinguished Senator, my cosponsor of this amendment, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, is on the floor. If I might, I would like to yield time to him, as much time as he requires.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from New York be recognized for the remainder of my time. Also, I ask unanimous consent the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Jack Reed, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the week of May 9, 1999 is National Hospital Week, when communities across the country celebrate the people that make hospitals the special places they are. This year's theme sums it up nicely: ``People Care, Miracles Happen.'' It recognizes the health care workers, volunteers and other health professionals who are there 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, curing and caring for their neighbors who need them. An example of this dedication is the Sexual Assault Response of Antelope Valley Hospital in Lancaster, California. The program won the American Hospital Association's prestigious Hospital Award for Volunteer Excellence for 1999, which highlights special contributions of hospital volunteers. The Sexual Assault Response Service is a team of hospital volunteers that offers specialized assistance to sexual assault victims, families, hospital personnel and law enforcement agencies. To meet the program's high standards, volunteers get more than 60 hours of training. Responding to a call from any area hospital emergency department, they provide support to victims while helping to solicit histories, preparing evidence collection kits, assisting with medical and legal examinations, and overseeing the completion of state forms. Volunteers work with the district attorney's office throughout the court process and offer one-on-one counseling, a referral service, a lending library and community education. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Antelope Valley Hospital for this award-winning effort and for their generous contributions to their community.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, for 7 years now as a member of the Senate Judiciary committee I have watched the situation in this nation going from bad to worse to terrible with respect to violence and its glorification in the media. I am voting for this amendment because I believe it gives the various industries what they need to be able to establish voluntary guidelines through a voluntary ``code of conduct'' to limit the depictions of violence in music, films, video games or television. This amendment provides the entertainment industry with an exemption from antitrust laws in order to develop and disseminate voluntary codes of conduct with respect to violence, similar to the National Association of Broadcasters television code prior to 1983, when a court helt the code violated antitrust laws. Additionally, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission will be directed to conduct a joint investigation of the marketing practices used by the makers of video games, music and motion pictures to determine whether they engage in deceptive marketing practices, including directly targeting material to minors, which is unsuitable for minors. Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health will be directed to conduct a study of the effects of violent video games and music on child development and youth violence, examining whether and to what extent such violence affects the emotional and psychological development of juveniles and whether it contributes to juvenile delinquency and youth violence. The glorification of violence in the media has reached such an extent that a manufacturer of interactive computer games to young people advertises: ``Kill your friends, guilt free.'' With such messages of death and degradation delivered through the media, and with our nation awash with guns easily accessible to young people, is it any surprise that troubled youths are now taking up these weapons and going on rampages, killing their classmates and teachers? The latest of these tragedies occurred in Littleton, Colorado, where Eric Harris spent hours and hours playing violent computer games like Doom and Quake, featuring the wholesale slaughter of digital enemies before joining his friend Dylan Klebold in killing 12 other students and a teacher. Isn't it time, at the very least, that the manufacturers of video games, television programs, motion pictures and music acknowledge the impact on young people of the carnage they promulgate and demonstrate through a voluntary code of conduct some willingness to limit the violence? Isn't it time that the entertainment industry does its best to discourage the production and promotion of gratuitous, simulated death and destruction that all too often triggers real and terrifying acts of violence by our young people? Isn't it time that we in Congress direct the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether deceptive marketing practices are being employed to target minors? Isn't it time that we in Congress direct the National Institutes of Health to study the effect of these violent video games and music on our young people? Isn't it time that we do everything we can to stop tragedies like Littleton from happening again?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to end the practice of social promotion in our public schools and to provide remedial education to help students meet academic achievement standards. The Student Achievement Act of 1999 authorizes $500 million for five years for local school districts to provide extended learning time so that K-12 students can achieve. Social promotion is the formal or informal practice of promoting a student from grade to grade even when the student fails to achieve a level of achievement and proficiency in the core curriculum. To receive funds, schools would have to: Adopt a policy prohibiting social promotion; Require that students be subject to academic achievement standards in the core curriculum, defined as subjects such as reading, writing, language arts, mathematics, social sciences and science; Test student achievement in meeting standards at certain benchmarks, to be determined by the states; Provide remedial education; and Have substantial numbers of low-performing students. I am introducing this bill because I believe that the linchpin to educational reform is the elimination of the path of least resistance whereby students who are failing are simply promoted to the next grade in hopes that they will learn. The product of this practice of simply promoting youngsters when they are failing to adequately learn has produced a generation of young people who are below standard and high school graduates that cannot read or write, count change in their pockets or fill out an employment application. It is that bad. And my state is just about the worst. There's a steady stream of bad news. On March 5, we learned, yet again that California ranks second to last among 39 states in fourth-grade reading skills. Eighty percent of my state's fourth graders are not proficient readers. For eighth graders, California is 33rd out of 36 states and only 22 percent of California's eighth graders are proficient readers. On March 24, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the state received a grade of D+ from the American Electronics Association for the quality and availability of an educated workforce. This conclusion is in the state that is the home of Silicon Valley, the premier high- tech area of the country, in a state that received an A for electronic commerce and is number one in high tech employment. But California does not have a school system that trains students well enough to work in the high-paying, skilled jobs available. These numbers are a stunning indictment of a failing system. It is time to end social promotion, a practice which misleads our students, their parents and the public. As long as social promotion exists and is widespread, youth who cannot read or write and who won't be able to find jobs in the future will continue to graduate from high school. I agree with the conclusion of the September 1997 study conducted by the American Federation of Teachers: ``Social promotion is an insidious practice that hides school failure and creates problems for everybody--for kids, who are deluded into thinking they have learned the skills to be successful or get the message that achievement doesn't count; for teachers who must face students who know that teachers wield no credible authority to demand hard work; for the business community and colleges that must spend millions of dollars on remediation, and for society that must deal with a growing proportion of uneducated citizens, unprepared to contribute productively to the economic and civic life of the nation.'' There is no hard data on the extent of social promotion in our public schools, but most authorities, in the schools and out, know that it is happening--and in fact, in some districts it is standard operating procedure. The September AFT study surveyed 85 of the nation's 820 largest school districts in 32 states, representing one-third of the nation's public school enrollment, about their promotion policies. Saying that social promotion is ``rampant,'' AFT leaders found that school districts' criteria for passing and retaining students is vague. Only 17 states have standards in the four core disciplines (English, math, social studies and science) that are well grounded in content and that are clear enough to be used. A January 14, 1998 Los Angeles Times article reported that four in 10 teachers said that their schools automatically promote students when they reach the maximum age for their grade level. None of the districts surveyed by AFT have an explicit policy of social promotion, but almost every district has an implicit practice of social promotion. Almost all districts view holding students back as a policy of last resort and many put explicit limits on retaining students. Districts have loose and vague criteria for moving a student from one grade to the next. This approach, concludes AFT, is implicit approval of social promotion. Last fall, thankfully, former California Governor Pete Wilson signed into law a bill to end social promotion. In July 1998, I wrote some of California's school districts and asked about their policy on social promotion. Here are some of the reports I got back: Some school districts did not have specific policies in place regarding social promotion. Exceptions to normal progression from one grade to another may be made when it is ``in the best interest of the student.'' Teachers may provide recommendations but final decisions on retention are made by the parent of the student. In other cases, school districts required students to earn 220 credits to receive a high school diploma so that the district feels that ``social promotion is not an issue.'' One school district believes that ``it is seldom desirable for a student to be retained by reason of achievement, maturity or attendance because research has shown that retention is likely to have strong negative effects.'' Retention is therefore discouraged in the primary grades and prohibited thereafter. Here's another example: Dr. Rudy Crew, Chancellor of the New York City Schools, said in the January 25 New York Times that virtually every student is promoted from one grade to the next, regardless of performance on standardized tests. Mike Wright, a San Diegian, is an example. Cited in the February 16 San Diego Union-Tribune, Mr. Wright says he routinely got promoted from grade to grade and even graduated from high school, even though he failed some subjects. At age 29, he is now enrolled in a community college program to learn to read--at age 29! Here are some examples of the harm of social promotion: In California, a December 1997 report from a state education accountability task force estimated that at least half of the state's students--3 million children--perform below levels considered proficient for their grade level. A January 1998 poll by Public Agenda asked employers and college professors whether they believe a high school diploma guarantees that a student has mastered basic skills. In this poll, 63% of employers and 76 percent of professors said that the diploma is not a guarantee that a graduate can read, write or do basic math. Nationwide, about one third of college freshmen take remedial courses in college and three-quarters of all campuses, public and private, offer remediation, says the AFT study. A March 27 California State University study found that more than two-thirds of students entering Cal State campuses in Los Angeles lack the math or English they should have mastered in high school. At some high schools, not one graduate going on to one of Cal State's campuses passed a basic skills test. At Cal State Dominguez Hills, for example, 8 out of 10 freshmen enrollees last fall needed remedial English and 87 percent needed remedial math. Sadly, these numbers represent an increase. In the fall of 1997, 47 percent of freshmen enrolled at CSU needed remediation, compared to 43 percent in each of the previous three years. In math, 54 percent needed remedial help, compared to 48 percent in 1994. Similarly, almost 35 percent of entering freshmen at the University of California do poorly on UC's English proficiency test and must receive help in their first year. Florida spent $53 million in college on remedial education, says the AFT study. In Boston, school principals estimate that half their ninth graders are not prepared for high school work. In Ohio, nearly one fourth of all freshmen who attend state public universities must take remedial math or English (Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 7, 1997) Employers tell me that their new hires are unprepared for work and they have to provide very basic training to make them employable. For example, last year, MCI spent $7.5 million to provide basic skills training. Fortunately, many policymakers are beginning to realize that we must stop social promotion. President Clinton called for ending it in his last two State of the Union speeches. Last year, he said, ``We must also demand greater accountability. When we promote a child from grade to grade who hasn't mastered the work, we don't do that child any favors. It is time to end social promotion in America's schools.'' Last year, California's former Governor Pete Wilson, signed into law a bill to end social promotion in our public education system. The bill requires school districts to identify students who are failing based on their grades or scores on the new statewide performance tests. The schools would have to hold back the student unless their teachers submitted a written finding that the student should be allowed to advance to the next grade. In such a case, the teacher would be required to recommend remediation to get the student to the next level, which could include summer school or after-school instruction. Los Angeles Unified School District is currently working to develop a plan to end the practice of social promotion. Los Angeles Unified School Board plans to identify those students who are at risk of flunking and require them to participate in remedial classes. The alternative curriculum will stress the basics in reading, language arts and math, and special after-school tutoring. The district's plan would take effect in the 1999-2000 school year and target students moving in the third through sixth grades and into the ninth grade. In San Diego, the School Board adopted requirements that all students in certain grades must demonstrate grade-level performance. And they will require all students to earn a C overall grade average and a C grade in core subjects for high school graduation, effectively ending social promotion for certain grades and for high school graduation. For example, San Diego's schools are requiring that eighth graders who do not pass core courses be retained or pass core courses in summer school. At least three other states--Florida, Arkansas and Texas--explicitly outlaw social promotion. The Chicago Public Schools have ditched social promotion. After their new policy was put in place in the spring of 1997, over 40,000 students failed tests in the third, sixth, eight and ninth grades and then went to mandatory summer school. Chicago School Superintendent calls social promotion ``educational malpractice.'' He says from now on his schools' only product will be student achievement. Cincinnati's students are now promoted based on specific standards that define what students must know. The AFT study says: ``In most districts, there are no agreed-upon explicit standards of performance to which students are held accountable.'' Our schools need clear, specific achievement levels for the core academic disciplines for every student. Many states are developing those achievement levels or standards. California's Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards is developing statewide, grade-by-grade academic standards. Without them, we will never know (1) what our students need to learn and (2) whether they have learned what they should learn. How, I ask, can you measure what you have accomplished if you don't know where you are going? Sixty-one percent of Californians agreed in 1998 that our schools need a ``major overhaul,'' up from 54 percent who answered the same question two years earlier. A mere six percent believe that schools provide a ``quality education.'' A poll by Policy Analysis for California Education found that only 17 percent of the public considers the state's schools ``good'' or ``excellent,'' down from about 33 percent three years ago. I hope my colleagues will join me today in stopping social promotion and providing remedial education because we must stop shortchanging our students. School achievement must mean something. It must mean more than filling up a seat at a desk for 12 years. A diploma should not just be a symbol of accumulating time in school. Social promotion is a cruel joke. We are fooling students. We are fooling ourselves. Students think a high school diploma means something. But in reality, a diploma does not mean much when we are graduating students who cannot count change, who cannot read a newspaper, or who cannot fill out an employment application. I hope this bill can help. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999. This bill would designate an 18,500 acre portion of the Otay Mountain region in Southern California as wilderness. The bill passed the House last week on a voice vote, with broad bi-partisan support. Otay Mountain, which is located near the U.S.-Mexico border in eastern San Diego County, is one of California's most special wild places. The mountain is a unique ecosystem, home to 20 sensitive plant and animal species. The endangered quino checkerspot butterfly calls Otay Mountain home, and the only known stand of Tecate cypress, as well as the only known population of the Mexican flannel bush, also thrive on the mountain. For these reasons, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management first recommended Otay Mountain for wilderness designation in the 1980s. In addition, Otay Mountain is key to San Diego County's habitat conservation planning efforts. The County has identified the region as a core reserve in the multi-species habitat conservation plan that it is currently developing. Otay Mountain is scenic, rugged, and beautiful. The area is well worth preserving as wilderness for generations to come. This bill will ensure that San Diegans, and indeed all Americans, will be able to experience and enjoy Otay Mountain in all its unique splendor. Unfortunately, in recent years Otay Mountain's sensitive habitat has been damaged by illegal immigration and narcotics activity in the area. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has worked closely with the U.S. Border Patrol to bring these problems under control, and they have experienced great success. This legislation would specifically allow Border Patrol and firefighting activities to continue in the new wilderness area, so long as they remain in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act. This provision in the legislation is specific to Otay Mountain and will not apply to any other wilderness area. I want to thank Congressman Brian Bilbray for his leadership in introducing the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act and guiding it through the House of Representatives. I also want to thank Congressman Filner, who has been a steadfast supporter of the legislation, along with the Clinton Administration. The California Departments of Fish and Game and Fire and Forestry Protection support the bill, as do the Endangered Habitats League and other environmental groups. Finally, the bill has strong support from the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the San Diego Association of Governments. Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will move expeditiously to approve the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act and send the bill to the President for signature. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to provide funds to build new schools. It is the Excellence in Education Act of 1999. The purpose of this bill is to (1) reduce the size of schools and (2) reduce the size of classes. The bill would create a 50-50 matching grant program to build new schools to meet the following size requirements: School size requirement: for kindergarten through 5th grade, not more than 500 students; for grades 6 through 8, not more than 750 students; and for grades 9 through 12, not more than 1,500 students. Class size requirement: for kindergarten through grade 6, not more than 20 students per teacher; for grades 7 through 12, not more than 28 students per teacher. The bill authorizes $5 billion each year for the next five years for the U.S. Department of Education to award grants to local school districts. School districts would have to match federal funds with an equal amount. In addition to making the above reductions, school districts would be required to terminate social promotion, provide remedial education and require that students be subject to state achievement standards in the core academic curriculum. Why do we need this bill? First, many of our schools are just too big, especially in urban areas. The ``shopping mall'' high school is all too common. ``It's not unusual to find high schools of 2,000, 3,000, or even 4,000 students and junior high schools of 1,500 or more, especially in urban school systems,'' writes Thomas Toch in the Washington Post. In these monstrous schools, the principal is just a disembodied voice over the public address system. Equally serious is the fact that our classes are too big. Even though we have begun to reduce class sizes in my state, California still has some of the largest class sizes in the U.S. The National Center for Education Statistics says California's classrooms have the highest pupil-teacher ratios in the nation. This bill will provide a new funding source for school districts or states to match to build new schools and reduce both school size and class size. There is no good estimate of how many schools would be needed to reduce schools and classes to the levels specified in the amendment, but we all know that there are many large schools and large classes in public education today. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that we need to build 6,000 new schools just to meet enrollment growth projections. This estimate does not take into account the need to cut class and school sizes. The needs are no doubt huge. My state that has some of the largest schools in the country. Our students are crammed into every available space, even in cafeterias and libraries. Today, 20 percent of our students are in portable classrooms. There were 63,000 relocatable classrooms in use in 1998. Here are some examples: High Schools: Roosevelt High School (Los Angeles), 4,902; Huntington Park High School, 4,275; Roosevelt High School, Fresno, 3,692; Berkeley High School, Berkeley, 3,025; and Mt. Carmel High School, San Diego, 3,279. Intermediate Schools: Clark Intermediate School, Clovis, 2,744 students; Gianni Middle School, San Francisco, 1,336; and O'Farrell Middle School, San Diego, 1,441. Elementary Schools: Rosa Parks Elementary School, San Diego, 1,423; Winchell Elementary School Fresno, 1,392; Zamorano Elementary School, San Diego, 1,424; and Kerman/Floyd Elementary School, Fresno, 1,000. California also has some of the largest classes sizes in the nation. In 1996-1997, California had the second highest teacher-pupil ratio in the nation, at 22.8 students per teacher. Fortunately since 1996, the state has significantly cut class sizes in grades K-3, but 15 percent or 300,000 of our K-3 students have not benefitted from this reform. And students above grade 3 have not been touched. Here are some examples of classes in my state: Fourth grade, statewide, 29 students; sixth grade, statewide, 29.5 students. National City Middle School San Diego, English and math, 34 to 36 students. Berryessa School District in San Jose--fourth grade, 32 students; eighth grade, 31 students. Long Beach and El Cajon School Districts, tenth grade English, 35 students. Santa Rosa School District--fourth grade, 32 students. San Diego City Schools, tenth grade biology, 38 students. Hoover Elementary and Knox Elementary in E. San Diego Elementary, grades 5 and 6, 31 to 33 students. Hoover High School 10th grade Algebra, 39 students. To add to the problem, California will have a school enrollment rate between 1997 and 2007 of 15.7 percent, triple the national rate of 4.1 percent. We will have the largest enrollment increase of all states during the next ten years. By 2007, our enrollment will have increased by 35.3 percent. To put it another way, California needs to build seven new classrooms a day at 25 students per class just to keep up with the surge in student enrollment. The California Department of Education says that we need to add about 327 schools over the next three years, just to keep pace with the projected growth. The cost of building a high school in California is almost twice the national cost. The U.S. average is $15 million; in California, it is $27 million. In California, our costs are higher than other states in part because our schools must be built to withstand earthquakes, floods, El Nino and a myriad of other natural disasters. California's state earthquake building standards add 3 to 4 percent to construction costs. Here's what it costs to build a schools in California: an elementary school (K-6), $5.2 million; a middle school (7-8), $12.0 million; a high school (9-12), $27.0 million. Studies show that student achievement improves when school and class sizes are reduced. The American Education Research Association says that the ideal high school size is between 600 and 900 students. Study after study shows that small schools have more learning, fewer discipline problems, lower dropout rates, higher levels of student participating, higher graduation rates (The School Administrator, October 1997). The nation's school administrators are calling for more personalized schools. California's education reforms relied on a Tennessee study called Project STAR, in which 6,500 kindergartners were put in 330 classes of different sizes. The students stayed in small classes for four years and then returned to larger ones in the fourth grade. The test scores and behavior of students in the small classes were better than those of children in the larger classes. A similar 1997 study by Rand found that smaller classes benefit students from low-income families the most. Take the example of Sandy Sutton, a teacher in Los Angeles's Hancock Park Elementary School. She used to have 32 students in her second grade class. In the fall of 1997, she had 20. She says she can spend more time on individualized reading instruction with each student. She can now more readily draw out shy children and more easily identify slow readers early in the school year. The November 25, 1997, Sacramento Bee reported that when teachers in the San Juan Unified School Districts started spending more time with students, test scores rose and discipline problems and suspensions dropped. A San Juan teacher, Ralphene Lee, said, ``This is the most wonderful thing that has happened in education in my lifetime.'' A San Diego initiative to bring down class sizes found that smaller classes mean better classroom management; more individual instruction; more contact with parents; more time for team teaching; more diverse instructional methods; and a higher morale. Teachers say that students in smaller classes pay better attention, ask more questions and have fewer discipline problems. Smaller schools and smaller classes make a difference, it is clear. My state needs a total of $34 billion to build schools from 1998 to 2008. Of this, $26 billion is needed to modernize and repair existing schools and $8 billion is needed to build schools to meet enrollment growth. In November 1998, California voters approved state bonds providing $6.5 billion for school construction. California needs to build 7 new classrooms a day at 25 students per class between now and 2001 just to keep up with the growth in student population. By 2007, California will need 22,000 new classrooms. California needs to add about 327 schools over the next three years just to keep pace with the projected growth. Other bills in the Congress that I am supporting provide tax incentives for holders of school bonds to modernize old schools and we have many old schools. One third of the nation's 110,000 schools were built before World War II and only about one of 10 schools was built since 1980. More than one-third of the nation's existing schools are currently over 50 or more years old and need to be repaired or replaced. The General Accounting Office has said that nationally we need over $112 billion for construction and repairs to bring schools up to date. Big schools and big classes place a heavy burden on teachers and students. They can be a stressful learning environment. The American public supports increased federal funding for school construction. The Rebuild American Coalition last month announced that 82 percent of Americans favor federal spending for school construction, up from 74 percent in a 1998 National Education Association poll. Every parent knows the importance of a small class where the teacher can give individualized attention to a student. Every parent knows the importance of the sense of a school community that can come with a small school. I hope my colleagues will join me today in passing this important education reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada. Mr. President, I note that the Senator from Colorado is on the floor. I really want to extend to him and to all of the people of Colorado my deepest sympathy and sorrow for the events yesterday. After I finish a brief global warming statement, I would like to make a more inclusive statement about the events that took place in Colorado, but I want him to know that my heart and thoughts are with him and the people of Colorado today. Mr. President, as we prepare to celebrate Earth Day tomorrow, I wanted to speak for a few minutes about what I consider to be the single greatest environmental threat facing our planet: the threat of global warming. The phenomenon of global climate change really hit home for me in January of 1997. That year, devastating floods killed seven people and caused nearly $2 billion in damage in California. California is famous for its weather extremes, but the 1997 floods were unusual in terms of their ferocity, the loss of life they caused, and the tremendous property damage that occurred. Even more striking, the 1997 flood was only one of four 100-year floods that occurred in California in the 1990s. Therefore, it certainly got my attention when I read that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency believes that major changes in the El Nino and La Nina ocean currents, which brought so much rain to California, may be linked to changes in the ocean's temperature. Last fall, I received an in-depth briefing from Dr. John Holdren, the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at Harvard University. Dr. Holdren presented clear and compelling evidence to me that global warming is real. It is happening, and it will have significant impacts on human health, our environment, and our economy. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, however, literally every week my office receives bulletins from groups that continue to dispute the reality of global warming. Today I would like to lay out the evidence that global warming is indeed occurring. There is overwhelming scientific consensus about the following facts: The natural greenhouse effect (which is primarily a product of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) makes the earth habitable, keeping the average surface temperature about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would otherwise be. Large increases in greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activities produce significant further global warming, accompanied by other changes in climatic patterns. Today's atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is about 30 percent higher than pre-industrial levels. The methane concentration is over 100 percent higher. These levels are higher than at any time in the last 160,000 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an assembly of 2,000 of the world's leading experts on climate and related disciplines, has found that human activities are increasing the greenhouse effect, and therefore raising the temperature of the planet. It is important to note that the IPCC includes scientists from all member states of the World Meteorological Association and the United Nations. To quote the IPCC: The atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, and among them, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, have grown significantly since pre-industrial times . . . These trends can be attributed largely to human activities, mostly fossil fuel use, land-use change and agriculture. Concentrations of other anthropogenic greenhouse gases have also increased. An increase of greenhouse gas concentrations leads on average to an additional warming of the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. Many greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere--and affect climate--for a long time. The IPCC estimates that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution, to 360 parts per million today. By the end of the next century, the carbon dioxide level will be somewhere between 480 and 800 parts per million. According to the IPCC, this change is ``unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. The balance of evidence, from changes in global mean surface air temperature and from changes in geographical, seasonal, and vertical patterns of atmospheric temperature, suggest a discernible human influence on global climate.'' Already, these increased greenhouse gas emissions are changing the earth's climate. Here are the facts: The average temperature of the earth has risen 1.3 degrees in the last 100 years. Ten of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last 12 years. 1998 was the hottest year on record. The last 50 years appear to have been the warmest half century in 6,000 years, according to evidence from ice core samples. Scientific evidence convincingly shows increased rates of evaporation and rainfall, glacier retreat, sea ice shrinkage, and rising sea levels. The IPCC estimates that by 2100, the earth's temperature will have risen by two to six degrees. This rate of warming, if it were to occur, would be the fastest warming rate in the last 10,000 years. Even if an overwhelming body of scientific evidence regarding global warming did not exist, the weather map alone would tell us something is wrong. According to the National Climatic Data Center, weather extremes are becoming more and more frequent: hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, flooding, droughts. So far this century, extreme weather events have increased by 20 percent. Annual precipitation is up 6 percent since 1900, and total winter precipitation is up 8 percent. Just look at the period from November 1997 through July 1998, when a series of extreme weather events hit this nation. Northern California had its wettest May ever in 1998, with precipitation in at least one area hitting 800 percent of normal. Meanwhile, Texas suffered under a devastating drought, with San Antonio getting only 8 percent of its normal rainfall in May. In Florida last summer, the U.S. Forest Service estimated that 80 percent of the State was at a drought level equivalent to a desert. Ohio, the Upper Midwest, and New England had no shortage of rain, however; floods in those areas claimed 13 lives. While individually none of these events can be linked directly to global warming, collectively they show a troubling pattern consistent with what the best science tells us global warming will look like. Things could get worse. According to the IPCC, one third to one half of all mountain glacier mass could disappear in the next century. Melting glaciers, combined with melting of the antarctic ice shelves, could raise sea level by as much as three feet in the next 100 years. This could cause severe flooding in the San Francisco Bay Area, New Orleans, the Everglades, and the Chesapeake Bay. The weather changes caused by global warming also could wreak havoc upon the environment and human health. The University of California estimates that global warming could render 20 to 50 percent of the State's natural areas unsuitable for the current species who live there. Major vegetation changes are occurring over one-eighth of the planet. The effects of global warming on human health, including outbreaks of tropical diseases such as malaria and yellow fever, are so significant that I plan to discuss those separately in a floor statement soon. Global warming is not a problem that we can afford to ignore or dismiss. The scientific evidence is overwhelming and persuasive, and we need to take steps now to reduce global warming. That is why I am circulating a letter, along with Senators Gorton and Bryan, that encourages the President to work with Congress to implement improved Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards. Cars and light trucks, including sport utility vehicles, are responsible for 20 percent of all carbon emissions in the United States, and emit more carbon than all sources in Great Britain combined. By raising fuel efficiency standards, we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 240 million tons per year. This will help curb global warming, improve air quality, save consumers at the gas pump, and reduce our reliance on imported oil. Stronger fuel efficiency standards alone will not solve the global warming problem, but they are a very good place to start. I am pleased to say that a bi-partisan group of 22 Senators have already signed the letter to the President, and I am hopeful that more will sign soon. I also urge all of my colleagues--especially those who may remain skeptical about the existence of global warming--to attend a briefing that I am hosting on May 11 with scientists from the University of California, including Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland. These scientists will discuss recent satellite measurements concerning global climate change; disturbing new evidence that climate change may be occurring more abruptly than scientists had earlier forecast; and possible solutions to the problem. Global warming is an extremely complicated issue, and I understand that a number of policy alternatives are currently on the table--from the Kyoto Protocol supported by President Clinton, to the ``Credit for Early Action'' bill sponsored by Senator Chafee, to the bill currently being drafted by Senator Murkowski. I do not presume to stand here today with a master plan for how to stop global warming. But I do feel strongly that global warming's existence cannot be disputed. It is real. It could cause the greatest environmental crisis of our time. I hope that we can at least recognize the threat, and begin working together to address it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will speak about global warming.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is it possible to have 10 to 15 minutes?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the tragedy in Colorado. I want to express my sincere sympathies for the families and victims of yesterday's events. Once again, we have witnessed a deadly school shooting in America's heartland. Yesterday's events, although greater in magnitude than other shootings in recent years, have, it seems, become part of a growing trend in this country, and particularly among young people, and that is to solve everyday problems with deadly violence. Now, some of us have heard firsthand the gruesome effects of gun violence. But we can't imagine what the classmates and families of those Colorado children must be going through today. The senseless loss, the graphic memories, the fear of violence, the lack of explanation. Who among us can imagine how we would feel if two dozen of our friends and classmates were gunned down in a matter of minutes? Who among us knows what we would say to our own children if something like this happened at their school? And who among us wants to imagine what it would be like to receive that phone call telling us that our child is no more. Mr. President, this is a time for grieving, but it is also a time for sincere reflection on the direction of this country and the nature of child on child violence. Sadly, this nation has experienced an ever increasing number of these incidents in the last two years. We saw it happen in Pearl, Mississippi where two students were killed. We saw it happen in West Paducah, Kentucky where three students were killed. We saw it in Jonesboro, Arkansas where five were killed and in Springfield, Oregon where two were killed. We saw a five-year-old Memphis, Tennessee kindergartner last year bring a gun to school because the teacher had given him ``timeout'' the day before. Now Littleton, Colorado joins that tragic list. We are still learning the specifics of this latest tragedy. But while this most recent incident may have been executed with more deadly results, it is all too familiar. We must struggle to learn why these incidents are happening with ever increasing frequency. Are children more troubled than they have been in the past? Do parents need to pay more attention to danger signals within their own homes? Do parents even have the ability to recognize danger signs? And do they know what to do when they see the signs of trouble? I am certain that we will all continue to ask these questions in the coming days and weeks. I hope we don't stop asking until we find some answers. One area in which I have been working for many years is the problem of gun access. I realize that bringing up gun control at this time might be viewed by some as trying to capitalize on yesterday's tragedy. I am sure the NRA will criticize those of us who connect this violence with the easy access of guns in America. But sadly, times of tragedy like this are often the only times people pay attention to the problems plaguing our society. If we do not speak up now, we may not prevent future Littletons from occurring. Children have easy access to guns of every sort and every caliber-- including assault weapons and high capacity clips that make it all too simple to strike fellow students down in mere seconds. Whereas in the past a grievance might be settled in a brief fist-fight, today our children often turn to firearms. Yesterday, two masked gunmen killed as many as 25 people with semiautomatic gunfire and explosive devices. Other students hid under desks and in rooms throughout the school, watching the gruesome scene develop on televisions within the classrooms, and in some cases calling the media to report crying, gunfire, and the sound of running feet from within the school walls. One student reported to police that he saw two of his classmates carrying shotguns, automatic weapons, and pipe bombs. We may never be able to stop children from feeling alone and wanting to strike out. But we can certainly stop them from gaining the use of high capacity weapons with which to strike. And we should. In 1994, we passed a ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips, with the intent to get these guns off the streets, out of the hands of criminals, and away from our kids. But because of strong NRA opposition, we were forced to allow pre-existing guns and clips to remain on the shelves of stores across this country. And although the President has stopped the importation of most assault weapons to this country, millions of high capacity ammunition magazines continue to flow onto our shores and into the hands of criminals and, indeed, our children. In fact, between March and August of last year alone, BATF approved more than 8 million large-capacity clips for importation into America. The clips approved during this one short period accounted for almost 128 million rounds of ammunition--and every round represents the potential for taking one human life. Mr. President, 75, 90, and even 250-round clips have no sporting purpose. They are not used for self defense. They have only one use-- the purposeful killing of other men, women and children. I have introduced legislation, supported by the President, that will stop the flow of these clips into this country. I know that we cannot eliminate these clips from existence. But we must--we must--do our best to make it harder and harder for children to find these clips and to use these guns. It is both illogical and irresponsible to permit foreign companies to sell items to the American public--particularly items that are so often used for deadly purposes--that U.S. companies are prohibited from selling. It is time to plug this loophole and close our borders to these tools of death and destruction. Our domestic manufacturers are complying with the law, and we must now force foreign manufacturers to comply as well. In closing our borders to these high capacity clips, we will not put an end to all incidents of gun violence. But we will limit the destructive power of that violence. We will not stop every troubled child who decides to commit an act of violence from doing so, but we can limit the tools that a child can find to carry out that act. Each of us has been touched in some way by the devastating effects of gun violence. Each of our states has faced unnecessary tragedy and senseless destruction as a result of the high-powered, high-capacity weapons falling into the hands of gangs, drive-by shooters, cop killers, grievance killers, and yes, even children. My own state of California has too often been the subject of national attention due to incidents of gun violence. We must work to console the victims of this crime and the families of those who have been injured. My thoughts and prayers go out to those who have been affected by yesterday's events. We must now rededicate our efforts to prevent future tragedies from developing. I for one want to stop the easy access juveniles have to weapons of war, reduce this violence we see every night on TV, and help strengthen and nurture a new family ethic that says ``enough'' to this kind of violence.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as a representative of the great state of California, it is always a pleasure to learn about and recognize the great achievements made by members of the Law Enforcement community. Today, I am delighted to commend Judge Barry Russell, for selflessly dedicating his personal time, energy, and money to coordinating the Federal Bar Association's Federal Law Enforcement Medal of Valor and Distinguished Service Award Luncheon. Judge Russell has chaired this program for the past ten years, without expecting anything in return. He makes this special effort to ensure that members of the Los Angeles area Federal Law Enforcement community are honored for their selfless acts of valor and exemplary investigative achievements. On behalf of the United States Senate, and all who have benefitted from your inspirational service, I commend you and wish you all the best in your future endeavors.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is with some degree of regret that I rise to oppose this budget resolution conference report. Thanks to continued economic growth and the tough choices we made on the budget in 1993, this year, for the first time in a generation, we have been given the opportunity to structure a budget which is balanced, fiscally responsible, and makes important investment in America's domestic priorities. When I first came to the Senate some 6 years ago, we faced $200 billion annual deficits as far as the eye could see. Now, thanks to the tough choices we made in 1993, then fiscal discipline we imposed on the budget, and a vibrant economy, we are able to reap the benefits of the difficult choices. Now we are running surpluses--projected to be as much as $4.7 trillion over the next 15 years by the Office of Management and Budget. Thanks to these surpluses we have an unparalleled opportunity to set our budgetary house in order and meet the challenges of the future. We have the opportunity to save Social Security and Medicare. To invest in education, environment, and health care. To provide for a strong national defense. And I also believe that we have an important opportunity to provide responsible tax relief for working families--and I intend to introduce legislation to provide just such a tax cut with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley. But this conference report ignores these opportunities. It fails to meet the test of saving Medicare. It fails to make the important investments in health care, education, and child care. And it endangers other programs vital for law enforcement, environment, and continued economic growth. This conference report does not do anything to meet Medicare's solvency crisis or extend the life of this vital program beyond the projected 2015 bankruptcy. I agree with those who say that we must reform Medicare, but we also must provide it with the additional funds it needs. The President has proposed allocating 15 percent of the surplus for Medicare to add 12 years to life of program. This budget rejects that initiative, creates some vague ``reserve'' which may or may not help Medicare, but really uses the money that should go to Medicare for tax cuts instead. This budget does not do enough to extend Social Security. Again, I would agree with those who say we need to adopt Social Security reform to strengthen the Social Security system and assure it is on sound footing. But this budget allows some of the Social Security surpluses to be used for purposes other than Social Security, and, frankly, I do not think that that is wise. Yesterday, the Senate voted by 98-0 to instruct our conferees to use all Social Security surplus funds for Social Security. This conference report, however, creates a ``lockbox'' for Social Security, but then proceeds to remove the lock by allowing any legislation that ``enhances retirement security'' to raid Social Security surplus funds.. Finally, although this conference report protects some important domestic priorities, such as transportation, it cuts other essential but ``unprotected'' programs, such as the border patrol, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, job training programs, child care assistance, head start, and on and on. The strictures of this budget--driven by an overlarge tax cut--may necessitate cuts of 11 percent in many of these important programs. Mr. President, I think our current economic strength has presented us with a unique opportunity--we can save Social Security and Medicare, make important investments in domestic priorities, provide for a strong national defense, and also provide the American people with tax relief. Unfortunately, this conference report, by adopting unrealistic tax cuts, puts at risk all these goals, and may well set us down a path of fiscal irresponsibility that will endanger all our gains of the past few years. I urge my colleague to oppose this conference report.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the ``Telephone Privacy Act of 1999.'' This legislation would prohibit the recording of a telephone call unless all the parties on the call have given their consent. I am introducing this bill because our nation's telephone privacy laws are confused and in conflict. We need a national law governing telephone privacy so that telephone users have a uniform standard to rely on. Currently, thirty-seven states require only the consent of one party to record a phone call. Fifteen states require the consent of all parties to be taped. This jumbled collection of telephone privacy laws leaves most consumers confused about their rights to protect their phone calls from surreptitious taping. Today, consumers who seek to block surreptitious taping of their phone calls face an incredible burden. The problem is especially acute during interstate calls because the legality of surreptitiously recording a phone call depends on the state where the call is recorded. Thus, when a party makes an interstate call, one's rights may depend on the laws governing taping in other states. The recent well-publicized taping of Monica Lewinsky's phone conversations by Linda Tripp illustrates this problem. Maryland, where Linda Tripp recorded the conversations, is a state that requires the consent of all parties. However, Washington D.C., where Monica Lewinsky lived at the time, requires only one-party consent. Two people living within a half-hours drive from each other should have the same laws apply to them. In practice, any person who wants to protect herself against surreptitious recording must know the telephone privacy laws of other states. Our laws cannot reasonably expect a consumer to have this knowledge. People who make lots of interstate calls might be forced into the position of knowing the telephone privacy laws of all 50 states. Not only will the Telephone Privacy Act of 1999 promote uniformity of laws, it will also create a standard that better protects privacy. The Telephone Privacy Act would require an all-party consent standard for taping phone calls no matter where one lived in the United States. It would end the practice of one-party consent that exists under Federal law and in a number of states. While surreptitious taping has legitimate uses, such as lawful surveillance by the police, our laws should not reward the practice of surreptitious taping. This practice violates individual privacy and offends common decency. Phone calls remain one of the few avenues of communication where people still feel safe enough to have intimate conversations. We should protect this expectation of privacy. If a telephone user intends to tape a phone call, the other party on the line ought to be informed. Moreover, the one-party consent standard is an anachronism. It is inconsistent with other more privacy-respecting provisions of our communication laws. Federal law makes it a felony, for example, for a third party to tap or record a telephone conversation between others. It is also a felony to surreptitiously tape a cellular telephone call. The bill has been carefully drafted so that it does not affect the rights of law enforcement officials to tape or monitor conversations as they are carrying out their duties. Nor does it affect the practice of businesses taping customer calls, as long as the customer is notified at the outset that the call is being taped. It also does not affect the right of people to surreptitiously tape threatening or harassing phone calls. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.